Jump to content

training the science


Recommended Posts

A lot of people have moved away from the practice of training in the "aerobic zone" for longer periods and a trend to higher intensity training is emerging. Chrissie Wellington, high achieving AG and anybody using Endurance Nation are ditching the long low intensity stuff and getting great results.

 

Is there any scientific basis to prove that training exclusively at a given intensity (lower) will make an athelete better of a long distance race . The higher intensity folk appear to be doing very well.

 

Tim Don recently broke 29 mins for 10 K with his key set being 20 * 400 at race pace with 30 s rest, has anybody ever tried say 30 1 K at race pace for IM instead of the 30 k long run and what results did you get

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fifer, training isn't an either/or proposition.

 

Overload, Specificity, Balance.

 

Quality AND Quantity are both important.

 

A bit of the fast stuff, a bit of the slow stuff and a bit in between in as much dose as you can recover from.

 

People get bogged down splitting hairs or trying to re-glue split ends bakc together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people have moved away from the practice of training in the "aerobic zone" for longer periods and a trend to higher intensity training is emerging. Chrissie Wellington, high achieving AG and anybody using Endurance Nation are ditching the long low intensity stuff and getting great results.

 

Is there any scientific basis to prove that training exclusively at a given intensity (lower) will make an athelete better of a long distance race . The higher intensity folk appear to be doing very well.

 

Tim Don recently broke 29 mins for 10 K with his key set being 20 * 400 at race pace with 30 s rest, has anybody ever tried say 30 1 K at race pace for IM instead of the 30 k long run and what results did you get

 

I think this is the sort of thing you are talking about.

 

I love but hate this work out:

 

http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/G...a-Intervals.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fifer, training isn't an either/or proposition.

 

Overload, Specificity, Balance.

 

Quality AND Quantity are both important.

 

A bit of the fast stuff, a bit of the slow stuff and a bit in between in as much dose as you can recover from.

 

People get bogged down splitting hairs or trying to re-glue split ends bakc together.

agree, but there is a building body of evidence against riding for 6 or 7 hours at easy pace. Taking the overload principle, if the long ride overloaded you then you will get benefit so that is a good thing. However if you took said athelete and had them do 3 hours on Sat at 80 % FTP with some harder intervals backed up by a Sunday with say 2.5 hours at 80 % FTP, then that is going to generate more of a load than the 6 hour ride at 65 % or &0 & of FTP.

 

More load, more specific for less time in a session. If the athelte can't recover then reduce the load but use the same protocol.

 

Looking at running when LSD was fashionable lots of people went running on the trails trying to run slow, they then went out on rcae day and were surprised when they ran slow. I am not saying there is no place for lower intensity (I have experinced the effects of too much intensity, not good) however sometimes the long run is done way to slow, same for the long bike

Link to post
Share on other sites

To summise - it hink I stole this bit from twits -

 

Sppedwork is like icing on a cake,

 

It works much better if there is a good cake underneath it.

 

(LSD & Pace work being the "cake").

 

My fav speed session is 7 * 1k with 500 walk/jog recovery.

In a good year they come down <3:30's

- it is the slowest one that counts!

(20 y ago they cam down to a sade under 3 but that was then)

 

3 k warm up befor, really easy, and 2 k after.

 

I don't bother doing them unless I'm allready doing 3 other running sessions a week (back to the cake thing).

Link to post
Share on other sites
To summise - it hink I stole this bit from twits -

 

Sppedwork is like icing on a cake,

 

It works much better if there is a good cake underneath it.

 

(LSD & Pace work being the "cake").

 

My fav speed session is 7 * 1k with 500 walk/jog recovery.

In a good year they come down <3:30's

- it is the slowest one that counts!

(20 y ago they cam down to a sade under 3 but that was then)

 

3 k warm up befor, really easy, and 2 k after.

 

I don't bother doing them unless I'm allready doing 3 other running sessions a week (back to the cake thing).

Is there a better way to build the cake? Sub 3 min K ouch hair bleeding pace. the only time in my life that I ran a 3 min K (3:05) I lay on the track and cried

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people have moved away from the practice of training in the "aerobic zone" for longer periods and a trend to higher intensity training is emerging. Chrissie Wellington, high achieving AG and anybody using Endurance Nation are ditching the long low intensity stuff and getting great results.

