Thanks Paul. But again I'll ask, do any elites do this?



I appreciate your testimonial and hope that you did, in fact, get good results from this training. Unfortunately, I don't know you and haven't seen your training first hand, so I can only glean so much from what you say (please take no offense). I have had personal experiences with many people who have drawn very incorrect conclusions from their experience. ie someone who runs slower off of a "run only" marathon training program than she did off of tri training draws the conclusion that tri training is better for marathons (shhh.....don't let the Kenyans hear about this ; ). I personaly witnessed her "marathon training" which was just all wrong. She pretty much did everything she could to ruin her marathon. At the same time, she set a 2 mile PR (gee.....imagine that with all those hard intervals she was running during her "marathon training").

---

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

yes, but generally more with the swim. only way that some of the world cup types can get their swim up to par if they don't have the background.

BarryP, I remember talking to Thomas Hellriegel at World Military Games Triathlon 1995 (which he won, ahead of Dmitri Gaag, Olivier Marceau and Norman Stadler). He told me that in the winter in German, he piled on the run miles and swim miles. Then he would fly out to Lanzarote a couple of times in the winter put aside the googles and running shoes and execute the famous Hellriegel "bike till you drop" weeks.

So to answer your question, while my sample size is N=1, at least Hellriegel did do this and he did win Kona 2 years later (after two silvers in 96 and 95 to Luc Van Leirde and Allen), so perhaps he was on to something...Hellriegel may have won Kona 3 times but had the misfortune of racing likely the two greatest performances of all time (Allen coming back from a 13 min deficit on the run with a 2:40) and LVL running 2:42 to Hellriegel's 2:46 in 1996 both beating the previous 8:07 course record.

"It's not about the run......it's about *everything* and striking the right balance based on your own individual needs and background"

That's why I said too many people look at the triathlon running in a silo by itself. And that's why I keep saying "however you do it" in these posts, because for some the route to a faster run will be about more cycling. For some it will be about more rational pacing on the bike. For some it will be about more running . . and so on. I will continue to emphasis the importance of the run for two main reasons:

1. It's last, so in a competitive and close race, it will come down to the run

2. For the most part, and I apologize for painting with a broad brush, but triathletes are not running that fast, so right now BIG improvemnts can come in performance with small increases in run performance - However you do that!

"I think "focusing" on the run may not be a bad idea for some but to ONLY run for several months?? Not even one swim and one ride a week? Do any elites do this?"

I think that part of the problem is that people tend to look to short term. If I do these workouts now or follow this protocol now how will that help me two months from now. A single sport focus will always be helpful, particularly if that sport is identified as a limiter or it's imprtant to overall performance. People are paranoid that the other two sports will go to pot, but a basic maitenace program will maintain decent fitness and you can get back to former levels fairly quickly after a return to a more balanced program.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

"I have had personal experiences with many people who have drawn very incorrect conclusions from their experience. ie someone who runs slower off of a "run only" marathon training program than she did off of tri training draws the conclusion that tri training is better for marathons"

With all due respect, this is absurd - but it still happens frequently. Part of the problem is that too many people chose the marathon to focus on if they are going to focus just on running. Actually the better event would be the 10K. If they did it RIGHT, they would work all the key systems that would substantially improve their running over the short tetm and the long term and most importantly at a range of paces. Training for a marathon is a great thing to do, but for many they just continue to reinforce that grind-along-shuffling style OR they do what your friend did working the other end of the end spectrum.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

"in a silo by itself"

That's the problem with this entire thread. Some folks are trying to answer the question in a stovepipe, reducing the generalization to just one or a few variables.

Two things occur to me while reading this thread:

1) "Most" AGers' current programs, if they even have a structured program, will probably fail through injury, burnout, or imbalance with the addition of intervals. (I hesitated to use 'Most', but decided to use Dev's choice of words in the original question.).

However...

2) That DOES NOT support any argument that run intervals are useless for AGers, despite the protestations of several here. Ignorance does not validate/invalidate something. That's why Paulo blasts away with "n=1".

It's impossible to give a specific answer to this generalized question.

"It's impossible to give a specific answer to this generalized question."

Again, that's why I say "However you do it" it's important to improve the run and get it as fast and as strong as you can. So agree, it's not about blanket statments of running more, cycling more, running more hills, running less, more intervals, pacing etc . . . It's all of that and then applied to each athletes situation and individual needs.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Tribriguy, while Paolo blasts the n=1 sample size, I was just going off IMNA results sheets which show 85% of age groupers running slower than 4 hours (9 min miles). This constitutes "most age groupers". But yes, each situation is individual.

