perhaps i was misremembering TSS v TRIMPS. i just remember recalling, unless i'm mis-recalling, that TRIMPS just multiplies, straight out, intensity X volume. but i thought TSS did much the same, but you take the calc up to the fourth ordinal. in both cases, tho, you can generate a total stress score in a 5mi run three or four times the stress score of a low intensity 5mi run. is this not the case with both TSS and TRIMPS? (well, not exactly, because TSS is cycling-specific, but you see what i mean.)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

TRIMP= Duration (min) x fraction of heart rate reserve x exp(1.92 x fraction of heart rate reserve)

P_TRIMP is Paulo's metric.

More from the article:

By equating heart rate reserve to IF, we can define a power-based training impulse as

TRIMP_IF= Duration (min) x 0.9 x IF x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x IF)

In order to compare it to TSS, we can use the value of TRIMP_IF that corresponds to FTP, i.e.,


TRIMP_IF(FTP) = 60 x 0.9 x 1 x exp(1.92 x 0.9 x 1) ~ 303.99

in order to scale what we called TRIMP_IF. So we can define a new training load stress score, that we are calling P_TRIMP, for Power_TRIMP:

P_TRIMP = TRIMP_IF/ TRIMP_IF(FTP)

P_TRIMP has the advantage that is directly based on TRIMP, which means it is strongly correlated to the considerable amount of scientific evidence that supports TRIMP. Furthermore, it uses a direct measure of intensity as the input on the impulse-response model of training adaptation.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"Predictor" might be a better term...although that hypothesis has yet to be directly tested (I have some data, but only from isopower sessions lasting 30-120 min).


By "60% of LT I assume you mean 60% of functional threshold power? If so, the TSS would be:

0.6^2 x 4 * 100 = 144

OTOH, a workout consisting of "{1 hour easy warmup with a few interval, 40km TT @ LT, easy 30 min cooldown}" would generate a TSS of ~100 from the 40 km TT alone, plus whatever additional TSS that was due to the other ~1.5 h. IOW, contrary to your assertion, the TSS values would be quite similar.


Try telling to, e.g., track cyclists who have found TSS to be quite valuable in their preparations.


Pure and utter nonsense.

I compared the relative weighting given to intensity vs. duration by TRIMP and TSS (and EPOC and Foster's session RPE approach) in a presentation I gave to UK Sport a couple of years ago. Interested parties can download the entire presentation here:

http://docs.google.com/...72f969qcds&hl=en

but the relevant figures are shown below:





The salient points are:

1) all methods proposed to date weight duration exactly the same way, and

2) compared to TRIMP, TSS places less emphasis on exercise intensity when it is very low, similar emphasis on intensity in the "aerobic range" (i.e., 60-100% of VO2max), and much more emphasis on intensity during supramaximal efforts (since heart rate based methods such as TRIMP or EPOC provide no "extra credit" for efforts requiring >100% of VO2max, and hence >100% of maximal heart rate). As such, the weighting place on intensity by TSS most closely resembles that of Foster's session RPE approach (although the two were developed entirely independently of one another).

Crazy analogy to what you mentioned seeing in the race splits... remember that old goofy comedian Gallagher? Remember his little skit talking about 'making love vs. sex?' He compared it to making quiche. I think he even had a bowl and a whisk (no eggs, fortunately!) and was whisking slowly & very precisely... Then he said "here's what men do: 'Quiche? F*ck that, I'm making scrambled eggs!" {then starts whisking rapidly...}.

I think you and I notice that a lot of triathletes enjoy making "scrambled eggs."

let me bottom line it: if you can run 100mi to 140mi a week, months on end, doing all your training at LT or above, and not break down, you don't need to do any base training. i've known a lot of great runners, and i've never known one who could do that. but if you can, or if anyone can, he or she should have at it.

as LT is around 85% of max HR more or less, and if your max HR is, say, 200bpm, then you're doing all your running -- all your running, all 3 runs a day, every day, every week, every month, month after month, at 170bpm or higher. this is what marius is saying, i take it.

now, i sympathize with marius when he says he thinks their "easy" runs are not easy, and so decides on his readers' behalf that even these are at LT. but there were times in my life when 5:45/mi pace was LT, and i suspect for many kenyans 4:45 pace is LT. i can imagine a kenyan thinking 6min/mile is "slow" just as i used to think 7min/mile was slow. but absent analyzing the blood lactate of these runners during their slow runs, i don't know how you can make that determination.

furthermore, the anecdotes that i've read talk about a lot of slow kenyan running, even on runs that do at some brief point later in the run touch LT.

nevertheless, i'm teachable. if it can be established to me that somebody can run a lot of volume, doing everything at 85% - 100% of max HR, and recover, month in and month out, never needing to go back and work on base, sign me up. i'll drink that koolaid.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I believe that is exactly what he is suggesting, and have bolded the statement from MarkyV's post. Not sure how his strides are prescribed, but it's not too taxing to venture into Daniels' R pace for short, well-spaced strides.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Note to self: increase training load.