 

Is there any scientific basis to prove that training exclusively at a given intensity (lower) will make an athelete better of a long distance race . The higher intensity folk appear to be doing very well.

 

Tim Don recently broke 29 mins for 10 K with his key set being 20 * 400 at race pace with 30 s rest, has anybody ever tried say 30 1 K at race pace for IM instead of the 30 k long run and what results did you get

Tim don and chrissie both were/are trained by the same coach and still train to similar principles. Rest assured they do a shit load of intensity and volume (and plenty in the "aerobic zone")

Poor example using those two athletes as the poster child for high intensity and low mileage

The Ones training to quality and volume are the ones doing the best

Edited by reactor1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually can't think of a single top athlete who is top of their sport in the endurance world who hasn't done a huge amount of quality and volume.

As for 6hr rides having no value well crowie does em, macca does, chrissie, etc etc every top ironman athlete. I don't think they would be out there training that long for the heck of it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually can't think of a single top athlete who is top of their sport in the endurance world who hasn't done a huge amount of quality and volume.

As for 6hr rides having no value well crowie does em, macca does, chrissie, etc etc every top ironman athlete. I don't think they would be out there training that long for the heck of it

There are plenty top coaches not prescirbing the 6 hour ride. The pro athelte is much better conditioned to get value out of the 6 hour ride as thye can absorb the load better than the AG. What is the benfit from doing the extra two hours after hour 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty top coaches not prescirbing the 6 hour ride. The pro athelte is much better conditioned to get value out of the 6 hour ride as thye can absorb the load better than the AG. What is the benfit from doing the extra two hours after hour 4.

 

By 'top coaches' you must mean the best marketed ones, the ones who sell 'the system' or such to the AG masses.

 

Pros absorb training just like everyone else.

 

Pretty much everything you have written in this thread has no basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By 'top coaches' you must mean the best marketed ones, the ones who sell 'the system' or such to the AG masses.

 

Pros absorb training just like everyone else.

 

Pretty much everything you have written in this thread has no basis.

No I don't, lets change the word to good coaches, Mark Van Akkeren is hardly the best marketed, this thread demonstrates basis to what I have written. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_For...V!_P3037160 admittedly not the science behind it, but something to substantiate what I have written. brian Stover and paulo Sousa think along these lines, not best marketed.

 

In fact best marketed coaches eg Joe Friel love the longer ride done slowly. Pros can absorb load better than you and I, but yes it happens in the same way.

 

One day some place somewhere on the internet people will actually have a chat that goes something like this:

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. Yes I know people do this, but I have found that it requires x,y and z to be ready for it, or

3. Hey that sounds okay opposite of what I think but I'll consider it.

 

But the popular trend is

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. You are wrong, there is no basis to what you say, even though lots of really smart people are doing it and getting results.

 

Absornign training, yes the body responds the same way, we are all made to the same design, but the pro with more time to sleep recover properly will absorb it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't, lets change the word to good coaches, Mark Van Akkeren is hardly the best marketed, this thread demonstrates basis to what I have written. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_For...V!_P3037160 admittedly not the science behind it, but something to substantiate what I have written. brian Stover and paulo Sousa think along these lines, not best marketed.

 

In fact best marketed coaches eg Joe Friel love the longer ride done slowly. Pros can absorb load better than you and I, but yes it happens in the same way.

 

One day some place somewhere on the internet people will actually have a chat that goes something like this:

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. Yes I know people do this, but I have found that it requires x,y and z to be ready for it, or

3. Hey that sounds okay opposite of what I think but I'll consider it.

 

But the popular trend is

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. You are wrong, there is no basis to what you say, even though lots of really smart people are doing it and getting results.

 

Absornign training, yes the body responds the same way, we are all made to the same design, but the pro with more time to sleep recover properly will absorb it better.

 

You've lost me.. are you arguing against 6 hour rides, or aerobic training (what is that term anyway??!!)??? or what??

 

Funny I remember Paulo's mantra was 'more is more'...

