Jack Daniels' Running Formula - Page 2 - Triathlon Week

11-03-2004, 08:32 AM

On 2004-11-03, Tim Downie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].uk> wrote:
>
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk...
>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Tim Downie wrote:
>> >
>> > "Harold Buck" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com...
>> >> No, this is not a new concept in sports drinks, it's a book about run
>> >> training. It seems to be pretty good to me so far. The basic idea is
>> >> that you estimate your VO2-max based on race performance and then set
>> >> your training paces based on that. It tells me, for example, that I
>> >> should be doing my long/easy runs at a faster pace than I've been
> doing,
>> >> which I've suspected for some time.
>> >
>> > Just out of interest, what pace does it recommend for long runs for
> someone
>> > running 40ish miles a week with a 5k time of 19:35 and a 1/2 M time of
> 1:31?
>>
>> Your 5k gives you a VDOT of 51 (50 from HM)
>>
>> Paces for VDOT 51:
>>
>> Easy/Long: 8:07
>
> Hmm.. quite a bit faster than I usually go (normally 8:45ish) but I did do
> my LSD last Sunday at 8:13 pace. The main reason I think I ran faster this
> weekend was that I was running after dark in the evening rather than my
> usual morning run. Not sure my body would cooperate in the morning. ;-)

Wouldn't worry if you're doing the easy runs "too slowly". The author is
more concerned about people trying to do their training runs too fast.

As an aside, I often run a little slower than the recommended paces Daniels
gives. Steve Common usually runs quite a lot slower.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-03-2004, 08:37 AM

On 2004-11-03, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Tim Downie wrote:
>
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> Paces for VDOT 51:
>
>>> Easy/Long: 8:07
>
>> Hmm.. quite a bit faster than I usually go (normally 8:45ish) but I did do
>> my LSD last Sunday at 8:13 pace. The main reason I think I ran faster this
>> weekend was that I was running after dark in the evening rather than my
>> usual morning run. Not sure my body would cooperate in the morning. ;-)
>
> I thought that the easy pace was a bit fast too, but previously I was
> running at 70%WHR. I'm going to try and maintain the Daniels' rates through
> my marathon training though.

IMO -- it's more important to avoid going too fast than it is to avoid going
too slow. So you could do a "recoovery run" at a slower pace than 'E pace'.
OTOH, I like to do my long runs at a reasonable pace (close to the Daniels
numbers), because these are important training runs.

> And why not?

Partly because Daniels' tables are pretty lousy for predicting marathon times.
The Daniels marathon predictions are too optimistic, because his formula
assumes that you can sustain 85%V02max forever. The formula collapses pretty
badly over half marathon distance.

Instead of using Daniels to predict marathon time, use Gardner/Purdy
or WAVA or something similar. The Daniels table is too optimistic. Then add
about 5 minutes if you want to be conservative.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-03-2004, 09:13 AM

Thanks for the calculator.

Shelby

11-03-2004, 09:13 AM

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On 2004-11-03, Tim Downie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].uk> wrote:

> > Hmm.. quite a bit faster than I usually go (normally 8:45ish) but I did
do
> > my LSD last Sunday at 8:13 pace. The main reason I think I ran faster
this
> > weekend was that I was running after dark in the evening rather than my
> > usual morning run. Not sure my body would cooperate in the morning. ;-)
>
> Wouldn't worry if you're doing the easy runs "too slowly". The author is
> more concerned about people trying to do their training runs too fast.

Little chance of that I think. ;-) I have two club runs per week that are
run "hard" but most of the rest of my running is very easy, usually whilst
walking my dogs and involves frequent halts to throw sticks, dismounting my
dog from some other poor mutt, picking up dog cr*p etc.. I will usually
try and throw in a good hilly run as well but again I don't really try to
push the pace. I only use my watch for my club runs and my LSD.

Tim

11-03-2004, 09:15 AM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk...
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Tim Downie wrote:
> > When I looked they were advertising the 1998 edition. Do you have a
link to
> > a newer edition?
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> I ordered a copy a couple of weeks ago and it didn't have that extra 2
quid
> though.

Thanks. Searching by title initially only brought up the old edition (see
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]),
Weird.

Tim

11-03-2004, 11:50 AM

Donovan Rebbechi <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Wouldn't worry if you're doing the easy runs "too slowly". The author is
>more concerned about people trying to do their training runs too fast.

Yep.

>As an aside, I often run a little slower than the recommended paces Daniels
>gives. Steve Common usually runs quite a lot slower.

