login
Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!)
-
No new posts
| General Discussion | Triathlon Talk » Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) | Rss Feed  |
|
 2012-01-31 4:34 PM |
 47 |  Subject: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!)
The discussion i had with many of you folks after my last post was awesome and really got me thinking ALOT about my ideas. I have a real affinity for logic (all those physics classes) and as such i really like logical arguments. I've had one playing out in my head the last few days and it seems pretty good to me - but i realize i'm far from infallible, and so i thought maybe i'd get some input from other folks as to whether my ideas are sound or not.... and if not, why not. Here goes:
The logical conclusion that I draw from these premises is that the most efficient way to maximize fitness (in terms of time cost of fitness gained) is to determine training volume in such a way as to maximize one's ability to do genuine high intensity training. One possible logical 'challenge' i can see is that perhaps it is possible for one to be training at the high intensity volume limit and add more training at a lower intensity without affecting recovery or impacting the ability to continue to make that high intensity time genuinely so. For me, i find this is not really that possible - unless the added activity is of sufficiently low intensity that (for me) it not only doesn't really qualify as training, but probably offers negligible fitness gains above and beyond what the high intensity stuff alone provides. Honestly assessing my own capabilities along these lines is why i cut my training from 3 hours a week to 2 nearly a year ago. I was having great workouts, but at least one of my efforts every week was less than i knew it could be - in my case mostly for mental reasons. I also sense that one objection to this reasoning might come in the form a claim that limited volume training can't prepare one for ultra-endurance events. Fair enough - at least for someone with no background in protracted physical efforts. But this challenge is based more on ones mental preparation for such an event, not how well the body itself (in terms of the actual physical machine) is capable of handling the challenge. And this is where it gets tricky - it is much harder (at this point) for me to feel i've got a platform that challenges a conventional wisdom that says 'to prepare for iron-man you better learn (mentally) how to suffer so that you know how to respond race day and the best way to do that is to do long runs/bikes/bricks and experience it first hand' as opposed to one that says 'to only/best* way to physically prepare for IM is to put in your time and dedicate 10-20 hours a week to training'. The latter statement is what i disagree with, and in my opinion, it represents the framework that is assumed indisputable by the vast majority of triathletes (and endurance athletes in general) out there. *based on my own experience and the limited experience i've had with others trying to take my approach, conventional wisdom/high volume approaches to endurance training probably do represent the easiest or most practical way to be successful at endurance events, simply because sticking to a training program focused (almost) exclusively on high intensity work requires a mental commitment and ability that, if not possessed at the outset, appears to require more effort to develop than what is required to carve another 10 hours of training time into the week. Thoughts? |
| 2012-01-31 5:37 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
Pro 6520    Bellingham, WA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) From the article, "In other words, six minutes or so a week of hard exercise (plus the time spent warming up, cooling down, and resting between the bouts of intense work) had proven to be as good as multiple hours of working out for achieving fitness. Total nonsense. Not sure why you are so fixated on this concept. |
| 2012-01-31 6:05 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
Veteran 555 | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) No doubt there is something to this, as demonstrated by Tabata followers. Also I recall Lew Hollander, the 80 year old, 21 time Kona finisher, saying he includes some anaerobic work in every workout, but he also trains 10-15 hours a week. Yes, HIIT will build one's "mental toughness". I agree. But what about the questions typically answered by long training sessions: How might HIIT prepare one's butt to ride 5 to 6 hours? Is one supposed to be so mentally tough to just suffer through it. "It's just a flesh wound" Without a couple of 5 or 6 hour bricks how will one know if one's bike setup allows running without very tight or cramped hamstrings? or really sore shoulders? Or even be able to stay in the aero position for 5 to 6 hours? Without a couple of 18 to 20 mile runs how will one know if one's shirt is going to wet sand one's nipples? Or chafe one's pectorals just beside the armpits? Or shoes/socks are going to cause blisters/loss of toenails? How will one know what nutrition plan works well 6, 7, 8 hours into the event? This is hard for any training plan to answer, but some 6 hour bricks might identify somethings which do not work. How about dealing with temperature extremes? One can be physically fit and mentally tough, but will still need to know how to adjust hydration after 6, 7, 8 hours if the temperature / humidity are more extreme than expected. Dehydration, overheating or hypothermia can stop even very strong athletes - pros "blow up" all the time. How might HIIT teach one to adjust hydration after many hours of exertion? If there is a way to learn these lessons in 2 to 4 hours a week, I'm all for it. These questions are raised in the spirit of exploration, not criticism. If my wording is offensive, please understand that is not my intention. |
| 2012-01-31 6:22 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
