Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) (Page 2)

i've only got a few minutes before i teach a class but i wanted to try to keep up here - first of all thanks to those that have weighed in.

I get a sense that for many the training is part of the allure for IM.  i have no issue with that nor did the OP raise one.  my initial post back in january drew pretty much unanimous criticism about the idea that the type of low volume approach i was advocating/exploring could serve as adequate preparation for IM - in pretty much any case.  This time around many responses seem at least somewhat more accepting that it might work for limited cases, but question why anyone would want to go that route.  fair enough. 

maybe i'm way off but it seems to me that at least some (not insignificant) subset of folks aspiring to do IM committ to the high training hours because thats the only way they believe that they can prepare themselves.  Furthermore, i'd wager that a fair number of 'average IM finishers' - those finishing somewhere between 13 and 16 hours or so, do very little truly high intensity work in preparation.  and research (there is lots of it over these last 15 years) has shown that HIIT training can and does produce the same or similar physiological adaptations in terms of all the actual physical markers that indicate endurance capability as compared to moderate steady state training.  In fact in one study that examined a range of interval training schemes, the two best ones for improving time trial performances were ones that incorporated scheme that is traditionally held as being best (time at or near VO2 max for 6-20 minute intervals, as one poster mentioned) and a scheme modeled after tabata intervals that involved anaerobic work.  the findings for HIIT have definitely been counterintuitive, but they have been found over and over - training anaerobic increases VO2 max and race pace level performance similarly to training in these zones, in a fraction of the time.

There has also been research that shows (at least on the bike) that HIIT training in recreationally active subjects (termed 'sedentary' in the study) produces the same results.  

about base - what does this mean?  how long does a base last?  if people are going to claim that i must have a good base then i'd agree.  but this would also mean that someone who's done an IM or two would have a good base and if they prefered and had the mental capacity for more high intensity work, could probably continue to compete in IM with a third or less of the training time that they are currently using.  again - if you like training, awesome. but even if you like training sometimes you don't have the time.... do you need to give up the racing if you also get some satisfaction from that?  is it really an either you do it this way or don't do it at all?

i did swim in HS, and this is a strength.  when i train in the pool i can consistently keep a pace of between 1:30-1:40 per 100yds if i work at it, at least for about 100-200 yds.

and for the record - i'll i'm trying to do is apply my own critical analysis to a system that i find intriguing.... what we prize now in the way of 'best training practices' may or may not be what we prize 20 years from now.  claiming that my ideas are nonsense simply because they go against the status quo, without careful critical analysis of that status quo doesn't really say much.  thankfully, many poster's seem to be offering well thought out and rational discussion.

cheers

Sounds like your coach knows something about running.  There's a long history that generally supports his view over yours.

thanks for the suggestion KSH - maybe i'll see what slowtwitchers have to say.  BT has been pretty forgiving and most posters have genuinely given feedback without just flaming (am i using that term right?) or being negative because there is anyonymity and they can. The result has been (at least from my point of view) a great dialogue that has helped me develop and articulate my thoughts more clearly and fully.  Based on your post i sense that hoping for as much over at ST might be hoping for too much though?

and interestingly, at least looking back throught the posts, it looks like there are a fair number of 'non-newbie' folks in BT forums as well, particularly looking at threads in the IM training category... at least one of the guys replying has posted sub 10 hr IM finishes i recall.... thats pretty damn high end, isn't it?

your skin is thick enough, I would love to see what some of the STers have to say.  You'll probably get some more colorful language, but I bet you'd get some good feedback from some very fast guys (in addition to those fast guys here)

fixed that for you

thanks spudone - i suppose compete is a pretty loaded term so i'd have done better to be a bit more careful and/or define it better.  I personally feel that i'm being competitive as an AG athlete if i'm finishing in the top quarter to third of the field and this is usually a goal for me when i enter big events. realistically i can't 'compete' if that means vieing for the podium - although this is probably mostly due to genetics (yeah alot of posters think i have above average genetics and i won't argue this fact, but there's a big span between 'above average' genetics and a podium finish at any IM....) and perhaps a little because i'm sure i could get faster if i was able/willing to prioritize training to a greater extent.  

back when i first committed to still trying to do long events on limited training my goal became to be 'off by 50', which incidentally also led to my target of a 12 hour IM finish.

That was a little snarky but just in fun.  I think with your swim background, you have a leg up on many people from the start -- both in terms of pure time saved, and having a better bike leg.

The real make-or-break of your proposal, as Shane pointed out, is running and the ability to complete your training cycle, of whatever duration, without injury.

bryan - preparing as little as possible is not preparing at all (doing nothing).  i'm arguing that sufficient preparation may not have to limited to following a program comprising of 15+ hours of training a week.  I'm not looking for a shortcut or trying to pull a stunt.  i just discovered that i love big endurance efforts but i didn't love committing the amount of time to them that traditional 'protocol' demanded, so i started trying to figure out how fit i could get on the time i had and then entered and participated in big events anyway and found, initially to my surprise, that it seemed to work.  

certainly one thing that helps is consistency.  as i've mentioned, one concept that i think may be at play is that even though my average weekly  hours have been 3 or less for the past 4 or so years, i've been very consistent, had mostly very high quality workouts, and have, mainly by entering and suffering through events learned what it takes to complete them (logistically and mentally).

