My long ride typically takes place on Saturday, followed by a brief aerobic run (40-50min). That’s sufficient for the day. However, my long run is the following day, capped off with a brief aerobic spin on the bike (50-60min). For some reason, that spin always feels good after pounding the pavement - “good” as in I stick to the prescribed volume, but could definitely keep it going. What is the consequence of adding volume by extending that aerobic spin (i.e. beneficial, detrimental, or negligible)? In a way, it’s like performing two long rides on consecutive days - which raises a red flag for some folks.
I’m of the opinion that the extra cardio work is generally good. I also like to mix it up like that a little, which I think is part of the appeal of Tris in the first place… i.e., you can get a pretty good burn doing a 4- or 5-hr (or whatever) combination of S, B, and/or R whereas a solid run of approx equal time would be more likely to injure yourself. It can also help you with the nutrition phase of a HIM or IM, getting used to re-feuling strategery during extended efforts.
I don’t understand the reasoning. Tell me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the development of fatty acid metabolism muscle specific?
While extending aerobic intervals sounds like a good idea at times - regardless of the means by which it is done (bikerun or runbike), wouldn’t it be more efficient to just extend the long rides and long runs and thus train into better use of available muscle fuels.
Kai
wouldn’t it be more efficient to just extend the long rides and long runs and thus train into better use of available muscle fuels.
Kai
It may be.
If these sessions come from Opentri, as I suspect, the rationale is that following a 2 hour run with a 1 hour ride provides similar aerobic benefit while reducing the the pounding on the legs thus reducing recovery time. There aren’t any 3 hour runs in that plan. It seems to have worked for MIke and many that have used his (free) plan.
I don’t disagree. While this plan does extend the aerobic benefits of a ride or a run, I question the rational.
I wonder if an athlete capable of three to five hours blocks of exercise wouldn’t indeed benefit from longer stints of the same exercise - thus training into muscle specific fat metabolism. Obviously, long runs are done on a much less frequent basis, but they are just as important.
This probably reeks of 1980’s science and training philosophy, but I still believe that the athlete who is capable of switching over early (into fat) will have the edge over one who can’t. (given long enough distances)
My long ride typically takes place on Saturday, followed by a brief aerobic run (40-50min). That’s sufficient for the day. However, my long run is the following day, capped off with a brief aerobic spin on the bike (50-60min). For some reason, that spin always feels good after pounding the pavement - “good” as in I stick to the prescribed volume, but could definitely keep it going. What is the consequence of adding volume by extending that aerobic spin (i.e. beneficial, detrimental, or negligible)? In a way, it’s like performing two long rides on consecutive days - which raises a red flag for some folks.
Aieee, the troubles in here.
Run FIRST - you get more benefit from running on fresher legs than bricking.
2 long rides on the weekend is MUCH better for you IMO than a long ride then a long run. Cycling = easy recovery. Long run, not so much. Do the long run mid week, get lots of bike volume on the weekend.
Of course now you’ve got to change your whole plan.
To answer the original question, I don’t see any trouble with spinning longer - you will feel the point where it becomes detrimental (or at least I can usually tell when I am doing a recovery workout and it switches from recovery to damaging)
Tell me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the development of fatty acid metabolism muscle specific?
While extending aerobic intervals sounds like a good idea at times - regardless of the means by which it is done (bikerun or runbike), wouldn’t it be more efficient to just extend the long rides and long runs and thus train into better use of available muscle fuels.
I am not sure what you mean by “muscle specific” but it doesn’t matter…
The benefit to doing a shorter session later in the day is that you get the volume but it’s slightly less stressful but you’re still getting volume. You recover a bit between sessions.
Like Kurt said, it’s still aerobic — and thus you’re still burning a higher % of fat and lower % of glycogen — the only way to change this would be if intensity increased.
Tell me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the development of fatty acid metabolism muscle specific?
While extending aerobic intervals sounds like a good idea at times - regardless of the means by which it is done (bikerun or runbike), wouldn’t it be more efficient to just extend the long rides and long runs and thus train into better use of available muscle fuels.
I am not sure what you mean by “muscle specific” but it doesn’t matter…
The benefit to doing a shorter session later in the day is that you get the volume but it’s slightly less stressful but you’re still getting volume. You recover a bit between sessions.
Like Kurt said, it’s still aerobic — and thus you’re still burning a higher % of fat and lower % of glycogen — the only way to change this would be if intensity increased.
why yes, it does matter. the entire process is muscle specific in that is occurs at first within the mitochondria, and then in the cytoplasm. I do remember that the initial process is regulated at the liver, however, the use of fat to provide two carbons to the acetyl CO-A chain is muscle specific. this is a process which can be trained in.
i’m not argueing the benefits of extended aerobic training, just entering thoughts about training to more efficient switching into FA Metabolism.
