I think both sides are talking past each other at this point.

I just actually read some of this thread, and both sides also have at least occasionally resorted to cheap shots and nasty insinuations -- not as much as compared to what is normal on the internet, happily, but still, even less would be even better, because it sounds like both sides are actually trying to communicate (as opposed to a usenet version of this, where it degenerates to both sides simply trying to harass the other side) -- and cheap shots and insinuations are really distracting from the interesting bits. Oh well, people are people, and some of them go out for no obvious reason, and run from their nice house to nowhere particular, not to get to a party, not to carry something important, but just to run - lunatics...

I'll admit you've just identified the kryptonite to the cookbook model. You are absolutely correct that no single authority exists as to the proper or best scientific approach, and indeed, the opinions can vary pretty significantly among researchers. I guess there are only two responses. (1) You could put all your faith in one program, having decided (for whatever reasons) that it is the "best" program to the exclusion of other scientific approaches. I do this, to a certain extent. I'll confess that I fly the Pfitizinger flag proudly, and I do (blindly or otherwise) follow his schedules to the letter. If I can use another author's research to supplement Pfitz, that's great; but all conflicts are resolved in Pete's favor. So, ironically enough, it comes down to the fact that I have "faith" in Pfitz (and his science). (2) You could synthesize the scientific research of many physiologists and use that knowledge to form your own training schedules. A piece from here, a bit from there, etc. Indeed, dare I say that I suspect that a lot of the "simple" runners actually do this, perhaps without consciously thinking about it. I don't know a lot of experienced runners who haven't read a book or two in the day, and I kinda suspect that some of that sciency stuff works its way into their self-made training programs, with or without thinking about it. Well, since I consider myself to be a perfectly average runner, I think the average cookie-cutter plan is perfect for me.

LOL! Somehow, I suspect that you are not a "perfectly average runner". Actually, there is a third option that is kind of a derivative of your option (2)....use one of the cookie cutter programs as a basic guide, but adapt it to your specific needs as perceived from a combination of performance feedback, scientific knowledge from other sources and simply following the old adage, "listening to your body". That's pretty much what I did 20-25 years ago before Pfitz's and Daniels' programs where available. I started in late 1982 with absolutely no knowledge or guidance by simply running on an indoor track, as an adjunct to a weight training program, and enjoying it. I started with a 1/4 mile jog and built it to 10 mile runs. Every run became a test to try to run at least the same pace as the previous run, if not a little faster. The first time I ran outdoors was in a spring '83 10k race in 47:40....and I got hooked. I didn't even know there were public road races until a week before the race. Six months and five more 10k's later, I ran my first marathon in 3:47 at age 45 after following guidance from another runner that simply said, "to run a marathon, you need to build mileage to 50 miles/week and run at least 18 miles once." So, that's what I did. I had never heard of LT, VO2max, tempo runs, intervals, etc. But I know now that almost every run was of the "fast distance" variety discussed in the article that started this thread. I was at or above LT in the last couple of miles of almost every "training" run. The only "structure" to my "training" was to build mileage. That year (1983) Bob Glover's book, "The Competitive Runner's Handbook" was first published. I bought a copy in early 1984 and devoured it. It introduced me to some of the science that was known at that time, which was substantially less than available today. I began using his cookbook 10k and marathon programs, which did include intervals and paced runs. After another year or two of experience under my belt, I began to modify his programs to fit my perceived needs based on how I responded to training. I continued to develop my own training schedules using Glover's programs as a general guide through 1990 when my first running life ended. I picked up where I left off (rather, began again) in 1997. The following year, Daniels' book was published. I loved the scientific insights that it offered and used the science from his book combined with training guidelines from Glover to structure my 10k and marathon training thoughout a short lived (4 years) second running life. Now Pfitz has arrived and I have his book. I'm not running these days. But, if....that is , when....I begin a third running life, I expect to experiment with a combination of Daniels and Pfitz for marathon training. There is a very basic philosological difference between them....Pfitz schedules VO2max work in the last few weeks of his program and none early; Daniels does the opposite by placing emphasis on VO2max intervals it in the first few weeks and none after that. I prefer them in both parts....early to peak VO2max before going into the heart of the program (strengthening and stamina phases), and late for sharpening. Since LT, which is so vital to marathon performance, is developed as a percentage of VO2max, it just makes sense to me to peak VO2max before focusing on LT development. Of course, one way to do that is to alternate 5-10k and marathon "seasons", which Is something I always did. A 10k training and racing season immediately preceding a marathon program ensures that VO2max is peaked and one can launch directly into a Pfitz-type program. For those who focus exclusively on marathoning, I think that Daniels approach with early VO2max work makes more sense. Anyway, I'm rambling and off subject. The primary points I wanted to make in this post are that: (1) Despite our previous dialog, I am not anti-science concerning training. If anything, I tend to lean too much on the "science" and not enough on the "art" of running, although I do try to strike a balance. (2) Although cookie cutter training programs are adequate and will advance just about anyone who follows them reasonably consistently, I do think it is "optimal" to adapt them to an individual's particular strengths and limitations or to develop unique individual programs, which must consider both the scientific principles of running as well as the particular runner. (3) I also think that we tend to get overly caught up in the sciencific and lose sight of the artistic aspects of running, especially those of us who are founded in technical arenas....I'm an engineer. (4) Based on personal experience, I do know that one can progress as a runner and enjoy it with no more guidance than run a lot, mostly easy, and some hard.

Jim2, that was really interesting! and um, I'm the kind of runner who is way too lazy to take into account V02Max or any of the other stuff -- my way is definitely not better, it is just more appropriate to someone like me who only has about 2 brain cells thinking about running, and they're not smart enough to think about the science end - so my way is to go do what I feel like, and try to do long runs now that I've signed up for a marathon (and after getting tired going long this afternoon, I'm kinda wondering why I signed up early -- last marathon I signed up late to keep my options open), and mainly, to try to catch the 2000 mile pace bunny. But, I do really appreciate people being willing to try to explain the scientific stuff for us ignorant layabouts, in hopes we might benefit a little...

Thanks, Berner, for spurring a very interesting thread. It's very valuable to see clear, ardent, intelligent, and sometimes complex (if not complicated) explanations of the simple art of running. All dogma--even and perhaps especially the truest ones--need a stiff challenge every now and then to keep them from becoming too rigid and cumbersome. Well done, sir. Even Athens needed a gadfly or two.

I just want to say that I agree completely with everything Jim24315 has said!

He said so very little and really added nothing, so I guess one could agree.

I agree with everybody except Ileneforward. Except that bit about Jim, that's okay. On the rest, no way. She puts cats in tubes. I'm pretty suspicious of Willamona, too. Mostly I just like turtles.

Me too JK. And means friendly btw geezer Jim. Now back to my shell.

Peace, Ricky. You young whippersnapper. If I remember correctly from an old post of yours, we have had to overcome similar difficulties or we probably wouldn't be running today