Jack Daniels Running Formula
beeblebrox82
Posts: 578 Member
Looking to switch it up for my fall marathon (will be my 3rd). For my first two I have been following Brad Hudson, and it seems like the long runs are beating me up a bit.
Anyone have any experience with JDR? Looking at doing the 18 week 2Q program, I like that there are two medium size runs in a week, but the longest runs top out at 16-17 miles. I think I might get better overall workouts, breaking the mileage up a bit more through the week.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated!!
Cheers,
Nate
Anyone have any experience with JDR? Looking at doing the 18 week 2Q program, I like that there are two medium size runs in a week, but the longest runs top out at 16-17 miles. I think I might get better overall workouts, breaking the mileage up a bit more through the week.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated!!
Cheers,
Nate
0
Replies
-
beeblebrox82 wrote: »Looking to switch it up for my fall marathon (will be my 3rd). For my first two I have been following Brad Hudson, and it seems like the long runs are beating me up a bit.
Anyone have any experience with JDR? Looking at doing the 18 week 2Q program, I like that there are two medium size runs in a week, but the longest runs top out at 16-17 miles. I think I might get better overall workouts, breaking the mileage up a bit more through the week.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated!!
Cheers,
Nate
Yup, I have the book and have looked at the plans... I'm pretty sure I'm not fast enough for it yet.
The runs are based on time and intensity, and I need way more time to get the distance in LOL.
It's very technical and based on sound science. Gruelling long tempo runs but I bet they would really pay off!
If you try it I would love to follow your progress.0 -
I have the book and love Dr. Daniels. I read it for the knowledge and learn more about the science of running and how our bodies work. I have not however followed any of the plans.0
-
Personally I think with only 16-17 miles, which is just short of the 15 a few of my half plans peaked at, you will not be fully prepared for those last 6 miles. I wasn't fully prepared for them with a peak of 55 miles a week and 21 mile long run.0
-
First and most importantly, the long run alone does not prepare you for the marathon distance. Cumulative mileage over time (months and years) is what prepares you for that last 10K in the marathon.
That being said, the long run's most important benefit is that it trains the body to use a higher percentage of fat versus glycogen during the run. This does not start to happen until about 90 minutes into the long run and the longer you go, the more this adaptation takes place. But you reach a point of diminishing returns when you get to about 3 to 3.5 hours, regardless of the distance. Longer than that and the recovery from the run takes too long and it impacts your ability to get back out there and continue training.
How does that translate to real world training?
If it takes you 3:30 to run 17 miles, you are running at a 13:08 pace. That person is going to have a hard time being prepared for a marathon.
If it takes you 3:30 to run 22 miles, you are running at a 9:33 pace. This runner is going to be more fit and will have a more successful marathon (assuming proper pacing, etc).
But if the 9:33 runner does a 17 mile long run as the peak, they are robbing themselves of the opportunity to get further adaptations which are required for you to be successful in the marathon.
My (sometimes unpopular) opinion is that the former runner shouldn't even be training for a marathon. They would be better served concentrating on getting their volume up and running shorter races. That will drive their pace down naturally and provide them with the opportunity for a better marathon experience down the road.
So, if you are a faster runner and committed to running a fast marathon, I can't imagine how shortening your long run will be beneficial. The faster you get, the longer that run should be as you cover more distance in the same amount of time.
0 -
Carson, thanks for your input, that's the exact argument that Jack Daniels makes, but he puts the cutoff shorter, at 2:00-3:00 hours tops... on the argument that elite runners are doing marathons in the low 2 hour range. It's the same argument of time instead of distance though, but since I am faster, perhaps it doesn't hurt to tack ona few miles to the longer runs. Most training plans don't spend a ton of time at that high 18-22 mile range anyway, I think the thought process on the JDR formula is to spend more time over the course of the training at that 13-17 mile range where you are clearing lactate to achieve the same goal without doing runs so long that you are hurting yourself nearly as much as if you were doing the peak race anyway. It does make me nervous, which is why I reached out for some experience. I'm a big guy (6'4" 220lb) and I've been struggling to get my mileage over 40mpw without wrecking my lower body.
My first marathon was a 3:36 last fall, I have another one coming up this weekend, aiming for a 3:30ish. My overall goal is to BQ, currently that's at 3:10 for me, so I have a ways to go.
thanks!