Maybe something to do with age. A quickish runner (1h15 HM) from our
club said to me the other day, on the eve of his 50th
"With time, training becomes not so much a question of doing all the
hard sessions required by a schedule, as doing the few hard sessions
which you can find time for among all the recovery runs"

From results in my peak period, fall 2002, vdot was 57.51. That gives a
R pace 200m reps = 38"60 --> Used to do 36-37" (but that is >> vVo2max)

E/L pace = 07'21"/mile --> My long run/base endurance was around
7'55-8'/mile pace, but about 50% of my running time (all runs except
intervals, threshold and long run) was at nearer 9'/mile pace for a 2h55
marathon target.

At one stage I had convinced myself that I could do all those recovery
runs at base endurance pace and it nearly knobbled my season. Thanks
(again) to Doug who noticed the trend, through the training week thread,
and gave me a "heads-up".

Moral : running slow enough is harder than running too fast.

11-03-2004, 03:19 PM

"steve common" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].invalid> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...

> Maybe something to do with age. A quickish runner (1h15 HM) from our
> club said to me the other day, on the eve of his 50th
> "With time, training becomes not so much a question of doing all the
> hard sessions required by a schedule, as doing the few hard sessions
> which you can find time for among all the recovery runs"

That's a pretty accurate description of my running these days. I think I'll
stop worrying about it. ;-)

Tim

11-03-2004, 11:54 PM

"Harold Buck" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com...
> No, this is not a new concept in sports drinks, it's a book about run
> training. It seems to be pretty good to me so far. The basic idea is
> that you estimate your VO2-max based on race performance and then set
> your training paces based on that. It tells me, for example, that I
> should be doing my long/easy runs at a faster pace than I've been doing,
> which I've suspected for some time.
>
> Does anyone have any comments on this book or its training methods?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

Jack is a smart guy with tons of coaching experience. I can't believe you
are just now learning about him.

11-03-2004, 11:57 PM

"Terry R. McConnell" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu> wrote in message
news:41890428$0$114$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk>,
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote:
>>In article
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com>, Harold
>>Buck wrote:
>>> No, this is not a new concept in sports drinks, it's a book about run
>>> training. It seems to be pretty good to me so far. The basic idea is
>>> that you estimate your VO2-max based on race performance and then set
>>> your training paces based on that. It tells me, for example, that I
>>> should be doing my long/easy runs at a faster pace than I've been doing,
>>> which I've suspected for some time.
>>
>>> Does anyone have any comments on this book or its training methods?
>>
>>I think it's a great book and am following one of the marathon training
>>plans. However, it's not estimating your VO2max, it uses a concept of VDOT
>>which is a combination of your VO2max and running ecomomy. I can't offer
>>any concrete proof that the training methods work as I've only just
>>started following it, but I'm pretty confident it will.
>>
>>BTW, there's a new edition out this month.
>
> I think Vdot is velocity at VO2max, i.e, how fast you're going when you're
> going fast. (Even though vdot sounds as if it ought to mean acceleration.)
Nope, Jack came up with VDOT because one cannot actually measure VO2max
without equipment. VDOT is a rough estimate of VO2max. The error occurs in
running economy. Basically the formula assumes everyone has the same
running economy and that is not true. Jack just refused to call his
estimate VO2max. Not sure if that is explained in the book, but he
mentioned at a lecture that I attended.

>
> I like JD's book, and his tables work very well at predicting my own
> performances. So well, in fact, that I don't even bother doing the races
> anymore. I just enter the number from JD's table in my running log and
> spend
> the extra time on the golf course.
>
> --
> ************************************************** **********************
> Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 229B Physics Bldg [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> ************************************************** **********************

11-03-2004, 11:58 PM

"Tim Downie" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].uk> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> "Harold Buck" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com...
>> No, this is not a new concept in sports drinks, it's a book about run
>> training. It seems to be pretty good to me so far. The basic idea is
>> that you estimate your VO2-max based on race performance and then set
>> your training paces based on that. It tells me, for example, that I
>> should be doing my long/easy runs at a faster pace than I've been doing,
>> which I've suspected for some time.
>
> Just out of interest, what pace does it recommend for long runs for
> someone
> running 40ish miles a week with a 5k time of 19:35 and a 1/2 M time of
> 1:31?
>
> Tim
>
>

Pry open the wallet and buy the book!

11-04-2004, 12:04 AM

In article <Fhlid.17064$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].pas.earthlink .net>, Sam wrote:
> Nope, Jack came up with VDOT because one cannot actually measure VO2max
> without equipment. VDOT is a rough estimate of VO2max. The error occurs in
> running economy. Basically the formula assumes everyone has the same
> running economy and that is not true. Jack just refused to call his
> estimate VO2max. Not sure if that is explained in the book, but he
> mentioned at a lecture that I attended.

But VDOT isn't VO2max. I had my VO2max measured and it is no where near
my VDOT.