 

Just like the Chrissie and Don example, you grab tiny pieces of information or examples and use them to base your whole argument on... this time your anti volume?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've lost me.. are you arguing against 6 hour rides, or aerobic training (what is that term anyway??!!)??? or what??

 

Funny I remember Paulo's mantra was 'more is more'...

 

Just like the Chrissie and Don example, you grab tiny pieces of information or examples and use them to base your whole argument on... this time your anti volume?

yawn, agree to disagree, not choosing tiny bits of info, you are right, not arguing anything testing the value of the 6 hour slow ride

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sppedwork is like icing on a cake,

 

It works much better if there is a good cake underneath it.

 

(LSD & Pace work being the "cake").

 

Early in the season LSD is the base onto which everything else gets built.............

 

The wider the base, the better the peak

 

The more pages in the book- the harder it is to tear

Link to post
Share on other sites
One day some place somewhere on the internet people will actually have a chat that goes something like this:

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. Yes I know people do this, but I have found that it requires x,y and z to be ready for it, or

3. Hey that sounds okay opposite of what I think but I'll consider it.

 

But the popular trend is

 

1. Hey I was reading about this, gave it a try, worked okay, some other folk are doing it what do you think?

2. You are wrong, there is no basis to what you say, even though lots of really smart people are doing it and getting results.

I appreciate the point you are making!

 

For what it is worth, I try to do 3 rides a week - 1 LSD (although sadly, only the S part is happening at the moment!), and 2 windtrainer sessions (1hr each) which are both steady state rides at IM race pace heart rate. Although this works for me, I accept that it is a bit unusual. I also accept that I might go better with some more intensity (or with any intensity!).

 

In fact, I am at the point of trying just that - some intensity (although only for one of my windtrainer sessions rather than my "long" ride). Who knows, I might go better?

 

I think that it is great that you are asking the questions that you have. If you don't question stuff then you just accept stuff that might not be optimal for you.

 

Or as I sometimes say, you'll never, never know if you never have a go!

 

Would be interested to see how you go with it. It might even make me look at doing something a bit different with my "long" ride.

 

TGL

Edited by The Glycogen Lilo
Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people have moved away from the practice of training in the "aerobic zone" for longer periods and a trend to higher intensity training is emerging. Chrissie Wellington, high achieving AG and anybody using Endurance Nation are ditching the long low intensity stuff and getting great results.

 

Is there any scientific basis to prove that training exclusively at a given intensity (lower) will make an athelete better of a long distance race . The higher intensity folk appear to be doing very well.

 

Tim Don recently broke 29 mins for 10 K with his key set being 20 * 400 at race pace with 30 s rest, has anybody ever tried say 30 1 K at race pace for IM instead of the 30 k long run and what results did you get

 

Raise the left and fill the right Fifer......... seems to work pretty well and balances out intensity and volume.

 

Lot of people focus too much on raising the left but never fill the right in order to cover the distance. Vice versa, people spend too much time filling the right without ever thinking about raising their threshold.

 

 

fluro

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the theory being pushed here that you do all your training in zone 3,4, 5 and then on race day go out in Zone 1, 2?

 

When you are talking high intensity Fifer, are you talking race pace or above race pace?

Plaz, yes, If we look a an Endurance Nation bike session, the Saturday bike goes like this:

 

3:30

WU 20-3 mins 65-70% FTP (this is thier z1-z2)

MS 2 * 15 @ FTP 10 easy

4* 15 @ 85 % FTP 4 min rest

Remainder of time 75 %-80 % or more if you can take it

 

The Sunday is backed up by

 

3:00

 

20-30 mins WU

Rest 85 % FTP

 

There are weeks where the bike goes out to 4:30 and the intervals get harder

The midweek session is a 1 hour at or above FTP

 

There are a number of weeks where they have you do IM paced efforts, 2 weekends to practice the 112 miles, this is not about getting fast, about practising pacing etc.

 

So yes their theory and others is train above race pace and then race at 70-75 %. Does it work, well there are plenty people saying yes, but it might not be right for everybody and there will be faults. No one has invented the perfect training protocol.

 

The running also has a bit of intensity but less as running is harder, will it work? I don't know I will know after Port, after three years of doing HR based don't worry about intensity, until week 11-18 of the programme and then get one speed session per week until the taper, I thought I would try somethig different.

