I am not sure what your question is, but I can tell you Marc is a great coach and a really nice guy. He knows what he is doing. He posts arond here as Ironguide, so maybe you should shoot him a message.

And just because you are doing the same workouts every week doesn't mean the program isn't good. People nowdays don't want to feel like they are paying for a cookie-cutter program, so some coaches (*cough* Chris Carmichael *cough*) start inventing 'workouts' and giving them special names (TM!).

I'm pretty sure smartasscoach also mentioned his athletes will sometimes do the same workout a couple of weeks in a row.

As for the no sugar... well I'm gonna be a hypocrete and agree processed sugar is bad, even though I'm munching on a chocolate-chip cookie right now.

mmmm

Marc Becker is "ironguide" who occaisionally appears on this board. He gets great results from is athletes. You better be pretty hard core dedicated to maximize results from his plan. No slacking off.

When you say no sugar, does that also eliminate high glycemic stuff that we use for sweatners on bread like jam. Does it also exclude stuff like mangoes and dried fruit ?

i think that is a terrible program. at least for me it would be terrible. perhaps there are a few cyborgs out there who can handle that, but sheesh.

perhaps it will help you p.r. your event that is 9 months away, but how are you going to feel about the event? a celebration of your preparation, or glad to get this crap over with?

sounds like a great way to burn out, or get injured. train while fatigued?

i would consider interviewing several coaches on their approaches. for many people, particularly as you weave lifestyle and responsibilities into the equation... a less=more approach (quality>quantity) just might end up faster, happier, and more well rounded.

good luck.

---

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

If you are looking for an endorsement for Marc Becker, then you can get it from me.

Marc is from the old school, and when you look at what he may be laying out for people, it may seem preposterous, but . . it works. Yes, 20 hours/week in Nov may seem crazy, but as one well known coach told me years ago - "it's never to early to start training for next year"

This take a nice break, then start to build the base and blah, blah, blah is NOT going to get you to the next level. Sometimes you need to shake it up.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Sorry I didn't mention this earlier..but I'm not looking for an endorsement on Marc Becker. I already have a coach who I am happy with. I am interested in the method this coach is using. It seems to me that 20+ hours/week 9 mos before the race is a bit unusual. But unusual doesn't mean wrong. This nothing more than a discussion on training philosphy.....

---

Doug in Michigan

I do not know Marc, but I've seen a lot of Marc's post here and on Gordo's forum in the past and echo Freestyle's comments. Also, there is not enough information in that e-mail for anyone to make a sound judgement. November is only one month out of a whole year's plan.

"Success" in IM's does not come over night, or even in a couple of months of good training. It's been said that it can take 5 years to get to the level that you can really start training for an IM.

I suspect that if you took a peak behind the curtains of many of the top people, and see what they are REALLY doing at this time of the year, I suspect that they are doing more than they let on or appear to be doing.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I've exchanged some PM's with Marc and he's a strictly no-bullshit (his words!) coach. So, I like him! :-)

He's also spent some time with Brett Sutton, which is probably THE most successful coach around, so he's got to be doing something that works, despite the criticism. He might be your coach if you focus at 100% at triathlons and want to achieve results.

Now if you're looking for a part coach, part personal trainer, he might not be for you. That is why Marc, as well as me, will never get rich doing this :-)))

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Oooops, I only read this after I posted...



Anyway, 20+ hours right now doesn't shock me if you're talking about elite athletes, and if she was 4th overall she is elite. Also doing the same stuff isn't necessarily bad, although it can be psychological hard. But it all depends on the athlete, I know athletes who would go nuts, others who wouldn't mind.

As for training tired, I'm pretty sure Marc knows the difference between overreaching and overtraining.

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Hmmm,

Well- The standard disclaimers apply: I am NOT a coach and have an Ironman PR of 10:45:?? so I am not 100% certain (obivously) how to go faster.

That said, several interesting things strike me about this. First, the dietary restrictions or discipline strikes me as a good approach. I did once have a disciplined diet and I know it extended my physiological capabilities and kept me healthier.

That is a cornerstone to this approach. Good idea.

The duration of training per week: I would suggest this is appropriate also. If you want to be fast at a race that is 10 hours long you have to enable the body to adapt to 10 hours of exercise at a relatively high aerobic level. That is an adaptation that doesn't happen in 13 weeks. You simply have to do the work, and the work starts now. Dan wrote last season about base building. That seems to be the appropriate level of exertion at this time of year. Long, slow and boring. Lots of hours.

The concept of training while you are fatigued: I agree with this also. I think you have to train while you are fatigued, but this is a potentially dangerous training strategy. It has to be closely monitored for ill effects. You walk the ragged edge of "too much" some times. It is encouraging to me that the coach interacts with his athletes daily. That seems good.

As for "no rest, no recovery" perhaps I am misunderstanding that aspect of this concept, but as I stated it I am not on board with that approach. My opinion (again, neither elite competitor nor coach) is that rest and recovery, done correctly with massage, sleep, etc. is critical.

I think the basis of these coaching recommendations are founded in good prinicples. All that remains is for the work to be done. That's the hard part.

