"It's very simple. You have to train more.

There isn't such a thing as "efficient" training. There isn't such a thing as "less can be more". In training, more is MORE. The single most important factor that improves performance is increasing training loads."

That, in a word, is bullshit.

So I'm confused; are you Paulo or the SAC? I seem to be seeing the SAC rear his ugly head again these days, but then Paulo chimes in as well.

In any case, I will add my own experience to agree with what you have said. As a cyclist, then a runner and then a triathlete, I was a low volume, high-intensity guy for years. I made incremental gains, but was most competitive the shorter the distance. Finally, a friend convinced me I was going about it all wrong. In four years of increasing volume, I have seen my times drop and overall placing increase. A deployment to Iraq last year caused a bit of a hiccup for the overall bike/run volume, but this year I am back on track and recent placings are faster than ever. If my swim wasn't so bad I would be right up there fighting for the lead.

Even the deployment to Iraq taught me a good lesson. I could run but had no bike, so I set a six month run volume PR and after about six weeks of speedwork at the end broke my PR for the mile from 10 years earlier in college. As the desert dude used to say on his signature, "there is no such thing as junk miles." The only training goals I set week to week and month to month are all related to overall volume. Day after day consistency is the key.

Chad

Thank God! And I was thinking about hiring a coach! Phew.. Glad you cleared that up...That'll save me some $! ;-)

I agree to a point. But, if someone is say over 70 mins for an IM swim. Don't you think that technique should be the primary focus ( i.e. probably balance issues). The increased load would come naturally from working on the technique.

Also to clarify. When you say increasing training loads you mean an ordered progression in Volume, Intensity and Frequency? Altough the most important component; not just volume, correct? :-)

Well, well, well...........some light seems to be creeping into that little cave of yours. :-) Perhaps a little over-simplification, but very well said. Things are looking up for you my friend.

Cheers, Scott

As a generalization, this is true.

But, if you fall into the trap of solely equating time/distance with training load, you're wrong.

A 1 hour bike ride filled with very hard intervals is a better workout than a 60 mile cruise.

A 2500 yd swim workout filled with hard intervals is a better workout than one set of 5 x 200s plus 1500 yds of slow drills and kicking.

As you say, the key is increasing the training load. Most triathletes waste lots of their training time working at too low an intensity. There actually is such a thing as efficient workouts.

Paulo,

What happened in Almere on the first lap of the bike with sergio ?

---

http://www.wimdedoncker.be

Well!

I knew it would post these thoughts here some day!

Time and experience changes people around the world.

Lets put it in a different way.

If you already do your training in decent scheduled plan including load and rest, then try to increase load if possible. But unfortunately, most of us cant just put more hours of training or increase load without increasing rest and therefore getting injured, so we turn out to do better instead of more.

Guess Paulo is writing for those few that can train and rest more!

;-)

By the way, my advice is keep improving your technique - as someone wrote once - it tells you how high your body and mind will take you.

Migalhas

It is somewhat obvious that more training is better. But thanks for pointing that out.

The problem most of us face with families, full time jobs, and other comitments is that we only have X number of hours to train a week. We'd like to do more but it is not possible without quitting our jobs, getting a divorce, or not knowing our children.

So the issue is how can we be as fast as possible with the limited training time we have available. This is where smart structured training can really make a big difference. Yes, you can be very successful in this sport with quite limited training hours but you need good technique, lots of intensity, low body fat and consistency. You may not reach your ultimate potential as you would with a high volume nothing else in your life aproach but you can do pretty well and still enjoy other things.

I"m kind of tired today, do you have a DVD I can order instead? ;-)

Well done dude,

You have just revealed a big piece of the puzzle, yet it is still so far from completing the puzzle. Keep trying though, your on the right track!



Paul

A 1 hour bike ride filled with very hard intervals is a better workout than a 60 mile cruise.

It is for a few weeks of the year when you are peaking for a key race, but the rest of the time, like 45 weeks a year, the 60-mile cruise is a far better option. Hard intervals will yeild results for about eight weeks. Aerobic training steadily increased will allow one to improve for years. Some people just don't have the patience for it.

Chad

Please explain how my brother and myself can both do what you are saying. We are very different. He gets very fast doing shorter workouts at a fast speed. When he trains long he seems to get slower and injured/sick. I do great at long Tempo stuff. Example if I do speed work for a few weeks I seem to always get an injury or a cold. He does well with a series of 30 mile rides, I do well with a series of 60-80 mile rides. He does well in crits I do well in time trials. We are even in sprint tri's. I always thought it was a individual thing. How would we both do what you are saying ? This is a serious question. I am not disputing what you say. Just want your opinion.

good question..

---

=====================================
S�rgio Marques
When it hurts is when it feels good ;-)
Sergio-Marques.com

Training Load = Volume, Intensity and Frequency. Not just Volume.

People have different responses to the components of the training load. That's way a good coach can help you dole out the proper percentages of each component to help you maximize your performance. That's were the "art" takes over from the science. :-)

It IS simple, and so seemingly obvious, but it is clear that the ignorant masses just won't listen.

Keep trying. I always enjoy your posts.

---

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

roady - You might not like what Paulo has to say, or the way he delivers it... but its the truth. I just think people don't want to hear this. No Easy Way!

---

http://j-motrilife.blogspot.com/

To follow up on what Trevor said, this IS where the "art of coaching" comes in to play.

It would be impossible to answer your question without seeing your training schedules, race performances, and to make changes and observe the results.

Every individual has a redline where they break down. Your goal is to figure out where it is and how to stay just below it....and, more importantly, how to increase that redline. This encompases total miles/hours of training, number of workouts, intensity of workouts, length of workouts, and length of each phase of training.

The most effective way to improve performance is to continualy increase your body's capabilities in each of these facets of training.

---

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

It's not bullshit, it just requires an appreciation that 'increasing training loads' isn't simply the same as 'logging more hours'. I do agree that Paulo's comments here lend themselves to a 'longer is better interpretation', but I don't think that's quite what he's actually saying.

I do have one thought though about the idea that one training programme is more efficient than another. For example: for an athlete capapble of riding at such speeds, which ride is more efficient in terms of time management and recovery. The 100-mile ride done in 5hrs (20mph) or the 100-mile ride done in 4hrs (25mph)? The two rides will probably burn similar total numbers of calories, (though the longer may burn more fat and less glucose/glycogen). They're both sub 'FT' efforts (though the 4hr is closer to 'FT' and therefore likely to provide more of the Dr AC-style bang for buck), and while the 4hr ride is likely to leave you feeling more tired immediately afterwards, it also gives an extra 60 minutes of recovery time. Assume that 100 is the longest/hardest ride of the week and place that session in a high-load programme with an easier training day the next day, and that extra hour saved by riding harder can become an hour of extra sleep that has to be worth having.

just a thought...

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

break out the JFT kit

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Thanks Gordo. Does eating Paleo help too?

Yes but it's necessarily also nebulous, which doesn't really help anyone who doesn't get it, and those who do probably don't need reminding.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

you are a smart man! you just wanna overtrain everybody ;)

What?! No squats?!?!? You're crazy...

---

-----------------------------------------------------