ahhh to be a swimmer when just about every session was hard.

Most agers out of the top 100 or so don't have the aerobic capacity to race an IM. They have the ability to go for 10-14 hours at easy ride run pace. If they tried to bump it up welcome to the land of crash and burn. To stay aerobic and still race a race that long requires a HUGE base. It's like putting money in the bank. The bigger the base the better you can possibly do. Once you are to the point of racing an IM then the avg AGer should worry about speed, IMO.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Slick,

My main questions would be 1) How many years at 10-15+? Did you do bigger volume before? Seems that you need the big base - and once established - you could drop down in hours - improve quality and still improve/be fast. Do you have a big base?

Can you take an average decent triathlete (say racing olympics or half IM's on 7-10 hours of training) - have him do 10-15 hours/week for a year or 2 and then go top 20 at an IM? I doubt it. I wish I could do that....

Dave

My first IM (and first triathlon) was IMLP in 2001. I had a seperated shoulder 3 months before the race and a cascade of injuries resulting from that resulting in a 10 month layoff from any running. Since that time I've been training steadily at 10-15hrs per week and have qualified for Hawaii 3 times.

I am surprised by the hours so many of the posters on this forum train. I just don't have the time nor do I want to take that much time. I wonder if some of the training hours people report here are somewhat exagerated. Averaging 20-30hrs a week would be impossible for me and I would stop enjoying the sport.

I don't know about top twenty. Your getting in with some pretty fast company there. I wonder if my 27th will be my best placing as I'll be 41 next year. Then again I've been getting faster every year so why set a limit.

wow.

what was your background before you started racing triathlon in '01?

---

It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to squeeze in 8 hours of TV a day - Homer Simpson

I played Division I Lacrosse at Dartmouth College and kept playing on and off since. Played a lot of basketball after college, some indoor soccer. Ran and biked a fair amount just to stay in shape but no big miles. Never, ever swam. Ever. Then one day an old lacrosse buddy said "hey, we should do the Ironman, that would be cool". I said "OK but if we do lets do the Hawaii Ironman". We didn't know you had to qualify for that one so we settled on Lake Placid. That's where the addiction started.

I certainly don't have a large base, as defined by many here, of weeks and weeks and months and years of 20+ hours per week of training. Then again, I don't RACE an Iron Distance, nor may I ever be able to. Based on my only experience at that distance, I'm certain I can go sub 12 on a difficult course, but, that's not "racing" it to me. Slick is obviously more talented as an endurance athlete than I am, but, I'm just not sure the long "base-building" phase is needed to be able to reach our potential. It certainly is, anecdotally, a common mantra. But, is there published science that proves this to be true?

Slick is (in my book) elite quality, but who's to say if you took 20 people like him and divided them into 2 groups, trained them differently (one with lots of base, one with more intensity from the get-go) if you'd see a difference in IM performance? OR, that the group with more intensity might even be better performers? I know the body requires some practice at near-race pace and long durations, and I know the body needs to undergo adaptation, and I know the mind needs to be "on board" to the demands of the race on that day, but, where's the published science that says great base is required? Maybe what is "the best" training regimen depends upon the genetic tendencies of the individuals?

Of course, most people will say you need both base and speedwork, that's not what my question. My question is about results from training consisting of "base" based or "intensity" based programs.

It's all a moot point to me, as I can't forsee being able (and certainly not willing, at least, not in my current lifestyle) to put in the hours commonly prescribed for IM racing. I think the athletes that put in these long hours are amazing, and I'm certainly not downing their successful strategy in doing so, I'm just wondering if there is another successful strategy, and if there is science pointing to one strategy being proven better over the another.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

<< I'm just not sure the long "base-building" phase is needed to be able to reach our potential >>

i for one, don't believe so. i think endless training is miserable and asking for an injury. some people are okay with it, and they are fast. that's great, but i think it is unnecessary.

most of my opinion is formulated from coach michael mccormack. as with any coach, most people who are with him/her and write a testimony have great things to say. but for me, my opinion manifested from my own experience. while he does mostly ironman preparation (i think), i used him for a marathon program. training on my own, my marathon times were tightly clustered to what i thought was a plateau. i was trying to mix up my own program based on what i knew about building a big base, then specificity training and interval training etc.

i went to him for a marathon program. he cut my training miles almost in half (more than half for the base period) and had to continually tell me to trust him. i kept telling him i wanted to do more. i don't feel ready. trust him he says. i couldn't understand how so much time at the track, and only one real long run of 16 miles could have me ready. even my wife (who hates my long days) thought i hadn't prepared enough. there was no traditional 'base'. i pr'd by 20 minutes and qualified for boston for the first time. i became a believer.

read this race report from an ag guy who went from 12:12 to 10:48 at the same race year over year. his HEAVIEST week was 13 hours, with most weeks at 9 hrs. only 1 century ride, and only 4 runs over 15 miles. regardless of the specific details (again anectdotal), read the underlying tone and what it did for his appreciation of the race and of his coach (less yields more): http://www.triathloncoach.com/ath/ATH_111800.html

here is an article he wrote on rethinking base training: http://www.triathloncoach.com/articles/rethink.html

i'm sure that others can find success stories from the november 20hr/wk crowd, but i've got a wife, 4 kids, a career, several other things i like to do... so i know what school of thought i will continue.

