TOTW: short vs Long course (Page 2)

What I am saying is that yes you can be good at short course and long course at the same time. If you look at the most successful IM athletes these days most come from a short course background where they developed speed and then projected that over distance (Crowie, Michellie Jones, Macca).

If you have two "A" races for a season and one is an early season Olympic and the other is a later season IM or HIM then there is no reason why you can't be at your best for both. The higher intensity training will be complementary to the longer course training later on. (Actually if you are talking about "racing" a HIM then the training for that and an Olympic are not much different with the exception of the longer ride, run, and brick.) I read an article a few years ago by Alberto Salazar that stuck with me, it was about why US males are so non-competative at the marathon distance. He responded that they should be working on getting their 10k times down and then projecting that speed over 26.2 miles. I think that this method has a lot of merit for our sport in that if you can get your sprint and Olympic distance times down you should be able to project that speed over the HIM and IM distances. This is a big reason why I am a big proponent of taking multiple years to build up to the IM distance.

I agree that there is cross over and that folks that are fast at the shorter stuff can switch their training and be fast in the long stuff, but I still don't understand the original statement.  Do you think someone can be good at the short stuff without intensity or good at the long stuff without volume? 

I think of myself as good at the iron distance, but I'm far from great or elite.  I'm generally front of the MOP at an Ironman (top 20%), but I wouldn't be anywhere near the top 20 % at a competitive Sprint.  I just don't do enough (or any) high intensity stuff.

Best season I've had so far, one in which I won the Tri the Parks Sprint Series, missed the AG podium at a WTC half Ironman by :45  and went my fastest at the HIM distance was when I was training for IM Lake Placid.

I would consider myself to be moderately front of the pack at a majority of the distances and I do not consider myself to be an outlier in the 'athletic gift' department either.  To this day after 4 IM races, 10-15 HIM, on & off road triathlons, etc my longest week of training has been 23 hrs.  And that was when I did a week long training camp for IM Lake Placid.  Outside of that, the MAX has been 18ish hrs with an average of 10-13 hrs.  And that 18 hr week was rare.

I pray for the day when athletes, of all caliber, realize that the days of training 20+ hrs to complete OR compete (at the AG level) are long gone.  Get out of the 80s & 90's mentality and train smarter, not more. 

Does that mean that you can do Ironman on no volume?  Of course not!  But you bet your butt it does mean that you don't need to be doing Century rides in March when you're training for an Ironman in July.  There is no substitute for 100+ mile rides and 18+ mile runs, that is for sure.  But these infrequent long workouts are the big race specific workouts that seal in the smart training done many months beforehand.

It's the mentality, IMHO, that long course takes all this time and lazy base work that not only put a strain on the family but on the athlete as well that is the problem.  If someone likes tons of volume then by all means I will train them like that.  But I have found that for most people they want to do the best they can and train smartly.  That does not include doing high volume/low intensity just because it's easy.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this, as I feel it's true, in no uncertain terms:
If your training plan (regardless of if you're training for an Ironman or a Sprint) has only Intensity or only Volume, then you are wasting your time following it. 

To directly answer the question of which distance I prefer racing...I don't really have an answer.  Bluntly, I don't like to race at all.  I enjoy race day and pushing myself to see what I can do, but it's rare that I am looking forward to a race.  I'm weird like that.  I enjoy short course because the day is over quickly and you get to hang out with friends and not be dead all day.  There are more people to hang out with when you are doing short course.  Long course is a one-day gamble.  It either happens that day or it doesn't.  I have yet to have things come together for me in long course but that was not due to being unprepared.  Just like I have had bad short races, but since there are more of them, it's easy to forget about the 'bad' ones.  Long course it's harder to forget about them because they are few and far between.  The races that is.

That's great that we all agree that you need good volume for long course. And, at least, I agree that intensity is also important but at a much lower percentage relative to volume for your best days on longer course. Doug may argue that point.

