You have already learned how to represent various types of training with an intensity

fraction (percentage or multiple of a runner's V02max) that is tied to an intensity

zone (see table 2. 1 , page 35) .
You also know that the time you spend performing at different intensities and
the amount of rest you take between workbouts affects the overall stress of a training
38 Daniels' Running Formula
session (or race) . Different intensities are designed to challenge different systems of
the body, and a combination of the intensity and duration ofexercise determines how
much stress is enough or too much for that particular system.
It's generally accepted that runners can handle more time doing easy running than
they can tolerate at higher intensities ofstress. For example, it's not unusual for a runner
to complete more than 1 00 miles of easy running in a single week-but it's doubtful
that any runner would try 1 00 miles of fast (mile race pace) running in a single week.
Maybe that's possible to do, but doing so would neglect other important systems that
require training, which is why we include several types of training in a program.
A big question is, Can the various intensities of stress be evaluated in such a way
that they can be compared relative to total training stress? For example, in terms of
how much the body can (and should be able to) handle, how much time spent at
threshold (T) pace equates to the amount of time spent at an easy (E) pace? How
do the other intensities fit into the picture? I've designed a system for comparing the
various intensities of training in a way that allows you to monitor overall stress and to
determine the desired amounts of each type of stress.
A common way oflogging how much running you do is to keep track ofyour weekly
mileage, and this is certainly a good way to monitor your own training (and that of
other runners similar to you in ability and experience, over time) . Possibly a better
way of logging your total training is to add up the amount oftime you spend training
each week, month , or year. The advantage of this time-associated method is that it does
a betterjob of equating the amount of stress placed on runners of various abilities.
For example, running for a total of six miles at T intensity for an elite runner might
take no more than 30 minutes, but a not-so-fast runner might take over 40 minutes
to accumulate six miles at T pace. Both might be working at nearly the same relative
intensity, but given that the less-talented runner takes 30 percent longer at this intensity,
he or she experiences more stress. Thus, it would be better for the slower runner to
shoot for 30 minutes of T running, which would be more like four miles at his or her
threshold pace, whereas the faster runner would achieve the same effects running six
miles at his or her T pace (still 30 minutes) .
When looking over a month of training, a slower runner trying to log the same
mileage as an elite run ner will find doing so has taken a great deal more time, which
often means that the slower athlete is subjected to a greater risk of injury.
To alleviate this problem I 've designed a table of training intensities from which
a runner of any ability level can convert his or her runs of different intensities into
training points (table 2.2) . Simply put, this method gives more points, per minute,
for runs at higher relative intensities; the athlete can then base the intensities on a
current VDOT value (a performance-based V02max, see chapter 3) or by using heart
rate data. The table corresponds to the same intensity zones described earlier as well
as a l OK training zone, which covers intensities of running typical of l OK race paces
for different ability levels. In addition, as you'll notice in table 2.2, there's a 2 percent
overlap in the M- and T-pace zones, which accounts for the fact that marathon pace
for very good runners is at a relative intensity equal to threshold pace for slower runners (or for better
runners not currently in top form ) .