Good Ironman training program (Page 2)

2.5 hours is pretty much as long as you want your long run to be as beyond that, the recovery cost outweighs any training benefit.  While some athletes will want to run longer for confidence, there is very little physiological benefit to run beyond 2.5 hours.

I would be more concerned that there is a 2.5 hour run included in a week with less than 5 hours of total running.

Shane

Hey Bar - I used the competitive plan for IM WI 09. It was great for me. And because of scheduling, I had to turn the Sunday workouts into a brick, which was challenging at times because of the duration of the run, but you do what you gotta do. 

For anyone considering this plan, the high RPM ride was GREAT for me - seems like a small workout and one to drop if things get hectic but I recommend hitting that ride even if it means moving it. It had the effect on me like an oil machine. Can't think of a better way to describe it. In fact, right now I'm coming back from a little rest between seasons and I rode a couple days feeling like I was riding through mud or molasses if that works for your imagination. The next day I rode again, this time a focused ride with relatively low HR and high rpm (over 100) for the duration of the ride. If you go more than an  hour it takes some mental focus, but the neuromuscular benefits are great. 

I've heard a lot of people say this but it doesn't make sense in my mind (yet).
When you train for a stand-alone marathon, most training plans have you running at least one 20-miler (after a 16, 17, and 18 miler at that), if not 2 or 3. Why would this be different for an IM? Simply because you need to recover to get back out there riding and running? The same would be true for the stand-alone marathon plan... you still have to recover and get back out there and keep training. So that doesn't make much sense to me.

I quickly looked at the plans here on BT and the max run is 2.5 or 3 hours for an IM training plan, while the max bike workouts were in the 6.5 hour timeframe , and the max swims were 5,000yds - both at or over the max time/distance you would be out there, depending on your speed. I undestand running takes longer to recover from, but the ratios just seem off to me.

I don't have athletes run over 2.5 either....would rather see IM'ers get their mileage through 6 runs a week.

EDIT to add: Went back and look at this season, I did two 2:20 runs netting about 18 miles.

Edited by running2far 2009-11-13 1:49 PM

You have to remember that cumulative mileage counts, not just one workout. 3 hours puts lots of stress on the body - you risk injury with very little benefit. It is different than training for a marathon. What you need to train for is to be able to run off the bike.

Besides, as they said in a semi-kiddingly thread on Slowtwitch, why do people train to run the entire IM marathon when 98% end up walking most of it anyway. :-)

It's not a brick, and the ride is optional. On Sundays, I would run long in the morning, then do the recovery ride in the evening to flush the legs out. This actually was quite pleasant as you're in Zone1 with no worries about pace or anything. Kind of a nice conclusion to a hard weekend of training.

My strongest discipline is the run - so I may be a bit biased to do less of it because it is - but the bike will more than adequately hold your run in good form in most cases.  It [biking] requires more wattage and mitochondria (the work factories in the muscles that produce energy a.k.a as ATP) so the work performed on the bike will in most cases be the best time spent building fitness for this event.  It's generally understood that biking helps running, but running does not help biking.    

Thanks for the information! I really like the schedule of this plan, so I'll go with it.

And I agree with your quote in the previous response about most people walking at some point in the marathon part of the IM anyway. I'm very seriously thinking about training with a run/walk (say 9/1 or something) and seeing what happens.

I was curious as to whether you had any sources for this point; I would be curious to read more about it.

Thanks,

Shane

Sorry, I wish I did... I read so much and so widely I wouldn't even know where to begin to find the original source.  Without a doubt the best book on endurance and physiology is the Lore of Running by Tim Noakes.  This is by far some of the best researched information available and it's in a user friendly and interesting format and applies well to triathlons; I don't think it was in this book though.  As for the source, I've tested this theory for nearly 6 months last year due to a foot fracture.  High intensity mountain biking held my run time with no loss of fitness, when I resumed running again the legs were a bit sore from the specialization of running the first few times but the speed and endurance were excellent still.

I'm sure that I will come across it again some time in the future Shane and when I do I'll drop you the reference material.  The reason I suggested the Lore of Running, is too really get a good grasp of what's going on in the body when endurance training.  Four years of physiology in school may not have taught me as much useful information in my trade and hobby then this book.  That's kinda sad huh? ;-)  Essentially the legs are over-built when training with high intensity biking (such as with mountain biking) in relation to running... running is more momentum based motion and the legs do not require that kind of energy making capacity when jogging.  

I'm w/ Lisa. I've never understood this either for the same reasons.

While many marathon plans will call for runs longer than 2.5-3 hours, IMO most athletes should not be running longer than this based on their weekly running volume.  For many training for a marathon, a 20+ mile run is going to be 50% or more of their weekly running volume which is a bad idea.  For a pure marathon runner, I would still like to see them run no more than 3 hours for their long run and then only if they were running at least 8 hours total for the week. 

The same holds true for triathletes except that due to the training stress (and required recovery) that comes from three sports, the percentage of the weekly running can be a little higher but still I like to see an athlete with a 2.5 hour long run putting in at least 6 hours of running for the week. 

Limiting the long run to the 2.5-3 hour range has more to do with the fact that running longer has very little physiological benefit but the risk of injury goes up greatly.  Most triathletes (across all distances) would be better served running more frequently than trying to cram most of their weekly running into one epic long run.


Shane