I haven't listened to that one, but speaking of culty training podcasts, I found it a similar experience trying to listen to Peter Attia/Iñigo San Millán-type podcasts. Just hours and hours without much real content. There are some good things, like reinforcing that using HR or power to regulate effort levels is probably just fine - don't need to do the cumbersome and expensive strip-testing thing. That's not to say they're "bad," just that if all you want is the key information, you can get that just fine from reading a few compact articles.

That is about the most polite take on an Attia podcast (aka a self promo) imaginable.

so that's what i've been doing wrong!

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I think I've dialed in exactly the correct level of focus on my hemoglobin mass. Just use Sauna.

I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this. There is the occasional bit of interesting information, but even then it’s not truly useful for anyone training without lab support.

Norwich method: double ‘fresh-hold’ sessions

Wasn't one of their points last episode that most lab analyses aren't so good so it's better to skip it and keep it simple.

Just some tests you can perform often and reliably.

---

https://acprestation.se/

Very likely I missed that amongst the talk of haemoglobin mass and stroke volume etc.
It’s fascinating to see how the training processes they implement is as far removed from mine as their performances are, but not much I can draw from it.

I listenend to it... and my oppinion is the following: a lot of talking without saying very much. It is not interesting.

I agreed with that assessment after episode 1. I found episode 2 to be much better with advice on critical power and velocity curves, but there’s nothing earth shattering there. No real direction for training other than test frequently.

I find Olav intends to keep things relatable but the other host goes down rabbit hole after rabbit hole that is just too complex for your typical age grouper. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe he even does triathlon which might explain why he’s a bit out of touch with the “reality” of most age groupers.

"my oppinion is the following: a lot of talking without saying very much. It is not interesting."
-------------------------------
I think that applies to the vast majority of podcasts.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

. No real direction for training other than test frequently

——

Being a coach for now over 15 years the biggest single thing I’ve learned. Every workout is a “test” if the program is written correctly so that you eventually don’t need to “test frequently”. IE- the weekly key quality sessions are weekly “tests” that you don’t need to apply more psyuedo pressure on some “test set” every month/block etc that supposedly is defining if the training has gone well.

Plus “test sets” tend to do something many times to athletes pysche….it’s like why is this test set any different than the similar type of set they did last week except it wasn’t designed or marked as a “test set”? I’m of the mindset, the less “test sets” you can put in training (again coaches should be able to tell by daily workouts and weekly key sessions what the athlete is able to do) the better and the best tests in the business = races

ETA: Obviously if you are with elite athletes 24/7 and they are training in front of you, making them do "test sets" pretty much becomes the norm of the training. But if you are talking about general AG approach imo "test frequently" would imo not be the best path for fun and performance in said sport.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

There's two real questions whenever peak level coaches are on podcasts:

1) What, if anything are they doing differently than their peers that is (presumably) the source of superiority?
2) If such a thing exists, why would they tell the world these methods on a free podcast?

I'm of the opinion that all of this stuff is chasing increasingly small marginal gains. Blu and Iden are still doing 90% the same stuff as every other pro triathlete. The testing isn't making anybody faster, it's just giving info about the current state. For 99% of triathletes the way to get faster is train more, sleep more, eat healthier, stop drinking. Not much podcast material in there.

Would it actually be helpful to know: "Given Blu's lactate curve going into IMWC we needed to produce a bit more glycolytic power, so we focused on efforts in 5 minute range at 3.0mmol". Without context of what he was doing before, what his lactate and power curve looked like, and what their expected power/lactate range for the race looked like there isn't much useful info in there.

Maybe you were hoping for a specific piece of training advice that works for everyone and that people don't already know about?

Ideally "it's all about the calories, eat more doughnuts" or "train easier to go faster"? ;)

Agree 100%.

I’m not sure how my post above merits what feels like a tongue in cheek comment?

The one host overcomplicates things and the podcast is called the “Norwegian Method”, aimed at informing AGers with Kona ambitions on all things training and racing. Two episodes in, I’m not sure we’ve learned much about this “method” and how it is any different. Maybe I just had high hopes.

What is there about it that's not already known (that they would be willing to say)?

Train a lot of intervals at or just below your MLSS, use a lactate meter to make sure you're at that specific intensity. By doing this you can (theoretically) accumulate a greater training response to your already maxed out training stress. I'm not sure how applicable this is to AG's who aren't close to maxing out their weekly/monthly training stress, they may be better off just going harder and upping that stress from 80% of max to 90% of max.

Iykyk

If you know you know

It's just this modern age group mindset - searching for training hacks that supposedly make olympians Kona-fit in the hopes of going sub 10. I just don't understand what motivates an age grouper to race ironmans if they focus on other people's tips to improve speed. The best you can hope for is to be a carbon copy of every average age grouper with a generic training plan, no fun and little ownership of your success. Potentially in poor health and with time and money down the drain, living someone else's life.
Put another way: If a pro improves due to a coach's advice, they get more prize money and sponsors while still keeping the satisfaction they're training as hard as the best who are also given unlimited time and energy. Meanwhile, if an age grouper (competing against others with wildly varying levels of free time and income) improves by copying other people's training, what do they get out of it?
At best, the new "method" or piece of kit just becomes another barrier to entry - if it's even any good. At worst you end up doing training you dislike and is that is bad for you. Either way it's not your own process. This way of going about your hobby just makes no sense to me.

100% I would add the following.

If you train athletes who's results are at the edge or beyond what has traditionally been considered believable, it is not a bad idea to do PR to make it sound believable.

If you can make some money in the process, then great.

Lastly, most of what makes the difference in athletes that train 40 hours a week is not applicable to guys that train 8-16 hours. If you are in that bracket, sticking a thermometer up your arse after certain workouts, or measuring your blood lactate is a waste of time at best.

Yeah it's a tough situation. Can't blame these high level teams for trying to cash in on their athlete's success by selling coaching services. Even though these coaching services are at best beyond what their clients need and at worst detrimental to their clients. If there's a way to make money, especially in the low-paying environment of pro-tri, then people are going to take their shot.

A self coached athlete has a ton of information to sort through. Polarized, pyramidal, FTP, CP, W', MLSS, LT1, LT2, hi volume, hi intensity, HIIT, LSD. As noted, most of the time the answer is to train harder.

Perhaps one of the greatest innovations to come from this is using the lactate meter to objectively gauge training effect over time. Taking a standardized lactate ramp test at monthly-ish intervals can give you a fairly accurate picture of what the training effect of your latest training intervention has been. Knowing that one type of training is working for you, or isn't working, or is working better, that is a huge value add.

Tri247 take ('tapering' pre-Kona):
https://www.tri247.com/...n-world-championship
Little treatment of the psychological benefit of tapering: must believe that the tapering regime being followed is 'best' (for the subject athlete).

The norweigans are happy to acquiesce in this completely false idea that they invented lactate testingn.

but jan olbrecht was doing this with swimmers before the word triathlon was heard in the kingdom of norway

and the russians and east germans were doing it before jan

I have quit watching all content from these guys including the santara tech videos they posted on Youtube. Its just a bunch of testing with their gadgets and nothing else of substance. So self serving. Im done listening to these guys. KB and GE are great athletes but the manner in which whoever is trying to build something off them is pathetic.