Low Volume training part II (aka I'm not a Troll, i swear!) (Page 3)

I've been following this thread and the other one and decided to give my .02

I don't know if your theory will work for you or for anyone. It may be a viable option for a great number of people, who knows? In your last post you seemed to be more concerned about what another person would encounter if they were to ask about this method on this site or one like it. I think if you do a search you will find other threads that have asked questions like....

I just finished a sprint can I do a full?

My longest run has been X miles can I do a full?

I only have X hours to train a week can I do a full?

You get the idea. Without fail the answers range from "what is your hurry IM's will be there next year" to "go for it, it's your body". I don't see your thread as being much different. The bottom line is there are many different ways to train for this sport. Your suggestion may be a bit more extreme but if you try it and it works for you great, use it and have more free time to do whatever else you want to do. It doesn't fit the "normal" way that long course races are trained for so that is why you are getting doubts and questions of it's effectiveness.

You seem determined to keep the discussion going so hopefully you will get some answer you are looking for. For me I simply say train anyway you want and I hope you have fun doing it and reach whatever goals you set for yourself. As you can see from my sig line I believe this sport is all about what "you" want from it. Enjoy yourself.

I just wanted to emphasize this part as the OP seems to enjoy taking this discussion wherever. This is what you need to do in order to actually get anywhere, otherwise the discussion will continue to just wander around.

Some people on ST might know of this type of study being performed, but be prepared for a lot of attitude. There are some very smart and established people there who will hopefully respond, but be prepared for a LOT of attitude. If anything here seems tough, then over there they might make one break down and cry.

I think I get what you are trying to put forward, that perhaps there is another way to approach IM training.   As you can probably tell from even a brief look at this forum, lots of people are looking for answers about how to train for long events.

Most people, when looking for a plan, a coach, or information in general about training for an Ironman, have some level of skepticism, or at least its an unknown, regarding whether what they are reading, being told etc will work for them.  At least, that is my perception.  There is a lot of information out there about what works, what is "best," etc.  There are differences in plans, recommendations etc, but people are able to evaluate them because in most cases, they are more or less in the same ball park.  The number of long runs, timing, total volume might vary, but at least its in the same ballpark.  People can then pick out what they think will work for them and get over, to some extent, the uncertainty of whether it will work for them on their IM journey.

What you are proposing is a radically different path.  If its just for you, then I say without sarcasm, go for it, and who cares what a bunch of people on the internet say.  On the other hand, if you want to potentially offer this to others as a path, then you will have to answer many of the questions that have been raised here.  I mean this not in the sense to prove that you are "right."  I mean that you are proposing to "coach" others, so in order to get them to follow you, you have to convince them that your methods can get them to the finish line.   When it comes to a plan, many of us wonder, e.g., how do I avoid getting hurt, will a 3hr long run really be enough training to allow me to finish 26.2 miles if that 3 hr run is only 18 miles, what are my nutritional needs?    I think that people feel more comfortable when more specific answers to these, and other, questions are presented as part of a plan.

You are free to propose a different route.  Some of your responses have started to get at answers to the questions that would be raised by someone wanting to know about an alternative paradigm to training for an IM or other long endurance event.  But some of your answers also tend to sound defensive, akin to "well, why can't there be a different way."  As I said, there might be.  But you are going to have to sell it.  People have been buying some version of the "train a lot for a long period of time" (oversimplified) plan for IM prep for a long time.  I think what you are hearing is that you haven't convinced many here that your alternative is viable.

Starting with a solid background (within the last 3 years: ran a marathon, did 3+ century rides, a few sprints, a couple of Olys, a HIM),

a determined person, who trains VERY consistently for 8 months, and trains hard,

5 hours a week average, with 3 weeks of 8 hours a week average during the 9th to 4th week before the race, 

can do a 12:00 hour full IM - if they have excellent execution on race day.

Workout 6 days a week.  Workouts from 40 minutes to 1.5 hours.  1 or 2 swims.  1 or 2 bike rides.  2 or 3 runs.  The three longer weeks will include a couple of long swims (4000), a couple of long bricks (~50/15, ~70/12) and a long run (~20).

This is what I did, "n=1".  Well, except the very consistently part.  My training plan was for 10 hours a week, but life happens and I hit probably 60% of my workouts.  But I "made the hard days hard and the easy days easy".  9 weeks before the race I did 3 weeks of 8 hours per week training (one week included a century ride).  Then 3 weeks of usual 5 hours a week.  Then tapered 3 weeks, so I was well rested and ready to go.  Run mileage never exceeded 15 miles a week.  My long run was 15 miles.  Most people would say this was not enough volume.  My goal was to finish.  I didn't think I was adequately trained, but I thought I was in at least as good shape as the 16 hour folks.  

I had an excellent day on race day (cool temps).  Hit my nutrition on schedule.  Used plenty of lubrication.  I swam steady (with current).  I rode to heart rate (flat course).  When I finished the bike in 7.5 hours, I thought 'I can run a 4.5 hour marathon'.  I faded between miles 15 and 20, but rallied and ran strong the last 6.  The whole day my heart rate average was low zone 2.  At any given moment this is not "hard", this is easy pace.  To keep going after 10 hours is the hard part.

