low volume training (Page 2)

He didn't say he only trained 2 hrs/week.  He wants to develop a training plan based around that though.  Sounds like to me that up to now he's done a more conventional training plan.  At least that is how I read it.

I vote you are not a troll, but I am not in NH tonight either. You are attempting to solicit opinions on a board primarily populated by traditional people who put in (pretty big to big time) hours weekly. I think you should try an IM; the worst thing to happen to you in a tough mudder / exotic endurance event is you die. The worst thing to happen to you on the run, provided you get that far in an IM, in descending order, is you: die; get really hurt; quit because you are really beat up; feel bad when you did not finish for a variety of reasons; feel really really bad when you finish sub 17,16,15.

You can follow my posts from my first IMFL when I trained lightly, but well more than 2 hours a week. I trained lightly not as a slacker or contrarian, but due to that thing called life. I swam rarely, but I am extremely confident in large groups / open water / big swell. I am not fast (~1:10) but not really slow. Fast is 48, and I will never get that fast, but I did not care, for me the key was the bike. Think an average week would need to be at least 6, and that is pushing it. But, I too played a Dr Tabbita here and there, and if you do it right on the trainer, your legs feel much worse than a soft hour.

As you may find out in your endurance races, time is a powerful enemy. 5-8 hours on a bike is a long time, after you just swam around 1 to 2 hours. I did a few 6 hour sessions on the bike, and at least 10 3 hour sessions. I ran 16 once, and about 10 10 mile sessions. Results may vary.

This question will be debated until the cows come home. I respected the training, but focused on what I needed to do, and kept nutrition as a focus. I doubt I could live off the race course, since my first IM was only Gatorade Endurance (never heard of it until IMFL race day, and now Powerade paid for the exclusive rights), and I trained singularly with something else. I read every post on this board dealing with nutrition, and did not take that lightly. Your body needs to know whether you need bananas, chocolate, oranges, goo, whatev. I did not test that on race day.

Could a fit man finish an IM in under 17? Of course. I was in 12 with light training. That soccer dude in 2010 did OK. Could a fit man finish in under 9:30 with limited training? Highly doubt it. The guys who go wicked fast would never even think about training with such few hours, so the argument becomes circular. 

Good luck. Please tell us how you do on these races and whether you sign up for Boston or B2B or whatevs. If you are going to do http://www.youmaydie.com/ or the JFK50 then I may see you. 

PS - brick it up, regardless of your hours. Your body also needs to know how to run after a bike. I know, sounds obvious, but many wish for more bricks. Also, lube your junk.

Are you counting mountaineering as training? Because it definitely is, it can be some of the best cardiovascular endurance training around. I could see completing an IM on two hard climbing days a week plus two hours of running or riding. Admittedly I'm still in training for my first IM.

Consider this. A good experienced swimmer could finish the swim in ~1:30 with no training. You can walk the run course in about 8 hours moving pretty slowly, 6:30 if you walk faster. Relax in transitions, :30. That means you need to pull off a 7-8 hour bike (14-16 mph). Are there people who could pull off a 7-8 hour bike on 2 hours a week of training? Yeah, I think so, especially on a fast course. It might not even be that unpleasant if you just treat the whole thing like a long bike tour and hike rather than a race.

That said, I think finishing an "easy" IM course on 2hrs/wk would be possible for the gifted athlete.  Consider that swimming just 3min/100M, biking 14mph, and "running" (walking) 15min/mi would get you in under 17 hrs.  HOWEVER going sub-12 on 2hrs/wk is highly questionable, except perhaps for experienced gifted athlete with elite endurance swim background.  Like maybe Andy Potts if he took a year off & mounted a comeback on 2 hrs/wk training.

from fall of 2008 to end of 2010 i trained 3 hours per week.  starting march of 2011 i switched to two hours a week.  I've been doing that since.  In the original post it mentions that i actually do four hours every two weeks, this allows for some variations.  for example two weeks ago i did two 15 minute workouts and an hour run on the weekend.  Last week i did two 12.5 minute workouts and a two hour, five minute run on the weekend.  

as for background - swam in HS as mentioned in my long winded reply.  no other endurance training although i pursued climbing/mountaineering which often had me hiking.  in 2000  ran 10 miles to impress a girl (ran 5 miles once when i was 14, other than that nothing) and couldn't walk for a week.  Then a half marathon the next weekend (to impress her again) and managed just under 2 hours.  I ran with her 3-4 times a week, total mileage about 15-25 on average, and got comfortable with an 8 min mile pace for 6-7 miles or so.  in 2005 i found joe friels triathlon bible and started applying the running techniques (high cadence) which improved my efficiency greatly and made me faster without really any fitness gain.  I tried to follow friel's program (was aiming at a six hour multisport race - paddle bike run) but couldn't find the time for the recommended program.  I had some success on about 4-5 hours a week.  Then i heard about FIRST training and applied the three times a week principle and got faster still - running twice one week (and biking once) and then biking twice the next week.  I was logging 15-20 miles on two run weeks and 6 or so on one run weeks.  every four weeks i did a big 10 hour 'adventure' day to try to prepare for primal quest, a 10 day adventure race that i was recruited to by my twin brother, 10 weeks from the race date.  I liked FIRST so much that i kept the format when i returned to the states in 2007 and realized i was averaging between 2.5 and 3 hrs.  despite the low volume i still aspired to test myself against new challenges.  over the last 4 years i've had lots of success, focusing on 3-4 endurance events a year, without upping training.  

