low volume training

what compromises a massive fitness base?  I've been limiting training to ~ 3 hrs since 2008, 2 hrs since the start of 2011.  I'm fit for sure but not genetically gifted.... i could probably qualify for boston (3:15 marathon) if i really wanted to (even on limited training) - but would be hard pressed, on any training regimen to break 3 hrs - i can ride decently - avg speed in an olympic distance on the bike is 20-21 mph if i've been pushing the bike.  What i do have is lots of confidence - i think so much of IM is mental - an understanding and appreciation for physical suffering..... the mental side is far more important, once a certain physical threshold is reached.  maybe high volume approaches allow folks unprepared mentally to gradually prepare themselves... but otherwise i'm not sure.  Lots of recent evidence that high intensity stuff produces similar physiological changes to steady state higher volume stuff.  Sure there is the issue of logistics (nutrition, comfort on the bike at those durations, etc) - but assuming these are worked out i don't see the hurdles, except perhaps that low volume training is immeasurably harder to stick with - even though i'm only doing 3 x 12 minutes during the week (and longer on the weekend) those 12 minutes, to really be effective, are pretty grueling.  No affiliation with CFE - i've started this experiment on my own and have drawn from a number of sources - i favor actually running, biking, and swimming rather than kettlebells, etc, as i also agree there is something to specificity.....and as for a 12 hour IM on 2 hours being a hard day - of course it would be a hard day.  But i think a 12 hour IM would be a hard day regardless....

+1.  I'm on the 'not possible' side.  DNF for sure.

magn,  Good luck with that.  Let us know how it goes.

Yes, confidence is part of it.  But, dude, suggesting 2 or 4 hours/week is prep for an IM is either very ignorant or very disrespectful.

There's a reason "conventional wisdom" says high volume.  High volume is needed.

I'll just suggest this.  Forget the swim, forget the bike, go do just a marathon on your 2 or 4 hours a week.  It's just a marathon.  Then come back and ask your question.  You'll see.

Good luck.

"...even though i'm only doing 3 x 12 minutes during the week (and longer on the weekend) those 12 minutes, to really be effective, are pretty grueling"

I'm sorry, but I'm still giggling.  3 x 12 min sounds like a warm-up, for ONE workout.

magn, you have NO idea what is grueling.

This thread needs to be moved to a different forum.

prove it. then I'll start listening to what you are saying.

Interesting but ridiculous.

My husband, daughter and son do Crossfit. At the gym they go to the coach that does the programming (decides the workouts), decided to do a marathon. He normally ran 1 mile or less a few times a week for CF warm up or workout. I believe the longest he ran prior to the Marathon was 9 miles but not sure when that fit into how far before event he did that 9 mile run.

The Marathon sucked and his time was over 6 hours.  He spoke to my husband about it and my husband's take away was the coach was surprised how hard it was. He  is very fit guy and strong and does interval/intense stuff often and spends more than 2 hours a week training and just the Marathon was hard.

Not possible to do as well or near as possible with almost zero training. 2 hours of training a week isn't really adequate for a shorter tri like sprint or oly. Why participate in an event if you don't want to properly prepare...I don't get the draw. So I can say I did an IM without training so I'm a...fill in the blank..stud, bad a$$, know more than those endurance folks, my method is better...and it was the most miserable day of my life and I barely made the midnight cut off?

Gotta love BT.  always honest with a little more opinion than all OP expect.  However, always honest.  I was on the bus going to the first part of Disney's Goofy challenge this past weekend. A young lady was saying how she had started graduate school and had gotten a new puppy so she had not trained any in 1 month and her longest run was 6 miles.  The three ladies she was talking with looked her strait in the eye and said you will be fine.  I could not help but giggle. 

I also used to think if i ate right and trained hard enough I too could BQ.  However, some of us are lacking a key ingredient - genetics.  I would watch what i boast. When you hit a 3:30 on a marathon with minimal training you can boast that you can qualify with training.  I would not underestimate a 12 hour IM finish or a 3:15 marathon to anyone.  The OP inthis case unfortunately does not have the experience to talk with reason or is just a little shall we say overconfident. 

There are lower volume schedules, but that's relatively speaking.  The FIRST running program comes to mind.  But even that is designed around 3x quality runs per week AND cross training on the off days.

If you're a fish you can probably ignore pool time and still easily complete the IM distance, which will save you a lot of hours.  But running a marathon requires physiological adaptation and you have to pay your dues.

+1  OP is delusional, as we say in the South, Bless your heart.

And it's A LOT of training to go from a 3:30 mary to 3:15.  Especially if it took some work to get to 3:30.  