---

It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to squeeze in 8 hours of TV a day - Homer Simpson

I think you hit on a key point Titan.

What you need to do is first determine how many hours you want to devote to the sport or have available given your other responsibilities in life. THEN you decide how best to use that finite amount of time to be as fast as possible.

I have little doubt that given unlimited available training hours that building a monster base is the way to success. It's proven over and over again by the top pros in the sport. If you have the time and drive to put in those big hours you will probably maxamize your potential. This may not be the most effective way to train for those of us age groupers who only have 10-15hrs per week available. I believe that you can optimize results with less hours by trading quantity for quality. The idea is to stress the body so that an adaptation takes place. Going slow and aerobic 10-15hrs per week does not induce enough adaptation in my opinion. Speed work and hard sesions are needed year round. If you talk to a lot of guys who do well with less training time you will find they do a lot of hard sessions. There is no free lunch.

I thought I'd address this post by "Doug from Michigan" and answer some of the questions and address some of the misconceptions that led to Lisa James' posting in the "Road to Kona" thread. Seems like there's an awful lot of misunderstanding, poor communication and negative reflexes bringing on unnecessary tension amongst the forum. The point here is not to suggest any one way is better than another, but to give some context to Doug's post.

1) I want to clarify that from my view there is a HUGE difference between "training" someone and "coaching" someone, in any sport. As I see it, the former provides the physical road map and addresses physical issues; the latter also focuses on the bigger picture, above the shoulders and in the heart, addressing motivation, strategy, broader issues. In our sport you can find individuals delivering services from one end of the spectrum to the other. What you as an individual seek from a trainer or coach is entirely your choice.

2) I see my role first and foremost as a motivator. If you have a coach who refuses to help you with this, they're not a coach, they're a trainer. So the physical road map to doing well at Ironman is the least of my concerns. I have a training approach that's proven to work for many different individuals in many different situations. What is more challenging to reproduce or improve year over year is the psychological landscape one travels through to achieve one's best performances. That is 99% of the equation. There is no "right" attitude, but there are perspectives and attitudes that work better for each of us than others. In general, I find there are gaps in our understanding of ourselves that, if filled in, can assist us in getting more out of what we have to offer ourselves. A lot more. That is where my focus lies. In that sense, I aim to teach people to rely more on internal factors to drive their performance, not external ones.

3) Like any athlete, the friend to whom Doug refers has a unique situation and set of concerns. For example, one of these is to qualify for Kona, do it and be done with it this coming year. My job is to ensure we do everything possible to make this happen. Value judgements are not my concern. I respect equally someone who wants to do it once and well as someone who wants a long career. A recent sign-on in England, for example, is training 8 hours per week. Different scenario, different goals, different solution.

4) Regarding diet and a strict approach to sugar: Some people I encourage to pay less strict attention to their diet. Others tell me things that suggest we can use a more careful approach to diet as a tool to train their discipline and commitment, with the fringe benefit of sleeping better, losing weight and recovering quicker. There is no "one size fits all" methodology here.

5) Rest days: They aren't built in because I prefer to let your body dictate these. Someone who operates on over-drive I'll counsel to err more on the side of caution, while someone with a less driven approach might need a higher focus on consistency. In any case, if you're tired enough that you are in doubt about training that day, the approach is: Test drive the unit with a very easy 20 - 30 minutes close to home. If you come 'round, head on out. If not, pack it in.

Further, for time-deprived age group athletes, having been one myself for the better part of my athletic career, the opportunity for rest will present itself of its own accord. Work, life events, the kids -- something usually comes up and you are forced to take a day off here or there regardless of your intentions or desire.

On that note, the claim that "the purpose is to train while fatigued" is off base. The aim is to train consistently over a long duration, at the maximum sustainable level of training. That sentence implies adequate recovery in the individual's unique context. But the purpose is to ensure the stated goals are achieved.

6) I strongly believe that the degree to which we are all free to define ourselves is far less than we like to think. "The average person doesn't think they're average." That is what we are all up against. Your family, your friends, your community, your nation, your hemisphere, your culture, your society, your religion, etc. -- these all profoundly impact you on a daily basis and shape your values, perspectives, beliefs, attitudes and so on. Me, I prefer to approach things from the other direction. So as a coach, I aim to find out what makes you tick and I'll go to work on that. The way I see it, at anything you do, you can only get so far on "what makes you, you" -- at some level of achievement, dependent also on your natural predisposition to the task at hand, the "you in you" will begin to hold you back. It can take you so far and no further. For example, the phrase "that's enough for today" means something completely different to each of us. So part of the longterm process is to challenge your conceptions of self and limits and standards of achievement. I like to refer to the movie "Groundhog Day" to illustrate how difficult that process is and at what level we need to restructure our concept of self to break free of the limits we impose on ourselves.