If you have a strong swim (or strong current), can ride 18 mph at zone 2 heart rate (areo bars, flat course) and run 9:30's at zone 2, you can do a 12 hour IM.

It's because most people wouldn think your ideas (at the extreme) aren't very good advice for anyone wanting to do an IM--certainly not most people who come asking about it here.  There are MANY people here who would advise increasing intensity if you are limited by time.  But that would, rightly, come with a caution about having an ability to handle that intensity--especially in running--as it increases risk of injury.  Good chance they would be advised to start with some shorter races to see how that goes first.

Fairly reasonable advice.  Nothing you have said makes me think the dialog will, or should, change.  Of course, you (or anyone else) are free to ignore the advice you get and do what you want, for whatever resasons.

Fred - here are links to the blog posts i wrote regarding EN back in 2010.  Rich and Patrick read them, possibly looked at the site, and commented on the posts.

EN post 1    EN post 2     EN post 3    chronologically these are in reverse order (post 3 was written first -they just come up this way when i search for them).  i believe EN commented on posts 1 and 2, which is where i'm quoting patrick from above. 

again, i'm not suggesting a similarity in the training, just some of the training principals - quality over quantity - no junk miles, that speed translates to endurance.  i don't think that i have (and certainly am not trying to) overstated anything in my post. 

After reading all the posts, I am still not sure what the OP is really asking.

Can someone prep and do a 12 hr IM on 5-8 hours a week average?

Is that the question? If yes, than I would say the answer is yes. Although lots of training plans have 10, 12, 15 hour weeks, I would bet that many people don't hit these numbers.

I haven't calculated it out, but here are the graphs for my training volume for 2010 when training for a 12:37 IM Cozumel finish-This was using the Endurance nation plan

And for 2011 when training for the Great Floridian Ultra Distance 12:32 finish

So, I know that is n=2 examples of training vs. IM finish.

As far as studies, clearly you are correct that since the 1950's and 60's science has recognized the gains that are available from higher intensity workouts.  But, are you really saying that you think you can get this closer to 2-4 avg hours than 6-8 hours?

I seem to have lost the link to your site, but are you saying YOU did an IM on 2 hours a week of training? What length events, and did you include the event time in your training volume numbers?

In fairness - my OP (version 1) did begin as follows: 

"I've done all the research i can on low volume training for IM distance and even the so called minimalist approaches require 10 hrs a week or more at peak volume.  Has anyone experienced or heard of lower volume approaches?  I'm currently trying to work on developing a 2 hrs per week(actually 4 hrs every two weeks so that occasionally longer efforts can be worked into training) program. "

The conversation has of course been hijacked (right from the start) by the next sentence, and i haven't done enough to bring it back there. i think maybe what i'm trying to do (for me) represents (or is closer to - maybe even beyond?) the limits of a low volume approach.  

again - my fault for letting the focus be on 2 hrs as opposed to minimalist training in general.  although a discussion of where the limits lie is (at least to me) still interesting (and i know that it isn't interesting to others - fair enough)

hope you didn't think i was disparaging you - quite the opposite.  you seem to be a well respected and contributing member of the BT community. I was using you as an example because alot of posters seemed to be asking the question 'why train/do IM if you're not going to 'do it right'  I don't think the question is really that meaningful and was using you as an example - assuming you trained and raced because you loved it, even though you knew you weren't racing to your full potential.  training is also a part of my identity as i think it is for most/many triathletes.  it just is (perhaps) a smaller, in terms of time committment, (but no less important) part.

ok.  i'm not interested in whether feedback is negative or positive, but do appreciate relevance.  I accept the fact that i'm in a minority (of one?).  my comment wasn't intended to be a personal assessment of anyone at all - i'm just looking for (and have gotten many, which is great), as you mentioned right off the bat - honest feelings/assessments of my ideas.  sometimes the assessments/replies seem to be 'less thoughtful' and more disparaging than is constructive, which is what i was reacting too i suppose.  but you're right - as OP i should perhaps use more care in what i say.

you're right - i am trying to prove something.  what i meant is that i'm not just trying to prove - 'hey, i can do IM on two hours'.  and its not as simple as 'hey - IM really isn't that tough - see?' either....

right indeed.  so another question is, what would constitute proof?  one person suggested doing one IM on limited training and one on traditional training and comparing.  but this doesn't work because it doesn't address any of the questions about how low volume can develop base.  studies that assess pre and post training program - would you have all the athletes complete (or attempt) an IM at the start?  research relating HIIT to shorter efforts (1-2 hour races) has already been done.... I'll have to think about what a protocol would look like that would be sufficient to address the issue in the eyes of (reasonable) skeptics.  

Thanks for the effort Fred - its appreciated.