Veteran 930 Morgan Hill, California | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) I followed some of the discussion on this thread, v.1, so, as with the previous poster, I'm not trying to be critical or rehash those arguments. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that HIIT training can get some athlete's fit enough for long distance racing. In addition to the questions above about nutrition and getting one's butt used to the time in the saddle, what about injury? It seems to me that much of the talk about reducing the risk for injury is limiting the amount of intensity/speed work until the base is built to support it. (I know that is massively oversimplified) How does HIIT prepare the body for the intensity required for that level of effort? Similarly, I would also worry that the stresses of racing/completing 140.6 miles are going to cause injury, regardless of whether the endurance engine is built strong enough to finish. Surely there is a benefit to all those miles in building up the body's ability to swim/bike/run 140.6 miles. Not just provide the engine for those miles, but the chassis too. Do you propose that HIIT will provide for that as well? |
 2012-01-31 6:28 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred D 2012-01-31 6:33 PM |
| 2012-01-31 6:53 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) magn6494 - 2012-01-31 6:34 PM I have a real affinity for logic (all those physics classes) and as such i really like logical arguments. Based on this, I would suggest a more careful literature review than relying on what is easily accessible for public consumption. You have the tools required to critically read the articles and weigh the data for yourself. Perhaps you've done an exhaustive literature review but I suspect that you have not. Premise 1: High intensity interval training produces the greatest physiological adaptive response of any type of exercise. Research over the past 15 years seems to support this claim. One study found that tabata style intervals produced the same or similar results as more traditional interval work focused on maximizing time spent at or just above lactate threshold (ie 4 x 6 minutes of cycling at race pace separated by 3 minutes rest). Most folks would consider event the latter to be 'interval training', and use it only occasionally in a training program aimed at an endurance event. Yes, doing more results in a greater training stress and therefore greater adaptation. However, one needs to be prepared for the training stress or one will flirt with injury. While swimming and cycling can often have a significant amount of intensity with little risk of injury, this is not the case for running and an athlete who simply does lots of all out sprints is very likely to end up injured. Even if they don't, in order to compete well at an endurance event, they will require at least some workouts that mimic the demands of racing so some longer steady state workouts should be included. To your bike specific example, most would consider that to be interval training (because it is) but you would very likely see this, or a harder workout, as a staple in a well educated athlete's program. Generally one would expect to see one bike workout a week focused on FTP efforts and these would often be 2x20 minutes at race effort with a short spin between. Premise 2: High intensity interval training can produce increases in endurance capabilities equivalent to more traditional longer duration/moderate intensity training. True; however as with the previous point, there is a limit. Let's say I am able to complete three high intensity run workouts a week and this gives me a training stress of X; if instead I do six low intensity workouts that each result in the same training stress as the higher intensity workout, I then have a weekly training stress of 2X. Come race day, I would bet on the athlete who had double the overall training stimulus (all else being equal). Premise 3: There is a physiological limit as to the amount of high intensity interval training that a person can perform - this limit is a function of the individuals capacity to recover. True; this is why a good program will include a mix of durations and intensities; the goal is to create a progressive overload that will allow an athlete to continually improve. Premise 4: High intensity interval training requires bouts of MAX EFFORT, which are mentally very demanding. True but this is not restricted to high intensity training. Do a 2x20 set on the bike or 30 minutes of running at threshold pace or a 50x50 set at T pace in the pool and you will need a strong mental focus as well. Premise 5: Pragmatically speaking, the limit of one's capacity to perform HIIT is also a function of the ability to meet these mental demands during workout sessions. In some cases, yes. In other cases, one is absolutely physiologically limited. Premise 6: High intensity Interval training is the most time effective means of producing physiological adaptations in our aerobic system. True; until one gets hurt. When an athlete constantly trains at their limits (for volume or intensity) they are always courting injury and there is no quicker way to undo one's fitness gains than by being unable to train. I also sense that one objection to this reasoning might come in the form a claim that limited volume training can't prepare one for ultra-endurance events. Fair enough - at least for someone with no background in protracted physical efforts. But this challenge is based more on ones mental preparation for such an event, not how well the body itself (in terms of the actual physical machine) is capable of handling the challenge. Principle of specificity - this is why periodization goes from general to specific training. It doesn't matter how much HIIT one does, if one is going to be racing an endurance event, they had better have done some race specific preparation or they are going to underperform and/or suffer greatly. Shane |
| 2012-01-31 7:12 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Extreme Veteran 833 Strong Beach, CA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) Why fix what isn't broken. Train long and hard to race long and hard. I'd rather be out training than sitting around trying to find ways to half-a$$ it. |
| 2012-01-31 9:43 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