7) I'd like to point out that "Doug in Michigan" has Lisa James' Ironman Wisconsin splits taped to his computer. While I appreciate that this can be a powerful motivator and that Doug is making the extra effort to seek feedback on the training approach that helped produce the result, it is also a great example of the sort of focus I counsel people to avoid.

What I mean by that is two-fold. The first aspect is that too often, we all look at the finish line, at the end result, to drive us forward. Splits, placings, times -- these are great to set a goal and a target. Once that's set, however, it's time to forget about it. We have our task, I have learned something about the individual and their circumstances -- now here's the program. From then on, the focus is on each session. We forget about who else is going to be there, what they're doing and so on, and we focus our energies on the task at hand. Success doesn't come from wanting something badly -- it comes from doing all you can in the moment, during every moment in which you prepare yourself. That is where we spend our energies. Using a plan that is repeated each week, together we can better monitor improvement over time, fatigue and consistency.

The second aspect of Lisa's splits taped to Doug's computer I'd like to address is the fact that it is constantly in his face. Motivation is not something you need to turn on 24/7. It is important to come down, recharge and recover from a period of high focus so that you are recharged for your next session. That doesn't mean demotivate, it just means "put it out of mind and forget about it." So between workouts, forget triathlon. Try to forget it 100%. It has enough of a hold on you and your life -- enjoy something else. This applies to the short-term, intraday, and to the longterm over the course of years and years away from the sport. This is another reason why the training plan is the same each week (during each phase): Get a routine going, churn it out and forget about the session when it's done.

Hope this helps!

---

--
ironguides.net : Home of The Method
Join the New Generation of Champions!

--- Your best is our business. ---

I think you are mistaking "learning to recover faster" for a gain in fitness (which allows one to break down less for a given workout). I don't think your body can speed up the various biochemical processes necessary for recovery. Train harder, and your body will adapt to the training (given enough recovery!) thereby allowing the same training to not do as much damage.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Marc,

Great post. It's the subtle things, and often the most crucial that often get lost in the mix of the spread-sheet coaching programs that seem to be floating around these days.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thanks Fleck. While subtlety is not a personal strength of mine, addressing it is. :-)

Great communications form the basis for great relationships. In coaching, that translates to results. The lore of sports is rife with examples of athletes who are coached by their significant other going on to perform great things.

This is not so much an indicator of a superior training plan as it's an indicator of a great coaching relationship. The subtleties get communicated and resolved. Generally the examples that come to mind are of women athletes and male coaches, although I see no reason why this should always the case.

It's my experience personally and through observation that when a coach stops worrying about what he or she has to gain or lose, whether that's money, reputation or clients, they can commit to a greater level and reach to greater depths.

Me, I like to practise for this very thing by placing myself in awkward or difficult situations, consequences be damned, just to see what happens. There are rules in the operations of human nature, but they have to be learned. The hard way.

---

--
ironguides.net : Home of The Method
Join the New Generation of Champions!

--- Your best is our business. ---

It's funny how one of the true coaches posting on Slowtwitch is attacked like this. You're the real deal Marc, don't change.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Are you a real coach?

Hey man: Thanks.

FYI, I have a couple of friends staying with me right now who just wrapped up a 3-month bike trip here in Europe. They rode the length of Portugal and loved it. Thought you should know! :-)

---

--
ironguides.net : Home of The Method
Join the New Generation of Champions!

--- Your best is our business. ---

Yes I am.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

What is your background and vitae?

Brian, sorry to interject, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle.

For example, one of the top coaches I've seen referenced in this forum is:

Booth Rand's boss.

---

--
ironguides.net : Home of The Method
Join the New Generation of Champions!

--- Your best is our business. ---

Well, he doesn't seem to be making much headway with Booth, but I guess you can't blame him for everything :).

Brian: SAC has a website, www.smartasscoach.com of course.

Discussing a training plan that was devised for a specific individual can be a dangerous thing. People want to extrapolate grand principles with universal relevance.

My wife is a former ultramarathon cyclist, and she achieved considerable success with huge volume. (She now does tris, but just for fun.) Her metabolism thrives on volume. She simply cannot be fast without large quantities of training. The more she trains, the stronger she gets. By contrast, I respond quickly and well to moderate to low volumes of training but with high intensity. When I tried to emulate her high volume approach I became overtrained and injured. I have better talent for speed; she has better talent for endurance.

Any good coach will devise a training plan that is tailored specifically for that individual, their strengths and body type, and it is easy to forget this in our quest for dogma and simple answers.

mr.mike, actually it's http://smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com/ :-)



Anyway, don't mind Brian, he's an an old friend and he's been a troll since 1996 ;-)

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

I should note that I beat smartass in a race after he said that he could beat me.

I even outran him.

Nice website, Paulo.

I didn't realize you were that serious about coaching. Good job!

Did you learn how to ever swim?

Klep should get all the credit, he designed the whole thing, I just wrote some stuff.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com