 

This approach seems to be working for plenty folk so after plenty research and speaking with some smart people I decided to give this a go although I won't be starting until December I have applied the principles to what I have been doing right now.

 

Having said that training primarily in lower HR Zones, I went from doing nothing, weighing 97 Kg to 80 Kg (6 feet 4) to doing an IM in 11:30 in 12 months. Nothing amazing there just consistent training, for an average time but okay for the time in the sport.

 

That approach did not see me get any quicker, doing it for another 12 months at Im although my Half Im time was better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raise the left and fill the right Fifer......... seems to work pretty well and balances out intensity and volume.

 

Lot of people focus too much on raising the left but never fill the right in order to cover the distance. Vice versa, people spend too much time filling the right without ever thinking about raising their threshold.

 

 

fluro

Sound advice from a voice of reason, the hard bit is trying to find the balance that you can fit into your life, I'm not suggesting that I am going to go out and do only one hour hair bleeding rides, although it would be interesting to see what would happen if you only did this

Link to post
Share on other sites
within his 1000km weeks.......actually read he was doing 7 -8 hr rides before hawaii.... maybe 6hrs is irrelevant... 7 is the new 6?

he says minimum of five hours on the bike, Macca is such a great atheelte that he probably rides 7 hours with loads of quality, I can't

Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate the point you are making!

 

For what it is worth, I try to do 3 rides a week - 1 LSD (although sadly, only the S part is happening at the moment!), and 2 windtrainer sessions (1hr each)which are both steady state rides at IM race pace heart rate. Although this works for me, I accept that it is a bit unusual. I also accept that I might go better with some more intensity (or with any intensity!).

 

In fact, I am at the point of trying just that - some intensity (although only for one of my windtrainer sessions rather than my "long" ride). Who knows, I might go better?

 

I think that it is great that you are asking the questions that you have. If you don't question stuff then you just accept stuff that might not be optimal for you.

 

Or as I sometimes say, you'll never, never know if you never have a go!

 

Would be interested to see how you go with it. It might even make me look at doing something a bit different with my "long" ride.

 

TGL

 

I needed a change as I have stagnated, I know that if I spend all summer do 6 hour even 7 hour rides that come Port I'm going 1130 again, so willing to change

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raise the left and fill the right Fifer......... seems to work pretty well and balances out intensity and volume.

 

Lot of people focus too much on raising the left but never fill the right in order to cover the distance. Vice versa, people spend too much time filling the right without ever thinking about raising their threshold.

 

 

fluro

 

This and Animal's post nail it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I needed a change as I have stagnated, I know that if I spend all summer do 6 hour even 7 hour rides that come Port I'm going 1130 again, so willing to change

Mate - go for it. The person who will benefit most if you get it right and will suffer most if you get it wrong is.................you! So you get to choose how you do it.

 

Have now done 7 IMs. Did a pb in 1997 with a particular approach to training (and no kids and stuff like that) which I did again in 2010 (with 3 kids and a very different approach to training). These 2 times are within 17 seconds of each other and are at least 25 minutes faster than my next best time.

 

You'll never really know what works for you unless you give it a go.

 

TGL

Edited by The Glycogen Lilo
Link to post
Share on other sites
I needed a change as I have stagnated, I know that if I spend all summer do 6 hour even 7 hour rides that come Port I'm going 1130 again, so willing to change

 

 

Will you though? Perhaps you have stagnated because you do not have enough base work behind you to build upon (General comment here, I have no idea what you do of course!). I personally have found I respond extremely well to lots of miles (minus running cause I just get injured). But I guess, like other people are saying, it is about finding out what works for you. If there was one optimal way to train, everyone would do it and the sport would be boring. Obviously we aren't elite athletes with unlimited time to train, so its always a compromise. Just having that aerobic base allows you to peak higher and for longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that if I spend all summer do 6 hour even 7 hour rides that come Port I'm going 1130 again

 

I'll bet 6 or 7 hour rides will have more affect on your time than hoping for someone here to validate your desire to do less training. Most people start leaking time in an IM from the 7 hour mark onwards, so training a max of 4 hours will surely address that for you.