Certainly agree. Its almost impossible to have these debates when we don't know precisely how everyone defines Hard, easy, etc.

I think it was on this forum where someone quoted Haile Gebreselaisse as saying he never runs easy. But elsewhere HG also describes running at 7:30 or so pace. I'm not going to argue with HG about how he perceives his exertion, but for someone who can run 4:40 miles for 26 in a row I consider over 7:00 minutes easy.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

I probably should have stated it was a good analogy, but the group it was provided for needed to have a little more phys b/f it could be understood. My fault.

But yes, your statements here are true, and the reason for a base to aid with recovery is spot on. But I guess the next question would be how much of a base is required?

---

http://www.reathcon.com

You wrote:
now, i sympathize with marius when he says he thinks their "easy" runs are not easy, and so decides on his readers' behalf that even these are at LT. but there were times in my life when 5:45/mi pace was LT, and i suspect for many kenyans 4:45 pace is LT. i can imagine a kenyan thinking 6min/mile is "slow" just as i used to think 7min/mile was slow. but absent analyzing the blood lactate of these runners during their slow runs, i don't know how you can make that determination.

I am not sure if you should feel sorry for Marius Bakken. Here you have his running record http://www.mariusbakken.com/index.php?parent=9&groupid=20
His personal record on 5000 meters is 13.06. 10 seconds faster than the fastest American in 2008.

I did not say that you just should run at the AT level, I said sub-AT. You can find the more technical approach here. http://www.mariusbakken.com/index.php?parent=13&groupid=16
I would say that runners like Grete Waitz, Ingrid Kristiansen and Marius Bakken from Norway, the English runners in the 80, Kenyans and Moroccans have been successful with that strategy.

A bit of evidence to back this up. A quote from Running Times (http://runningtimes.com/...aspx?ArticleID=12414)

"All Kenyan women, and Ndereba is a champion at this, adhere to the notion of running easy on the easy days. "On easy days, if you start pushing then the next day you cannot give 100 percent," says Olympian and 2:27 athlete Alice Chelangat. "And nowadays if you speed and it is not 100 percent, then you better say goodbye to have any chances to win races."
Running with Ndereba on an easy session you will find the pace does not creep any faster than 7 minute per mile--slow considering her 5:17 per-mile PR marathon pace. Catherine is easily able to run a hard session one day and the next morning come out and burn a 10-miler at 6-minute pace. But she does not, and therein lies a Kenyan secret to success. It's no different for most Kenyan men. Isaac Songok and Augustine Choge, for example, rarely break 8-minute pace on their easy runs."
For Ndereba, the long run, the meat of the program, is run at a slow clip. "Easy speed up to 22 to 23 miles maximum," she says. Five weeks prior to Osaka, she ran 7:30 pace for 23 miles. Tegla Loroupe ran under a similar program" I also recently got to sit next to an Ethiopian runner who'd just placed (2nd) in the Baltimore marathon while we were on a cross-country flight, and got to pick his brain on training. I was shocked to find that he ran most of this long runs only slightly faster than I was running mine (6:45). Even though he was racing a good 40 minutes faster. From all I can read, a very large percentage of elite African runners do a large percentage of their running at a *slow* pace. All year. Slow is relative, but I think 23 miles at 8:00 for an elite marathoner is the very defintion of LSD.

"I did not say that you just should run at the AT level, I said sub-AT"

what do you mean by sub-AT? do you mean, sub as in faster than AT? or sub as in with a lactate accumulation less than 4mM, which would be slower than AT?

when you talk about the various runners throughout history that you mention, of course one thing stands out. they're white. what the kenyans today, and the "english runners in the 80s," and you may as well also mention, with the english runners of the 80s, the irish, american, and kiwi runners of the 80s (because they were all in there together), is that they usually tended to run in enclaves. rather than bask at the feet of the kenyans, which many do, better to stand back and look at the more obvious truism: it's not how that run, it's that they run. if you take dozens or hundreds of runners, and you put them in the same place, at 7500', and give them coaches, and their activities are run in the morning; run in the middle of the day; run in the evening; and that's your sole focus, those runners are going to get good regardless of how they train, as long as they stay away from injury.