Nate0 -
Still reading the book, haven't made it to the training plans yet.0
-
Darn, I thought this thread was going to be about;
Drink to run,
Run to drink!
or maybe after race cocktails?0 -
It would be fun to start an experiment... A bench of us could start a JD training group and track progress
0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »Carson, thanks for your input, that's the exact argument that Jack Daniels makes, but he puts the cutoff shorter, at 2:00-3:00 hours tops... on the argument that elite runners are doing marathons in the low 2 hour range. It's the same argument of time instead of distance though, but since I am faster, perhaps it doesn't hurt to tack ona few miles to the longer runs. Most training plans don't spend a ton of time at that high 18-22 mile range anyway, I think the thought process on the JDR formula is to spend more time over the course of the training at that 13-17 mile range where you are clearing lactate to achieve the same goal without doing runs so long that you are hurting yourself nearly as much as if you were doing the peak race anyway. It does make me nervous, which is why I reached out for some experience. I'm a big guy (6'4" 220lb) and I've been struggling to get my mileage over 40mpw without wrecking my lower body.
My first marathon was a 3:36 last fall, I have another one coming up this weekend, aiming for a 3:30ish. My overall goal is to BQ, currently that's at 3:10 for me, so I have a ways to go.
thanks!
Nate
Last summer, I broke into the 50s too soon and it hurt. I backed off and went into my September 2014 marathon with about 45MPW average, two long runs of any significance (16, 18), and ran a 3:30, with various issues that kept me from being 100% happy with the race. I clearly cheated myself in training due to wanting to race all the races. Around Dec-Feb, I was doing the "run all the miles" strategy with no real focus. Just running 7-10 miles every day with little rest. I turned my training over to a wise coach and went into my April 2015 marathon with 55MPW average, seven long runs of 18-20mi with more focused MP work, and more rest days than I previously granted myself. I ran a 3:19, and was 99% happy with my performance. Books are great, but they're no good if you don't seek to understand the "boring" theory parts and just skip straight to the end and get into a do-or-die on the training plan section. If you train right, you'll feel no different after a 20 mile run than you would after a 4 mile run.0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »
Last summer, I broke into the 50s too soon and it hurt. I backed off and went into my September 2014 marathon with about 45MPW average, two long runs of any significance (16, 18), and ran a 3:30, with various issues that kept me from being 100% happy with the race. I clearly cheated myself in training due to wanting to race all the races. Around Dec-Feb, I was doing the "run all the miles" strategy with no real focus. Just running 7-10 miles every day with little rest. I turned my training over to a wise coach and went into my April 2015 marathon with 55MPW average, seven long runs of 18-20mi with more focused MP work, and more rest days than I previously granted myself. I ran a 3:19, and was 99% happy with my performance. Books are great, but they're no good if you don't seek to understand the "boring" theory parts and just skip straight to the end and get into a do-or-die on the training plan section. If you train right, you'll feel no different after a 20 mile run than you would after a 4 mile run.
I read the book.... I've been following the theories as best as I can from both authors... It might be helpful to explain what you think is "training right"
0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »Carson, thanks for your input, that's the exact argument that Jack Daniels makes, but he puts the cutoff shorter, at 2:00-3:00 hours tops... on the argument that elite runners are doing marathons in the low 2 hour range. It's the same argument of time instead of distance though, but since I am faster, perhaps it doesn't hurt to tack ona few miles to the longer runs. Most training plans don't spend a ton of time at that high 18-22 mile range anyway, I think the thought process on the JDR formula is to spend more time over the course of the training at that 13-17 mile range where you are clearing lactate to achieve the same goal without doing runs so long that you are hurting yourself nearly as much as if you were doing the peak race anyway. It does make me nervous, which is why I reached out for some experience. I'm a big guy (6'4" 220lb) and I've been struggling to get my mileage over 40mpw without wrecking my lower body.
My first marathon was a 3:36 last fall, I have another one coming up this weekend, aiming for a 3:30ish. My overall goal is to BQ, currently that's at 3:10 for me, so I have a ways to go.
thanks!
Nate
That's a really fast time for a first marathon. Good job. Even with lower milesge 40 MPW- that's very impressive. Do you have a running background? I am also trying to run a 3:10 one of these days. I'm usually running about 60 MPW. you could probably get away with those training plans you mentioned- not firmilar with them but jack daniels is a smart guy. My best marathon, I only ran 3 16-19 mile long runs. My PR is 3:19 so it's a far cry from 3:10 lol, but hopefully some day. Marathons require a kind of mental toughness that I'm still trying to figure out :-)0 -
Here's a Jack Daniels question I had this morning while staring at the small pond of sweat under my spin bike: Our coach at SDTC stresses that we stay in our training zones the last 3 weeks before RnR and that he doesn't want us working to hard. Does that only apply to time running or is spiking my HR at spin going to hurt my run?0
-
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »Here's a Jack Daniels question I had this morning while staring at the small pond of sweat under my spin bike: Our coach at SDTC stresses that we stay in our training zones the last 3 weeks before RnR and that he doesn't want us working to hard. Does that only apply to time running or is spiking my HR at spin going to hurt my run?
I'm pretty sure it's sport specific.
There is plenty of research showing that short and high intensity running during a taper period is a good thing. Maybe that's already built into your target zones (the ones you are trying to stay with in).