I just see too many friends doing 13+ hour Ironman's "wasting" their training "matches" doing run intervals and then shuffling 10K in 1 hour and then walk-shuffling the remaining 32K. What good were all those 7 min mile repeats? For the record, I do support Fleck's view of a run focused period and doing intervals during that time to jack up leg speed etc...its just too hard to pull it off during Ironman build...thus the attraction of the Mitch Gold approach, which seems to be very common sense based.

Dove,

I love it how you try to validate your "training advice" with race results of people you know nothing about how they train.

Hey, its a thread about nothing. Quite contributing to the nonesense :-). I know many in the >4 hour Ironman camp (including myself at times....n=1) and have trained with them closely and seen lots of what worked and lots of what was not neccessary. Just cause I am not a coach, does not mean that I cannot observe. I've been around this sport a lot longer than you and worked and mentored many. You'd be surprised how large my sample size is :-)

Uh oh, this thread is degenerating into a typical ST "my sample size is larger than yours" pissing match.... ;-)



My, that's a large sample size you've got there!

Why thank you, it's given me a new shot of confidence, and the Mrs is pretty happy about it too ;-)

---

float , hammer , and jog

No it's not... the difference here is between the manufacturer of the samples and the people that taste them at supermarkets ;-)

Damn, I got sucked in...OK, sample size of n=1. It fits nicely into most trisuits, even those little Euro speedos...

"show 85% of age groupers running slower than 4 hours (9 min miles)."

And there is nothing about that fact that substantively informs us relative to your question. Too many unknowns in that information to draw the conclusion you and others have drawn.



The problem with considering intervals, or any other training is that too many people add training protocols like they add ingredients when they cook. "Hmmmm...I like garlic...garlic is good...Emeril uses tons of it...let me add a lot of it...that will be fabulous"...without having a clue how garlic interacts with the rest of the stuff in the pot or why they are even adding it. The results are bound to be mediocre at best.

Barry,

It's not. But this is the sport where there are still a lot of people that think that age-groupers should do more training than the elites because their race duration is longer. The "rationale" is something like 'Elites run their marathon for 3 hours so it's OK for them to run long for just 2:30h, now I will take 4 hours, so I need to run 3:30h". This concept is absolutely idiotic but it's being practiced everyday.

Ironman running isn't fast running for ANYONE. I might have an athlete do mile-repeats for 5:10 while his race pace is going to be 6:30, the same way I can have an athlete do mile-repeats for 6:45 when his race pace is going to be 8min/mi. And why? Because doing threshold work is one of the most effective ways to raise your LT, which is an important variable for ANYONE.

The problem with considering intervals, or any other training is that too many people add training protocols like they add ingredients when they cook. "Hmmmm...I like garlic...garlic is good...Emeril uses tons of it...let me add a lot of it...that will be fabulous"...without having a clue how garlic interacts with the rest of the stuff in the pot or why they are even adding it. The results are bound to be mediocre at best.
*****************

Well put!

One of the aspects of this forum (of which I am fairly new) that I have been really disapointed with is the lack science and physiology in the discussions.....which is why I was so pressing before to know exactly what kind of evidence one can give me to support their claims. I'm sure I am guilty of the same, but try my best to show how I can support my statements and freely invite critique.

Developing an understanding of endurance training is key. In the beginning of Martin and Coe's chapter on periodization, he talks about how one should always ask the questions "who, what, why, when, and where" before embarking on any training regimine. It seems that many never get past the "what."

Throughout this whole discussion I can't help but think that this advice can't possibly apply to someone who can run a 10K in 33 but rides a flat 40K in 66 (ahem....me). But wait.....now we can begin the drop everything and ride for 6 months.....no, spend all your time in the pool, ....no, focus on your strength....., no the swim is more important because you don't want to be tired after it......, no you'll spend more time on the bike and a bad bike can ruin your run, .......no, the run is last and that's where it is the most competetive....um.....thread.

Any of this advice is fine.....but back it up!!! Who has done this? Why did they do it? What was their background? How many others feel the same? What led you to this conclusion? Why would it apply to me?

---

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

Thanks. This makes sense and reinforces my understanding of how specific training ties in to the IM "plan."

