low volume training (Page 3)

Shane - what about the idea of dimished return?  certainly someone dedicated to high intensity low volume training can approach some percent of their potential rather quickly - and i suppose its a bit up for discussion as what constitutes 'most'.... and again - does anyone really reach thier actual potential? closeness is a matter of degree and preference.  I prefer, particularly since in my experience i don't have to actually give up competing in tough events but rather only give up a bit a little in terms of speed, to enjoy the training i do and have a balanced life (family, work, other hobbies) in a way i couldn't have training 10 hrs or more a week and getting closer to my actual potential. for me, 10 hours a week of training would lead to imbalance.  Sure i could, as some have suggested, decide to focus on shorter events, but these don't fulfill me in the same way - they don't have that same edge or uncertainty.

as for the endurance equals power, i respectfully disagree.  If train myself to run a FAST 10 K, something doable on limited training, that will translate to running a moderately fast half, or event longer.  it doesn't work the other way - someone who trains to run a moderately fast half will not have the top end speed (without more specific speed work).  Anaerobic training has been shown to increase both anaerobic (power) and aerobic capacities significantly - aerobic training does not increase anaerobic at all.  Thats a one way street.  In my mind the best argument against low volume training being applicable to serious endurance races - at least at the level i'm interested in, remains mental - most (many?) people will be inadequately prepared mentally for a long slow effort if they haven't done a significant amount in training.  this is my assessment of why CFE folks often fail - they are coming to it with no sense of what is required mentally for success at something like IM - they may have tremendous mental prowess in going full bore for 20 second spurts, repeatedly - even to a level most seroius triathletes find unattainable, but when they are hurting bad 4 hours into a 12 hour race that simply doesn't equip them mentally for what is ahead.  8 hours is a long time to deal with doubt and pain. 

cheers,

andy

Two things - 1) IM as a litmus test is only going to be informative about how your training applies to IM.  Like others mentioned, you might experience very different results in short course events.

2) I think it's less effective as a way to test your training method because you're not excluding your starting fitness.  If you did IM #1 with minimal prep, then trained your way for a year, followed by IM #2, you could compare times and get a better measure of its effectiveness (assuming similar weather conditions, etc).

I'm not advising you to jump into an IM with no prep, but just making my point clear

last post on the topic for me.... for those interested in any of the things said, i've articulated some of my ideas a little better in a few posts i wrote three years ago as i started trying to formalize my ideas - they are a bit outdated (i'm now working out 2 hrs a week instead of 3 for example) and i've yet to do an IM (having favored more adventure based tests up to now).  I'm sure most will still think the ideas are crazy, but as you'll see if you read things, i'm certainly not coming into this without alot of thought.  If you leave comments on my blog - please do so respectfully - i'm more than open to criticism if its constructive - it actually forces me to rethink assumptions, etc.  cheers, and for all those who have posted, thanks for being part of the discussion and offering your feedback. - andy

underpinnings

IM distance

Confidence

Suffering

Will

I've changed my thinking a bit since these were written - but most of what is here still accurately reflects my basic beliefs on the topic.....

+1

"Finally I don't really wish you 'luck' but rather hope you find happiness in our journey here as that's really the only part that matters..." - Fred D

+1

I haven't really followed this thread as I thought you were a crackpot, but now I am intrigued.  I don't think I could do it, but it does look like you have significant endurance racing background and have indeed given it a lot of thought.  I am going to try to find time to read some of these blog postings.  And given that you describe your self as an "eternal possibilitist " it all seems to fit now 

ETA just from a glance at the site the OP might in fact be a BAMF (here's another one to look up    ) that does some seriously hard sh**

All this discussion and no one bothered asking why the heck you are feeling up waterbottles!

I'm a big believer in quality over quantity. All my workouts have a purpose; I don't do junk miles just to say I've done them. I also would pit my mental strength up against anyone-it's my secret weapon that has gotten through races that have felled people who are faster and more fit than me. But I would never try to do an IM with 2 hours of training a week.

