first of all, triathlon training is not so novel that it can be considered some entirely different discipline, even if does require some changes from single sport training. so i'm not really interested in what a "then gen" did if all you're really saying is that they ignored existing "traditional" knowledge about training for swimming, biking and running. that would just make them stupid, or machochistic, or both. but ... i don't think they did, and in addition, when modern triathlon started, there was *plenty* of exercise physiology information available for the 3 disciplines. hell, long before it started, actually. that fact that we have more information now doesn't help a lot (c.f. "half of what we've taught you is wrong, but we don't know which half"). your claim seems to be "yeah, we're not much faster at the top end, but the athletes are cleaner and more people can get close to those times". i have no opinion on the "cleaner" part, but the more people part seems predicted by simple participation increases. so bluntly, i don't think you have any evidence whatsoever that exercise physiology is helping people train better, and certainly not at the podium-targetting end of the sport.

my "lot of words" could be summarized quickly as "your innovation is going to be someone else's dead weight of tradition, so how about a little more respect for the equally innovation-inspired people that came before you?"

the innovate vs. vegitate phrase is targeted at those who, upon reaching some level of experience, refuse to further participate in the learning process or fail to acknowledge or utilize the new advances being made.

Eternal education is a good thing.

i respect those that come before me... up until the point that they refuse to acknowledge the new evidence that comes forth. If the proof is there... do not deny it.

---

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

Time To Rethink Your Marathon Training Program?

To some extent I think you and slowman are in agreement on the running front.

I really think you need, in this case to defer to the other generation and the one before and before and before. He all pretty well know what too much high intensity running cumulatively does to the athlete over time. Slowman is not going to be able to walk out the door and do the 10x400 at 62 seconds today, and i doubt that Simon Lessing can go out and do it today in 68 second (you can go ask him down the street), although he could in the past.

Slowman is trying to protect us from our own stupidity of youth so that when we hit 50+, we can still run and hopefully run fast.

And yes, we do need base work in cycling too...the question is how much and in what doses. Not that hard to get patellar tendonitis with too much too fast too soon. This is why I no longer ever cold cold turnkey on the bike as I did in my youth (just ran and XC skied all winter). Now I bike and swim at least once a week so I can get back into my other tri sports much more quickly without blowing body parts (and that usually happens when your aerobic engine exceeds the structural integrity of your chassis....which you likely already know about on the run front) :-)

Dev

This one I can understand.

I think people are being too one sided here. Either long and slow or short and fast. I don't see those as mutually exclusive. When training, any type of training, but especially endurance training we need to think about two things. (well many more but 2 very important things in regards to this thread). 1. Specificity 2. recovery
Now, I do agree that a more trained athlete after years and years of training needs to focus less on basework in the traditional sense. why, because as they hopefully get faster that so called "traditional basework" is less and less specific to their actual races. they also have the added benefit of year and years of basework under them. what's the real goal of basework anyway. to get you to a certain fitness level where you no longer are overreaching to train harder. and to allow you to recover faster and more completely from those harder efforts. so, generally, someone who has a larger "base" will recover faster than someone who doesn't. the simple fact of the matter is that in order to race fast you have to train fast. not all out, not zone 4,5 101 or whatever lable you place on it, but harder than just getting out the door for some really long easy workouts. however, the sport of triathlon is unique in that it is made up of 3 different sports which allow us to manipulate exactly where those harder efforts come and where those longer easier efforts come. both are crucial to success but sole focus on one while leaving the other out is, in my opinion and i may be completely wrong, going to leave something VERY important out of your training hand subsequent racing

Then, enlighten, just a little bit? Seriously, the classic "principle of specificity" says little more than you have to run to get better at running. The only progression I see in what you've written is training the the "long" to "race specific" distances later in the season. But that's an entirely different meaning. And progression of distance from short to long isn't training from "general" to "specific." It's....short to long.

we've got two gens now in tri... the "then gen" who applied the throw eggs at a wall approach... and the "now gen" who, with the help of ex phys, has a better idea about how to fine tune the system

Mark,

This is a valid comment and since I am from that "Then Gen", while no where near the level of the greats mentioned in this thread, I can honestly say that we really had no idea of what we were doing back then. We bolted it together in a hodge-podge way and what is strange and remarkable is that the results of the top people, where not far off, or better in some instances, than what's being done today. We swam with swimmers. We cycled with serious cyclists and we ran with real runners. We kinda made it up as we went along with a bit of a eye on a few races at the end of the summer.

Was it the right way? I am not really sure. My sense, with a lot more perspective and experience now, is that their is no one right way. Their is going to be some variability from athlete to athlete and also variation within an athletes career and what their back-ground is.

Anecdotally, I found that as I got older going from my 20's to my 30's and now well into my 40's, I could train less and still get the same results - in all three sports. I attributed this to the huge base of aerobic training that I had built up over 10, 15 and 20+ years of training at a modestly high level. Quite frankly, I think that I can still make withdrawls from that aerobic bank account when I need to - and now it's laughable the "training" that I do.

A common mistake is putting each year of training into a silo, and not realizing that one years training can affect the next years and even the year after that - assuming minimal time off and down-time.

My one comment about the current generation of IM athletes, and I may have no idea of what I am talking about, but I will say it any way, is that they race at the IM distance too much. I know that the race schedule and the money structure almost forces them to do this. And I know that their will be people who will say, "well look at Hillary Biscay, or Joe Bonness or Bella Comerford". They are exceptions cause I think they are recovery freaks! I figure, an athlete has one and maye two, at the absolute most, really good IM races in them per year. The better part of the year should be spent racing shorter distances - Olympic and HalfIM's. Look at world class marathon runners - they rarely run more than two marathons/year. Typically it's one in the spring and one in the fall. The rest of the year they race 5K up to 1/2 Marathon.

Interesting discussion that I am sure will go on and on and on and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sort of like an IM race does! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Seconded... Try these http://www.ianbetts.com/mixes

More of a radio show.. but good. I listen to them while working.

I have a HUGE library of essential mixes... close to 15Gb worth I'm guessing.
Plus a few Tiesto albums.

Last night on the treadmill: Armin Van Buuren and Judge Jules - Trance Energy 2006
I was crushing my intervals. :-)

Dude, it is called "reverse periodization"! Get with the program would ya ;-)

---

Jorge Martinez
Head Coach - Sports Science
E3 Training Solutions, LLC
@CoachJorgeM

"We are in agreement on the running thing. Durability comes first! That is a given. I would not advocate any sort of intensity before that is firmly established"

i'm glad to hear that. it sounds like we're coming together.

"Does not MA hold the record for the Carlsbad 5k by a triathlete? Did he not then race the USTS tri series throughout the summer... only once that was completed did he up the volume (and decrease the intensity of the program) to get ready for IM Kona?"

i think i explained this a bit in the very article that started off this discussion. if not, it was in an article just prior to that (i don't remember). in the old days -- this would've been before your balls dropped -- the world was a different place. the sahara was tropical, great glaciers covered europe, the celts were colonizing sicily, a great land bridge enabled migration to north america, and the racing season was much different than it now is.

there were two seasons, you might say. everything led up to zofingen. that was the other big enchilada, and it took place in may. there was no boulder. there couldn't be a boulder, because january and february were big base months. for the germans, that didn't start until february. doing base work does not mean you're training yourself to be slow. at least not in running and cycling. if you've been fast afoot, base will bring your old footspeed back. that's why mark was able to run 14:35 after a couple of months of base. additional speed training will take you to a new level.

plus, sifted in there were tempo runs. it wasn't all 7 minute miles for two or three consecutive months. we used to do the "tuesday run" back then, and you could count on a fast 12 mile tempo run with 200 of your closest friends; but even mark took those runs carefully (he rarely "won" them in the early season, tho he always could've).

kenny glah, scott tinley, ray browning, and a few others, had to get fit even earlier, to go to IMNZ. but you did that race entirely off base. the rest of the world prepped for zofingen, and it wasn't until 6 or 8 weeks out from that race that you really had to do any speed. after zofingen some folks tried as best they could to maintain fitness and recover from that beast of a race to do nice, which the was in june. most hunkered down until IM germany (roth at the time) in july, or even later.

in august, the preparation for kona started again, with more base, but less than was required after a winter of taking it relatively easy, because in august you were still already very fit.

