Thank you, I understand what you are saying.

jaretj

Maybe I don't, maybe I'm an idiot! I bet you've considered that possibility more than once! ;-)

No, because you're clearly smart enough (or at least educated enough) to know that no human who has ever walked the face of the earth could generate 5500 W while pedaling.

Do you really think that running 2x1h on one day is the same as running a 2h session?

No - but based on studies using the impulse-response model, it's apparently a lot closer to being the same than Barry seems to think. I say that because even if you sweep such details under the rug by quantifying the training load using a global measure such as TRIMP, you can still predict performance with considerable accuracy. That would not be possible if, e.g., 2 x 1 h and 1 x 2 h workouts resulted in dramatically different types/degrees of adaptation.

And... we're just talking about generic and equivalent training loads here. If we take into account warmup/cooldown, different utilization of fat/glycogen with the duration of exercise, dehydration, 2x1h becomes more and more different from 1x2h.

Sure...but apparently not so different that a global measure of training load such as TRIMP can't be used to predict performance with considerable accuracy. IOW, two such workouts are apparently not world's apart, even though coaches and athletes might think that they are.

They're not world's apart and I suspect Barry should be posting anytime soon saying the same (as soon as he leaves his PowerPoint).

BUT, one of the approaches fits the more is MORE approach better, that's the one I follow :-D

i need some more coffee

Does it? That is, can you really say that 1 x 2 h is MORE* than 2 x 1 h? For example, what if doing the split session allowed the training to be perfomed at a higher intensity?

*TM, Paulo Sousa, 2006

Yes.

Yes, because some athletes might have less problems doing 2x1h than 1x2h. I know I'm one of those.

Yes, another benefit of splitting the sessions.

He's got you (and Barry) cornered. Retreat quickly!

In Reply To

---

Back to Daniels, his scoring system is not meant to say, "Hey I scored 50 this week. Next week I intend to score 55 but will be going away on a trip and will have little time so I will do two 3 hour workouts as hard as I possibly can.....as long as I score 55 I will be getting the same training effect." Couldn't be further from the truth.[/reply]Actually, there's considerable scientific data indicating that this is a lot closer to the truth than you seem to think.


______________________________________________________________________________

Well, I can't tell what you seem to think I seem to think, but if you honestly believe what I posted above is a reasonable substitution..............you do realize we are talking about RUNNING, correct?

---

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

'No, because you're clearly smart enough (or at least educated enough) to know that no human who has ever walked the face of the earth could generate 5500 W while pedaling. '



it is clear the good doctor has not ridden with the sergio.

Based on your comments, I think that you think that it's wrong to assume that two weeks of training that yield comparable scores based on Daniel's system would have a comparable training effect, as "nothing could be further from the truth".


Yes, I realize that we are talking about running...do you realize that I'm talking about generalities?

No - but based on studies using the impulse-response model, it's apparently a lot closer to being the same than Barry seems to think. I say that because even if you sweep such details under the rug by quantifying the training load using a global measure such as TRIMP, you can still predict performance with considerable accuracy. That would not be possible if, e.g., 2 x 1 h and 1 x 2 h workouts resulted in dramatically different types/degrees of adaptation.
_______________________________________________

Andrew, can you please tell me what I think?

How about this: Next week I'll do 6x60min at zn2 and you do 1x360min. Then we can compare results.

---

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

Nice obfuscation.

Did my phrase "nothing could be further from the truth" throw you off? Did you take that literaly? Or was there something esle?

Do you think that is is unlikely that I could draw up two different training plans with the same scores that have radicaly different effects?

---

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

do you realize that I'm talking about generalities?

_________________________________

I don't know what you mean. Are YOU being general? If so, where? Are you pointing out that *I'm* being too general? Or was I not being general when clearly Daniels was.......or he was being general when I wasn't?

Please explain.

---

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

Thank you.

I have been speaking in generalities, with my overall point being that many times people spend too much time looking at the trees, such that they lose sight of the forest. A scoring system such as Daniels' allows you to look at things from a much more global perspective, rather than getting too caught up in what, in the long run, are really just minor details.* (And the fact that they are just that, i.e., minor details, is demonstrated by the fact that you can ignore them entirely and still predict training-induced improvements in performance with considerable accuracy.)

*Nothwithstanding, of course, the fact that "the devil is in the details"...and if there's anyone out there who sweats the details, or least the significant ones, it's me.

I was trying to narrow my question to quantifying training stress alone.

I realize that how training stress is applied is very important too. I didn't mean to direct the question that one type of training stress quantity has the same benefits as another type or amount of training stress.

I was going to use these quantities as a guide anyway. Thanks for all of the good information.

jaretj

I have been speaking in generalities, with my overall point being that many times people spend too much time looking at the trees, such that they lose sight of the forest. A scoring system such as Daniels' allows you to look at things from a much more global perspective, rather than getting too caught up in what, in the long run, are really just minor details.* (And the fact that they are just that, i.e., minor details, is demonstrated by the fact that you can ignore them entirely and still predict training-induced improvements in performance with considerable accuracy.)

*Nothwithstanding, of course, the fact that "the devil is in the details"...and if there's anyone out there who sweats the details, or least the significant ones, it's me.
______________________________________________________________

I think you have pretty much said what I thought *I* was saying. As always, a post on the internet can be interpereted in many, many fashions (more is more.....what does that mean for example).

I've partcicpated in an internet discussion in the past with Jack Daniels about his book (at the time it was about his first edition). The basic tone of his response was that the purpose of his book was to, in fact, give that global perspective on how to train for distance events. It wasn't intended for every person to follow his charts and plans to a T.

I was attempting to make two points about how to interperet his intensity scores:

1) You have to take into account your own uniquness and how YOU respond to particular workouts. ie My 15 year old cousin who trains for the 800m can do an intense speed workout 3 times a week and feel great the next week where, in my case, my legs would be too sore to walk. However, I can run 18 miles at Zn2 and handle it better than he can handle a 10 mile run.

2) Two equal scores may have equal intensities, however that doesn't necessarily mean they will have similar training effects (one of the misinterperetations of more is more). 10 weeks comprised entirely of zn1 running will have a different result than 10 weeks comprised entirely of zn 5 running.

In response to your original post, yes I am well aware that Jack Daniels, Pee Aech Dee, went through a very scientific process to come up with these values. However, he has not included a corelation or a standard deviation.....and even if he did, I couldn't tell you where *I* or anyone I coached fit on the curve (and in case you haven't noticed, far too many STers assume that they must be outliers).

As always, I LOVE your posts! ; ^ )

---

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

Thanks JaretJ. I didn't want to insinuate that you didn't know about it. A lot of my posts go into the realm of "duh, who didn't know that" because you never know who didn't know it.



I learned as a high school teacher and a coach that it's better to tell the class something that 29/30ths already know than to not tell them at all.

---

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

Apparently.