 

BTW, an "easy 6 or 7 hour ride" doesn't exist unless you are lollygagging around really flat terrain or sitting in a big bunch (not that I know any bunch rides going 6-7). If you spend that long over rolling to hilly terrain and you don't come back with a significant period spent in all intensity zones then there is something I have been doing wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll bet 6 or 7 hour rides will have more affect on your time than hoping for someone here to validate your desire to do less training. Most people start leaking time in an IM from the 7 hour mark onwards, so training a max of 4 hours will surely address that for you.

 

BTW, an "easy 6 or 7 hour ride" doesn't exist unless you are lollygagging around really flat terrain or sitting in a big bunch (not that I know any bunch rides going 6-7). If you spend that long over rolling to hilly terrain and you don't come back with a significant period spent in all intensity zones then there is something I have been doing wrong.

Diamonds, I am not looking for anyone to validate anything, I am interested in the view of others regarding training and the rationale behind it. There are a bunch of people ditching the 6-7 hour ride and doing two harder rides over split over two days.

 

The amount of work done in the 4 + 3 hour session over the two days will > that done cruising around at some magic aerobic zone. Anyhow, I'm not seekign a bunch of posts saying your right go for it. I am interested to see what other people think, Transitions folk as a majority don't agree, plenty others do. If I get better or worse does it prove anything, no as n=1 is bit insignificant. The only person who will benefit or suffer is me, howevere I know from my n=1 that long 6 hour rides stopped making me better after 18 months.

 

Riding around at IM pace for 6 hours will make me very good at riding at 30 Km/h to get faster I have to go faster, at the start I won't be able to do that for 6 hours so i have to break it up. An alternative is to try and do it right now, but I'm not fit enough so what will happen is that i will crank it out for four hours and then hang on at very low intensities for 2 hours or so, those two hours could be done the next day at a higher intensity, giving me a higher return.

 

This year with running I have cut back on runs over 90 mins, most long runs 60-70 mins with marathon and Half maraton pace in there, 40-50 min run with intervals, one shorter 30 min run with 200's and 400's.

 

Result PR 10 K, PR HM, PR HIM run where I now run stronger as the run leg gets longer. I did the 3 hour runs, learnt how to run slow and got injured. That is for n=1=me and it is my problem if it does not work

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. You need both your long slow distance sessions and your shorter intensity speed sessions. Just like you wouldn't spend all your time on one discipline, neither would you spend all your time training at the one pace :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see why this has to be so complicated. You need both your long slow distance sessions and your shorter intensity speed sessions. Just like you wouldn't spend all your time on one discipline, neither would you spend all your time training at the one pace :lol:

It's not, 4 hours working at 85 % of FTP is not LSD, why do you need LSD?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not, 4 hours working at 85 % of FTP is not LSD, why do you need LSD?

 

I don't think training principles have changed that much have they? conventional wisdom is (or at least used to be) that training with your HR at 60-75% of its max for extended periods developed aerobic capacity; developed the musculo-skeletal system in order to absorb intense training/racing, and improved the body's ability to utilise fat as a fuel.

 

Training at low intensity for extended periods is still important otherwise you wouldn't have 5000m runners chugging out 20+ kms at a minute or more per km slower than their race pace, and cyclists whose longest race is 60 mins logging 3+ hour rides at 30 or so kph.

Edited by C.C
Link to post
Share on other sites
This year with running I have cut back on runs over 90 mins, most long runs 60-70 mins with marathon and Half maraton pace in there, 40-50 min run with intervals, one shorter 30 min run with 200's and 400's.

 

Well I can certainly help you with this one, Fifer. I chased "the secret" for my second IM and ran almost all my weekly long runs and/or bricks in the 60-75min region at higher quality than the first prep. Felt a million bucks and was flying (relatively speaking of course for a nugget with 8kg calves). Come race day I was on fire til guess when? Exactly 75mins into the marathon. That left me with about 26kms of misery wishing I had trained to the requirements of the event. Anyway, one man's experience only, but I guess that was the idea of the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All the training discussed in thread is in the "aerobic zone".