Good luck Sir, it was a pleasure to meet you in person,

Tom.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I recently posted a somewhat convoluted question re: training while fatigued on gordoworld. What I want to know is, if we follow becker and decide to train while fatigued (i.e., leaving aside whether it is a good tactic or not), what intensity do you aim for relative to what you usually do in the same workout in a non-fatigued state? In other words, to focus on HR as an example, if on an ordinary long ride on the flats you average x bpm, should you aim for x bpm or x-y bpm on the flats in a fatigued long ride? It seems to me that it must be x-y bpm, for if you are truly fatigued you will not be able to perform as well as if you are not fatigued? Or, do certain physiological markers (e.g., inability to elevate HR to "normal" AeT level) indicate that it would be better to shorten or skip the workout altogether? Or is it that the approach is so old school that nothing more can be said other than - "quit whining and get out there and JFT"?

FWIW here is the original post:

I'm looking for thoughts on training thru fatigue towards the end of mini-epic blocks (3+ days) of relative hi-volume low-intensity stuff. To keep it simple, I take the example of a long 5-6 hour AeT ride on tired legs after 2 or 3 previous hi volume days.



Now before setting out on this ride, even Gordo and pals must be feeling pretty tired, muscular fatigue, motivation problems etc. So with a few mugs of coffee and a grim determination you get on your bike and head out, hoping/knowing that eventually you will "find your legs" and get through the day.



But although you do warm up and get going, surely no one, AGer or pro, can perform as well on a 6 hour bike ride on really tired legs compared to what they would do on an ordinary long ride? Won't all performance markers - pace, watts, etc. - be lower than usual?



I pace my long rides on RPE and HR. On my ordinary long rides i go "steady" or IM pace, which is HR range of 135-145bpm on the flats. So on an "epic" ride, is it natural to be unable to sustain one's normal long ride HR in comparable terrain? Or is this a warning sign?



This is what happened to me yesterday as I did a long ride on fatigued legs - I got through it but for large portions I was unable on the flats to elevate HR to my usual IM steady zone. Instead I averaged about 125bpm - 10bpm lower than the bottom of my usual AeT range.



Do Gordo and the guys in fact manage, through mental grit or superior fitness, to keep performance markers during "epic" workouts the same or very nearly the same as what they would do on an ordinary non-epic workout? This seems counter-intuitive, though, as by definition on an epic ride you are not as fresh as an ordinary ride. OTOH, it seems that IM pace/intensity is about as low as you'd want to go on long training sessions. If you can't manage that, should you be out training at all?



On my mini-epic ride, I logged a lot of hours in the saddle, felt that I made endurance gains and did not push my body too far, and I got some lessons on mental grit, but would it have been better to shorten the ride to whatever I could manage while still maintaining my normal long ride HR?



More generally, is there anything more concrete that can be said about training and fatigue beyond the general advice to learn the difference between "good aerobic fatigue" and bad "I'm overtrained" fatigue? I feel I have become quite good at judging this line, and keeping on the safe side, but I'm looking for more practical advice (beyond JFT!)

I don't know that I'm qualified at all to answer, since I'm training for my first Ironman and I don't have a coach. However, all the reading and research I've done talks about building up your base before you build up speed. And the way to build base is through a high volume of low intensity workouts. Depending on just how low the intensity is and how fit the athlete is, there might not be a strong need for a recovery week. And depending on how the workouts are mixed up during the week, the recovery might be built into the program.

Right now I can't run -- if I could I'd be doing about 14 hrs per week. As it is, I'm doing about 9 hrs per week on the bike (my weakness) plus 2 hrs in the gym and about 90 minutes total in the pool. I've added more bike to make up for not running, but I'm happy to work on my weakness and I can already see a benefit.

As for the low sugar part, it seems like working on body composition early is a good thing, so when you get to the build period you're already training on a lean mean racing machine and you can get a very firm grip on your nutritional needs during the longer intense workouts that come as the race gets closer.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

This is a favorite quote of mine, I heard it from Ivan Raña's coach:

"The objective of training is not to induce fatigue, is to induce adaptations"

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

[quote]
This is a favorite quote of mine, I heard it from Ivan Raña's coach:
"The objective of training is not to induce fatigue, is to induce adaptations"
[/quote]

True - or another way of saying it, which I subcribe to:
"training is effective only if you can recover from it"

Joel

---

>>>>
JoelFilliol.com - check out the Real Coaching Podcast

Some people respond more to volume then others. There was a thread on here a while ago about people who train 10 hrs and still go sub-11 hours (and some even sub-10).

A good friend of mine tripled her volume when she went up from 1/2 IM to full IM. She was doing 15 to 20 hours in November and 25 hours in July / Aug / Sept for the Great Floridian. While she didn't blitz the course she broke 13 hours and no one expected her to do that. Without that volume she would have been aiming at 14+

If you can afford to put in 20 hours per week now - and continue to do so all winter long you will be in a much better position to move to 25+ during your busiest training months - but to do so seems to be a lifestyle choice as much as a athletic goal oriented choice. I think a lot of people on this forum are not racing to their "true potential" because they choose to select things like family, friends, other activities over training full time. I think a lot of people's training program is based on their own choices of goals and balance.