| 47 | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) magn6494 - 2012-01-31 4:34 PM I also sense that one objection to this reasoning might come in the form a claim that limited volume training can't prepare one for ultra-endurance events. Fair enough - at least for someone with no background in protracted physical efforts. But this challenge is based more on ones mental preparation for such an event, not how well the body itself (in terms of the actual physical machine) is capable of handling the challenge. And this is where it gets tricky - it is much harder (at this point) for me to feel i've got a platform that challenges a conventional wisdom that says 'to prepare for iron-man you better learn (mentally) how to suffer so that you know how to respond race day and the best way to do that is to do long runs/bikes/bricks and experience it first hand' as opposed to one that says 'to only/best* way to physically prepare for IM is to put in your time and dedicate 10-20 hours a week to training'. The latter statement is what i disagree with, and in my opinion, it represents the framework that is assumed indisputable by the vast majority of triathletes (and endurance athletes in general) out there. *based on my own experience and the limited experience i've had with others trying to take my approach, conventional wisdom/high volume approaches to endurance training probably do represent the easiest or most practical way to be successful at endurance events, simply because sticking to a training program focused (almost) exclusively on high intensity work requires a mental commitment and ability that, if not possessed at the outset, appears to require more effort to develop than what is required to carve another 10 hours of training time into the week. Thoughts? Fred - you're absolutely right. I want to respond to some of the initial feedback - for one one i feel that my idea is being misunderstood. I'm not suggesting that a low volume approach is better. only that - as i state above, for someone with some experience with protracted efforts it could be a viable option. I'm not exactly sure why exploring the possibility of another path to a common goal seems (at least from my point of view) to be so threatening to so many. Well i guess i understand it - thats the way it works, right? Atlantabill brings up good points - the logistics of IM can be daunting. someone who's never done anything long obviously needs to do long stuff. But why couldn't an average athlete who wanted to have a goal of IM train on limited volume and schedule, say 4-5 races of increasing length over a couple consecutive years? wouldn't they (if they paid attention) get enough feed back during a HIM to figure out how to keep their nipples from bleeding? couldn't then get a pretty good idea just by researching the idea? And just to set the record straight, i DON't think that HIIT will help develop the mental toughness for IM at all - mental toughness to pound out a 20 second interval will not help finish an IM. as i stated in the OP, if the claim was "to prepare for iron-man you better learn (mentally) how to suffer so that you know how to respond race day and the best way to do that is to do long runs/bikes/bricks and experience it first hand" i might be obliged to agree. But if the claim is that the best/only way to really prepare physically is through conventional training programs - well, this is the idea that i'm interested in examining. as far as kmac and Gsmaclead's queries go - aren't overuse injuries thought to possibly caused both by too high of intensity and/or overuse? some studies indicate that roughly a third to a half of people training using conventional methods for a marathon (40+ miles a week) suffer some sort of an overuse injury (and they're not getting them from 200 meter sprints). ample recovery between efforts and a focus on flexibility and balanced strength should enable, in my opinion, safe application of high intensity running in an athletic individual... and come on - anyone training for an IM has gotta fall into this category. most of the replies seem to miss or sidestep the argument - i'm suggesting that creating a training program around MAXIMIZING the amount of high intensity (lets say for the sake of argument that this includes Zone 4 - lactate threshold - and above intensities) could physically prepare someone for something like IM similarly to a program that took significantly longer in terms of training hours. For me that number is around 2 hours. Other than the idea that one might need to be mentally prepared for the duration and logistically prepared (something i think can be done more gradually and just by doing consecutively longer races - something that most BT people would recommend anyway for someone seeking to do IM distance) - are there other reasons why these principals couldn't work? and btw - i'm not aiming to fix anything jackson. if what you're doing works for you - awesome. But if someone comes to me and says - man, i've always dreamed about doing an IM but i could never figure out how to fit in 15 hours of training to my week..... i'm going to look at him and say - well, you may not hear this from anyone else, but there may just be another way..... |
| 2012-01-31 10:51 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) I think that many (most?) people who get involved with Ironman do it because they love to train and Ironman gives them an accepted outlet or reason for their training. You will read over and over in threads how people would train even if they could never race again. Because of this bias towards lots and lots of training as part of the Ironman experience we can't really understand the motivation behind somebody wanting to go 140.6 but not train like an Ironman. People often criticize things they don't understand...... Extremely low volume training to complete 140.6..... Can it be done? Sure? Should it be done? Why not? Is it the traditional path to "Ironman glory?" No, but Ironman is your experience and how you do it is up to you and you alone. That doesn't mean it is wrong. I suspect with your endurance background you could suffer with the best of them and complete an Ironman (quite well) even if you were drastically undertrained----and you won't be the only one who shows up on race day with suspect fitness for the distance. I look forward to seeing how you do it. |
| 2012-01-31 10:55 PM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Master 2621 Mechanicsburg, PA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) Hey at first I thought I was in no way going to get involved in this thread. Then I thought with that purposed training I will have done that in the bathroom alone.