 

So it is all the same, aerobic is aerobic? :lol:

 

Zone 2 is the new Zone 1 for me, has been since I read your comment stateing that training below 70% MHR is not a good use of ones precious training time. Actually I think it is working quite nicely, thanks.

 

 

 

When I start training for IM again I will be doing 6hr rides, it just doesn't compute to me that 4hr training rides, despite being at a higher intensity, will fully prepare me for an event that will last 10 hours or more. Will be interesting to see how you go Fifer, good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifer, you seen to looking at training as being absolute, that is, only one thing another. It's not like that. It's a little bit of everything and not too much of anything.

 

For some people their limiter is time, so you need to adjust the balance to get value from their sessions via increased intensity. For others who have time, more is more...as long as you include amounts of each type of training. Further, some people have years of aerobic development behind them, while others don't, which should be considered.

 

The type of sessions changes over time in relation to when the goal race is on, the demands of the event, the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete, and the experience/athletic maturity of the athlete. Don't judge someone's year round training based on a snapshot.

 

For your average age grouper, their weakness is aerobic base and muscular endurance. Pros, by virtue of they fact they are pros, are different beasts so train accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't, lets change the word to good coaches, Mark Van Akkeren is hardly the best marketed, this thread demonstrates basis to what I have written. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_For...V!_P3037160 admittedly not the science behind it, but something to substantiate what I have written. brian Stover and paulo Sousa think along these lines, not best marketed.

 

Fifer, remember that aerobic base is everyone's limiter.

 

The guy mentioned above had already been sub 10hrs at kona TWICE. That is a pretty good base to draw off and add some intensity to.

 

Likewise Matt Koorey and Damien Angus. Both claim to train under 15hrs a week. BUT both have a huge history in the sport. Matt has been racing since the 80s, and by his own remarks has never stopped, and Damien has been around forever too.

 

Long story short, Triathlon, and Ironman especially, is about aerobic base and 'strength'. If you don't have the years behind you there are no short cuts. Volume and intensity must be done. 6 -7 hour rides are specific to ironman. To reach your potential they must be done. Matt and Damien can get away without doing them and race exceptionally, but I take a punt that if they had all the time to train they would be doing longer sessions.

 

Its fair to say that if you are doing 11hr30 IM, then speed/intensity is not your limiter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamonds, I am not looking for anyone to validate anything, I am interested in the view of others regarding training and the rationale behind it. There are a bunch of people ditching the 6-7 hour ride and doing two harder rides over split over two days.

 

The amount of work done in the 4 + 3 hour session over the two days will > that done cruising around at some magic aerobic zone. Anyhow, I'm not seekign a bunch of posts saying your right go for it. I am interested to see what other people think, Transitions folk as a majority don't agree, plenty others do. If I get better or worse does it prove anything, no as n=1 is bit insignificant. The only person who will benefit or suffer is me, howevere I know from my n=1 that long 6 hour rides stopped making me better after 18 months.

 

Riding around at IM pace for 6 hours will make me very good at riding at 30 Km/h to get faster I have to go faster, at the start I won't be able to do that for 6 hours so i have to break it up. An alternative is to try and do it right now, but I'm not fit enough so what will happen is that i will crank it out for four hours and then hang on at very low intensities for 2 hours or so, those two hours could be done the next day at a higher intensity, giving me a higher return.

 

This year with running I have cut back on runs over 90 mins, most long runs 60-70 mins with marathon and Half maraton pace in there, 40-50 min run with intervals, one shorter 30 min run with 200's and 400's.

 

Result PR 10 K, PR HM, PR HIM run where I now run stronger as the run leg gets longer. I did the 3 hour runs, learnt how to run slow and got injured. That is for n=1=me and it is my problem if it does not work

This is an interesting topic Fifer. Trimming the long run would be kinder to the body but the 6 hour ride isn't nearly as harsh on the body as the 3 hour run. Have you any plans to do a marathon soon ish? i'd be intersted to see how you go over 42ks without the long long run in the lead up. With regards to trimming the long ride, there are a few variables tho, the biggest one being you have another year (or more) of consistent training in you and how much of the better result can be attributed to this.

Interested to see how you go,

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifer, without a doubt the best thing you could do for your training is JFT.