I am with you on the idea trying to figure out how to do an IM with less training so you have more time for the rest of your life, just not on your conclusions that it's doable with that small amount of training time.

I train with a group of people who are into Crossfit and CFE and they train way less than is typical of athletes on this site. But they mostly do shorter triathlons and adventure races with maybe one big ultra trail run a year. And many of them are posting slower times than a few years ago when they trained more traditionally. They think the trade-off is worth it -- more family time, a more balanced life -- but they aren't trying to do a sub 12 hour IM as their first triathlon either.

The thing is, while the evidence is there that you can make similar adaptations doing high intensity work as with low intensity work, the evidence is not there to support 4 hours of working out every 2 weeks leading to a sub 12 hour Ironman for someone who has never done a single triathlon. I think you are taking something that is true (there is a point of diminishing returns to low intensity, high volume training) and extending it to an illogical conclusion. That's because just as there is a point of diminishing returns with high volume training, there is a point where low volume, high intensity isn't enough. 

From what I've seen, that point seems to be somewhere in the 6-8 hours a week range. Anything less than that and you just aren't going to get your body to make the adaptations it needs and you aren't going to learn what you need to learn about pacing yourself, nutrition, etc.

And, no, what you know about nutrition for the activities you do now is not enough and will only nominally transfer over. In addition to overestimating what 2 hours a week of high intensity training can do for you, I also think you are way underestimating what it takes to master the logistics of triathlon.

Also for volume vs. intensity, it has to be the right high-intensity activity. As an example, I belong to a group that does a lot of strength training and CFE-type run workouts in order to improve running. There are no long runs in the program at all. None. It's a 6 week program and everyone runs a 5k TT at the start and end of the 6 weeks. The first 6 weeks, I didn't do it because I was injured. But 7 others did and all made significant improvements without getting injured. But for the next 6 weeks the coach made some modifications to the program based on recommendations from an exercise physiologist. And not a single person made any improvement in their 5K TT time!

But I was able to improve mine doing all low-intensity running (which is all my injury allowed me). Not because low-intensity running is better than high-intensity training, but because they weren't doing the *right* high-intensity stuff.

Btw, our coach developed this program in order to prepare himself for a 50 mile trail run because he wanted to improve his time over last year. He ran well enough to qualify for the Western States 100 with his longest regular runs being 13 mile TTs and one 30 mile run to test out equipment and nutrition. However, he has been doing endurance events since he was in his teens (so at least two decades) and he works out about 7 hours a week. Not two.

My suggestion is to keep training how you've been training and sign up for a Sprint or even an Olympic distance triathlon in the Spring. See how you do. I wouldn't be surprised if you get through both of these races okay assuming you are reasonably fit. If you do, the next step would be to try a HIM on your training schedule. That's where I think you'll see the wheels come off. Not that you won't get through it, but it will show you a lot about where your program is weak and what is really needed to succeed at this distance.

If I'm wrong, sign up for a IM. 

But I think you need to do a 3-4 hour bike ride every other week and you need to swim 1x a week and run 2 hours a week just as the barest minimum training for a HIM and that ends up being about 5 hours a week right there. Maybe someone very fit and/or very talented and/or with a big base could do an IM with that kind of training and finish in sub-15 hours even. But more likely they'd blow up at some point either from poor pacing or screwing up nutrition if not lack of s/b/r specific fitness. And if the IM is even remotely challenging -- my first IM had a freak storm with 35 mph winds/40 mph gusts, rain, cold and hail -- then forget about it. You won't have the experience or the base to get through it, not in 12 hours anyway.

I've only just skimmed this thread, and skimmed a bit of Andy's blog, and...

my money is on Andy in this thing.

The dude's done some sick stuff. I'm betting he can pull of a 12-13 hr IM or better on the limited high intensity training he's proposing, coupled with some long endurance events typical of what he's been doing over the past couple years per his blog.  That last part is not insignificant, and perhaps he was downplaying some of the depth of his endurance event experience. 

Andy, I would be curious for you to report back on how things are going, either here or in the ultra sub-forum, depending on the topic/event.