|
| 2012-02-01 12:01 AM in reply to: #4021894 |
| Expert 1258 Marin County, California | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) jackson61802 - 2012-01-31 7:12 PM Why fix what isn't broken. Train long and hard to race long and hard. I'd rather be out training than sitting around trying to find ways to half-a$$ it. X2. A big part of Ironman is putting in the work. 'Doing' an Ironman and 'being' an Ironman are two very different things to me. I am more interested in 'doing' than 'being.' Many people who are looking to do (tolerate?) the least amount of training possible seem to be mostly interested in 'being' rather than 'doing.' I have zero interest in whether this approach can work. I happen to like training long. |
| 2012-02-01 1:12 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) 1. If you do not have sufficient base, high intensity workouts will break you. 2. If you really think that working out 6 minutes a week will prepare you for an IM .. please don't try to prove it. The medical staff are there for folks who have trained and are still having health problems not for folks who want to harm themselves and take away resources from others. 3. I do not kno what you mean about not Trolling.. really? 4. Look at the number of hours Kona qualifying triathletes put in... I guess they are all idiots... thats why the top group is sub 9 hours for an IM. Perhapse you can learn them to be more competitive on 6 minutes of workout a week. 5. NM, cuz you don't really want to hear what any of us have to say anyway. |
| 2012-02-01 4:59 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Pro 4353 Wallingford, PA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) Generally speaking, what you're talking about ("replacing" volume with intensity to increase training load and thereby reduce total training volume) is not really a new concept - but what you're talking about is a very extreme example of applying that principle. What you need to keep in mind is that we are all built differently, we all have different goals and different life commitments, and we all respond to training in different ways. Some people respond better to higher volume/lower intensity. Some respond better to higher intensity/lower volume. Some people only have X hours per week to train, and need to make the most of it by maximizing intensity to one degree or another. Most would benefit from including efforts at a range of lengths and intensities over the course of their training. For an approach like yours to have any prayer of success, the individual training would have to come into it already having a VERY solid base of aerobic fitness and be very injury resistant; and even that person would not be training to their potential by training that way. This would definitely be a VERY VERY BAD IDEA for someone new to endurance training. Now, it's probably true that very few of us actually manage to really train to our full potential, but I think most of us get closer by following more traditional approaches. No one, by the way, is implying that high intensity training is bad. It definitely has a place, but to train exclusively that way for long course triathlon is probably not the best idea for the vast majority of people... Following your approach, I'm not sure how the principle of progressive overload to prepare for an IM distance event would work. You're already talking about very high intensity efforts which, from your description, require significant recovery before the next effort is undertaken. How do you continue to increase your training load? Again, as Shane said, the principle of specificity needs to come into play at some point. Sure - your approach will build fitness, but does nothing to build race-specific fitness (i.e., the longer efforts at closer to race pace). I know you don't seem to think that's important, but most of those reading and posting here think it's an important component of preparing for long course triathlon. I don't think anyone (at least not me) feels "threatened" by your ideas - we just don't think the approach, at least not taken to the extreme you suggest, would work for most of us. |
| 2012-02-01 6:55 AM in reply to: #4022242 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) magn6494 - 2012-01-31 11:43 PM as far as kmac and Gsmaclead's queries go - aren't overuse injuries thought to possibly caused both by too high of intensity and/or overuse? some studies indicate that roughly a third to a half of people training using conventional methods for a marathon (40+ miles a week) suffer some sort of an overuse injury (and they're not getting them from 200 meter sprints). ample recovery between efforts and a focus on flexibility and balanced strength should enable, in my opinion, safe application of high intensity running in an athletic individual... and come on - anyone training for an IM has gotta fall into this category. To the bolded point - most overuse injuries are due to poor training load management - often from trying to do too much too soon; whether that is