We hear this cliche over and over again. “I prefer quality vs. quantity any day.” I would like to know how some of you define “quality”.
Please discuss.
From what I have read about pro and top amateur athletes who have done well with low volume, high quality (intensity), the people who go fast with this approach have a training background of years of quantity. The beginner endurance athlete that wants to be fast (not just finish) needs a fair amount of quantity to build up a base.
Guys like Steve Larsen can go fast on low mileage because they have a great training base, never get really out of shape, and know how to use low volume/high intensity training to maximize results. Talent/genetics doesn’t hurt either.
Quality to me is training with purpose.
You still need to do your long ride, if like the poster above mentioned you have no base…but…
Say you do your long run on Sunday…wake up on Monday…and are completely spent…I don’t mean just kinda tired/lazy…but truly toasted. You have a shorter/higher intensity workout scheduled…for today…if 5mins into your workout your still only firing on one cylinder…and really just half-assing it…then stop. If you keep going just because it’s scheduled…that’s QUANTITY, not Quality.
If you stop…get the rest/recovery you need and have a great workout on Tuesday…even if it’s the same workout you were planning for on Monday…that’s Quality.
I did quality of quantity for years. Then as I got older, I found that quality kept leaving me injured. I was forced to try quantity over quality. Strangely enough, I did better. I still do better when I do a ton of aerobic work.
sitting on your bike with your heartrate at 90bpm for 4 hours is not a workout. Riding your bike for an hour at your aerobic threshold is. JMHO
Quality vs. Quantity
Both are important. It’s not a, black and white, this way or that way situation. The best is always going to be a blending of what the athlete needs and what their goals are. This is going to vary greatly over the course of an athletes time in the sport and over the course of a year.
Many are always aghast when athletes like Larsen and others claim to be doing well on a ridculously low volume of training, but for them it works. Larsen says why in the interview - he trained long for 20+ years and was likly over-trained for much of that time( his analysis). That massive base of fitness is not wiped out the minute he stops training. A large percentage of that base fitness stays in the body for years!
A few years ago I signed up for a 1/2 marathon. Not sure why, as I was in dreadful shape and had not run much in about 8 months. The 1/2 Marathon was in 6 weeks. In 6 weeks I went from barely able to hold 7:00 min miles to being able to string 13.1 6:00 min miles together and just under 1:20 for the 1/2 Marathon. ALL of the running I did in that 6 weeks was at 6:00 min/mile or faster without any big volume or longer runs. However, I had a base of deep running fitness going back 20+ years! So yes, looked at one way the training for that 1/2 marathon was ALL high quality - that’s if you did not include ALL the Quantity over the previous 20+ years!
We hear this cliche over and over again. “I prefer quality vs. quantity any day.” I would like to know how some of you define “quality”.
Exercise intensity relative to functional threshold power. 
That’s a “little” excessive…
Riding 4 hour at 140bpm IS a workout.
Exercise intensity relative to functional threshold power
I kind of get your defintion as it relates to cycling but how does it apply to running and the swim?
I agree. Throw in a an hour cross over run with good stride and pace and we´re talking quality. ALL training should be of good quality. The rest is recovery workouts. But for a triathlete with a job to do there isn´t much time for junk miles. Everything should have a purpose. Too tired to work out? Rest. Or do swimming technique.
Exercise intensity relative to functional threshold power
I kind of get your defintion as it relates to cycling but how does it apply to running and the swim?
For running, exercise intensity relative to Daniel’s “T pace”.
For swimming, exercise intensity relative to a comparable measure (e.g., critical velocity).
For running, exercise intensity relative to Daniel’s “T pace”.
It’s amazing, I have some friends and family who were casual runners for years. With the inclusion of just a bit of “T-Pace” running, they have all seen their times fall significantly.
For running, exercise intensity relative to Daniel’s “T pace”.
It’s amazing, I have some friends and family who were casual runners for years. With the inclusion of just a bit of “T-Pace” running, they have all seen their times fall significantly.
Just for the record: I was merely addressing the OP’s question as how to define “quality”, not advocating any particular approach to training.
if that’s quality vs. quantity, the quantity people will start overtraining and burning out.
But who knows, after an extended rest period maybe the quantity people will be in for a breakthrough.
Well I’m no coach or excercise physiologist, but I believe in a large quantity of quality training.
and the debate goes on.
It’s amazing, I have some friends and family who were casual runners for years. With the inclusion of just a bit of “T-Pace” running, they have all seen their times fall significantly.
Not so amazing when you consider that most rec-runners, even ones who take performance seriously, spend almost all their time running that same LSD pace in training. The injection of any faster paced running is going to yield positive results.
Quality is when you look at your training program and say:
“Where are the 60min easy runs, and the 90min easy spins”?
They don’t exist.
Quality is when you look at your training program and say:
“Where are the 60min easy runs, and the 90min easy spins”?
They don’t exist.
The whole issue was summed up for me back in the 70’s - yes, that long ago - when top Russian running coach came over to Canada on a coach exchange with my track club. After watching us train and run for a couple of weeks, someone from the club asked the coach what we were doing wrong. The Russian coach replied, “The hard days are not hard enough and the easy days are not easy enough” !!
I’ve always wondered…
Here is the metaphor that made me understand the relationship between quantity vs quality (don’t remember where I’ve read it first, if a STer could help give back to Cesar…) :
There’s that guy who eats pasta everyday, it fills him up and he’s never hungry, so everything seems perfect so far.
One day, the guy discovers tomato sauce… this is great, 5 oz of it in a plate of pasta, and he feels a lot better after lunch…
The following day, he learns how to use a pinch of spices in his sauce… that’s fantastic…and he feels a lot lot better after lunch…
So he decides to stop eating that boring pasta, and starts to eat tomato sauce with spices… two day laters, he feels so sick, that he gets back to pasta only, telling his friends that’s the only thing worth it and problem free…
So, I guess, that pasta is endurance, tomato threshold and spices IT…
I wouldn’t want to sacrifice one over the other, especially the longer the race distance gets. Obviously you better be able to handle long hours in the saddle before considering an Ironman. By the same token, that same IM bike will be a very unpleasant experience if you’re spending all your training time loafing in the saddle and then when you push the pace during the race your muscles start rebelling. Regularly in your training you must train with the intensity at which you expect to race.
“It’s not a, black and white, this way or that way situation.”
+1.