I would like to train 20 hours a week all year - but make some lifestyle choices that don't always allow that. and yes sometimes those choices are even to watch Law & Order on Wednesdays rather then go to the pool for the third night in a row!

To answer your question about 20 hours in November. Personally I think it will pay off if you are willing to do that time and can hold it through spring and build on it in the summer.

 

I have no trouble with that approach. Races are won or lost on base. If the base is inadequate, all the other stuff is wasted effort. Now it is possible to have too much base or do too much too fast and get injured so there is no guarantee that doing more will get you the win or, even, improve you. Quality and avoiding injury also counts.

I suspect that being able to do 20 hours a week in November in preparation for summer races also helps one with race day "focus" cause you don't do that without focus.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

"However, all the reading and research I've done talks about building up your base before you build up speed."

Except reverse periodization....

And what if you have several years of base? Do you really need to spend several months in the winter doing LSD? Seems like a program with a fair amount of intensity for the winter with the short days/shorter training followed by a high volume approach with less intensity in the spring/summer may be a decent approach to a fall IM. You finish your training with training that replicates the race. So with an IM - you finish with high volume.....with a sprint triathlon - you finish with intensity......Seems like all the high volume training for base/intensity for peak is geared toward shorter races.....

Dave

Campbell,

What part do you think may be inappropriate? Productive comments on what? Sorry but I don't really understand what you are asking.

Short answer: Road to Kona - probably. Injury or burn-out definitely possible. Boring? Time-consuming. Too rigorous for most. Too structured for many.

Same weekly structure each week? For how long? 6-8 weeks o.k. 6 months - well thats a bit weird.

20 hours/week for a top 10 (even top 50-100 athlete) at an IM does not seem to be much. I think 20-30 hours is minimum for an elite-level athlete (year round).

No rest/recovery? I think top level athletes should train everyday. You'd have to see the weekly schedule to see if there are harder/easier days. Nobody can train hard everyday without help from PED's.

Train while fatigued. We're always at least a bit fatigued unless we're fully tapered....

Nutrition/diet: One of gordo's 4 pillars I believe. If you want to be elite - almost everything (if not everything) you do has to be geared toward being fast....body comp and nutrition is key. You can talk about sugar and empty calories or glycemic index....but no program is complete without addressing diet/nutrition in a serious way.

Dave

Johnthesavage,

I've played around with big blocks of training (probably a bad idea but I still do it). I'd say train by pace running and watts (ideally) or speed on the bike. If you have trouble maintaining roughly IM paces then you are doing too much in my opinion and need rest/recovery. Ignore heart rate. I too can't keep my heart rate elevated when fatigued - and the more I train with heart rate while my fitness improves the less reliable I think heart rate is. I find myself using RPE more and more and just looking at my heart rate for the fun of it. May be wrong.....who knows.

Dave

While I am almost exclusively a runner, I do have an unproven theory. Training while fatigued in the begining of a season forces the body to learn to recover faster. This enables you to have harder workouts later in the season without burning out. Of course you need some rest days and such and it would be silly not to get them. But I do believe back to back hard workouts lessens recovery time more than evenly spaced hard workouts (again, only at the begining of the season). I know it works for me, but i have not heard of any one else who has tried this. It sounds like this might be what your November training might be trying to accomplish.

Actually reverse periodization also relies on the theory of building base before speed. The people who benefit from reverse periodization are people who already have a significant endurance base and need to emphasize intensity first to develop more speed at their goal distance.

For those elite few, a period of intense workouts early in the season followed by a period of longer workouts at faster speeds can result in a faster race time. It can also result in burnout and injury if not managed well. It's a lot trickier to do it that way, and there is a higher risk to offset the potential reward.

The person in question (4th at IMMOO) might be in that elite category, but her coach seems to feel that high volume is appropriate for her right now. Maybe he's just trying to see how she handles the volume before adding some intensity in the depths of winter. Maybe his assessment of her abilities shows that she needs more base training. Maybe he disagrees with the theory of reverse periodization. I don't think we're going to find out, but I do think the vast majority of coaches and athletes believe that Ironman races are won on base, so developing more will almost always be a benefit, where adding more intensity might or might not be a benefit.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

I read one of Daniels runnning books - he talks about back to back hard days - and he seemed to like them. I think he used them for x-country runners who raced most weekends - he'd then have to go back-to-back hard days I think in the middle of the week - maybe Wed/Thur or Tue/Wed???? Don't recall exactly....I can give you the name of the book if you wish (its at home).

Dave

Good points you made but I don't agree with the above. I think if you focus on quality and consistency you can go fast on less volume. I was 27th overall in Wisco on 10-15hrs per week (biggest week all year was 18hrs). I don't take rest days and have very few "recovery days". Also it pays to be as lean as possible. Any extra fat will only slow you down.



I don't like training more than 20hrs in a week. For me the fun goes out of it and it feels more like work.