intensity or volume doesn't really matter when one builds too quickly. To the point in italics - however you've been arguing getting the same benefits from less training (and significantly less training); that means that while you have a little longer to recover, the training load is still similar. most of the replies seem to miss or sidestep the argument - i'm suggesting that creating a training program around MAXIMIZING the amount of high intensity (lets say for the sake of argument that this includes Zone 4 - lactate threshold - and above intensities) could physically prepare someone for something like IM similarly to a program that took significantly longer in terms of training hours. For me that number is around 2 hours. Zone 4 is not high intensity - that is the level at which you can race for around an hour and while challenging to race for an hour would not come close to maximizing results if one limits themselves to two hours of zone 4 work a week. Even zone 5 would not really be what the literature indicates for HIIT - that's VO2max which is still primarily aerobic. Other than the idea that one might need to be mentally prepared for the duration and logistically prepared (something i think can be done more gradually and just by doing consecutively longer races - something that most BT people would recommend anyway for someone seeking to do IM distance) - are there other reasons why these principals couldn't work? Principle of specificity - your plan would see you get really good at HIIT and have some aerobic crossover. For an athlete that has decent genetics and athletic background, it would likely be sufficient to finish a race but it would very likely not be anywhere close to the athlete's potential. Shane |
| 2012-02-01 7:02 AM in reply to: #4022335 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) tasr - 2012-02-01 12:55 AM Folks correct me if I am wrong but the main base of endurance training is not anaerobic (Vo2). Anaerobic (Vo2) training has its purposes in the sport but not the main base, Right? It’s properly training slow twitch muscles that power an endurance athlete. Right? OK VO2max training is not anaerobic - it is a high end aerobic effort (that is, primarily fueled by the aerobic energy pathways) that has signficant contribution from the anerobic work capacity. In terms of endurance training benefits, if you look at Table 2 at this link: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-level... you can see the training adaptation due to different intensities. The top ~3/4 of the table are the aerobic adaptations and VO2max (level 5) and below all result in aerobic training adaptation. Further, the anaerobic capacity (level 6) does make a small contribution to aerobic improvements but it is not nearly as effective as VO2max and below. Shane |
| 2012-02-01 7:25 AM in reply to: #4022564 |
| Master 2621 Mechanicsburg, PA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) tasr - 2012-02-01 12:55 AM Folks correct me if I am wrong but the main base of endurance training is not anaerobic OR (Vo2). Anaerobic OR (Vo2) training has its purposes in the sport but not the main base, Right? It’s properly training slow twitch muscles that power an endurance athlete. Right? OK Corrected, but still not the main base of endurance training. Edited by tasr 2012-02-01 7:36 AM |
| 2012-02-01 7:52 AM in reply to: #4022612 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) tasr - 2012-02-01 9:25 AM Corrected, but still not the main base of endurance training. VO2max is definitely not the main base of endurance training; however it is still quite important and often overlooked by many endurance athletes. Pace/power at lactate threshold is the most important measure in terms of endurance performance but pace/power at VO2max is the second most important measure for almost all endurance athletes. Shane |
| 2012-02-01 7:59 AM in reply to: #4022329 |
Master 4118 Toronto Bronze member | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) wannabefaster - 2012-01-31 11:51 PM I think that many (most?) people who get involved with Ironman do it because they love to train and Ironman gives them an accepted outlet or reason for their training. You will read over and over in threads how people would train even if they could never race again. Because of this bias towards lots and lots of training as part of the Ironman experience we can't really understand the motivation behind somebody wanting to go 140.6 but not train like an Ironman. People often criticize things they don't understand...... Extremely low volume training to complete 140.6..... Can it be done? Sure? Should it be done? Why not? Is it the traditional path to "Ironman glory?" No, but Ironman is your experience and how you do it is up to you and you alone. That doesn't mean it is wrong. I suspect with your endurance background you could suffer with the best of them and complete an Ironman (quite well) even if you were drastically undertrained----and you won't be the only one who shows up on race day with suspect fitness for the distance. I look forward to seeing how you do it. Agree with all you said. I, for one, am in the camp of wanting to put in the work and maintain a good training load as part of my lifestyle. And basically to put in a post that is a bit hypocritical, i am not at all interested in the short-cut, low-volume approach. I want to do this I probably won't ever be 'fast' or 'competitive' but that's not what its about for me. But see the bolded part. Edited by juniperjen 2012-02-01 8:08 AM |