This post is f'ing rediculous.

2hrs a week? Really dude? I probably spend two hrs a week feeling up water bottles and gel flasks during IM training. 

To the OP, if you are so confident then go ahead and prove all us naysayers wrong.

See this is the cr@p that happens when mags like Runner's World do write ups on CrossFit Endurance. Newbies are going to be taking DNFs all over the place now.

Thanks for all the thoughts.  I'm sorry if this post seemed like trolling (i'm new to online forums so had to look up what was meant by that) - but its genuine interest on my part.  I'll take on the comments individually, starting with the most recent -

my initial interest and experience in low volume training actually stems from first - i had trained for and run a marathon around 2004 using typical programs and did a 3:37.  in 2006, living in NZ with a new baby i had little time, but awesome trails.  i modified the FIRST program without the crosstraining and only doing two of the runs and one bike instead - but focusing on the greater intensity that FIRST requires.  it made me way faster and fitter than when i had trained 7-10 hours per week the previous year.  I've run in to greater demands on my time after returning stateside but didn't want to give up endurance stuff, and as mentioned since 2008 have limited my training to 3, and now 2 hours per week.

Shane - about 3:15 at a marathon requiring a genetic gift, i disagree, but maybe i need to be more clear - there are LOADS of people who could reach this goal, reasonably fit people willing to put in the work.  There are not LOADS of people who can run a 2:15 or even a 2:30 marathon - regardless of how bad they want it or how much effort they put in.  It takes something else in addition.

Kathy G - thanks for relaying the CF story - i've been intrigued by CF claims at preparing someone for endurance events but hadn't heard any concrete reports about results.... i know the guy that invented it claimed to use it for some crazy stuff, or was supposed to, but couldn't find any mention as to whether he followed through or not.  I'm not doing CF.  As for why?  i simply don't have the time (or am unwilling to take it and suffer the potential family consequences) to train massive amounts.  I am stubborn and wanted to do things anyway, so i figured i'd see if i could.  I'm not interested in a stunt, diminishing other peoples accomplishments (the training i do is very difficult - Tabata intervals, weekly tempo runs criss crossing LT, etc, i'm certainly not saying IM is easy!) or any of that.  I just want to see what i can do, and i want to be able to do anything.

SEADOCHA - run two marathons before and a few longer things.  My marathon time was 3:37 or something.  I was a rock climber/mountaineer (this was my passion) through college and had many many huge epics to which i attribute my unusual mental ability to tolerate suffering - i didn't get into endurance until 2001 when i met my wife who was a runner.  i've never really been competitive in endurance, but have become proficient at running and biking and swam in high school, although i never made it beyond regional finals.  My best times for the 100 yard freestyle were around 1:00.  When i've focused primarily on running i was able to get up to a Vdot of 52 and managed to run 9 miles in an hour once or twice. 

RatherBeSwimming - i'll let you know how it goes.  in two weeks i'm off to the frozen otter ultra trek - a 64 mile unsupported ultra that has had 6 finishers in the last 5 years.  you can check it out if you like.  although i'm not certain i'll finish, i feel well prepared going in.....once a threshold of physical fitness is reached, i'm convinced efforts like these are largely mental.  my training has put me past that physical requirement, so now its just time to enjoy the suffering.

Fred - fair enough - but not everyone likes the training, and sometimes too much training isn't needed.  Does an AG athlete who wants to feel good about his fitness and test that agains the grand daddy of races need to meet some other criteria (like training hours) to be accepted?  There is recent research on cyclist that showed that 2.5 hours of weekly high intensity effort provided the same performance gains as 10.5 hours of conventional training - in trained subjects.  If you REALLY like the training, great - but many people do the training because they think it is necessary to have a shot at the goal.  All i'm doing is challenging this assumption.  Keep in mind that i also readily acknowledge that high intensity training is HARD - and may be difficult for many 'average' athletes to take on - i'm just suggesting that there may be, at least for some individuals with a certain affinity for really hard work - another path that offers similar results.  And of course actions speak louder than words.  I'm currently putting together a 22.5 hour program (over 12 weeks) that i intend to 'pilot' on a group of six or so assorted athletes that i feel possess the mental characteristics required to follow it through - i'll test their beginning fitness, ending fitness, and then they'll each run some sort of race (trail marathon, HIM, or IM depending on their goals) and we'll see where it goes.  As for myself - i've gotten good results from following a limited volume approach, but mainly for longer efforts - ultra distance runs/bikes in extreme conditions, adventure races (up to six days), etc.  I feel that this length of effort is even more skewed towards the 'mental trumps physical' aspect, and am interested in seeing how the training principles will apply to something like triathlon, where the physical conditioning is needed in greater balance.