Whoever says you don't need good volume for maximal performance on long course is simple deluded and/or marketing. I know both these guys and respect them so I don't want to come off as antagonistic but I want to assert the point. Don't go into Ironman training expecting a walk in the park. Expect long grueling days if you want to have your best day. The more fitness you accumulate the better your day will go in general.  And I do think there is value to overpreparing and starting early (sorry Coach Dan).

Rocket, you went out and said you don't need high volume to do well in long course then you backtracked to "insane volume" but conceded the point in my view (insane's operational definition is open to debate as even my logs aren't much over 20 hours on biggest weeks). My bottom line is that volume is key in terms of race specificity. Intensity helps out but it needs to be sensible and I see it more as the dressing than the main course. Sorry, but this is something I am passionate about too until I prove myself wrong. 

I think 23 hours is very high volume.  I'm impressed you got it done.  I guess it really comes down to what you consider  high volume.  18-23 is pretty high in my book.  I generally have one week or maybe two that is 19ish.  That's basically as much as I can squeeze in. 

My original question stemmed from Rocket's training last year for his Ironmans.  I don't remember him going over 15 hours a week, so I thought he was talking about even lower peak volume.

Anyway, thanks for the responses.

First of all let's get some terms straight here, Training Volume is defined as Duration (D) times Intensity (I). You are using the term "Volume" as an equivalent to "miles upon miles upon miles) which is incorrect.

Second, if I in some way communicated that I think you can do well at Ironman (which seems to be your fixation on all things training) without doing the long rides, runs, and swims then I obviously didn't get my point across. There are some people out there who want you to believe that you can do a solid IM bike off of "really hard 4 hour rides" to which I say hogwash. That being said there is no reason to do a 6 hour bike every weekend from March to August either. What Dan said and what I agree with is that for every distance (to include IM) you have to have a good mix of duration and intensity.

This goes back to the compete vs complete argument. If you go into an IM or HIM for that matter with the mindset that you are competing against the clock and yourself then that changes the training paradigm as opposed to someone who goes into a race wanting to qualify for Kona or Vegas (or LC Worlds).

I hit 18-20 a couple of times

For the record:  I think this is a GREAT debate as we are all very civil and I hope that those replying and lurking are getting great information.  Also, we are all correct because there is NO one way of training.  So please don't see this as X is right and Y is wrong.  It's about a blend for everyone.

This post is more directly for you Phat.  I understand that you have the way you FEEL training works for you and I respect that.  Being passionate about something does not mean that it's correct.  And you won't prove yourself wrong unless you try something different.  So your statement that "I am passionate about too until I prove myself wrong" is self-fulfilling. 

"Whoever says you don't need good volume for maximal performance on long course is simple deluded and/or marketing." I would say that anyone that says you only need volume for maximal performance on long course is simply deluded and/or marketing.  Deluded because they won't get out of their own way and look at the real world and do the hard work of coaching which is maximizing benefits.  Good volume is the key word in the above bolded sentence.  I think you see good volume as 10-12 100+ miles at conversational pace on the bike and tons of 18+ mile runs.  I see good volume as 5ish 100+ miles and perhaps 2-3 18+ mile runs.  The rest is tons of 70-80 mile rides at more than conversational pace.

Here is some advice that I was given a couple of years ago and I think it's vital for both new coaches and people out giving advice.  There are the coaches that believe in the science and feel that through data interpretation and studies one can prepare athletes in the best way possible.  Then on the other end are coaches that coach based purely on passion and what they feel will work disregarding the science.  It's worked for them and it's how it's been done, so that must be the best way possible to prepare an athlete.

Guess what?  They are BOTH holding their athletes and themselves back.  The person that only looks at the data must understand that those studies are based on averages and you can't simply use that while discounting real world data. The person that only goes on feel is stuck in the past and doesn't allow their pride to step aside for the betterment of the athlete.

Blend the data, studies and the individual athlete and you will get REAL coaching.  So I would encourage everyone, coach and not, to ask the question WHY?  Why am I doing this and why should it benefit me.  Truly answer that question and you will excel in this sport quickly and continually. 