 

You think and analyse too much for someone of your pace.........its Ironman training for crying out loud. It is easy to train for.

 

Dont miss any sessions - be consistent across all 3 disciplines for the next 3 years and watch your times steadily drop over that time. When you get to 10:02 and you want to get to 9:45 then start reading. Till then, ride long with mates and have fun, race as much as you possibly can for experience, and learn to listen to your body and its rhythm (when to go hard and when not). Get that right + 6 - 7 years under your belt = Fifer on fire

Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa talk about over complicating it

a guy going 1130 just needs to keep to the basics and everything in moderation

 

knock out consistent weeks with

 

1x longer session of each discipline

1x tempo session of each discipline

1x hard but not too long of each discipline

1x transition (swim to bike or bike to run)

 

Do that year round

 

from 12 wks out build your ride out to 75-100% of the distance and your run to 60-70%

 

if you havent got time for a 5 hr ride by all means do 3.5 on the trainer

remember a lot of the yanks doing things like endurance nation are stuck indoors on computrainers

if you can handle training like that it works great- but so does riding a bit longer outdoors

as CEM said dont make it all or nothing

 

quite frankly anyone who thinks they can take training cues from Chrissie Wellington has lost the plot

 

if you were a 930 age grouper trying to go 845 you might be then looking at laying down more speed work but as someone else said you haven't got any cake to put icing on yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fifer, without a doubt the best thing you could do for your training is JFT.

 

You think and analyse too much for someone of your pace.........its Ironman training for crying out loud. It is easy to train for.

 

Dont miss any sessions - be consistent across all 3 disciplines for the next 3 years and watch your times steadily drop over that time. When you get to 10:02 and you want to get to 9:45 then start reading. Till then, ride long with mates and have fun, race as much as you possibly can for experience, and learn to listen to your body and its rhythm (when to go hard and when not). Get that right + 6 - 7 years under your belt = Fifer on fire

 

Perfect. Said so much better than I could :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifer as pointed out above, it is not an either/or thing. You have gotta do all of it. I personally don't get the question about all the 6-7 hour rides. I would not think that there is any ned to do this more than once or maybe twice in an IM build. There was a web page that spoke about Critical Volume for Ironman and it was essentially that in your biggest week you would hit multipliers of something like 3 times bike distance and 2 times run distance so 540km and 84km respectively. It also spoke about getting fit enough to be able to do that and that took pure aerobic training (or under 80%) training.

 

As an aside, 80-85% of FTP is not really all that fast and is certainly not what I would call high intensity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 to 7hrs ride is relative to ones own ability (I think distance based rather than time based).

 

To a faster rider a 6-7hrs ride maybe be 130% of the time that they would ride in an IM whereas a slower rider it could be 70% of the IM distance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
knock out consistent weeks with

 

1x longer session of each discipline

1x tempo session of each discipline

1x hard but not too long of each discipline

1x transition (swim to bike or bike to run)

 

G'day Jimmy,

 

Having dropped back to just cycling now, IF you are hitting your intensity hard enough 4 sessions PW would be the max. This is the problem with triathletes, they have 3 disciplines to target and trying to do a tempo and a hard session and a long session in each discipline is just WAY too much.

 

It's only since I've started doing just cycling, that I have really discovered what HARD sessions actually are, what TEMPO sessions actually are, but as someone who was doing triathlons for quite a few years, training in each discipline basically made it unrealistic to do what your prescribing above, I thought I was, but in reality I wasn't even close and I couldn't imagine a single triathlete being able to actually pull off that sort of week, week in week out month after month.

 

Like I said if you can pull off 4 high quality sessions PW then your doing really well. The high quality being just 1-2 x long sessions, 1 x hard threshold type session, 1 x tempo session PW......then I think you be able to actually HIT the quality each week and still recover

 

 

quite frankly anyone who thinks they can take training cues from Chrissie Wellington has lost the plot

 

So true, if you're looking for benchmarks, then just get in contact with those that do qualify for Hawaii, ever town will have at least one, then train with them learn off them and you'll soon see how simple and straight forward it is........but so hard to execute for most........yet these guys and girls are no different to the rest of us, they work, they have families, homes, mortgages etc..........you won't learn any secrets......they just work their asses off, week in week out month after month, year after year.