JSNOWASH - i saw the bit about the guy doing it with 'no training' in 2010.  Of course what he really meant was no specific training - he was obviously of above average fitness, and 'trained' regularly.  Definitely a triumph of will, but a bit misleading in the way it was presented.  I'm interested in seeing how far very hard, but limited volume training can get me.  I've always expressly tailored my weekly 'hours' to be as beneficial as possible towards whatever i was training for, while allowing me to keep a base (yeah, i know alot of you won't think you can keep a 'base' on limited hours) in biking, running, even if the event is a single discipline event. On sunday i went out for my first 'long run' in about six weeks.  i'd done an 11 miler on Nov 21st and three 8 milers a six miler, and a weekly hill interval run on the treadmill for 20 min.  Sunday's run was 16.25 miles, my longest in preparation for the 64 mile run/trek i'm doing on the 21st (mentioned above).  I ran a 7:43 pace overall.  knowing myself i could probably have done a 3:30 marathon on sunday, even without support, water, etc and in the 30 degree, icy/slushy/sloppy conditions.  Back on may 9th, in preparation for a 32 mile trail run later that month, I did 16 miles at about a 7:13 pace for 16 miles.  i'd need to average 7:26 for boston, which means i could add about 25 seconds per mile onto that pace for the rest of the marathon to qualify, and i think that i could manage this during a race, as these were just unsupported training runs.

Don - agreed, training systems is important.  I have done many ultra endurance efforts.  I know what to expect and how my body will respond - for people new to distance racing a very volume limited approach not work on its own in preparation, or if its all that was used then the first couple of races/efforts would want to be viewed as opportunities to figure this stuff out, and the participant would be advised to let go of expectations and treat it like a learning experience (ie don't get frustrated if they blow up, just take notes....).  A few years of 6 or so 'races' a year with limited training in between - again IMO - is a potential 'other' road to a personally fullfilling 'career' as an amateur triathlete - even an AG competitive one perhaps - that requires less time dedication (although perhaps more mental dedication).

Atlantabill - I do have an idea of whats grueling.  regardless of what folks may feel about my premise/hypothesis, i don't think the forum is place for this sort of negativity.  Triathlon is in many ways a very gruelling sport, but gruelling in a very controlled way - the consequences of getting it wrong are, in the big picture, almost non-existent.  Many of the experiences that have shaped me mentally and perhaps encourage my success using 'unconventional methods' have been consequence rich - ie giving up truly meant giving up.  A genuine tabata run, which includes 8 x 20 seconds of work intervals at max effort separated by 10 seconds of rest, if actually done at max effort - is indeed gruelling, albeit brief.  Conventional wisdom is not infallible, and beyond this it may be the case that both high volume-steady state training AND low volume high intensity training could similarly prepare one physically for IM. 

Everyone - Again, i mean no disrespect to the distance or the athletes that make it their goal.  I think it is a very tough race that requires serious committment and mental tenacity to complete.  I'm not suggesting that a low volume approach is better.  My experience and personal experiment over the last three years has just led me to consider the question (rather than dismiss it outright) as to whether there is a low volume approach towards IM that might provide similar results for some folks. 

Cheers - Andy

so verbose in fact that perhaps - just perhaps - i'm not actually trolling at all, and have a genuine interest in getting feedback on some ideas that, albeit severely unusual, are real ideas - not ones intended simply to provoke an emotional response.  Alot of readers have suggested that this post should be relocated - but i'm not sure where - the ideas are about training for IM distance triathlon, which is the subject of the forum.  I feel as though many have reacted defensively to the initial post and i'm not sure why.... if you're right and my ideas are worth a pile of sh*t, then, hey - what do you know - your training still works just as well.  If i'm right, and my ideas have some merit or provide an alternative to some athletes - guess what?  yep, your training still works just as well.  I wrote the initial post because i was trying to open up a discussion, not people off, diminish anyone, or, as is public opinion, do a bit of trolling. 

From Wikipedia:  In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]

cheers

Lance Armstrong ran NYC in 2006 and barely finished under three hours. He made it to 2:59:36 with VDot of 84. I do think he has incredible mental fortitude. Interesting article about his 2006 Mary and how his finish time didn't reflect his being one of the fittest people on earth.

I think most of us would agree that Lance Armstrong, if far superior to the average athlete.

If he struggled for sub 3 hour finish with less than ideal training, the idea with someone without genetic gift could do 3:15 without solid training, really?