KS - this was a great summary.  i think you put it all together, understand where i'm coming from, where posters are coming from, the limitations in any possible dialogue, and also what, if anything, it might be able to accomplish.  Thanks for the post.

atlanatbill - thanks for this.  a great case study.  i'd be interested in seeing the program that you used and what your base was (some general results in the events over the three years prior that you mentioned)

Eli - right - my opinion (based on my experience/research) is that for at least some folks, a program that favors consistent, high intensity work of 2-4 hrs a week over an extended period that includes some racing (not included in training times - could they be?  i'd have to have taken 10 weeks off immediately prior to my recent 100K race to stick to the volume) is sufficient to develop the fitness required for a decent IM.  Decent of course is relative to ones physical potential, as dictated by genetics, etc.  i don't think you'll run your fastest possible race.  but as i've mentioned before - very few people ever do - we run the fastest we can given our constraints.  

I LOVE ultra endurance.  I've been able to keep 'getting what i get' out of it despite not having the 'traditionally required' amount of time.  Over the years i've met enough people who feel ultra endurance stuff is inaccessible to them simply because of the time they think it would require.  i'm trying to shift the focus from time to fitness.... what kind of fitness is required (mental AND physical)?  i think that the fitness required, at least for some non-insignificant number of people, is attainable on far less time than conventional widsom, even conventional wisdom EN style (the lower end of conventional wisdom for IM in terms of volume) suggests.  not for everyone.  its hard (mentally possibly harder than a higher volume program) and as such might really not be viable for that many, but who knows.  Anyway, thats my assertion in a nutshell.

I have not done an IM on two hours a week training.  I have done lots of other hard, and a few much harder things than IM though, all on three hours a week or less of training.  a link to my blog is here. as you mentioned you couldn't find it.  

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for re-linking your blog.

I did a cursory look, and I have to say, your logs immeadeatly made me think the following:

He isn't counting his strength, yoga, or climbing in his times

Now, I know there is a difference between activity and training, but if you climb for 30 minutes, or lift weights for 30 minutes, both of those things are having a cumulative effect on your training.

In addition, races will as well. My training logs include my races, since those races end up being part of the training for my other races.

I am not saying that this will radically change the avg. times for you, but I did want to point it out.

I still think your 2 or 3 hours a week wouldn't be enough for someone who doesn't have a background in how to push themselves to work at that level. To be able to use HIT as a primary training method, you have to have the fitness and mental prep to let you do just that. HIT hurts, almost by definition. Not everyone wants to hurt that much.

eli - including race times (even though i only do about 4-5 a year) would drastically increase my training times, as at least one event tends to be a multi-day adventure races where i'm racing about 80-120 hours (nearly continuously, although we sleep about 2-3 hrs a night most nights and end up in transitions for fair bit too - and the nature of the racing is very different since navigation is involved).  Adding in just one race like this would, for a yearly average, increase my commitment to more like 5 or six perhaps.  so i could certainly bear looking at things from this angle.

I suppose with most training programs counting races matters much less - with 15 hrs a week over 16 weeks it doesn't matter too much (about five percent) spread the race time out over those weeks.  of course for me its the exact opposite.  in effect, i race WAY more than i train, even with only 4 or 5 races a year.  lots of people comment that they love the training.  i guess i love the racing. i love the training only in that i like to race well (for me) and with a competitive semi pro adventure racing team, and as such some amount of very targeted training.  one of the things i mentioned in a previous post was 'idea' includes using races as critical parts of a training plan - shifting the onus for learning 'logistics', etc  onto races rather than long century rides in the training, etc.  

in the past i haven't been sure what to do with some of my 'time' - the one yoga class (that i teach) and the climbing.  The strength training has only ever amounted to 15-20 min a week, but still, its time.  and to be honest, until recently it didn't matter much - the only one that was interested seemed to be my brother and one or two close friends.  in current/recent training, however, i have decided to include climbing time and strength training in my workout time.  The yoga class is one i teach and i don't include that.  I also do some stretching most evenings (about 5-10 minutes) and don't include this either.  i do believe i include my races/major efforts (the non race things i apply my training too - like a 50 K adventure run or something) in my logs, usually with mileages and total time.  The logs are complete records of my training, although as you indicate sometimes in the past if there is a weekly total time, it doesn't always include 'ancillary activities'.  

most triathletes (IM anyway) probably don't have time for ancillary activities - like a game of tennis with a friend.  i occasionally do (climbing is my tennis).  

I found this blog post interesting about CFE and Tabata sprints and thought about this and prior on going thread. Not that OP plans to do CF or CFE but workouts of intensity and shorter duration is similar concept and I think based on same principals.

My husband, son and daughter do CF and love it. I've tried it, enjoyed it but got injured and found it interfered with my tri training and racing due to unknown wod and being in conflict to my tri training. 

If you want to be best triathlete you can be you need to s/b/r. If you want to do lots of different things as it appears the OP enjoys, train the way you like. Doing 2 hours a week, will not let you reach anywhere near your potential. But it is everyone's choice how to train. Seems OP's goal are vastly different than most of us here on the site do as minimal as possible to get okay results.

Me I like training and doing only 2 hours a week would take away something I love to do. I'd miss more cycling especially and come race day, I know I wouldn't finish an IM under 17 hours. It would be a miserable day.