BryanCD's reply makes it seem like everyone does IM to race.  this is counter to my belief.  don't you think the vast majority of folks do it for more personal reasons?  lots of people are really competing with themselves more than anything, as they know going in that they aren't going to be 'competitive'.  similarly, people are willing to sacrifice different amounts for the end result of aiming to finish IM (or any other serious endurance event).  just because i'm not willing or able to sacrifice 15 hours doesn't mean i can't be committed to the goal, does it?  

But for me there is a larger question, which is what i'm interested in exploring.... it seems to me that maybe current IM/endurance training 'wisdom' is both not as consistent as posters here seem to believe and that maybe, just maybe, there are multiple paths (one higher volume, one significantly lower volume) that could lead to same or similar fitness platforms from which to participate in events.  having options is a good thing.  and i think its kind of silly to think that if such options exist and someone chooses to spend less time training (and say more time with their kids) that anyone would suggest that they were just doing it to 'prove a point'.  

and yes, i do have kids - six and three, and a new non-profit, and a handful of part time jobs.  so with my aspirations, seeking a higher intensity lower volume approach is way more than a stunt.  i am not convinced that there aren't other people who would be interested in such options, if in fact they are viable.  so i think maybe the answer does mean something.....

if you're not interested, fair enough... if you are, then i look forward to the discussion.

bryan - i'm not trying to draw a parallel between the actual training EN proposes and my ideas.  when i first stared looking to see what else was out there in terms of minimalist training i found EN and liked the way they articulated some of their philosophy on making training fit life (as opposed to the other way around) and promoting a greater emphasis on speed work because of the greater return on investment in terms of time.  but your right, the extreme low volume that i'm using looks very little like EN programs.

I do feel that some of the principals overlap though - i had some good conversations with rich and patrick a couple years ago and in no way want to misrepresent their training ideas as being similar to mine.  We agree on alot to be sure, but disagree on enough as well.  

From Patrick (of EN) in 2010 after the said discussions:

Coach Patrick here, just checking in. I can't answer for Rich specifically, but I can say that one of the biggest reasons we dial intensity "down" in race prep phase is because it's specific to the race. Yes, you can juggle hours, etc., to get recovery and keep your training time commitment low, but you'll enter race day with a lot of questions: what will my back feel like at 5 hours on the bike? Will my nutrition last that long? How differently do I need to fuel / pace between a typical 3 hour ride and my race day ride of 5.5 hours, etc. We use the last 12 weeks of the plan to extend the rides (most max at 4-4.5 hours, with 2 x 112 mile race simulation rides) and build the run. I think we are on the same page, you are just pushing the envelope more. Good luck!

as i mentioned - i wasn't making parallels between the actual training, only some of the principals behind it. 

maybe i should rephrase my position and make it less extreme (maybe i should have done this initially?) 

I notice an absence of a middle ground.  maybe its there and i don't see it.  I imagine if a recreational athlete though who was reasonably fit and could swim ok thought - damn, i want to do an IM - that looks awesome and sought advice, one of the first things he would be asked to consider is how much time he had available for training.  lets go away from my extremes and say the guys said - "i can commit 4-5 hours a week to training".  maybe he has to fit everything in on during the week because he's divorced and only gets the kids on weekends, whatever. 

how many people on here would ever consider saying - yeah man, if you work for those 4-5 hours a week and work hard - no problem!  you'll have to enter a couple of races on the way to sort some stuff out but you can do it! 

not everyone needs to know they are doing the best they could possibly do if they had perfect conditions to get something out of it.  Fred only sleeps 6-7 hours if that so he's certainly not racing at his potential but no one is saying 'why are you even bothering then fred?'  no one looks at that as a shortcut?  (which brings up another point - is getting the training in at the expense of sleep even the best thing to do?  or is it a sign that the training is serving some other purpose - is somehow creating a sense of importance or identity? but thats another thread entirely)

AS gsmacleod mentioned (thanks GS) - base is the cumulative adaptations.  i think that you can get pretty far along your road of 'total possible number of adaptations - ie your road towards your actual potential' with a program that maximizes quality over quantity.  my hypothetical athlete could easily get to a point, sorting out 'logistics' during subsequently longer races - to perform 'pretty well' based on his genetic potential and have a damn good time. 

but honestly - whats the response this guys is going to get almost acrossed the board?  man - don't do it.  you can't do it.  do olympic instead.  maybe, just maybe, he'll get the - well its possible - but why would you want to do it if you don't do it right?  (sounds pretty familiar right - if you've followed all the replies it should....).  not sure what motivates this last response - this attempt (perhaps not conscious) to place ones personal values of IM on a larger audience - but hey, i guess it happens all the time in life in general.

so i'll ask about this middle road..... my purpose isn't to pull a stunt or prove a point.  i'm trying to change the dialogue this guy is going to find when he comes seeking advice from those already in the club.  maybe i'm asking too much?  but if i am its not because (imho) my ideas are absurd, but rather because there is some sort of resistance for other reasons.

disclaimer - i'm NOT NOT saying low volume is better or safer or for everyone.  i'm just saying it is a viable alternative to for a group of people that i think isn't really as small as some people seem to think it is.....