I'll second that Paulo - that was great verbage :0

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I'm not saying there is ANYTHING scientific of what I put down. I never claim to be scientist. I've had to do enough of that in my professional life. Triathlon is entertainment :-)

I'm just going off the results sheets from IMNA events that you can see at www.sportstats.ca. What this tells me is that 85% of the people typically run slower than 4 hours. They might be better off spending valuable training time doing some more useful training that they will actually use on race day. For example biking with their head down bolted to the aerobars without stopping at Ironman race pace for 5+ hours, rather than tooling around on group latte rides stopping at every second starbucks, or coasting at the back off the group. The long run with continuous hills (ML approved) :-).

I like ML's approach of combining a number of key elements in to one workout. This certainly saves time. Kinda like the old Swedish Fartlek workouts :-). On thing that I did not point out is that if you do B and C races regularly, this might be sufficient "interval training" for the run. If you have no B and C races and go straight to Ironman, then you likely have more "recovery units" to apply to recovering from run intervals, since you are not spending them recovering from races. To some extent, this is what Phil Maffetone and Mark Allen used to promote, but of course, if you mention anything about maffetone on this forum, all the science guys will be all over it :-(.

Matt;

You forgot to add some poster size race pics of yourself to your post. :-)

So if the main goal of run interval training for Ironmans is to prepare the body for the perceived exertion of the Ironman run (and not the pace, cause we can all sustain that pace in every training run all year)...then why not hop on the bike for a super hard >25 mph 20 min TT and then head out for a medium-long run. This should take care of the perceived exertion thing? Or perhaps just do 200x100 lb squats and then head out to run. Same affect?

Would this not actually be better simulation for the Ironman run that straight out 400m-1600m intervals ? In fact, I think I have seen the one hour hard bike+1 hour tempo run used quite effectively by a few people. Thoughts? I think Fleck used this quite effectively in the past when he was time limited.

Dev

Come on, give Triyoda a break. The guy deserves glory for going sub 33:30 on a 10K. As to Triyoda's point, a lot of the top Olympic Distance Tri guys train just as much volume as the Ironman guys in the off season. At least my limited sample size of friends who trained as pros with Cole Stewart in Oz supports this. So if you are going fast off all this folume and limited speedwork, then it certainly makes sense.

Dev

Perhaps the problem is that you never see the AGrs who do monster run volume racing at all, because they frequently don't make it to the start line!

Using a sample of one, running 5/6 times per week would be disastrous for me. Biking this often would be fine.

Assuming that having weeks off injured hampers fitness, the bike heavy programme is more likely to get me to the start line. Now, unless I have run a lot or quick in training, I won't run 'fast' on race day. But in the last leg of a HIM I am busting my chops to do 5 min ks - so I can't see how a heap of speed work would help.

Open to suggestions from tri gurus, of course....

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Hi Devashish,

I was in St Croix with you; regret I didn't get a chance to meet you. I must have been 12-15th off the bike and ran into 3rd and a Kona slot and it's not because I ran fast, but because I was able to run the whole way and not much faster than a training run.

Your observations about what it takes to be a top ag runner at IM is perfect; you don't have to run fast, you just have to run. Unfortunately most age groupers doing IM don't have a running program that allows them to run a solid marathon let alone a fast one. Looking at these running programs you'll see components that are parts or excepts from a more comprehensive program (ie. intervals, hill repeats, long runs that are unproportionally high for their weekly volume). But, what is missing are the basics of a solid running program (btw, I would place these at the top of your list of workouts):

Run frequency

Weekly volume

Run duration

Consistancy

I subscride to Hadd's approach to running and have had personal success in my running as have many of the athletes that I work with. Hadd suggests that most runner's mileage is too low and whatever mileage being done is being run "too fast" (for performance level).

While I don't run fast compared to what the pros are doing, I've popped off a few good runs without any speedwork (3:12 at IMB) and I feel like I'm still getting stronger.

Hope this interests you, Mitch

---

Counterpart Coaching.com

Counterpart Coaching Training Camps

Paul,



First and foremost you want to be able to get as efficient as you possibly can at the speed/time you intend to race at. What holds people back from doing that is

1. Unrealistic goals. They aim to high and therefore train in a zone that will be impossible for them to maintain over the course of an IM.

2. Time. people don't have time to truly commit. It takes years to get good, or fast at a low intensity (ie IMpace). However, to achieve that it takes a long term commitment, not a season here and there, so to speak.

3. Recovery. We are training for three disciplines. If you look at a typical marathon program, IM athletes don't even get within a bees dick of the volume required to run a marathon without breaking down. Fitness in other disciplines will always compliment each other but it won't prevent that breakdown in the second 1/2 of an IM run unless you have put the time in.

4. Speed. Most importantly, we all want to get faster and we strive to achieve that without having the patience to develop that speed in the right zones. We tend to train harder then we need to because, Damm, it feels good and it feels like you are working out. At the end of the day alot of people training for an IM will be able to smoke a HIM because they train at HIM intensities which in turn then prevents them from putting in the volume required to do a full IM

Finally, Paul I don't think you need intervals what you need is the patience to be able to develop a speed that will carry you through a full IM. To do that run more then you have run ever before, is probably a good start



Paul

So do tempo runs and marathon-pace runs fall into run intervals?