now, this winter san diego environment was not necessarily good for everyone. mark knew, for example, when and how to throttle back during the tuesday run, and the wednesday ride, and so forth, because it was going to be a long season. others, like jeff devlin, i think this enclave environment got him too fit too fast. so after a year or two he stopped wintering in san diego. and you could see, back then, certain athletes -- brad kearns and andrew macnaughton -- lighting it up in the early season, but they weren't there in the late season, when mark was there.

and this is my answer to speedwork on the bike. you're right, you're less likely to be injured on the bike than on the run, tho i think you might be minimizing the risk of damage to patellar tendons, IT bands, hamstring insertions. but that aside, i think it would be instructive to inquire of the best athletes of that era. about periodization; how time off helps accrue additional ability from year to year; how to keep the flame burning hot instead of out; and to burn hot at the right time; and how not to overtrain, and to stave off long-term endemic overtraining. i think it would be instructive to ask welchie, huddle and tinley about how an athlete should use the tool of intensity. speedwork is like a chainsaw. it's powerful, it's going to cut someone, you might be that someone, and it runs out of gas quick.

"Did he not then race the USTS tri series throughout the summer"

yes. and he never won the race he wanted to win most until he stopped doing that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That's all very well, but the real question is who's your favourite trance dj?

"That's all very well, but the real question is who's your favourite trance dj?"

willy nelson

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It is 7:36 AM PST...don't you need an espresso and then head out with your dogs for a maximum aerobic effort run...go build that base old guy!!!!

"It is 7:36 AM PST...don't you need an espresso and then head out with your dogs for a maximum aerobic effort run...go build that base old guy!"

you betcha. i'll be out on the bike today, but it's sort of a business meeting on wheels with a major component manufacturer. i'll be building base. he'll probably think he's wasting his time.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Quit posting on ST and go train....you're eating into training time!!!

"you're eating into training time!!!"

no, i'm reading about training during eating time.

oatmeal. then the big dog walk with monty and the 8 bad behavors. then horse feeding and horse poop pickup (which the dogs help with). then training time.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You wrote:
Generally speaking, the structure of periodization for endurance athletes has started to change a great deal. I wish I could recall the article, but if someone has a link, that'd be super. It talks about Kenyan marathoners, and the reorganization of the classical "pyramid" periodization plan with the "strength" phase coming earlier in the year. I think a common misconception is that strength and speed are the same thing when it comes to training.

Maybe not the correct link, but I think you will find this article interesting.

The Kenyan secret comes from years of training at the right intensity – and a few years with harder track work. Most Europeans and Americans tend to start in the other end. At very low (and slow !) mileage they do these hard track sessions that simply kill the little endurance they have from the beginning of. The result is 15 minute 5000 m. runners training 14 sessions a week. My dramatic improvement from running 3.48 in the 1500 m/8.13 in the 3000 m. to 7.47 in the 3000/13.22 in the 5000 m. over under a year came from this LT training. I copied the Kenyan way of training, using lactic acid meters to monitor it closely in the beginning (see seperate article on “practical guide to training the Kenyan way”), and the results started to come after only 4 months of this LT training. Before that, I was still working very hard, but just focusing on the wrong things, such as killing track-workouts and no real LT endurance base. Now I balance both LT work and track sessions (that are comfortably hard). Just like the Kenyans and the Moroccans.
http://www.mariusbakken.com/...nt=13&groupid=15


More on Kenyan and Moroccans training here
http://www.mariusbakken.com/...ent=0&groupid=11

Too many posts to reply to, so I'll go for this one since it was directed at what I wrote.

In general, we are talking about slowtwitch, and I believe that most on this site can agree that it is far from the lowest common denominator or that it might be the 'hard-asses' as you say and are generally not your typical triathlete. In talking about the 'average triathlete' I am talking more about the lower common denominator than your typical slowtwitch poster.

Time nor patience. For swimming, no I'm not willing to leave it there. I told another local pro here in Austin that the reason I thought that some of the faster pro swimmers in triathlon tanked on the run (IM) is because they were able to swam fast on low yardage. So, you can easily apply that to your 'average triathlete' and tell them that they need to swim more to run faster. And bike more to run faster. More being, as rappstar said in his post, more load and there are 2 ways to go about that...harder or longer. I am not disagreeing with you, especially on the running aspect. I would rather see an athlete maintain their swim and bike in the off-season, train like they are going to run a marathon if running is their weakness, but not actually run the dang thing. The problem with triathletes is that they do end up running the marathon and then are shot for a month. The program might not be an every day run like the challenge, but the would go from 3 runs a week to 5 runs a week. The difficultly is in convincing said athlete that this is what they need. Of course, if they are paying you, then the convincing 'should' be easier.