the reason americans were good in the 70s and early 80s is very simply this: we had enclaves. just on the west coast, as an example: where is athletics west, the west valley track club, the jamul toads, marin track club, the aggies, and all the clubs we used to have? where is the aggregation of hundreds, or thousands, of runners every summer at lake tahoe? we had enclaves all over the U.S., where all we thought about was running. we don't have that here anymore.

we used to have that in triathlon as well. we really don't have that now. my own view is that the "secret" of brett sutton isn't in the methodology, it's in the enclave. whether it's joel filliol's group, cole stewart's group, lance watson's group, it doesn't matter that much what you do, it's that there are a lot of world class athletes around you, pushing you, showing you what the bar is, doing it all with you.

the point of basework, at its best, is to make you fit enough and sturdy enough to be able to exist in that environment. the best athletes i know, and the best coaches for those athletes, have a relationship where the coach spends less time trying to get the athlete to work, and more time getting the athlete to throttle back. if you want to see the result of an enclave gone bad, look at many high powered division I cross country and track programs at american universities. how do you start with a dozen sub-9:10 two milers out of high school and only end up with two who can still run after a year? imho, that's what you get when you run too much quality, do no basework, and do not pay attention to rest and recovery.

i'm all for doing all the quality work you can. i really am. i love quality. in fact, i am in love with it, and that love affair has been my undoing. that's why i'm a volume advocate, and a basework advocate.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

...i'm all for doing all the quality work you can. i really am. i love quality. in fact, i am in love with it, and that love affair has been my undoing. that's why i'm a volume advocate, and a basework advocate.

The problem if someone dives into this thread and just skims through is that they are going to think that they can just start hammering and going moderately hard (if you just took a sampling of the posts). The problem is that 95% of the people reading ST are not likely running much more than 20 miles per week.

This is the big divide.

Most age grouper programs keep the "icing" out of the pro programs...hills, long runs, speedwork, tempo....and drop all the filler cause that's when you do bike and swim.....the problem is that age group programs in general are built upside down. They take all the 'quality workouts' from the pro program and throw aside the short mundane runs....all those 30-60 minute runs done at an aerobic pace, no where near LT. This is what most age groupers really need to focus on. Just get some durability so that you can make it through your triathlon run split without slowing down. Let's face it...go to your local tri and perhaps 4 people run 40 min 10K in an olympic tri and perhaps 10 people run sub 1:30....you don't need speed to do that...you just need to not slow down much.

Realistically, most age groupers have no business running long, running hills, running tempo, running track. Like slowman, we are all in love with quality, but have no business running quality cause we HAVE NO FRIGGIN BASE.

As MattinSF said...speedwork is icing on the cake....you have no cake. I think that pretty well summarizes everything that the bulk of age groupers needs to remember.

Over on the 100/100, we barely have 5% of the 550+ athletes registered running 40 miles per week. That's a joke. Not to belittle anyone's effort, but given the aspirations that I assure you most have, their work does not match the results they want!!!

I'll be the first to admit when I've made a mistake. So, I stand corrected on the TSS values of the two rides I submitted. They would be, as you said, similar. But, strictly speaking from a training perspective - i.e., how "hard" I perceive them to be and how long I "feel" it takes me to recover, I would say doing a one-hour TT (yes, at FTP; that's what I meant by LT, my apologies) is a significantly "harder" workout that requires a great deal longer to fully recover from. Now, perhaps there is not an accurate metric for that. And that's what I sense as being where TSS falls short.

Cyclists did well for a long time training just by "feel," then by heart-rate, and then by power. I would submit that, for example, training by HR can be a very valuable metric. You can get a lot of benefit out of it. But that doesn't mean it is optimal. So, yes, maybe track cyclists (or any number of other cyclists) have derived great benefit from tracking TSS. But does that mean there isn't something better out there? I.e., just because people get benefit from something, does that mean it is ideal?

Anyway, as Paulo pointed out, I did make some mistakes in what I wrote. I hope he will chime in. I think, admittedly, I chose a relatively poor example. Perhaps a better choice would have been something with substantially shorter duration intervals. I don't have CyclingPeaks on this laptop, which makes it harder for me to throw out some precise examples from my own training.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

MarkyV, I apologize if I just plained missed this, but I don't believe I've seen a rationale for your training approach in this thread.
allllllllllll day travel home. exhausted

rationale for training people this way? can you rephrase the question? maybe it's the red-eye with no sleep that's talking here. :)

I'm curious as to what your rationale is to the types of workouts you prescribe in the earlier phases.

but wouldn't that be giving out free advice?

there comes a point where, this being my bread, butter and bacon, till i can win prize money and broker better contracts and bonuses, that i will cease to divulge much beyond the macro view of the plan. i hardly make much as it is but i am doing what i love.

Is it getting them fast first, and then carrying that speed long? If so, do you do the same for sprint triathletes? Or do you have them go long first and then fast?

what i have learned is largely out there. i also have personal access to some incredible minds who teach me some awesome stuff. i also have my own personal experience from which to pull from. Mix it all up in a melting pot and you get "the way i coach" and to be honest... there are a lot of other guys out there who know what i know and waaaaay more in fact. But i pride myself on being able to get into the head of an athlete and play the mental game to get them to do things.

And if thats the case, is it 18 hours a week for both, but its only called long for the short course guys because their training gets cut down later, while the long course guys increase their training later?

there is no cookie cutter that says "this is the way it is" i honestly approach every single plan with a vague idea of what the grand scheme is and work towards that but in little bits and pieces of the here and now. it might sound like a contradiction but I am a forest guy... but also all about the "here and now" in other words... i fly by the seat of my pants using the knowledge that i have and apply it to the situation as i see fit and frankly it turns out pretty well. I guess that's what coaching is. Damn... I need a squad to play with! :)

Sorry to sound ignorant. I don't know what's in your head (so I won't be writing your biography any time soon ; ^ ).

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Free advice? I wasn't planning on following it anyway. I, too, have personal access to incredible minds. ; ^ )

I was able to discern the "what," I was just looking for a high level "why."

I'll dig through the thread and see if something pops out. Hope you feel better today.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

"It looks to me that the best runners never run slow."

You contradicted yourself in the following post "How the Young Kenyan Athletes are Training." At least 60% of their training is done at AT or below. That's a far cry from never. Unless you are calling "slow" significantly below AT. If so, then I stand corrected.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

we used to have that in triathlon as well. we really don't have that now. my own view is that the "secret" of brett sutton isn't in the methodology, it's in the enclave. whether it's joel filliol's group, cole stewart's group, lance watson's group, it doesn't matter that much what you do, it's that there are a lot of world class athletes around you, pushing you, showing you what the bar is, doing it all with you.

the best athletes i know, and the best coaches for those athletes, have a relationship where the coach spends less time trying to get the athlete to work, and more time getting the athlete to throttle back

Dan,

Bingo & Bingo

I agree 100% with both comments of yours. The squad or group training dynamic can be very powerful. Indeed, there are some who are true lone wolves - they can reach their best doing all their training on their own. However, I think that their are more who thrive in the group situation - both the weaker and the stronger. The pull and the push forces can be very strong.

I think it's a big problem in triathlon right now. Everyone seems to be on this custom, proprietary training program that they don't want to vary from, by one heartbeat or watt!! I am serious. You go out for a ride or a run with some dude and he spends more time watching the PM or the HRM and worrying about all the numbers. I am not saying the numbers are not important, they are - but at some point it's time to go beyond the numbers. You think the Kenyans are standing on the side of the track comparing Heart Rate numbers???

As to your second comment, that for me was the HUGE take-away from the flurry of Brett Sutton interviews last spring, that exactly no one else seemed to notice or comment on. Regarding Chrissie's training it was Sutton's job to tell her what NOT to do. It was about holding her back - that was his key role. He joked that he needed, "Strong biceps" to do this!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

"It looks to me that the best runners never run slow."

Not sure who said this in this long and winding thread, but it's part of the foolishness of the whole discussion. Again it's not an all this or that thing. At SOME POINT all runners have to run slow. You have to run slow before you run fast.

Kenyans ran slow when they were kids - supposedly to/from school each day. Although, having been to Kenya, I know most kids that go to school each day take a bus - but some do walk/run and that is the slow part of their running. They do that for 5 - 6 years as school kids and then when they start training seriously as teenagers in the various training groups, that's why they can do so much volume of running at AT or faster( the one real secret of Kenyan running). They didn't just start running from nothing and spend over half the runnning week at AT or above!! That would be next to impossible.

So it's the same for triathletes. It's not that complicated:

New to the sport and new to running - spend a good chunk of time running aerobically. Take your time and build up the volume slowly. It may take a few years.

Been around for a few years( 5+) with lot's of consistant miles under your belt with good bio-mechanics and no injuries. maybe run a marathon or two - spend more time running at AT and above.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I've read in many places and spoken to some who have trained with Kenyans (we have a small enclave outside the Philly area), and they *do*, even as adults, train VERY slow *sometimes.*

Re: Your reply to slowman. I said this earlier, I think probably THE most important aspect of training is dialing in the proper load...whether that be 50 mpw with lots of LT, 40 mpw with more speed, or 80 mpw with only a little intensity....they will all get you within 95% of your potential IF the over all load is correct.