I'll stipulate that I've yet to do my first IM, but I would think that if you take two athletes that are equally prepared for the swim and the bike and both trained 35 mpw for the run. The athlete who incorporated tempo work and some long intervals (1600 repeats for example) and a few long marathon pace runs into his 35 mpw would perform better than someone who just did 35 mpw at their normal long run pace. It just make sense that someone who does more quality work gets faster and does better as a result. I would think the key is doing enough training so that there is something left in the tank aerobically so that the entire race can be run.

In the end the faster runner is going to run with greater efficiency and lesser effort for a given speed (say 8:00 miles) than a lesser prepared runner. So in the end I agree that run intervals are pretty far down the list, but ultimately are of value if the rest of the training is done.

---

-------------
"Knowledge is good" - Emil Faber

Hello Dev,

"What type of intervals if any are [you] doing on the run?"

I have similar running credentials to yours (~2:50 for the marathon) and prepared and raced in LP last year as well... so you have a point of reference.

During my preparation for LP, I did a weekly session on the track. I usually did 3-5 miles worth of intervals (and 3-5 miles to w/u, recover, and c/d). I started with 4-5 Yasso 800s and built up to 4-5 1-mile intervals, and finally two 2-mile intervals. I did those at 5:30 pace or so.

I feel that those intervals helped but what I believe helped the most (and I didn't see it explicitly in your laundry list) were "tempo" runs. I did them as part of my medium and long runs: from a couple miles up to twice 10k toward the end. I did those at 6:30 pace or so. With hindsight, the HRs I was seeing at this pace were similar to the HRs I saw when racing. Total running mileage was 35-45 per week and, at LP, I went about 1:35 for the first loop and 1:45 for the second loop to dip just under 3:19.

Cheers,
Alex

---

---
First with the head, then with the heart. -- HG

Ditto.

---

---
First with the head, then with the heart. -- HG

Yes and no. It's all about how your program is balanced. Consider that a stand alone marathon is run at "aerobic threshold" for most well trained runners. This is a pace that is well below a level where the body starts producing significant quantities of lactic acid......yet it still procuces SOME lactic acid. So, yes, your lactcate threshold needs to be trained......but not at the expense of your aerobic training.

Taking two extremes, if you are running 100 miles a week and do ZERO tempo work......then your training is suffering due to a lack of ANY LT training.

If you are running 10 miles a week and ALL of it is "quality" (ie tempo, V02max, etc.), then your training is suffering due to a lack of ANY aerobic training (which is more important).

At 35 mpw......even still, it depends on your background.



So, to steal some of what I *think* Paulo wrote, if your aren't getting in enough aerobic run training, then intervals may not be what you need. For someone who gets in pleanty of aerobic run training, they can benefit from intervals.

---

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

Thanks. You can put it on your website if you wish......no charge. ; )

Seriously, thanks.

---

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

'In the end the faster runner is going to run with greater efficiency and lesser effort for a given speed (say 8:00 miles) than a lesser prepared runner. So in the end I agree that run intervals are pretty far down the list, but ultimately are of value if the rest of the training is done."

I guess what I wanted to get at is that this is not neccessarily true. Perhaps running harder in trying is frying you so much that you can't put in the quality bike and swim miles. So the guy focusing on run intensity compromises swim+bike. The guy working on swim to bike gets to T2 fresher. On his steady running, like Mitch Gold points out above, that guy actually runs faster than the cooked run stud.

Look at Mitch's steady performance at St. Croix. By no means is his run time blazing compared to his or most of our flat out marathon run speed. But he was able to sustain this moderate speed, compared to my friend Stefan Kusurelis, who smoked into T2 ahead of Mitch and then did a relatively slow run. And we're only talking half Ironman here. At Ironman, the problem is made even worse. In the end, Ironman is not about the guy with speed, but the guy who slows down the least. The relative studliness of an 8 min mile in Ironman is the qualifier to the "slow down the least" statement.

Mitch, I am dissappointed that I did not meet you at St. Croix. I hope to meet you there next year. And my lack of bike volume and run volume both showed at that race. While I had straight out fitness, from my XC ski season, I just ran out of time to put in some solid specificity.

So I think some here are saying for Ironman fast run, you need straight out run volume and frequency, while others are saying you need some hard stuff to get used to the high perceived exertion of the 8-9 min mile off the bike. I'm not seeing anyone disagreeing that you need solid swim and bike fitness first to have any hope out of T2, so at least we seem to agree on that.

Mitch, to follow your plan, I think the average dude needs a few weeks where he effectively puts the bike away and focuses on huge run volume with some swimming and then follow it up with a huge swim-bike week. The "balanced" weeks just don't allow you to go high volume on the bike or run...

thanks

Dev

For three years I didn't do much of anything in run intervals, concentrated on being able to "go the distance" rather than all-out speed. This was a mistake...maybe. At the suggestions of several people here I started doing mile intervals on a 5k run (one from mile ~0.5 to 1.5 and then again from mile 2-3 with a short jog recovery at the end). I had been doing half mile intervals and it didn't really seem to do much of anything. I always struggled to hold a 7:30 pace for a 5k, and it was hard to break 8 mins for 7-10 miles and I couldn't do it at a half marathon. The intervals at a 6:15 pace made running a 7:30 continuous pace seem trivially easy, and I have been able to dramatically increase my running distances as a result. I've set PRs at every distance up to a marathon where I was stuck on slow for years before.

Likewise I have for years been stagnated at running a stupidly slow 10:30+ pace at even a half IM. Just this last weekend I did a 9:16 pace at the GCT. I had plenty of muscle and cardio capacity to go faster but a bad right calf cramp off the bike due to dehydration held me back. Add the stomach cramps and I probably should have been around 8:30 which is a comfortable, maybe even easy speed for me in training.

The reason I say it was a mistake...maybe...is because all of that long slow distance *might* have prepared all of the necessary tendons/joints/etc for my increased speed. I am a solid believer in mile intervals...not so sure that I believe in shorter ones. I'm convinced now that the only way to go an 8 minute marathon in the IM is to be comfortable going at a 7 minute marathon in a standalone. The only way to go a 7 minute marathon standalone is to do a lot of quality volume and mile repeats. :)

---

---

Triguy42, if you can run 6:15 miles in intervals and 9-10:30 in a half Ironman, then I'd venture to guesss that you are the posterchild for the guy who does not do enough quality in the swim and bike and gets to T2 trashed, with muscular and stomach issues. Like Mitch said, we can all pretty well run fast enough. We just can't run fast enough off the swim+bike.

Very interesting thread. I am somewhat new to tri and was planning on stepping up to 1/2 IM distance this year with the hopes of an IM next year. I came to tri from a running background and probably tend to focus too much on the run b/c that is what I know how to do. I am very concerned about running volume leading to injury, so I only run three days a week.

So, in my preparatory efforts, I run a fall marathon in '05 and BQ. I trained for both marathons using the Furman Institute program (http://www.furman.edu/FIRST/1.htm). The long story short as to the marathon training program is less volume with more intensity. I continued base swim and bike training also. However, I was coming into my long runs completely shot. The speed and tempo workout were all done at 5:00-5:30 pace and 6:00 pace, respectively. Two weeks before Boston I get a tibia stress fracture . . . and I can not help but think that the two pounding workouts in a cold climate contributed to the injury.

So, your notion of no intervals has surface appeal, but I just can't think of run training w/o it. On the other hand, my first year or so of tri was done with only base miles and little (if any) speed work. It produced good results. Maybe you are on to something.

Trianthes, this where the mentality of getting to the start line "fit, rested and healthy" comes in. Most of us are fit, but not rested nor healthy. High intensity run intervals tacked on to Ironman training is a nice way to play with fire.

You just need to look a the articles in swim vs bike vs run magazine. The former rarely talk about injuries, while in the laltter every second article refers to injury. Like another poster said, run intervals are icing on the cake. Why play with fire and not even get to the start line? Most of us are mere mortals. We aren't built to do Ironman, but somehow have adapted our bodies to the stress of the training load. I guess it is individual, but how much stress can each person's body handle?

Food for thought...someone needs to play devil's advocate you know :-)

To quote my running partner, "If the Kenyans aren't doing it, then I'm not doing it."

How many elites follow the above plan?

What do *you* consider "high volume?"

---

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

Very true. I am learning, but slowly, about load v. intensity.

To quote my running partner, "If the Kenyans aren't doing it, then I'm not doing it."

How many elites follow the above plan?

What do *you* consider "high volume?"

---

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

Damn......Some of my text isn't getting through. I reposted because the quote was missing on my previous post.

My apologies.

---

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

"I'm not seeing anyone disagreeing that you need solid swim and bike fitness first to have any hope out of T2, so at least we seem to agree on that."

I suspect that I disagree.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "hope out of T2". What do you mean by this? Hope to: top 10 overall, top 10 AG, top 10%, run under 3:30, run under 4:00?

At the IM distance, the swim leg (3) has far less impact on your overall placing/performance than the bike leg (2), and the run leg (1).

Cheers,
Alex

---

---
First with the head, then with the heart. -- HG

I think the term "high volume in individual". Perhaps we need Mitch Gold to post what he thinks is needed to pull off that "creme de la creme" sub 3:30 Ironman run split. There are two things that come into play here. One is the Ironman specific prep and then the other is genetic run capability and staight out marathon time. The 3:15 straight out marathoner will have a tough time doing 3:30.

So Mitch, let's take the goal IM marathon time, out, and just go with "if I want to run 20 min slower than my fresh marathon time" how many hours of running per week are we aiming for at a steady intensity of 7.5 min -9 min per mile?

I had to rethink this statement after first reading it. I noticed you put bike at #2 and run at #1. I find that oddly correct. The bike is SUPPOSED to have the most impact, yet for most people it doesn't. How many elites do you know that spend more time in the run of an IM than on the bike?

Can this be yet another argument that people don't focus enough on their run training?

---

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