re JeepFleeb's not so much volume comment

"your body will make all the adaptations it needs to"......"needs to", to do what exactly?  Finish within 17 hours?....... break 10 hours?

4 hour rides.....at what pace/intensity??

90 minute runs....at what pace/intensity??

If I only did 90 minute run I'd do maybe at most 9 miles..how could I expect to be able to run 26 come IM day? Now increasing my long runs 2 miles is hard and I do each distance twice before moving up. I know I will most likely walk some but my goal is to minimize that.

4 hour ride for me in hills might be 60-65 mile ride. Now doing 85-95 mile rides are signficantly harder and take more mental focus than those shorter 4 hour rides. IMLP I will be over 7 hours on the bike. I wouldn't have the durability/resilancy to handle it.

My coach used to cap long runs at 2.5 hours for his IM athletes, but found those like me that are slower would tend to get beat up pretty bad and finish not how they'd like ie mostly walking. So he has changed to doing long runs to up to 20-22 miles which is the way I'm building as I fatigue easily and don't have good run endurance.

I can't imagine training 90 minutes and 4 hours on the run/bike and expect to ride 7 hours and run 5+ hours.

It may work for Aaron who is much younger and gifted athlete but it would never work for me.  My coach does focus on recovery and has continued to cut down my build/recovery ratio so my key endurance sessions I come into as fresh as possible in a relative sense. I used to do 2 week build/1 week recovery. Now we are doing a 10 day cycle.

I think everyone needs to find the training balance that is right for them and trust the plan/coach they are using. We are each unique and our bodies handle training similar in general sense but different in a specific manner.

I do agree with this part of the statement.  Recovery is extremely important and if you don't plan for it and make sure you recover you are spinning your wheels and run a pretty high risk of injury and burn-out.

However, I do not agree that a 90 minute run and 4 hour bike is adequate for most people, particularly the run.  While some may get away with this volume of training, most will benefit in a number of ways from longer days.  I believe the fitness gains are measurable with longer training days but most important are the psychological benefits of training longer.  Knowing that you're able to "go the distance" is invaluable as far as I'm concerned.  As long as you allow adequate time to recover when you do.

Like every other aspect of training though, these things are individual and everyone needs to find what works best for them.  Good luck to all with your training.

I agree and disagree. Every athlete is different, but I do think a lot of people train more than they need to, especially with the longer stuff. Battling run injuries has always been a part of my training, and my run volume has always been less than most, and my long runs have always been shorter than most...but it has always gotten me through race day. Consequently, I tend to do longer rides than most. I can handle it just fine, and can recover just fine, and I am spending less time than others recovering from runs. I am cool with it, and I enjoy the long rides.

That said, in training for my first IM, every once in a while (especially earlier this week), doubt creeps in and I wonder, "Am I doing enough?" It's a natural fear/doubt, and one that takes time (i.e., multiple IM races, such as what Aaron's done) to really understand and be okay with.

Just curious if you can site the research that bears this out?  I'd like to read it if you can.

is this yours or your coach's info?

Seems to me there is significant psychological benefit in going long on training rides and run.  Also, I have found that if I can't run 3+ hrs in training, my marathon performance is gonna suck (that's a technical term that means 'dang, this was hard as hell!').

~Mike

Jeepfleeb's 2hr/45min comment does seem a little counterintuitive but if I twist my brain around a little bit, I guess I could see how it could be true - Depending on the athlete, sure.

That would be great.  PM it to me if you don't mind.  Thanks.

Maybe I'm really missing something...

When I read what was written it seems to be focusing more on the person's body ability to recover from a workout and be rested enough to do the next one..  It's easy to look at the numbers/times he listed and transpose that into our own pace/time reference, and I'm sure that is what will get the most attention yet...

I took it to mean if your doing longer training rides and runs and not getting the proper recovery or if it takes you 2-3 days to recover from a workout and you miss those workouts because of it, then that long training day wasn't as usefull as it could have been.  But like I said I'm probably missing the point

Clear as mud. Just goes to show, there are no absolutes when it come to training. 

Yes there is:

training stress + recovery = get fitter

Anyway, to believe that in 45 min a runner has achieved 80% of training adaptations would be naive at best, in particular since there is no mention of intensity. If we are discussing training adaptations achieved at threshold pace THEN I would agree that between 30 and 60 min adaptations would be maximized (even longer for elites). But for someone training for a marathon, the specific concept tells us an athlete will maximize training adaptations by reproducing racing conditions. And while the runner will certainly benefit from threshold pace to improve speed, he/she still will need a good amount of specific training to achieve peak performance. via several sessions of marathon pace runs and long endurance runs.