It sounds like you are confused. I am assuming you are training for an Ironman and those are your key sessions. When raven posts about a key run session, it doesn't mean its building him for an IM, it's simply a benchmark session thats easily repeatable. But to think that long runs and rides are a thing of the past when training for an endurance event doesnt sense. Are longer repeats beneficial, of course they are. Doing them constantly and they become less beneficial. It's all about the blend, not focusing on extremes of, short or long... you need both. Long repeats can be thought of as race specific, but they are other metrics used to earn specificity of certain distances. Also, on the psychology side of endurance sports, people can build confidence from longer repeats and longer bricks off the bike. Don't do them all the time as that can create injury but it can build confidence. In your case of reducing volume and increasing intensity may help you for a bit, but its not strong enough to support long term growth/improvement. Or you're just becoming lazy and don't want to do the long stuff :)
BrentwoodTriGuy wrote:
Braden posted one of his "key" run workouts the other day and it was (to me) very refreshing. Super short intervals (3x400,400,800 @5k pace w/ long rest between all). I also heard Kienle's favorite workouts is short 400 intervals albeit he does something like 13 miles of 400 hard, 400 recovery.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get around to is.... for those of us who have been doing this sport for a while, is doing longer intervals and/or long runs becoming the way of the past? The longest run I've done in years (outside of a race) is 15 miles... I know this is typical now but I'm thinking even this run is pointless. I'd rather hit 12-13 with intervals on the track. And I mean, hearing of someone biking for an hour and then running 13-15 just seems wrong. Maybe I'm crazy.
Thoughts?
Inside The Big Ring: Podcast & Coaching