Jack Daniels' Running Formula - Page 3 - Triathlon Week

11-04-2004, 08:23 AM

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> 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.

3:10 is my goal and seems possible if I run a great or near perfect
race, but to estimate 7:09 MP, which is maybe 3:07/3:08 (no pace tables
near me right now), for a 1:31 HM / 30+ MPW runner seems unrealistic to
me too. The only 1:31 HM'ers that I'd think could approach this would be
very high mileage runners (100+ MPW) who tend to have extrodinarily high
running economy and very tight pace spreads with an increase in
distance. Last year for instance, I ran a 7:05 pace 25K which probably
equates pretty close to a 1:31 HM within a few weeks of a 3:19 marathon
that I considered a near perfect race in near perfect conditions. This
was on a steady diet of low 30 MPW on average.

JJ

11-04-2004, 09:38 AM

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>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.

Running economy is far too vague to explain away such differences IMO.

>
>> 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)

I'm reading Glover's book TCRH, and I see less than 2 pages describing the
LT concept, a very short chapter on tempo runs, and a decent chapter on
intervals but nothing on LT. I've already returned Daniels to the library.
Noakes I haven't read yet, and if he is critical of the single point LT
concept, then I agree with him; but I don't know how anyone can ignore the
importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?

>
>> 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.

Because the effort vs. blood-lactate curve is exponential, of course it's
difficult to choose a precise "threshold" on that curve, but a region of
effort that constitues a threshold for longer races can be narrowed down.
For cyclists, and for that matter, trail runners, pace cannot be used to
measure effort. In cycling, HR, LTHR and (more recently) wattage power
meters, are the accepted ways of measuring effort.

>> 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.

IMO they should be discussing the concept of metabolism at various speeds,
lactate accumulation and removal at sub-anaerobic speeds, and training to
specifically increase the ability to process lactate. They discuss the
training, but not these concepts. Also they should discuss how the
blood-lactate vs. effort curve changes over time (sometimes dramatically)
both with different forms of training and seasonally.

>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.

That's not true of cyclists like Lance Armstrong (and probably many
triathletes), who use the concept of LT heavily in their training.

>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.

For most people probably yes, but it's been shown that there is a wide
variability in different individual's effort vs. blood-lactate curves, and
training to improve LT has to be precise to be the most effective. I've
been using HR to measure effort and to do LT tempo and intervals since 1999,
and there is a marked difference between early season LT and peak LT, as
different as: HR <160 vs. HR 178.

>
>> 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.

I thought Daniels was very scientific and I liked looking over his book. As
a trail runner it's not targeted to me.

-Tony

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

11-04-2004, 10:15 AM

On 2004-11-04, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>That could be due to running economy also.
>
> Running economy is far too vague to explain away such differences IMO.

The premise doesn't support the conclusion. The fact that you find "running
economy" an unsatisfactory concept doesn't alter the math. So let's do some
math ...

VO2 max can vary by as much as 20% or so (see Daniels table -- the range is
about 70-85). For LT to explain this difference, you'd need some runners to
have a LT of about 70-75% VO2 max. We both know that this is not plausible.

On the other hand, running economy is multi-factorial, and *known* to vary
widely between individuals. If you look at the table, you will see runners
over short distances (where LT is hardly a factor) with large differences
in VO2 max.

The *aggregate* of vo2 max and running economy (Daniels VDOT) is highly
predictive of performance. If you look at the *vdot* values of runners like
Derek Clayton (over short distances like 5k or so) you would find that their
vdot values would be right up there with the high vo2 max runners.

The only problem with all this is that we don't have a very good understanding
of either vdot, VO2 max or running economy.

> I'm reading Glover's book TCRH, and I see less than 2 pages describing the
> LT concept, a very short chapter on tempo runs, and a decent chapter on
> intervals but nothing on LT.

The Glover book is not an exercise physiology text. It is written from a
coaching perspective, so the emphasis is on the real world application (tempo
runs) of the theory (LT). The application is more relevant to real-world
training than the theory.

> Noakes I haven't read yet, and if he is critical of the single point LT
> concept, then I agree with him; but I don't know how anyone can ignore the
> importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
> Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?

Noakes disputes that we even know what the true limiting factors are.