Paul

11-04-2004, 07:21 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>Just out of interest, what pace does it recommend for long runs for someone
>>running 40ish miles a week with a 5k time of 19:35 and a 1/2 M time of 1:31?
>
>
> Your 5k gives you a VDOT of 51 (50 from HM)
>
> Paces for VDOT 51:
>
> Easy/Long: 8:07
> MP 7:09
> T pace 400: 1:40, 1000: 4:11, mile: 6:44
> I pace 400: 92, 1000: 3:51, 1200: 4:36
> R pace 200: 42, 400: 86

So with my current estimated stats of a bit under 19:00 for 5K and 1/2M
in the 1:29 flat range with 50MPW it would probably tag my MP around
7:00. That would be wishfull thinking on my part. I might buy into it if
I were a 80-100MPW runner as very high mileage runners tend to have a
much lower pace spread between distances.

JJ

11-04-2004, 07:56 AM

On 2004-11-04, Jsquared <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> So with my current estimated stats of a bit under 19:00 for 5K and 1/2M
> in the 1:29 flat range with 50MPW it would probably tag my MP around
> 7:00. That would be wishfull thinking on my part. I might buy into it if
> I were a 80-100MPW runner as very high mileage runners tend to have a
> much lower pace spread between distances.

Daniels is overly optimistic for marathon pace prediction. The "double and
add 10" rule of thumb gives you 3:08 which is more realistic. WAVA tables
gives you a time close to that (slower or faster depending on age) A 1:29 gives
you a good shot at running sub 3:10 (even assuming a slightly congested start
and/or tough course) but not sub 3:05.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-04-2004, 07:59 AM

Sam wrote in message ...
.........
>> I think Vdot is velocity at VO2max, i.e, how fast you're going when
you're
>> going fast. (Even though vdot sounds as if it ought to mean
acceleration.)
> Nope, Jack came up with VDOT because one cannot actually measure VO2max
>without equipment. VDOT is a rough estimate of VO2max. The error occurs
in
>running economy. Basically the formula assumes everyone has the same
>running economy and that is not true. Jack just refused to call his
>estimate VO2max. Not sure if that is explained in the book, but he
>mentioned at a lecture that I attended.

To perform best in shorter races (<10k) VO2max is most important. For
longer races it must be sufficient, but is not by any means the only or even
the most important variable. Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter had lower
VO2max's but ran very well at the marathon distance, including a world-best
by Clayton.

see "How do some elite runners make up for lower levels of VO2 max?" in
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
If you can "make up" for a low VO2, then it's certainly not the most
important factor.

Lactate threshold and other factors are more important in longer races, but
there seems to be only cursory coverage of LT in most running books I've
looked over this year. Tempo runs and LT intervals are covered, but there
seems to be very little to assist runners in determining their LT pace
and/or heart rate, and very little discussion of the variability of LT.
It's either given as a fixed % of HR or a certain pace. VO2max training
always gets top billing, when for most average runners LT training provides
less risk of injury and more bang for the buck in HM to marathon training.
Waiting for the running authors to catch up with the cycling world in terms
of LT...

-Tony

11-04-2004, 08:11 AM

On 2004-11-04, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> To perform best in shorter races (<10k) VO2max is most important. For
> longer races it must be sufficient, but is not by any means the only or even
> the most important variable. Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter had lower
> VO2max's but ran very well at the marathon distance, including a world-best
> by Clayton.

That could be due to running economy also.

> Lactate threshold and other factors are more important in longer races, but
> there seems to be only cursory coverage of LT in most running books I've
> looked over this year.

Glover and Daniels both devote a substantial amount of space to this. So
does Noakes (though he actually spends a lot of time criticising the notion
of LT)

> Tempo runs and LT intervals are covered, but there
> seems to be very little to assist runners in determining their LT pace
> and/or heart rate,

Daniels does provide a way to determine it -- punch in your race time, and
predict it from your vdot. Sure it's imprecise, but LT is not all that well
defined anyway, and your tempo runs will probably be just fine if you are
a few seconds per mile fast or slow.

> and very little discussion of the variability of LT.

What should they be discussing ?

> It's either given as a fixed % of HR or a certain pace.

Why not ? It's probably as good a guess as any other.

Even if you actually measure it in the lab, the notion of LT is somewhat
arbitrary, so even knowing the lab measurements, you could argue about what
your LT "really" is.

But most of these books (with the exception of Noakes) are primarily about
the relevance of this to setting up a real training program, and for those
purposes, using a fixed percentage of MHR, or a pace extrapolated from a
race time will do just fine.

> VO2max training always gets top billing, when for most average runners LT
> training provides less risk of injury and more bang for the buck in HM to
> marathon training.

IMO the Daniels book takes a fairly balanced approach as far as using
different intensities is concerned. For marathon training, he does put a
primary emphasis on LT training.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]