I am considering training for my next Ironman by only performing a progression of brick work-outs over the next 6 months–similar to the more classic marathon training programs out there (progressive volume, rest week every 4th). No stand-alone runs or bikes. (3-4 stand alone master swim sessions per week, however). Each week, one distance brick with run 1 minute slower then my goal race pace (peaking at 70mi bike/16mi run), one race pace brick (peaking at 43mi bike/10mi run), and one speed or strength brick (eg, about 1.5-1.75hr total at FTP/FTPa for a speed workout). Two additional bricks per week depending on how I feel volume wise; about 26/6mi easy pace. Considering IM distance is more about pacing then being a fast biker/runner this appears reasonable. It would allow me to practice extensively the exact pace I wish to achieve, ie very high specificity. I would be basing my goals on 2 previous ironman runs and about 0.75 FTP for the bike. I understand peak brick length is moderate, but I am basing this on the premise that consistent high, overall volume each week is more more important, and would also lead to less burnout/injuries.
Warning: I have not done, and have no intention to do, an ironman.
IIRC, the consensus (or at least majority opinion) in the last big thread on bricks was that there wasn’t much specific training adaptation by doing long ones. Running off the bike was a “skill” to be learned, mainly for pacing and feel, but almost all the benefit was just from the first few miles of running. The main brick benefit is from time of training. It’s usually more time efficient to do a 2 hour bike and 30 minute run than to split that into two workouts. So if that’s your reasoning, then it might be a good idea. But if it’s just to learn pace off the bike, doing four bricks a week is probably complete overkill.
I’d at least want to get in some bike rides longer than 70 miles. 70 vs 112 is another -/+ 2 hours of staying in your aero position, and I’d want to make sure my body could deal with that.
FYI, you’re opening a big can of worms here. The pros and cons of bricks have been beaten to death, especially in the last 5-6 months.
If this is something that you want to experiment with, then nothing should stop you from doing it. Free will aside, I think that it’s a bad idea. To become better at each discipline, you need to put in quality work that goes above and beyond what you can achieve through brick workouts. You’ll never bike your legs off if you have to put in a quality run afterwards. Similarly, your run quality will always be diminished if you put in a true bike workout ahead of it. These are not necessarily statements supported by fact - just anecdotes based on my experience and observation.
IM is about getting the work done in training and then execution on race day. Sure bricks are good but you don’t have to do them all of the time to learn pacing.
I really like bricks, during the warmer months I do 3 to 4 a week just because I think they are fun and I want to get the extra run miles in. From your training and current races you can predict what speeds/efforts you should go on the bike and run and they aren’t going to be too hard on you.
If you want to do all bricks that’s cool, just make sure you get in your planned work on the bike and run while doing them. That means going fast when you’re supposed to and easy when you are supposed to. Don’t just bike and run to get in the miles, do the specifics.
Personally if I was training for another IM I would:
Swim like you planned.
Bike to my max sustainable volume with FTP work and long rides.
Run to my max sustainable volume with track/tempo/easy run to maximize my running ability.
Include a few bricks a week cuz they are fun.
Base my IM racing efforts from my recent performances.
Race according to my current ability whatever that would be.
Considering IM distance is more about pacing then being a fast biker/runner this appears reasonable.
What about IM ISN’T about being a fast biker/runner? And swimmer for that matter. Fast people still (usually) pace this distance.
I understand peak brick length is moderate, but I am basing this on the premise that consistent high, overall volume each week is more more important, and would also lead to less burnout/injuries.
Any thoughts?
You’d probably be better off getting in longer rides w/ work and SEPARATE longer runs w/ work. Much better to run fresh than tired. But this has been discussed ad nauseum and everyone seems to think they are right (myself included).
I just finished my second IMFL. My first IMFL was in 2009 and I did BRICKs. For this year, I did NOT do any BRICK workouts and I shaved 1 hour 21 minutes off my time. I’m self-coached and focused on quality workouts for all three. No junk yards or miles. And I’m signed up for IMLP in July and do not expect to any BRICK workouts in the future. I’m 49yrs old.
I have read many of the recent comments and opinions regarding the utility of brick workouts. I understand they may be controversial and there are many strong, divergent opinions, which in the end usually means we just don’t know the optimal answer.
IMO AG ironman racing is not necessarily about being a fast biker or runner per se, but specifically covering the distance as fast as possible, which means optimizing your bike/run pace. Biking and running out of a brick context of course will help you but is not as a specific as the bike/run combo.
Furthermore, utilizing a more classic approach of endurance/threshold/anaerobic workouts in each sport, the endurance workouts tend to be LSD, and the FTP/FTPa workouts tend to be short by definition. In effect, you are expecting both these work-outs merge to give you a Zone 2/3 effort on race day without practicing it on numerous occasions via brick workouts. An alternative would be to use high specificity and choose a goal percent FTP for the bike and pace for the run, and build this situation via progressive bricks so that it can be performed on race day.
I did lots of bricks last season training for my annual IM. It did not fare well. I will be doing, at most, 1 weekly brick this year in preparation. I am already in better shape, in terms of endurance and speed, than last year. Good luck to you on whatever you decide.
I am unfortunately a bit over-educated when it comes to endurance training (as is the case for many AG’s). In addition to following larger or more scientific peer-reviewed studies that have come out over the years, having degrees in both biology/physiology and medicine, and also having read a large amount of anecdotal and/or experience based books, articles, and websites. Too many coaches and too many divergent opinions–hard to know what to believe. Even more classic authors base many of there conclusions on experience and not necessarily science–this is understandable, and nevertheless has, perhaps, the highest credibility and utility. Very familiar with Allen/Coogen/Friel/Daniels work, among others.
I guess my real question regarding the original post is: is a brick-only training plan that unreasonable? and if so why? I assume the answer is likely yes, but I can’t think of a real rationale against it.
you read the research…and your still here asking??
If you had to you probably could do it, doing long run off the bike wouldnt be a smart thing at all! Asking a question like this begs one to think how much you know. For some bricks help get that run frequency but doing all training in said form makes 0 sense. After some of my rides I couldnt imagine running.
i would completely recommend against it for the single reason of quality. our bodies respond to sustaining high loads and performances, not just effort. we need effort but it needs to be geared towards specificity. just like running intervals in the middle of a 20 miler takes away from the intervals, running tired all the time is not that useful. in fact its not useful at all. workouts are made as packages that control every variable possible so as to make an environment of controlled stress. intervals are an example of focusing on a specific pace and rate of lactic acid buildup. this is different than simple fatigue. running tired does not create an environment that your body can respond from too well, you are just running tired. performing well on the run, now that creates a positive metabolic response. too often we relate being tired and trying hard to a good workout, when a good performance is the good workout. now if you wanted to go for an easy 20miler on the bike before a run i can see that, but constantly only running and doing workouts on not fresh legs? i cannot see the legs sustaining enough of a load to create a positive response. just volume alone with no intensity has its place, especially as a triathlete, but to train like that for 6 months will keep you fit but keep you from truly performing at a high level.
It strikes me as unreasonable from a recovery standpoint. Doing bricks >30 minutes at a meaningful pace tends to trash your legs, and make getting miles in on subsequent days pretty difficult. I can’t imagine running ~50 mpw if I had to do it all immediately off the bike. It’s hard enough as is when you’re balancing two other sports.
That whole point doesn’t even address the fact that running off the bike is a skill, and you’re not gaining any physiological advantage to running for that long off the bike. You’re just digging yourself a hole that will ultimately limit the quality and quantity of your other days. Infrequent, long bricks, however, can be used to test out pacing and nutrition. But they should be followed by adequate recovery.
I can’t imagine this approach will yield the best results but if your goal is to simply finish an IM then I’m sure this approach can get you there. Good luck, let us know how it works out.
Just have never heard of such a training program talked about and couldn’t exactly argue against it–it contains progressive overload and triathlon specificity, as well as threshold, race pace, and slower/endurance work-outs. It also prioritizes pacing and nutrition, which are likely as important as anything else.
Regarding quality running on fresh legs: two things (albeit simplistic) come to mind, 1. I will not be running on fresh legs during an ironman, and 2. when training hard (eg. 15-20hr/wk), even when all the workouts are zone 1-3 during a base period, my legs are always either a lot or a little tired–ie I am always running on relatively tired legs.
I am a bit worried about fatigue, but that can be managed with a change in the volume of non-key workouts I presume.
Not sure I will try it because it is so unconventional, but wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something besides conventional wisdom.
I am a bit worried about fatigue, but that can be managed with a change in the volume of non-key workouts I presume.
.
That’s my issue with the approach. You have to reduce the volume on other days to compensate for trashing your legs. The point being, biking 40 miles then running 8 miles takes longer to recover from than running 10 miles in the am and biking 50 miles in the pm. (Those are semi arbitrary numbers, but you get the point). So the following day you can bounce back and do more. Your 6, 12, 18, and 36 month cumulative volume is probably a better predictor of success in an endurance event than any one specific workout anyway.
I get the idea of ‘training on tired legs’. But that’s going to be happening with any worthwhile volume. The problem with extra bricks is that you’re adding fatigue without any appreciable physiological adaptation. That’s been shown. You can search the forum, I think rappstar posted a study showing that running off the bike is a skill. It needs to be practiced, but that’s different from doing all your training around it.