What Is Base Building Training?

I know some runners -- some faster than I ever was or will be -- who swear by it.

Me? Not so much.  I do think that periodization is important, that there is a time during the training season for a higher proprtion of high-intensity training, and a time for less.  But is there an extended time when you should never get out of zone 1-2?  I agree with you -- I don't see any reason to think that there is.

To be clear:  I don't disagree with many of the stated aims of 'base building' -- e.g., improving metabolism, building resistance to injury, and so on.  (As you suggest, not everybody states the same aims...)  I just don't see why one should think that keeping absolutely all of my training in a given zone is the way to achieve these things.

For lack of a better term, I do tend to refer to the first part of my own periodized plan as 'base training', but even during this time, I do mix up the paces, including some fairly fast (for me) running.  I do not tend to do long tempo runs or really hard long intervals, but neither do I run everything in Z1-2.  (I don't do those harder workouts because I'm not ready for them yet, not because they violate some precept of 'base training'.)  The main thing that I'm 'building' during this time is volume.

That's all just about running.  I'm a total ignoramous about triathlon training -- still experimenting with that.

That is what I refer to as base training. Building up volume through mostly easy paces, but not entirely avoiding intensity. A mixture of 90% easy/10% intensity would be sufficient for most people to build base. From what I've seen in many people's logs is a huge lack of sufficient volume to support any kind of intensity. It almost seems as if many people avoid building base volume like the plague, but then want to jump right in with speedwork. It may be that people avoid building volume because they push too hard in all their workouts instead of going easy for most, with an occasional hard effort thrown in.

This time of year, when many people are not actively racing, is a great time to work on base building through adding easy volume. Many would benefit greatly by building their running to a MINIMUM of 80-100 miles/month, and the bike to a minimum of 200-250. That would probably be only a quarter of what elites athletes do.

I left swimming out because the training is much different than biking or running.

Gordo can comment on this further if he wants, but I like Gordos take on base.. the problem I see is people expect the world to change in a matter of weeks or months instead of years

from his blog http://www.gordoworld.com/gblog/

I'm the opposite, I don't like speed work, so I cling to this idea of slowing down to get faster. It did seem to work my first year, I surprised the heck out of myself in a 5 mile race. The next year I was not consistent and did not maintain my base.

So much of the differences seem small to me. I think of base building as building the average amount of volume I can handle on a regular basis. Jorge, I haven't checked your logs, but I imagine you can handle 10-15 hours a week most of the time. I can handle 3-5 hours per week on a regular basis. Your base is much bigger than mine because you've built it by being consitent over time.

I believe that I will be faster at the end of a period of base building than I was when I started, assuming a shorter distance I could already complete. The question is, could I build my base (increase my weekly volume) significantly if I was doing many of my workouts above LT? I don't think I could.

So this season, my goal is to be consistent and build a solid base. My base won't be huge, because I have limited time that I'm willing to committ and I'm not looking to an IM anytime soon. Once I have a bigger base, settling into that volume or even a little less, I can begin to add more intensity.

hopefully he jumps on the discussion as I would like to learn his reasoning behind it besides anecdotal evidence.

DanielG - well yes, as I posted above and on the article there are valid reasons to limit training intensity in particular for untrained athletes, the point I am trying to make is that: 1) there is no concept defined as base building and 2) general phase training will be defined based on the athletes needs (weaknesses), goals (race distance) and current fitness level.

Slake707 –To generalize and state that limiting training load is the way to go for everyone or claim that it is the only way to improve fat oxidation is misleading and inaccurate. Athletes can successfully develop their fitness and avoid injuries without limiting their training intensity to certain range. It is about managing the total load and intensity is just part of the equation

DMarkSwan – You can successfully work to adapt your body to handle greater raining loads (particular greater dose of intensity) during the general phase.  You don’t need to limit all your sessions to one particular training intensity; you can manage your load and add gradually bouts of intensity throughout your annual plan. The bulk of your training sessions will remain low on intensity but that doesn’t mean you should avoid greater intensities, in particular when training at one’s lactate threshold is the single most important physiological performance determinant for endurance athletes.

I can agree with that. I think many people talk in absolutes, even though most of the time absolutes don't make sense. I do plan to add some intensity (a few workouts where I reach or cross LT), but my focus will be on increasing duration. This week only one workout was intended to get my HR over my LT. Through the 3 four week cycles that I consider my base training, I'll get up to crossing my LT during 3 workouts per week. I only do 6, so that's half. In the remaining 6 weeks I'll get down to just one per week (Long ride), not crossing LT, although I'll try to reach it.

I have a clear understanding of what I consider base even though I can't pinpoint what my base is. (i.e. I can't say, "My base is 3.5 hours per week" I treat periodization as a way of determining my focus for a given week.

For all the beginners out there, the specific steps to my plan are just made up. I feel good and have read about Base and Build periods overall, but the specific mix of workouts is made up and untested. In the past most of my workouts have been low intensity and unplanned intensity was just thrown in. I'm trying to be methodical in training, so when I see my results I can repeat or change my training plan.