I question, though, how much of your results are based solely on your training, and how much benefit you are deriving from a genetic gift for endurance events. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think you have some endurance genes in your favor.

I like crazy!  :-)

^^^

I think most people who have trained for an IM realize that you can find a lot of hours each week just by becoming more organized.  Ride to/from work, for example.  Or just getting up 30 minutes earlier nets you 3.5 hours per week, which is more than the training in this discussion.

Seems like this is more about proving a point than the necessity of low hours.

Agree with Fred and I didn't think his response was harsh at all. 

I also think it's important to note that some of the push back was over whether or not Andy's approach is applicable to a wider audience.  Sure it may work for Andy but is it a smart/safe plan for the average triathlete?     

Yeah, i know i said that i was done posting in this thread but at least a few were interested in my upcoming race so i thought i'd report back.  Some 80 athletes (many serious triathletes and IM competitors included) started the full distance, 64 mile race (frozen otter ultra trek).  There was 4-8 inches of new snow on the trail which traversed glacial moraine.  The race has been held for the prior five years with only six finishers of the full event.  I will put a detailed race report on my blog and add the link in this thread when its up.  

I ran the race with a guy from fargo, Grant Mehring.  Out of the 80, only 6 finished the full course within the 24 hour time cut off.  Grant and I finished about 35 minutes behind the two fastest finishers, in about 20 hours and 35 minutes.  My longest training run was 16 miles, grant's was 9 miles.

I wanted to briefly respond to MacMadame and Fred's posts.  First Fred - I understand your skepticism, but feel that, if you've actually looked at my blog, is unwarranted.  I have a genuine personal interest in trying to see how far i can get with this and am not attached to results.  I just want to see how far i can take things using these self imposed limitations. 

MacMadame - the dialogue generated by my original post has been a great catalyst for me in terms of figuring out exactly what i'm trying to articulate - i feel that in generating responses to many questions, doubts, etc i've clarified my position (at least in my own mind) and realized that a few of my previous thoughts needed revision (my genetics for example).  I agree that for a beginning triathlete placing importance on a single coming race there are better ways to train.  But i also believe that a lifestyle that includes a dedication to consistent, low volume (yes - even two hours a week), high intensity training can, coupled with a series of events/races - provide an alternate route to IM.  If a beginner asks on BT the best road to IM - its going to be a several year road anyway - at least in most peoples opinion.  I think that two hours a week could get someone in top shape for a sprint race - which can serve as a base/foundation for some logistics - more intense/low volume training and a couple olympic distances - maybe run a HM and Marathon, then the next year a couple HIM..... next thing you know - with only races and two hours a week and you're ready to go.    

One of the cruxes to my argument rests very heavily on a persons ability to actually recruit their true physical potential - to explain this i use a peanut butter analogy (i love peanut butter!) - and yeah, its an imperfect analogy, but hopefully it will help to illustrate the argument - 

lets say an IM takes 15 ounces of peanut butter to finish.  Every athlete competing is represented by a jar - the size of the jar can be increased by training.  Most competitors in IM, or in general (at least age-groupers) look into their jar and think it is empty when it is in reality only 75-80% empty, so they work hard to train so they have a 20 oz jar and feel confident they can get out those required 15 ounces.  using 2 hours of training i can get a 16 oz jar, and i feel many people could.  but to do IM with that jar means you have to be able to get more out of it than most people.  It's just another route.

I know i'm going to get a lot of challenges at this idea - but i'm firmly convinced.  I'm not sure how to develop the mental skills* to be able to get more out of the physical state that we get from whatever training we do - but i've managed somehow.  Maybe the mental aspect is like VO2 - partially genetic and partially malleable to training techniques - who knows.  i certainly believe that it is VASTLY underutilized and under-appreciated by endurance athletes, perhaps because there isn't this vast industry (like the fitness industry) behind it, and its a bit nebulous.  

*I've got ideas, but only by trying to distill my own experiences and figure out the important elements, etc

Cheers, everyone