| 2012-02-01 9:26 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Extreme Veteran 1942 In front of computer when typing this. | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) I'm curious what kind of finishing time the OP is targeting with this approach? Finish? I'd say he can do that on nothing more than what he is doing now. Sub 10hrs? Good luck! I seem to recall seeing somewhere that he was targeting a sub 12 finish? I don't think there is any way this approach will get you there without other training that is not officially counted. |
| 2012-02-01 10:22 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) Two threads and I still don't understand what the OP is trying to accomplish.... |
| 2012-02-01 10:30 AM in reply to: #4023088 |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) bryancd - 2012-02-01 10:22 AM Two threads and I still don't understand what the OP is trying to accomplish.... I don't either. Keep thinking of all the windsprints from soccer and basketball practice way back when. And how they in no way meant I would keep up with anyone on the cross-country team. |
| 2012-02-01 10:58 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) I'm not an OP apologist, but I am still intrigued. His experiment definitely is not for newbies, so maybe this isn't really the right audience for it. The OP clearly has a lot of endurance background and is able to draw upon that for his racing. This isn't the typical "how little can I do and complete an IM." There's an interesting 100K race report on his site, looks like he did very well in a race where many (most?) don't finish, and close to the leaders. Not sure what training led up to this race, but I don't know that I'd bet against a relatively quick IM finish. I hope he does one so we all find out. |
| 2012-02-01 11:02 AM in reply to: #4023199 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) ChrisM - 2012-02-01 12:58 PM There's an interesting 100K race report on his site, looks like he did very well in a race where many (most?) don't finish, and close to the leaders. Not sure what training led up to this race, but I don't know that I'd bet against a relatively quick IM finish. I hope he does one so we all find out. I agree; the OP (based on his first post) is a very experienced and has at least moderate genetic gifts when it comes to endurance training. I would not be surprised by a relatively quick IM finish based on their background but would definitely suspect that it would in spite of their training program, not because of it. Shane |
| 2012-02-01 11:38 AM in reply to: #4023220 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) gsmacleod - 2012-02-01 9:02 AM ChrisM - 2012-02-01 12:58 PM There's an interesting 100K race report on his site, looks like he did very well in a race where many (most?) don't finish, and close to the leaders. Not sure what training led up to this race, but I don't know that I'd bet against a relatively quick IM finish. I hope he does one so we all find out. I agree; the OP (based on his first post) is a very experienced and has at least moderate genetic gifts when it comes to endurance training. I would not be surprised by a relatively quick IM finish based on their background but would definitely suspect that it would in spite of their training program, not because of it. ShaneI'd add the caveat that it depends on his swimming background. Whether you're doing high intensity training or not, if you're a novice at swimming -- you're a novice at swimming. That takes time to overcome. |
| 2012-02-01 11:59 AM in reply to: #4021615 |
| Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) I won't debate your premises or logic (though I find some of each questionable, at a minimum). But your conclusion only states that HIIT would maximize fitness relative to time cost. Depending upon just how valuable your time is to you, that may be all that matters. However, for many it is a balance of time and absolute fitness. Your premises do not allow one to conclude that maximizing HIIT allows one to maximize fitness or even that it would place one at an 'optimal' cost/benefit point (time/fitness). In effect, you've started with the position that the goal is to minimize time spent training so now let's maximize fitness. Nothing wrong with that but, like Bryan, I'm not sure what you are looking for in trumpeting the obvious to everyone. If you train less, train harder--just so long as you don't 'break'. |
| General Discussion | Triathlon Talk » Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK