While I agree with the overall principles, I’m not sure about this “using only carbos for fuel” talk vs going easier and “burning fat”:
http://www.xtri.com/article.asp?id=1916
Anyway, while I agree that most people would stand to gain a lot by slowing down in easy workouts, I think the concept of going aerobic all the time was out the window.
Also, the arbitrary zones don’t really take into account personal variances etc.
Paul,
Thanks for the link. I really do like the Maffetone/Allen method. I like training with power better. Whenever I see this, I always think of two different things:
This method produced arguably (notice I say arguably) the best short-course triathlete in Mike Pigg (didn’t the guy podium in like 80 of 110 events entered?) and the best long course triathlete in Allen of all time. Thus, some credibility must be given to the methods.
Whenever Allen or Maffetone talk about slowing down, they always leave out the fact that the guy was freakin fast to begin with. He was just trying to figure out how to become faster using a different energy source. The book will say things like, “I was running 5:30 miles and blowing up at mile 18 of the Ironman… so I started training at a lower HR and my times at first were slower, but then eventually came back down to 5:30.” (note numbers are just examples) Well, if you can already run freakin 18, 5:30miles in an IM, it is more of an energy source issue than a speed issue. For me, I am still slow, so I still need to get fast.
**This method produced arguably (notice I say arguably) the best short-course triathlete in Mike Pigg (didn’t the guy podium in like 80 of 110 events entered?) and the best long course triathlete in Allen of all time. Thus, some credibility must be given to the methods. **
Did Allen and Pigg use the Maffetone method their entire careers?
I think the only thing this article is good for is to remind us that our easy workouts are not “junk” miles, but important parts of training. It’s easy for me to forget that I’m benefiting even when I’m having fun. Not everything has to hurt for it to make a difference.
But, the formula he puts out there is the kind of nonsense I see on treadmills and Shape magazine. I don’t even think it’s a good approximation of the appropriate aerobic zone for most people.
This is a really good point. Allen and Pigg were insanely fast before going on the Maffetone program. The Maffetone approach just slowed them down in training so they could likely do more. For Mark Allen, one would suspect that the approach allowed him to get more volume of training in without injury which subsequently meant more endurance for Ironman racing…he already had bags of speed up to the Nice distance (or should I say 101…).
I have a few books by Maffetone and basically I use it this way:
When I do big volume pushing towards an Ironman (the “3 hour per day” plan), I just do one “hard” workout per week, a 90K ride with ~40-60k @Olympic tri race intensity. The rest fall into the so called Aerobic zone. I also race every other weekend. Typically my hours are in the 18-24 zone at this point…intensity is left to races or one hard workout per week. By doing this, I can keep up these volumes for weeks on end without burning out, while still maintaining speed.
The rest of the year when I am on the “1.5-2 hour per day plan” I do some “hard stuff” every day. I can handle intensity at the 10-14 hour volumes without blowing up.
The bottom line is that I can handle only so much intensityxVolume per week. When I cut out volume, I jack up intensity. Using the M2 inverse pyramid approach (Mike McCormack…not that he coaches me, but what he proposes just happens to coincidentally be what I implement ), the intensity that I do during my low volume periods, carries over enough speed into the high volume periods as long as I “fire up” say 3 times over every 14 days (2 hard ride and a race per 2 weeks).
Dev
Take a look at Gordo’s blog - http://www.gordoworld.com/gblog/index.html - he spoke about it a while ago and has incorporated it into his early season base protocol. It will be interesting to see what feedback he has.
I’m not so sure. I think M2 has the better approach for the average age grouper…keep the intensity up through the winter especially when the weather is crap and you can’t do big volume (unless you have hampster genetics and love indoor riding) and then come spring, flip over to elements of “Maffetone” by cutting back intensity and jacking up volume.
Allen had speed before he jumped on the Maffetone bandwagon, and the more I read into it, the Maffetone approach allowed him to do more volume which delivered him to mile 22 ready to surge on Dave Scott in 1989, something he was never able to do.
I think for the average age grouper, going low volume low intensity in the winter and then ramping volume while adding intensity in the spring is inefficient as many tend to burn out when they hit the volume phase. I think it is better to keep the intensity x volume product close to a constant or marginally increase it over time. I think many people end up drastically increasing the “training load” in the summer and then wonder why they can’t recover between sessions/races.
Dev
“I think many people end up drastically increasing the “training load” in the summer and then wonder why they can’t recover between sessions/races.”
Bingo.
The bottom line is that I can handle only so much intensityxVolume per week. When I cut out volume, I jack up intensity. Using the M2 inverse pyramid approach (Mike McCormack…not that he coaches me, but what he proposes just happens to coincidentally be what I implement ), the intensity that I do during my low volume periods, carries over enough speed into the high volume periods as long as I “fire up” say 3 times over every 14 days (2 hard ride and a race per 2 weeks).
I wonder how much “low volume high intensity” training Michael did in Spain leading up to his 8:16 at IMC?
My key take away from this is the ability to absorb the increased training volume.
Yeah, I’d rather work in the winter to increase my bike FTP/run tempo pace and then bust out the door in spring ready to take on additional volume than slog all winter on LSD and then expect to be miraculously ready for up tempo work in the spring PLUS lots more volume.
Winter=Go hard, get faster, minimize volume
Spring=Go hard (not much more volume than winter), STAY faster, add necessary volume based on race distances
Our running group debates this shit constantly with me all the time. Now, if I could just throw down a 3:15 or something in a marathon, they just might listen, but until then…its more of “well if that worked, why wouldn’t you be kicking our ass…Mr. Zone 1, Heart Rate Guy…”
I thought the last 2 years the pendulum was swinging back to race-pace training, higher intensity: especially in marathon run training.
I would be surprised if this issue isn’t debated in marathon and triathlon training groups across the country. I bet most people go hot and cold with it. I do. Like: “This year, I’m going to do this right and train at a base of 75 percent, etc…,” usually after reading a convincing training piece about training at lower intensity and burning fat, or after I buy a new watch with a heart rate monitor, or after I put a new battery in my old HRM strap.
Or…after I read Gordo’s blog, back I go into it again a few months ago.
But over time, my usual history with this is that the old HRM gets busted out for a month, but then I’ll hang it up in disgust: and it just sits in a corner, put down, only to be revived after another article.
If left by default, I will go back to just “running with everybody” for X Miles, and going as fairly hard as a I can, for as long as I can go, and then go 2 miles longer the next week.
That’s fine if you run or bike by yourself, but I find it IMPOSSIBLE to do that kind of zone 1 or 2 Heart Rate training right in a group. I go ANAEROBIC quick because they don’t give a shit about your 75 percent of MHR stuff.
Its also a question of how much time you got.
Dev is kind of onto it with this last post. The thing is, a lot of zone 2 aerobic work is great and you can improve with that, as long as you are putting the miles in. Allen and Pigg were putting in 300 - 400 miles a week when they were doing this. For the average age grouper who might be putting in 75 - 100 miles right now, doing it all in zone 2 is not very productive.
Mike, if you look at it another way, in the summer, I am doing “base” for my winter intensity, and in the winter, I am doing intensity for my summer racing. But I don’t really end up combining summer volume, with piles of racing, with piles of intensity. What I have noted over the past 5 years is that my overall intensity (on average) whether winter, spring or summer has gone up and the race times have gone down (train to train). It also helps that my son (during that time frame) was age 6-10 vs 0-5 (much tougher to train and recover when they are really young…).
Anyway, I am not sure how productive sitting on a trainer for hours on end at Z1 is. Unless it is someone’s first year in tri, they should have some legs left over from last season to do some intensity oriented training from time to time over the winter.
Dev
I think the only thing this article is good for is to remind us that our easy workouts are not “junk” miles
I think the only thing the article is good for is to remind us that just because you were once an elite athlete doesn’t mean you know anything about the physiology of exercise.
Dev,
I am by no means an expert, but looking at it very generally, I think that the error that many make is that they take time off at the end of the season and then head into the off-season and the build up to the next season starting back at zero. That’s fine if having fun and staying fit is what they want, but if they are REALLY interested in improving performance, the start of the off-season, while there is still a high degree of fitness from the previous season, is a natural spring-board to take a bit of a leap forward from, but many are averse to this due to all the talk of base, base base, and LSD and the evils of “speed” work and . . Why waste that great new fitness level that you have reached. I am not saying just keep hammering away, but there is something to be said for keeping a modest level of faster paced training in the program year round. Just my thoughts.
Take a look at Gordo’s blog - http://www.gordoworld.com/gblog/index.html - he spoke about it a while ago and has incorporated it into his early season base protocol. It will be interesting to see what feedback he has.
Yeah, I found it very interesting when Gordo wrote that he was doing “8 months of base, for 8 weeks of training, for 8 hours of racing.” I hope he kicks ass in Penticton next August.
-C
I bet you Gordo can also crank out 250 W in Zone 1 or run 6:10 miles in Zone 1…so don’t fool yourself, I bet you his base 8 month base includes lots of Ironman race pace stuff :-).
I am not saying just keep hammering away, but there is something to be said for keeping a modest level of faster paced training in the program year round. Just my thoughts.
Agreed with that Fleck, and while not fast like many here, as an oldster I’m finding it easier to keep some quickness in the diet year-round than to have to totally rediscover what going fast feels like in the spring.
I bet you Gordo can also crank out 250 W in Zone 1 or run 6:10 miles in Zone 1…so don’t fool yourself, I bet you his base 8 month base includes lots of Ironman race pace stuff 
Yes, of course. All I was saying was that his approach is interesting to me. The fact that his base is faster than mine doesn’t change the overall approach.
-C