Sounds like your coach is pretty prescriptive. I would imagine the targets for cross training (bike trainer) are built into the program, no?
0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »
I read the book.... I've been following the theories as best as I can from both authors... It might be helpful to explain what you think is "training right"
Training right is impossible to define in absolutes. The "right" training for me probably isn't the "right" training for you. That being said, just because it's not "right" doesn't mean that it's "wrong". Wrong is a lot easier to define, you know it when you see it. Right training comes from having the necessary knowledge of training principles and your capabilities (or a coach who does) and the ability to translate them into the appropriate workouts at the appropriate times.
0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »
Last summer, I broke into the 50s too soon and it hurt. I backed off and went into my September 2014 marathon with about 45MPW average, two long runs of any significance (16, 18), and ran a 3:30, with various issues that kept me from being 100% happy with the race. I clearly cheated myself in training due to wanting to race all the races. Around Dec-Feb, I was doing the "run all the miles" strategy with no real focus. Just running 7-10 miles every day with little rest. I turned my training over to a wise coach and went into my April 2015 marathon with 55MPW average, seven long runs of 18-20mi with more focused MP work, and more rest days than I previously granted myself. I ran a 3:19, and was 99% happy with my performance. Books are great, but they're no good if you don't seek to understand the "boring" theory parts and just skip straight to the end and get into a do-or-die on the training plan section. If you train right, you'll feel no different after a 20 mile run than you would after a 4 mile run.
I read the book.... I've been following the theories as best as I can from both authors... It might be helpful to explain what you think is "training right"
For me, it was taking "me" out of the equation, including myself picking a plan that might be too much or not enough for my ability.
0 -
I think the longer runs are really important. My past four marathon times where 3:33, DNF, 3:12, 3:05. That DNF was a plan that did not focus enough on longer, slower running along with my own mistakes -cutting workouts like some mentioned and some racing errors as well such as starting too fast. But I only did 40ish mpw and my longest run was 19.
For the 3:12 I ran more more 20 milers and added a medium long run that peaked at 15 miles during the week. (48-50 mpw average, 60 peak)
For the 3:05, I ran 3x20 and 1x22 along with that medium long run and some (Daniels inspired) long tempo miles- had to cut some of those out towards the end due to ice..ended up doing shorter treadmill segments. 58-62 mpw with 2 peak weeks of 70 miles each.
I don't have anything but my experience to speak to, which is why I am sharing it. I feel those longer long runs helped a lot as well as the resulting higher mileage overall. I built my mileage up in the off season and started with a 4 week hill module; after that, those 20 milers really didn't make me feel any different than 16 milers. 12-14 miles was nothing because you were doing that during the week as a medium long, it just all began to feel very easy. The tempos were where the work was....0 -
I appreciate the thoughts guys, really do, thanks for taking the time to write. I guess we shall see how the training goes. It's certainly NOT a "run your first marathon" setup. Since I'm already at marathon readiness, I liked this plan because it is only a slight step down, if at all from where I was at in mileage, but was more focused on two epic quality sessions, with easier mileage to supplement. On the Hudson plan, almost every run was paced up at some point, and I think that's what was wrecking me; nowhere to recover. I find it interesting in all your comments that, over the course of a 500 mile, 18 week training cycle, so much emphasis is placed on about 13 miles: the tips of those long runs. Are those really the most important miles in a marathon training plan?
I think I'm going to give the 2Q theory a try, and see if I can gradually get my mileage up a bit as I go. if I can get to around 50mpw I can stretch out those long runs a bit. Might take care of itself a bit too with increased pace. I can report back periodically how I'm feeling if y'all like.0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »
I find it interesting in all your comments that, over the course of a 500 mile, 18 week training cycle, so much emphasis is placed on about 13 miles: the tips of those long runs. Are those really the most important miles in a marathon training plan?
I am not so sure what is so magical about mile 13. Personally, it's after mile 18 or mile 20 when it really starts to become interesting. :-)
0 -
I think for a lot of people, including me, the mid-week medium-long run of 13-15 miles to back up the long run really helps with endurance. I actually remember in my first marathon (not making this up) getting to 11 miles and thinking 'oh good, only a Wednesday run to go'.0
-
beeblebrox82 wrote: »
I find it interesting in all your comments that, over the course of a 500 mile, 18 week training cycle, so much emphasis is placed on about 13 miles: the tips of those long runs. Are those really the most important miles in a marathon training plan?