Cycling example. I was thinking about this after posting what I posted, and I remembered the article about effort and cadence. I think that it went something like if your best 1 hour effort is 95rpm and your 1/2 IM effort is 90% of that, then you should ride about 86rpm, and if your IM effort is 75% of that, then you should ride about 72rpm or so. Or at least something to that effect. But, this is something that a lot of 'coaches', especially those with higher degrees seem to have a problem with or those who are steeped in cycling lore without too much triathlon specific experience be it coaching or racing. If you need to somehow find a 1000+ watt spring at the end of 5 hours, it helps to have your legs turning at 95+rpm rather than 70.

So, in general we are more on the same page. But, I think that it's the bike where most who 'disagree' with your position tend to disagree. There seems to be a fair amount of back pedaling going on here. If you've got 30 hours to do it in, running slow and biking slow can make sense, especially when looking long term be it a season or 20 seasons. If you've only got 8-12, then running more frequency and volume at a slower pace AND biking a little bit harder than you might normally is a good way to kind of kill 2 birds with one stone. You are building durability on the run, hidden speed on the run b/c as you say it won't take much to bring it out, and maintaining or gaining fitness on the bike. And either way you look at it, I doubt that many will disagree that a cooling down period of 2-8 weeks of light training or conditioning between seasons is a good thing.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Apparently. ;-)

I reviewed the evidence that training reduces carbohydrate oxidation and increases fat oxidation even at the same relative intensity in my criticism of Brooks' "crossover concept" (which I'm happy to note seems to have faded from the scene as quickly as it appeared, which as it should be):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Of course, that was a few years ago, and a few more studies have appeared since, e.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

(Yeah, the P was only <0.10 and not <0.05, but then again, the subjects only trained for 4 wk.)

Even if the above were not true, however, why would it matter, at least re. my statement? It is, after all, an absolute world, and an unchanged RER at the same percentage of VO2max after vs. before training indicates that the rate of fat oxidation is higher after training (since VO2max, and hence submaximal VO2, is higher).

I reviewed the evidence that training reduces carbohydrate oxidation and increases fat oxidation even at the same relative intensity in my criticism of Brooks' "crossover concept" (which I'm happy to note seems to have faded from the scene as quickly as it appeared, which as it should be):

Dr A,

So this whole concept of manipulating and modulating substrate utilization through diet and lower intensitry training, like you would turn dials on a stero, ala Maffetone et al, is once and for all bogus.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that at one time Zofingen was on par with Kona in terms of attracting a top pro field? Wow, I had no idea! I knew that a lot of great pros had done the race over the years, but not that it attracted them in big numbers.

I did the race a couple of years ago and while there were a few very fast pros there, the depth of the pro field was nowhere near what you get at Kona. It seems like it's almost exclusively a race for specialist duathletes these days. That said, the year I raced Koen Maris set a course record and Benny Vansteelant DNF'd trying to keep up with him. Erika Csomor has dominated the women's race for a number of years. It seems a shame that the race isn't what it was. What happened?

Just a little perspective on the running side of this debate:

Arthur Lydiard is the man who, in the running world, is credited with truly showing the benefits of a base-building approach with periodization. Some would say he invented it. (I personally think most modern coaching theory is just footnotes to Lydiard.) As many of you know, he produced world record holders and Olympic Champions in distances down to 800 meters by having his athletes periodize with a long base-building period. Peter Snell is the prime example.

Anyway what many of you might NOT know is that Lydiard used to always bristle at the notion that his system involved anything resembling "LSD". He hated that term. Joe Henderson -- who truly did popularize the notion of LSD and mistakenly interpreted Lydiard as advocating it -- tells a funny story of meeting Lydiard one time and getting chewed out by him as a result. As Lydiard put it (practically spitting out the words in contempt)

"My athletes do NOT run slow. They go as fast as they can without going into oxygen debt. And they do NOT run long all the time, but only during the endurance-building phase that lasts less than three months"