 

Head to the Kona thread in tri gold, it's all laid out there by those that have been there and done that in simple plain English

 

fluro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluro-think you are basically saying the same thing

 

The "hard" can be less than 30 mins but never so hard it doesnt meet the "next day" test

 

Tempo can be less than 1hr

 

Swimming> there is nobody who cant handle smashing themselves regularly in swimming

 

it is not ultra time consuming or high tech "endurance nation" type of complicated (pay them the money if it makes you feel good)

 

if all you ever did was one long run on tired legs and one decent length ride then the rest is all just salt and pepper on the main meal

Edited by Jimmy C
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluro-think you are basically saying the same thing

 

The "hard" can be less than 30 mins but never so hard it doesnt meet the "next day" test

 

Tempo can be less than 1hr

 

Swimming> there is nobody who cant handle smashing themselves regularly in swimming

 

it is not ultra time consuming or high tech "endurance nation" type of complicated (pay them the money if it makes you feel good)

 

if all you ever did was one long run on tired legs and one decent length ride then the rest is all just salt and pepper on the main meal

 

G'day Jimmy,

 

I've changed things around recently to find I'm having better success with

 

1 x long ride (which includes threshold efforts)

1 x long run (BUT the intensity is really low in order to run LONG enough to develop durability= 15,000 pounding steps type of durability it takes to run a marathon)

1 x REALLY hard swim (big focus on 50's up to 200's MAX, but do a lot of them 4-5km swim session)

 

That leaves 1 other session where you can really hit it.

 

week 1 is usually 2 x20min @ 90-100% at FTeffrot with a 10min @ MAX effort (the 10min can be broken up into smaller intervals)

week 2 is usually a run at and around threshold totalling 45min.

week 3 is a focus on athlete weakness.

week 4 repeat week 1

 

The rest is just filler stuff, time out on the road building aerobic endurance which is effective, starting from a low % of Max HR, that means more is more, so long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the harder sessions.

 

Experienced athletes can absorb alot of time in zone 2-3, hence they become quite fast IM athletes. Inexperienced athletes need to focus on absorbing alot of time in zone 1-2 to support their ability to handle the harder stuff.

 

Thats the basic training week which gets repeated for about 40weeks of the year. 4 hard sessions PW every single week until the end of time.

 

When you look beyond the layers of marketing, Endurance Nation love to belt out these fancy programs........ you soon see what they are doing is nothing new or anything special, in fact, not a single athlete has been developed through their program to become a successful Pro........makes you wonder why? At the other end of the scale you also have Joe Friel who is yet to achieve anything even remotely similar to the likes of BS.

 

fluro

Link to post
Share on other sites
He is talking from a scientific perspective.

 

Most punters like us talk about aerobic/anaerobic as the point when you are burning a higher % of fat to carbs as the aerobic. Likewise burning more carbs than fat is thought to be anaerobic. In the scientific view of how your body uses oxygen and fuel to produce energy this is not true.

Techincally anything over 2-3mins is predominately aerobic.

You are correct however it wouldn't matter whether your view was psychic, babylonian, or as a normal punter, it still wouldn't make it true.

 

Using CHO in endurance events is still a predominantly aerobic metabolic process.

 

It's just that when we need fuel for an anaerobic demand over and above what power we are generating aerobically (like a short hard sprint effort measured in seconds, or for sustained efforts of a few minutes that are above our threshold power), then we can't utilise FFA (fats) as fuel for that additional power demand as they cannot be processed anaerobically, only glycogen can.

 

As for what sort of rides to do, well you need a mix of rides durations and intensities. Mixing in some harder stuff (levels 3 tempo to Level 5 VO2 max/max aerobic power type work) to raise threshold is still pretty darn important as that's what enables us to spare more glycogen at any given sub maximal absolute power level. It's doing the harder stuff as part of training that contributes tremendously to our ability to go long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll help you out. 11:30 hrs (which is not that slow) and 6 ft 4 at 80kgs (which would be pretty skinny?).

 

TGL

Thanks for nuthin, Plaz :lol:

 

Thanks TGL :lol:

 

I call bollocks on the original "should never have run over 3 hours" statement too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...