I am not so sure what is so magical about mile 13. Personally, it's after mile 18 or mile 20 when it really starts to become interesting. :-)
You're not reading what I wrote. so if your average plan has say 5 runs from 18-22 miles in it, and this one tops out at a bunch of 17s, you're looking at a total difference of about 13-15 miles summed up in long run time over the plan. If you're doing those miles on different days, does it really matter that much?0 -
I think for a lot of people, including me, the mid-week medium-long run of 13-15 miles to back up the long run really helps with endurance. I actually remember in my first marathon (not making this up) getting to 11 miles and thinking 'oh good, only a Wednesday run to go'.
yeah, that seems like the JD formula, longer mid week runs than I'm accustomed to, from 11-15 miles or so, and then another 15-17 mile long run with some tempo work mixed in on the weekend.
0 -
Well... I was doing a Pfitzinger plan that also had a long run of up to 22 miles. But I was probably doing higher mileage overall. It all depends how much you can manage and have time for.0
-
beeblebrox82 wrote: »beeblebrox82 wrote: »
I find it interesting in all your comments that, over the course of a 500 mile, 18 week training cycle, so much emphasis is placed on about 13 miles: the tips of those long runs. Are those really the most important miles in a marathon training plan?
I am not so sure what is so magical about mile 13. Personally, it's after mile 18 or mile 20 when it really starts to become interesting. :-)
You're not reading what I wrote. so if your average plan has say 5 runs from 18-22 miles in it, and this one tops out at a bunch of 17s, you're looking at a total difference of about 13-15 miles summed up in long run time over the plan. If you're doing those miles on different days, does it really matter that much?
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.0 -
Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks 0
-
lporter229 wrote: »Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks
I agree completely. I'm currently on a 17 day streak of just general fitness running between 6-7 miles per day with a 12 mile long run on Sunday. Running 48 miles one week and 50 miles the next and i have zero fatigue in my legs. After a 50 mile week with a 19 or 20 mile run there was a lot more stress on my body than the same mileage broke up differently.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.
90 minutes for me is 11-12 miles. So on a 17 mile run, I'm spending almost an hour running past that 90 minute mark. I would certainly agree that someone who runs say, a 7 minute easy pace, would run 20 miles to get the same time and intensity that has me at 17 miles at an 8.5 minute pace. but If you have more of those 17 milers in a training plan that gives you the same amount of time overall in that "happy zone" after 90 minutes, is there a difference? Nets out the same in theory.
One thing where i agree for sure, the psychological benefits of running longer is pretty darn important. Keeping those legs churning is mental as much as anything else. That's definitely something lost in this plan. I think that aspect alone warrants tacking on a few extra miles somewhere in the plan.
0 -
lporter229 wrote: »Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks
I can also agree that just the mere confidence you get after a 20-miler is encouraging. Even if science tells us it doesn't do anything physiologically.
I even done a 22 miler once just before my first full. I am not sure yet if i will do that the second time around tho.
0 -
12 miles in 90 minutes is 7:30 pace. You said you are doing 8:30 pace. I'm confused about that and it needs clarification.beeblebrox82 wrote: »CarsonRuns wrote: »
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.
90 minutes for me is 11-12 miles. So on a 17 mile run, I'm spending almost an hour running past that 90 minute mark. I would certainly agree that someone who runs say, a 7 minute easy pace, would run 20 miles to get the same time and intensity that has me at 17 miles at an 8.5 minute pace. but If you have more of those 17 milers in a training plan that gives you the same amount of time overall in that "happy zone" after 90 minutes, is there a difference? Nets out the same in theory.
One thing where i agree for sure, the psychological benefits of running longer is pretty darn important. Keeping those legs churning is mental as much as anything else. That's definitely something lost in this plan. I think that aspect alone warrants tacking on a few extra miles somewhere in the plan.
If you are running 8:30 pace, then 90 minutes will put you at around 10.5 miles. If you are indeed running the long run at 7:30 pace with a 3:36 marathon PR, then you are running too fast.
So, let's square that away before I respond any further.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
12 miles in 90 minutes is 7:30 pace. You said you are doing 8:30 pace. I'm confused about that and it needs clarification.
If you are running 8:30 pace, then 90 minutes will put you at around 10.5 miles. If you are indeed running the long run at 7:30 pace with a 3:36 marathon PR, then you are running too fast.
So, let's square that away before I respond any further.
Even at 8:30 pace those long runs are only :15 sec slower than MP. With a 40MPW volume of that intensity it's no wonder his lower body feels wrecked.
0 -
Sorry, pencil-whipped it, definitely not doing long runs at 7:30. typically between 8:30 and 9:00. Still the math is good from the other end, a solid hour running after the 90 minute mark on a 17 miler for me.
I guess I'm just nervous, I have only been running a few years and I seem to have hit a mileage wall where I'm getting diminishing returns, and I'm trying to get over it.
2012: 249
2013: 612
2014: 1296
2015: 1600? That would be up another 20% and would be 160miles per month for the rest of the year, on average (I'm a bit behind, broke a toe at the end of last year, unrelated to running.)
0
This discussion has been closed.