Brick Training (Page 2)

If possible during the general phase I prefer to have the athletes do as much s/b/r (total training load) as possible having the best quality for each session. That is to be properly fueled and as rested as possible etc. so they can produce greater training adaptations from each session with less accumulated fatigue. As we hit the specific phase then parcticing the specific race demands that the athlete will experience are more important and working under those circumstances to produce biggest training adaptations is must hence doing transition sessions become more important/frequent (swim to bike, bike to run or swim +  bike + run).

Still, I have athletes that barely do transition sessions (no more then 1-2 x week) and others that do transition sessions quite often regardless of the phase. The difference is based on their needs, time constraints, goals (race distance; for shorter distances doing transition runs become more important given the racing intensity), fitness, etc. IMO both approaches work fine as long as you understand the specific needs of your athlete, the gains (adaptations) to be made from either approach and its limitations.

To answer the Op Qs:

a) depends - in general for most beginners 1x week should be plenty
b) depends - the total load (volume + intensity) dictates how fast you can recover from one session to the next. I can do a AM short easy bike + an easy short run (brick) and be ready to train again in the afternoon or do a hard session 24 hrs later, OTOH if I do a single threshold session on the bike it will take me 48hrs > to be able to have another handle a similar intensity on the bike with quality.
c) depends -  what's the goal of the session? i.e. work at a particular pace? spend time improving your muscle fiber fatigue resistance at a lower intensity? is it a race rehearsal to practice race pace and nutrition?

I have the opposite opinion. IMO, the simplest, most logical approach to getting better at "something" is doing "it" more. In terms of a triathlon, "it" would be a bike/run combination and therefore, IMO the burden of proof (in any activity) would be upon those stating that training differently than "it" is optimal.

So what exacly are you doing?  Transitioning from bike to run, right?  So you should be able to improve your T2, I guess. 

That doesn't mean it will have much additional impact (beyond the extra running you are getting) for your run split.  By your definition, we would all be better doing mini-tris every day.

For me, I disagree with "the point". I believe that my ability to get close to my open running pace will largely depend upon how well my fitness level will allow me to push a certain effort for a certain amount of time.

In a mini-sprint of 10 miles bike / 2 miles run most triathletes would be fit enough to push at say 90% for the 12 miles. But there's nothing magic about that distance. I guarantee you there are people who are fit enough that they can push at 90% effort for 69.1 miles of a HIM bike/run and feel just as good during/afterwards as the average triathlete who did the 12 miles at 90%.

Edited by breckview 2009-06-25 1:22 PM

That's a pretty big guarantee there.  Are you able to cash that check? 

(Hint:  I don't think so.)

My coach is actually working on me getting my open run times closer to my triahlon split times. In order to do that, he is making me run longer BRICKS off shorter rides ending at race pace efforts. He's using the bike to build up fatigue without having to run, easier on the legs for recovery. You mentioned earlier this as being a use for BRICKS and I agree. This is why the BRICK needs to have a "POINT". Running off the bike in and of itself is just more running.

ummmmmmm............


i'm not really sure what that has to do with what i said? maybe i am missing something, but i am pretty sure all i said was that each persons run training is what decides how fast they can do an open run, and their bike training/pacing dictates what % of their open times they can run.

No, in the line of reasoning I stated, if you were training for a 56 mile bike followed immediately by a 13.1 mile run, at the simpliest level doing 56m/13.1m in training would be a way to improve at that task.


I didn't say that was the optimal way to train. I just think it's hard to argue that its not the simpliest way considering that "doing things" repeatedly is how humans get better at pretty much everything.

In terms of "mini-tris every day", considering how I've seen training methods evolve I wouldn't be surprised to see that strategy make the top of the list some day. All the "old school" methods that appear ridiculous now were at one time considered optimal and I bet there were plenty of "studies" to "prove" them as well.

this is not a team sport where doing drills/running plays over and over is the best way to get faster.


runners dont run 5ks in training very often, even though thats what they race, and how often do you see a marathoner running 26 miles?

simply doing the distance like that is really not a very effective way to train.......

You implied it was the optimal way in the first post above, when you said the burden of proof was on the other method's proponents to prove that it was optimal.

Simplest and most logical doesn't necessarily mean optimal.

This thread is more about what training approach will give the most gain for the greatest number of people, I think, not which approach is simplest.

Edited by newleaf 2009-06-25 1:46 PM

You'll get faster Bryan, of that I have no doubt.  But your coach is off base in his reasoning here.  You ARE just doing more running here.

I like bricks.  I do them every once in a while.  They're fun.  For me, that's at least one important point...

My bad, that's not why he has me do them, that shoud read why I THINK he has me do them. I haven't asked him for his reasons and don't want to put words in his mouth.

Is Yams coaching you now?   I know this is one of his staple workouts.

LOL! Great minds and all.... ;_)

Also (and I won't guess at his reasoning either) it can have some nice mental benefits.

YES, very true and that's likely it! When I asked him about how fast I needed to run the end tempo he said I should always be running at my open pace. I figured no way, but did manage to do it. I think he's trying to show me if I let it hurt, I can hold on and do it. We talked about that in another thread last week I think. You said you liked him....sadist.

Yes. Danelle Ballangee who is a local friend and was the best adventure racer in the world until she was injured. I don't know her exact triathlon record but it was impressive and her daily training routine/fitness level was beyond what most people would consider possible. Another local friend (just got of the phone with) races 24 hour mountain bike races solo. A hard 56m ride followed by a 13.1 mile run is a warmup for her. There are lots of examples here.

No I didn't. I explained why I believe that the burden of proof isn't a given and why I believe otherwise.


Introducing variables that cannot be reliably proven doesn't guarantee that any approach is optimal for anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

For the record, I'm not claiming any training method is good/bad/optimal for anyone. I'm following an approach that is logical to me, simple because that's my preference, and an approach I followed once before with great results (IE. if it ain't broke don't fix it). I don't care how anybody else trains one iota.

If you hit your open times, then your running too slow in your running races. basically you just need to hurt all the time. :D

Edited by smilford 2009-06-25 2:37 PM

There are an infinte number of examples of humans improving at things via pure repetition and without breaking down muscle and recovering. But keep in mind that example was purely in the context of "burden of proof" which I believe should be upon those adding variables.

In my opinion, triathletes train to excel at a bike followed immediately by a run. The run is done in a fatigued condition due to the bike effort. If you claim that in order to optimally train for that act you should separate it into two parts and do them separately, IMO, that is an added variable because it differs from the act for which you're training .

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I honestly don't really care because I don't care if I'm optimally training (I'm looking for fun and happiness over optimal training). And I certainly don't care how anybody else trains.

I know, he's just getting in my head.

If she's doing 69.1 at 90% of whatever she could do at max for 69.1, then OK.  But not if you are talking 90% of some threshold level (LT, FTP, etc.) for that duration.  That's how I read your first post, but it's not clear (although if I was wrong, then I'm not sure what the point was).