I think one thing to keep in mind in this discussion -- and Jorge said it in the original post but maybe it is getting lost -- is that the term 'base training' is widely used.  (I use it myself, and I agree pretty much with Jorge.)

So it might not be helpful to say 'I (or some elite athlete, or whoever) do base training, and it works'.  First, there is the obvious problem that such facts are very difficult to interpret (for example, would you, or the elite athlete in question, have been even better had you trained differently? -- that's the problem with anecdotal evidence).  Second, what you call 'base training' might not fit the category that is under question here.  (For example, even the quotation from Gordo's web site isn't unambiguously supporting the 'never train outside of Z1-2' view, to wit:  "Base training doesn't mean going slow all the time".) 

Anyway, I understood Jorge's original complaint to be against the view that improving metabolism, or building resistance to injury, or whatever, is best achieved by limiting one's training to Z1-2. 

Finally, we should acknowledge that that claim is not the same as 'training in Z1-2 improves these things'.  I don't think anybody is disputing that claim.  In order for the claim in question to be true, it must be true that the goal of improving metabolism, etc., is somehow thwarted by occasionally training outside of Z1-2.  It's hard for me to see how that is going to happen, in an athlete who is ready for more intense training.

Sorry if I'm repeating the obvious -- I just started to get the sense that maybe some of these points were getting lost.

Before moving forward, what is this base building that you stated above? Do you mean limiting your training during the general phase exclusively at lower intensities?

what is this aerobic economic you speak of (what is the definition)? Also Chris should know that most anaerobic effort (relying exclusively on the anaerobic system) last around 2 min or a bit longer for pro athletes. Anyway, yes all tri distances are aerobic efforts which lends strength to the argument made on the article I posted that training at different intensities will develop your endurance, whether riding easy pace or z1 or riding intervals at V02Max or z5, it is ALL aerobic.

It is documented how the training of Kenyans elite distance runners include training at different intensities from very easy runs to VO2 max sets.

well yes but most training injuries are related to training load, doing too much too fast and not specifically to training intensity. Daniels suggest on his running formula a gradual progression in training yet he includes bouts of intensity (VO2 max or Threshold pace runs) since the general phase and as the athlete adapts (both cardiovascular and muscular/soft tissue) the duration of this intensity increases

Technique is important (swimming more than anything) but there is no reason to relegate it to low intensity exclusively. The concept specificity suggest that we become very good at what we do over and over. In terms of endurance the more be reproduce race conditions in training the better prepare will be for the main event. I don’t see why limiting training intensity will halt improvements in technique.

That’s all fine and dandy but if you are going to mimic what the best do you should take a look at their total training load. It is not the same logging 30+ hrs of training than 10 hrs avg most AGers would do. The strain imposed on the body is not the same plain and simple so to suggest because elites can log a great volume at lower intensities is the best approach for all Agers is shortsighted. Training at different intensities in particular at your lactate threshold is very important. This doesn’t mean doing all your training at this intensity, it means adding some sessions which includes bouts at this pace/power. Ignoring it all together delays the training adaptations and athlete can make.

So if physiologically speaking: improving our pace/power at lactate threshold is the single most important physiological performance determinant for endurance athletes why then do you think is in general is a good idea to avoid it all together during the general phase

These threads make my head hurt. 

Base is a foundation upon which you build upon.  For me, all the training I have done through today is my base.  The training I will do in the future will hopefully build upon that base.  In order to do that I have to consider my current fitness level (i.e., my base), the time I have available to train, the recovery I need to maintain consistency within that available time and my goals (e.g., do I have a race that I need to "specifically" prepare for?).  I can build base with a mix of volume and intensity. 

As Jorge as stated, it''s the training load I need to manipulate.  Of course, too much intensity and I'll bump up against a limiting parameter (e.g., ability to recover while maintaining consistency).  But too little and I can also bump up against one (e.g. not enough available time to reach my needed load).

Z1, Z2, blah, blah, blah.  Those are workout details that fall out of all the above considerations, not a definition of base training.  Not in my world anyway.

The best equation would be determined based on your particular needs. For some it might require a bigger does of intensity for others a bigger dose of volume and for untrained athletes any load will help. Remember that training load = volume (duration & frequency) + intensity.

I also believe in doing the work to become better (I don’t believe in shortcuts); my whole point with this thread (as Michael posted above) is that the use of this “base building” concept seems to be nothing but a coined term that means something different depending who you ask and that produces confusion among coaches and athletes. And that there is no real reason (physiologically) to avoid certain intensities during the general phase.  In your particular case, by managing your load I mean that will work to increase your running to 40mpw and yes doing the bulk of your sessions nice and easy will be smart, but that doesn’t mean you can't add some intensity to help you get fitter in a shorter period of time without risks of injuries.

 Right now my cycling coach for my juniors team has us riding nothing above  zone 1 - 2.  WE have 3.5 hours ever wednesday 1 hour on friday 3 hours on Saturday and 3 hours on Sunday (other day have weight / plyometrics) and I never go above zone two.  

 That makes me feel a little better when it takes me 3 hours to go 45-50 miles.

It is aerobic (everything is), it just also employs the anaerobic system.