as far as genetics goes - i suppose it is relative.  From my position it is hard to think of myself as more than perhaps mildly above average in terms of genetics - if i trained for and entered a 10 K here in GF - a relatively small, not particularly athletic town in north dakota (unlike, say boulder) - i might place in the top 5 or so out of 50.  In bigger events i've usually managed to finish within the top third or so, sometimes better.  So relative to the general population, perhaps i'm 'gifted' - but relative to the demographic represented by the forum, certainly less so.  Again, i feel a great deal of my success on limited training has to do with a mental toughness and knowledge of suffering - and i'd be more inclined to accept that this might be more extraordinary.

cheers - andy

minimal volume doesn't necessarily mean minimal training.  Sure there haven't been controlled studies for marathoners training this way - elite athletes of course are training to win, and most others look to more conventional methods.  There have been studies indicating that physiological response to high intensity training (ie even anaerobic intervals) can effectively increase aerobic capacity as much as up to about five times the duration of more moderately intense training.  This backs up my personal experience - i could certainly be fitter adding some long slow days perhaps, etc - but focusing primarily on maximizing the amount of High intensity stuff, in my mind - gives my limited training the most bang for the buck.  btw - lance armstrong also went and won the leadville ultra bike race i think.  I strongly believe that with my minimal training i'm at about 85-90% or so of my physical potential.  It seems like the prevailing thought is that i'm suggesting that i don't need the training.  instead i'm suggesting that i'm working my off for 2 hours a week and finding that the benefits are significant.

cheers - andy

I'm not mountaineering - i live in ND.  I mountaineered during my college days.  I'm now 36.  I estimate my swim time to be about 1:15.  I also am not worried about finishing - i'm confident in that.  The challenge for me will be to do 'well' - which i'm taking to be 12 hours or so - or otherwise place in about the top third, give or take.

Thanks singlemalt for the non-troll vote of confidence.  i'd be curious to hear more about your training.  i think sub 10 would be beyond me... it seems 9:30 would require some serious gifts.... you'd have to be doing sub 3 marathon at the end and i doubt i could do that, regardless of training, without the swimming and biking first..... 12 seems like a reasonable goal.  you can check out the frozen otter race to see how i fare with 64 miles of trail in wisconsin winter.... will certainly take more than 12 hours - only six have ever finished in 5 years - but i hope to add my name to the list.

cheers

andy

Ouch re: ND and no mountains. I used to live 45 minutes from the mountains and moved to be closer to them. I'm mostly taking a break from climbing for this tri and it's killing me.

I'm pretty sure that you will not be able to turn in a 12 hour IM time on 2 hours of high-intensity fitness alone unless you currently have the fitness base to go sub-12. The reason I feel confident in that is that many "normal" plans and almost all "minimalist" plans include more than 2 hours of high intensity work per week, as well as long runs and rides. If it were easy to go sub-12 on this amount of work we'd see a lot more people doing it. Most of the people doing IMs have some factors working in their favor, whether it's genetics, a long history of endurance sports, or mental toughness, so the fact that many of these people fail to go sub-12 on more training is a good indicator that it is not generally possible. That said I bet it's possible for some special people who are gifted in multiple areas.

As a reference point, I'm a lifelong athlete though new to endurance sports 1.5 years ago, 2 marathons and a 50k under my belt, I'm training 20+ hours a week with lots of intensity for almost a year (10 hours a week is "free" time from bike commuting ), and my goal is to go sub-12 at CDA. Based on how my body responds when I drop run volume, there is no chance that I could finish sub-12 on 2 hours a week. Heck I'm pretty sure I couldn't finish a marathon sub-4 on 2 hours a week.

agreed - i don't get it perfect but have had plenty of long days over the last 15 years or so - most of them through mountaineering, etc - but it still translates somewhat.  also have read alot and have a very accommodating stomach - you're right, low volume plans, especially a crazy one like mine, don't really address nutrition so they wouldn't be good for someone getting into the sport with no prior experience, unless as i mentioned the first few races served to iron out these issues.

Fred - sounds like you're a bit of a beast!  btw - my name is andy - is there a reason folks seem to like the impersonality of OP instead of using a name?  just curious.

and you're absolutely right, its all conjecture, but then this applies any time anyone trades training advice before or after a race, etc - so it is kind of a moot point.  unless you train with someone, you don't know that they've done what they said they've done.  I'm not doing this to try to be strange or anything - except that i suppose lots of people would think it strange to want to do an event like IM without following the more typical training protocol.  as i mentioned in a previous post - my pipe dream is to figure out a way to 'train for anything' on limited hours in a consistent way so as to be able to do crazy events well into my old age.  

I agree that training others requires caution..... and i do appreciate your concern along these lines.  despite the doubts, i've got ample evidence and confidence that my methods work for me - but am interested to see really how much of it is me and how much of it is at least somewhat transferable.  

cheers

andy

regarding the high intensity stuff - i find myself less injury prone because of increased recovery time.  perhaps more injury prone than moderate volume/low intensity, but certainly less so than high volume with mixed intensity.  maybe different for others though, as i've always needed lots of recovery.  as far as the 12 minute workout - standard tabata fare.... for example my run today will be on a treadmill - 4 minutes of warm up @8, 7, 6, 8 min miles respectively, then set it to 10% incline and 6 min miles - run 20 sec, hop on rails for 10 sec, repeat 8 times (4 min total), try not to dry heave on the last few intervals, then WD for four min, 10, 8, 7:30, 7 for the last four minutes.  

andy

If I tried that workout, my knees would explode from such a short warmup.  Of course, that brings the issue of individual differences from genectics, age, injury/health histrory, etc. into the conversation.

I wish you luck, Andy, and I will be very curious about how your IM goes.

thanks for the luck! I've gotta get through this big ultra 'run' in a couple weeks though before i move on to IM training!