---

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

For the record, I do support Fleck's view of a run focused period and doing intervals during that time to jack up leg speed etc...its just too hard to pull it off during Ironman build...thus the attraction of the Mitch Gold approach, which seems to be very common sense based.

******************

Just curious, maybe there's been some confusion but I don't think Mitch ever advocated a "run focused" period (and especialy not a "run only" period).



From Mitch:

---

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

I'll just throw in one tidbit that has been bugging me. Doing intervals/fast paced stuff doesn't have to shell you and require an extended recovery. I don't see any reason why a reasonable intensity during intervals wouldn't leave you perfectly able to swim, bike, or do an easy run the next day.

If you can't swim, bike, or run easy the next day perhaps you are using too much intensity in the interval sessions.

Given my point, there is no reason NOT to do intervals because there is no trade-off. You can accomplish all the goals of frequency/volume running and biking WHILE doing intervals. Just don't go so damn hard that you need a stretcher to get home afterwards.

An even simpler point:

There is no reason NOT to run fast if you can recover from it and do the rest of your scheduled workouts.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

[reply] Part of the problem is that too many people chose the marathon to focus on if they are going to focus just on running. Actually the better event would be the 10K. If they did it RIGHT, they would work all the key systems that would substantially improve their running over the short tetm and the long term and most importantly at a range of paces.
Fleck[/reply]

Absolutely right. The key to a good marathon is a couple of years (or more) of working on a good 10k..

[reply]
NO, it applies to all athletes.
I've had one athlete that is a good runner be unable to run 8 weeks before an IM and on race day pull a 3:20. To you this validates your "theory", to me it tells me that with actual running training that athlete could have gone close to 3hours.[/reply]

well, I disagree. Our "theories" have essentially the same justification - our personal experience and reading - since there are no published studies I'm aware of. My database is based on over 30 years of competitive running and all the runners I've known along the way (a fairly large number, given the club-based system in S. Africa). Your database is based mostly on younger triathletes. It's not surprising we have different perspectives..

I can't say one way or another whether you have a point or not. I can say, however, that it is unrelated to the particular case I was refering to.

This particular person had done many marathons before, yet mostly done off of tri traing. For this one she decided to ditch everything and just run. This is NOT a bad plan for a good marathon performance. After all, it is what EVERY good marathoner does. However, from my observation, she did just about everything wrong in her training possible. In the end, she did very well in shorter races (even though marathoners particularly get slower in shorter races when training for a marathon) and did worse in her marathon than she had in her previous 4. If I could have bet in Vegas, this was exactly what I would have bet on.

My whole point was the poor lesson that she learned from her training. Instead of concluding that, perhaps, she should have focused more on training volume, the long run, and LT training and a whloe lot less on hammering intervals FASTER than 5K pace every week for 20 weeks straight!.....instead of that, she concluded that the addition of cycling and swimming will help her marathon (even though marathoners don't do this) because her previous marathons were faster.

So.......MY point was that these threads get bogged down not only with anecdotes of n=1 sample size experiences, but also just completely wrong conclusions drawn and specious arguments given.

---

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

- I didn't realize you were a coach with 30 years of experience. That makes me wonder even more why we have different views on the subject.

- Was this a discussion about masters athletes? If it was, I missed that part.

Barry,

You think the right way, and if you're already a running coach, you'll have no problem being a triathlon coach. It's all the same, swim, bike, running, horses, dogs, humans.

   





Ha! When I was a teacher I said the same about behavioural psychology!

Thanks for the compliment......and if I still have your attention, can you answer me this question:

From my understanding, there is little transfer of.....lets call it "aerobic endurance" .....and LT between the disciplines. ie....running all year will not develop capilaries or mitochondria in my lats, thus little transfer to my swimming.

What about glycogen stores? Are they not also muscle cell specific?

The reason I ask is I hve noticed a dramatic increase in my long run pace this year despite the decrease in total running volume due to multisport training. My running partner's initial theory was that my 5-6 hour bike rides may have built up large amounts of glycogen stores......he specificaly pointed to the fact that I was finishing strong when I used to fall apart at the end of a run.

I originaly bought the idea........but now I'm leaning more toward the idea that I'm going into my long run on fresh running legs and this is why I'm able to handle a higher pace........of course it could just be that I'm getting faster compared to last year because my running experience is last year +1 (and considering I came out of retirement just a few years ago, it is significant).

---

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