> Because the effort vs. blood-lactate curve is exponential, of course it's
> difficult to choose a precise "threshold" on that curve, but a region of
> effort that constitues a threshold for longer races can be narrowed down.

Daniels does this.

> For cyclists, and for that matter, trail runners, pace cannot be used to
> measure effort.

You can acquire a feel for it by running on a track (possibly with a HRM),
and then train by feel on the trails (possibly with the HRM again).

In Bob Glovers training group, we often do tempo runs over hilly terrain,
sometimes in the heat. Of course they're slow compared to tempo runs on a
track.

>>Why not ? It's probably as good a guess as any other.
>
> IMO they should be discussing the concept of metabolism at various speeds,
> lactate accumulation and removal at sub-anaerobic speeds, and training to
> specifically increase the ability to process lactate. They discuss the
> training, but not these concepts.

These are coaching books, not exercise physiology texts.

If you want more theory, your best bet would be something written by and for
theorists -- Noakes or Martin/Coe.

> Also they should discuss how the blood-lactate vs. effort curve changes over
> time (sometimes dramatically) both with different forms of training and
> seasonally.

If you're looking for confirmation of your world view, you might be
disappointed. What you'll get out of reading Noakes is a sense of how little
we truly understand the science of distance running.

>>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.
>
> That's not true of cyclists like Lance Armstrong (and probably many
> triathletes), who use the concept of LT heavily in their training.

Sure it is. You can use the concept of LT without knowing exactly what it is.

The point, which you seem to miss, is that you don't need to be an expert on
the theory (a questionable theory) to benefit from the training concept.

> For most people probably yes, but it's been shown that there is a wide
> variability in different individual's effort vs. blood-lactate curves, and
> training to improve LT has to be precise to be the most effective. I've

LT is a fundamentally imprecise concept, therefore 'precise LT training' is
an oxymoron.

Can you quote a peer reviewed study that shows that 'precise LT training' has
any advantages over 'imprecise LT training' ?

> I thought Daniels was very scientific and I liked looking over his book. As
> a trail runner it's not targeted to me.

Sure it is. Use HR training for your 'T' pace work, do the 'I' work over reps
of about the right distance (e.g. 4x4 minutes), and use hills for the 'R'
workouts.

If you read the book carefully, you'll see that some of the workouts are
supposed to be run by effort (not on a track). The way to adapt this to
your own training would be to do this for all workouts.

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

11-04-2004, 10:40 AM

But remember, Sam's an idiot.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:54:35 GMT, "Sam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

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

11-04-2004, 11:25 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

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

Lower or higher? Did you have it measured on treadmill?

I had mine measured at 63 by the sports medicin department of the
regional hospital. Donovan's calculator page gives vdot of 58. Polar VO2
estimate gave 61.

11-04-2004, 11:29 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, steve common wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
>>But VDOT isn't VO2max. I had my VO2max measured and it is no where near
>>my VDOT.

> Lower or higher? Did you have it measured on treadmill?

VDOT lower than vo2max measure on a treadmill.

> I had mine measured at 63 by the sports medicin department of the
> regional hospital. Donovan's calculator page gives vdot of 58. Polar VO2
> estimate gave 61.

I had my vo2max measured at 67 with a gas analyser and have a VDOT of just
under 50. Polar set at "top" gives me 62.

Paul

11-04-2004, 11:51 AM

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:

>but I don't know how anyone can ignore the
>importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
>Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?

I don't think he does dispute that. In all except pathological cases (or
altitude changes) oxygen availability is not the limiting factor for
performance in endurance events.

Here's how I've understand it (biologists are welcome to put me
straight) :

Lactic acid does not just form to annoy runners. It forms and is used up
as part of normal glucose metabolism. It's always there, but usually
only fleetingly.

It forms and doesn't get used if there isn't enough oxygen available.
The higher your VO2max, the more you can do "complete" glucose
metabolism, so leaving less unused lactic acid. The worse the oxygen
debt, the greater the proportion of glucose which is only partly
metabolised.

Muscles don't like being acid. Too high an acid concentration in cells
will kill them. When the acid level gets to high, a feedback mechanism
prevents muscles from continuing to work so as to prevent them
committing suicide, so to speak.

Below the so-called lactate threshold, lactic acid does not accumulate
in the working muscles in sufficient quantities to cause this mechanism
to reduce their efficiency. The lactic acid concentration which causes
significant loss of efficiency is highly variable from one individual to
another.