This is a great point.  I've talked to a lot of successful coaches and athletes who train in a variety of ways, and the one thing that is consistent among them was they train the way they enjoy training.  Some would admit it and others would find studies to back up there method, but in the end they all did it.  I think the reason such different methodologies worked is because a big part of successful training is enjoying the training because you are more likely to nail the work out and avoid burn out.

Dan, I really liked this. I am always looking for 'what might be different and possible'. But more important, what is possible?  I say this all of the time. And, our best performances will never come from going down the same path, or listening to only one person (coach or not).  I ask the question WHY all of the time.  It's all about listening to the athlete, and bring the balance you talk about.  Be a servant to your athlete.

"Blend the data, studies and the individual athlete and you will get REAL coaching.  So I would encourage everyone, coach and not, to ask the question WHY?  Why am I doing this and why should it benefit me. "

Thanks

Dan, thanks for your response and action on the board and for being a friend.

Unfortunately, you apparently don't truly understand my position; however we do respect each other and where we come from. You are way more experienced as a coach and as an athlete in this game then I am. You are level 2 USAT, owner of a big thriving local coaching firm, and you had to work really hard to get it. Though I am well read, took the coaching course, and a gamer, I am a consumer (by choice as my real life job is to coach all day long for way more money then coaches get). This is not a pot shot at coaches just a fact of the matter.

Regardless, I don't think I am all knowing or something special generally or for my job as it pertains to this thread. I am open to hear about different views provided they are sensible. Stuff in this thread has been downright insulting to my and others' intelligence but I think it has been clarified.

On Ironman training, which we both are passionate about, you have mischaracterized my view by using the key words "only need volume". I never said that if you go back and read what I wrote. And you are also wrong if you think that I lollygag on long stuff. In fact, I take umbrage to your mischaracterization but I understand you are trying to prove your point that you can do more with less. Honestly, I am fine with your view if you really believe in it and its working for you and your athletes/coaches.

Frankly, I am not alone on an island supporting more fitness is better. Look at what the pros we emulate do in terms of volume AND intensity. I also like some harder stuff sprinkled in and anyone that has checked my logs or trained with me will attest that I am no slouch when it comes to grinding it out, long and hard (although my wife may disagree ). On flat courses weighing over 200lbs, I have a 3:06 marathon and a 10:31 IM to my name. I don't think (for me yet) the way that I am skinning the cat is wrong or unsupported through the literature. I wish you would be more accepting of the views of your brethren that don't agree your views. i will try to do the same even if we disagree.

I just love how the TOTW starts off as short vs long course and we somehow migrate back to the same volume vs intensity, complete or compete, time efficient vs prioritize, good racer vs untapped potential, coach or self-coached, etc conversation.

I guess these are all somewhat interrelated topics to a certain degree.

I have learned a ton by seeing different viewpoints and love the sharing of ideas/thoughts, etc and try to form opinions about what works well for me.  Could some approaches were better for me with better results?  Sure, possibly, don't know, won't know.  I can't turn the clock back and have a do-over with a different regimen.  That would be the only way to truly settle the argument.   Personally I believe it is dangerous to start quoting finish times, distances completed, accomplishments made as a basis for why one training method works as compared to another.  There will always be someone faster, smarter, younger, older, more knowledgable, working with less effort, than me.  That I know for sure.

So now that I feel better,  carry-on.

I just want to say I Heart Slayer! 

Seriously.  He keep us active on the board and off and I have mad respect for him in all aspect of his life.  Not that you ever will, but don't stop brother...don't stop!!!

Slayer is a playa! If you haven't had the chance to meet and hang out with the infamous Phatknot in person I highly recommend doing so.

In all seriousness we tend to get a little chippy sometimes because of our passion for the sport and our strong beliefs in what we do. It isn't taken personally by me and it is never intended personally toward anyone else.

What Dan and I are trying to do (Dan, please correct me if I am speaking out of turn for you) is to temper the miles upon miles upon miles for those newer athletes reading this thread. The quickest way to burn an athlete out and/or get an overuse injury is to increase the training load exponentially without a proper base. I just don't want someone who is new and reading this thread to go out and start pounding out 100 milers because they think that is what they need to do to get better and end up injured.