BTW, I enlisted the help of Desert Dude last year and pretty much 90% of the advice was about holding me back. I came into my half marathon doing about 15 miles/wk less than I had planned and doing a whole lot less intensity. I PR'd.

EDIT: Oh, and that was the main theme in Bill Bowerman's biography.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Most of the "fast before far" coaches I've read are some variation of Daniels, who feels that R-pace training (i.e. 200s and 400s at mile race pace, full recovery) offers a better adjustment to the harder threshold (T-pace) and vo2 (I-pace) running that occurs later. Daniels feels that it helps build economy, improve mechanics, and prepare the muscles. OTOH, going from what Daniels calls the Foundation (i.e. "base") period directly into threshold & vo2 work would be stressing both the mechanical and aerobic systems at the same time.

Thoughts from Frank Shorter: http://www.active.com/...an_Frank_Shorter.htm

I'd be comfortable giving that advice to a newbie triathlete. As long as they are doing the conversational paced running 75 to 90% of the time, I'd let them go to the track from week one if they want.

So to summarize:

1) you don't really understand the concepts about which you offered your opinion, as evidenced, e.g., by the fact that Paulo and I both had to correct you;

2) despite the above, you remain convinced that there must be something better than TSS, because it just doesn't feel right to you; however

3) like everyone else, you are unable to point to/offer any alternative that has a sound physiological basis.

Alrighty then...

i think the two take-aways are these:

My simple, basic theory involves running very easily--at what I call conversational pace--75-90 percent of the time. Integrate short, fast interval training at 5k race pace if you want to run faster.

and

Finally, remember that the more consistent you are in your training, the less you must rely on a perfect training run every day.

frank shorter was not only a good marathoner. he was world class at 10,000m, and at 5000m, and during the indoor season he could even mix it up with george young and gerry lindgren at 2 miles. most importantly, tho, let's take a look at the stamina of his career. two olympic medals in the marathon, U.S. leader in the marathon five consecutive years in the 70s, and, in the top 3 nationally in 10,000m 11 consecutive years, including the entire decade of the 70s (U.S. leader in 6 of those years). for 9 consecutive years he was in the top-10 nationally in the 5000m.

if you want a long and fruitful career in triathlon, as a pro or an AGer, his is the sort of training regime that makes sense.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I can't speak for JD personally, but Id' always felt the same could be accomplished with lower effort T and I workouts. ie...to prepare yourself for a 20 minute T run at 5:45 pace, you can start off with 10 minutes of intervals at that pace, OR you could do 20 minutes at 6-6:15 pace.

What I gathered from his program was essentially, you need to train at all speeds. Adding an extra mile of T-pace will yield negligible results if that system is already well trained, while doing an extra mile to a system that is undertrained will yiled greater results. ie don't neglect anything. My football analogy is that an extra million on a QB isn't worth it if its at the expence of *completely* disregarding your 2nd string deffensive backs.

Okay, two bad analogies later, though you need to train at all speeds, save your race specifc speeds for later in your training as your races approach, therefore the stuff that gets left out later is done earlier.


That's one way to do it. The other that I've seen is to be generally fit year round as a distance runner. For a typical runner, this might be 8% at T pace, and 3% at I pace, 1% at R pace, and 88% at E pace. This would be done for *any* distance 3K -45K. Then, as your A race approaches, the training gets tailored to that specic event....lots of I & R if 3K, lots of E and T if longer.


And *THIS* is exactly why the term "general to specific" bugs me. These are two completely different philosophies, yet both will call them G2S.....and, as evidenced by two posters in this thread, and by a different poster in a former thread, people who are confused get mocked for being ignorant or stupid. Only the latter is a G2S training regime, if we are using the terms to mean what they actually mean. However, I'm starting to understand that most people who say G2S really mean opposite to specific.....or least important to most important....or, as I like to call it, doing the training that needs to be done when it needs to be done, finishing with race specific training.......or when talking about long course....wait for it......wait for it.........Reverse <traditional> Periodization (did you see how I stuck the word "traditional" in there?......Does this keep me off the ST shit list, or do I have to call it Reverse of the way people utilized Periodization in the 70s......TM. (big smilley)?)

This is why I was trying to get MarkyV to explain his rationale. Wasn't sure which philosphy he followed and why......still not sure.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485