What LT training may do is not to change glucose metabolism very much
but rather it allows you to evacuate - or if not, to buffer or otherwise
tolerate - the lactic acid in the working muscles so that it doesn't
limit performance so early.

But then again, maybe not :-P~

11-04-2004, 11:56 AM

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

>but to estimate 7:09 MP, which is maybe 3:07/3:08 (no pace tables
>near me right now), for a 1:31 HM / 30+ MPW runner seems unrealistic to
>me too.

3h12 seems reasonable. FWIW I did a 3:11 marathon, 5 weeks after a 1:30
HM. I was averaging 55km/week.

11-04-2004, 12:29 PM

steve common wrote:

> Jsquared <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>>but to estimate 7:09 MP, which is maybe 3:07/3:08 (no pace tables
>>near me right now), for a 1:31 HM / 30+ MPW runner seems unrealistic to
>>me too.
>
>
> 3h12 seems reasonable. FWIW I did a 3:11 marathon, 5 weeks after a 1:30
> HM. I was averaging 55km/week.

I would rate this 3:11 as a top 10% performance for a 1:30 half
marathoner, especially at 35MPW. But you add another minute+ and double
it and you're looking at 3:13/3:14 and this is a long way from 3:07.

JJ

11-04-2004, 01:58 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>VDOT lower than vo2max measure on a treadmill.

OK. Same as me and "logical" given what vdot is suppsoed to be
representing.

>I had my vo2max measured at 67 with a gas analyser and have a VDOT of just
>under 50. Polar set at "top" gives me 62.

So vdot looks very low for whatever reason. Hmmmmm. Do you get the same
(or close) vdot whatever race distance/PB time you inject? I find my
marathon vdot is a good bit less, at 55, than my 10k and HM vdots = 58
(rounded up to nearest integer).

11-04-2004, 02:04 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, steve common wrote:
> So vdot looks very low for whatever reason. Hmmmmm. Do you get the same
> (or close) vdot whatever race distance/PB time you inject? I find my
> marathon vdot is a good bit less, at 55, than my 10k and HM vdots = 58
> (rounded up to nearest integer).

I don't have a lot of race experience. Only my latest 10k reflects my
current fitness.

Paul

11-04-2004, 02:04 PM

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

[much snipped]

>Sure it is. You can use the concept of LT without knowing exactly what it is.
>
>The point, which you seem to miss, is that you don't need to be an expert on
>the theory (a questionable theory) to benefit from the training concept.
>

Even if LT pace can be precisely defined and measured, it makes sense for the
average runner to learn to substitute for it an easily reproduced, subjectively
defined estimate. Daniels suggests 15K race pace - or the even less precise
"comfortably hard" - as a practical definition.

This works well for me. If I go to the track with a ballpark target time based
on my 15 race pace, the pace for a 5K tempo run that "feels right" on
the given day ends up being within a second or so per 200 of the target.
There always seems to be a natural pace I fall into.

It's hard to explain exactly what "feels right" means. Tempo runs should
feel like a serious effort, but you never get to the "wanna quit" point you get
to in races. It leaves you feeling sort of tingly, but not exhausted.

--
************************************************** **********************
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. ]
************************************************** **********************

11-04-2004, 05:58 PM

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

> So vdot looks very low for whatever reason. Hmmmmm. Do you get the same
> (or close) vdot whatever race distance/PB time you inject? I find my
> marathon vdot is a good bit less, at 55, than my 10k and HM vdots = 58
> (rounded up to nearest integer).

The flipside of Daniels being overoptimistic on marathon prediction is that
the formula "underrates" marathon performance. A better ranking system would
be something like WAVA, though in practice most runners can't match their
half marathon ratings with comparable marathon ratings.

There is a lot of variability in marathon performance, even among runners who
are reasonably fast. I know one guy who is around 1:19 and 2:46 (which places
him alongside people who'd beat him by minutes in the half), and another who's
1:19 and he's run 3 or more marathons without going sub 3 (though I
suspect/hope he'll go sub 3 in a few days).

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

11-04-2004, 08:24 PM

<[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 <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

What part of "rough estimate" did you not understand?

11-04-2004, 08:26 PM

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:plsid.247$1f3.40@trndny06...
> 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
>

Maybe you just are not reading the right running authors...