Training is training. If you can add aerobic volume and still recover then it will help. It will not help if you are really beat on Monday morning and can’t do that workout. Of course, if it is easier to find time on the weekend then this might not be a bad thing. I take Sundays off from training, so I’ve never done what you describe, but I’ve done plenty of back to back large volume days. If I’m very fit it’s not a big deal. If not, then it leads to sickness and injury.
Oh, and I’ll second the run first philosophy. I’ve never found that specific bike-run bricks helped me run faster in a race, but I ‘brick’ nearly every day by running and then doing my ride directly afterwards. I would definately go long run/shorter ride on Saturday and then shorter run/long ride on Sunday.
If these sessions come from Opentri, as I suspect, the rationale is that following a 2 hour run with a 1 hour ride provides similar aerobic benefit while reducing the the pounding on the legs thus reducing recovery time. There aren’t any 3 hour runs in that plan. It seems to have worked for MIke and many that have used his (free) plan.
I did tailor my plan from Mike’s free plan, but made some personal adjustments. This statement is the essence of my question. Be it running or cycling, the point of these short aerobic “bricks” is to comfortably add aerobic volume by changing muscle groups and/or reducing wear and tear. I’m conservative on the Sat bike-to-run brick because (1) the likelihood of an overuse injury during the run is greater, and (2) I still have a big workout the next day. I’m less conservative on the Sun run-to-bike brick for the exact opposite reasons: (1) the bike is less stressful on the body, and (2) I have an easy day afterwards. Looking back at the OP I think it’s kind of a rhetorical question. Obviously, aerobic time is aerobic time so long as you’re not provoking an injury. Looking back on the course of a week, an extra hour of aerobic volume can be a pretty significant addition.
Yeah in a perfect (pro?) world long runs would be mid week, long rides on w/e’s. Not a reality for many ager’s.
Rest on Friday, workouts as described above on weekends, swim on Monday. Worked well for me in year one, even better this time around (fatigue, recovery, etc.)
I don’t think anyone here said bricks make one faster, it’s just a way to get volume in.
Having time for the son’s lacrosse game is just a bonus.
Yeah in a perfect (pro?) world long runs would be mid week, long rides on w/e’s. Not a reality for many ager’s.
Rest on Friday, workouts as described above on weekends, swim on Monday. Worked well for me in year one, even better this time around (fatigue, recovery, etc.)
I don’t think anyone here said bricks make one faster, it’s just a way to get volume in.
Having time for the son’s lacrosse game is just a bonus.
Yeah, shuffling long days into mid-week sounds great, but not feasible w/ job, kids, etc. And I agree bricks may not offer any physiological advantage, but for me at least they help w/ mental fortitude and allow me to log more time than I would doing just one or the other.
Yeah, shuffling long days into mid-week sounds great, but not feasible w/ job, kids, etc.
I never suggested that someone go to a mid-week long run, though frankly that is the best way to do it. I was only saying that if you are going to do a long run and long ride on the weekend then you should do the long run first on Saturday and then the long ride on Sunday.
I just crack up when I hear people use a job and kids as an excuse for no training time. There are 24 hours in a day and people spend them how they want to spend them them. I roll out of bed very early to get my training in before my children or wife are even awake. What people are really saying is that triathlon is not really that important to them because they would rather do other things. Blaming it on their commute is my favorite excuse.
A long run for many athletes is about as long as a short bike ride. So if one can ride during the week, this is no excuse.
I don’t think anyone here said bricks make one faster, it’s just a way to get volume in.
What is the purpose of the sport? Getting faster, or getting volume in?
A long run for many athletes is about as long as a short bike ride. So if one can ride during the week, this is no excuse.
I couldn’t agree more. That was sort of the point I was making above.
I don’t think anyone here said bricks make one faster, it’s just a way to get volume in.
What is the purpose of the sport? Getting faster, or getting volume in?
More volume = more faster.
It sounds simplistic, but a lot of triathletes could save themselves a lot of time and money on coaches and training plans by simply increasing their training volume. For years now, my main goal is to increase my training volume from the previous year. I managed to do it for about five years and every year I became faster. I’ve sort of reached the point where I just can’t find any more training time (about 16 bike/run hours per week average over the last two years) so I’m starting to work in a little bike and run speed to augment, but in an event that lasts more than an hour up to five, aerobic efficiency is key and you get that from more volume.
