Long run thoughts

G'day everyone,

I have been thinking about IM training principles and concepts a lot lately and one training concept I feel IM athletes need to address differently is the long run.

It was brought up recently on transitions and managed to have some decent conversations on there, you might remember Campbell

I have been talking online with a chick by the name of Wongstar. For 5 years she was doing IM's in the 12-13hr range and then she moved over to Brett Sutton and 1yr later she goes sub 10hr and is 1st women across the line. Apparently she beat 9 out of the 10 male Pro's too This was a strongman event I think.

I was asking her questions about her long run as it seems she is running very long and this was her response.

"4.5 hours. more than once. and then once you get faster, running 3.5hrs in a race doesn't seem so long. More painful though. keep in mind that I started out at 2hr long runs a year ago and have been slowly building up. can't just jump into that right away."

This gets me thinking a lot about IM training principles and I think people, myself included, are not doing right. All of our training principles are still based around swimming, cycling and marathon training principles, which fail to fully meet the demands of an IM event. Unfortunately, these principles are heavily supported by "Science and research" but they don't support a 10-17hr event. That is where they fail. Then to add there are very few IM specific studies that exist so essentially we are relying on "field test" by judging an athletes performance against their training in order to develop IM specific training concepts. Overtime those concepts will hopefully form the basis for some scientific research.

The critical success factors in an IM come down to just 3 things
Endurance
Race pace
Nutrition
Now when you look at the long run it is a commonly believed that the long run should be no longer then 2.5-3hrs. However, that fails those 3 points above. It work for marathoners because they are running at a much higher intensity and therefore a 2.5hr long run will be close to a marathon in distance. When I say higher intensity, it is still below their race pace but still significantly faster than IM run paces.



However, IM runs are run at sub maximal intensities due to fatigue from the swim/bike. Therefore in training the long run should be at sub maximal intensities, which it is. But the problem is 2.5-3hrs is too short, way too short to address endurance, race paces and nutrition. In other words it's not IM specific enough.



Secondly, marathoners can't afford to run much longer then 2.5hrs because all they do is run, therefore it would impact on other sessions. This would not be the case with IM athletes for two reasons, we are running at a much lower intensity and we are also doing other discipline that have a lower impact on our bodies.



Because we are running at much lower intensities in training and racing the long run in my view needs to extend beyond 2.5-3hrs in order to SPECIFICALLY meet the demands of an IM event, not a marathon.



Of course we need to say NO-WAY not true, can't be done, risk of injury is too high etc, but until we start seeing age groupers running IM running faster than I feel we need to forward plan and think a little different. Like Plaz said recently we are not swimmer, cyclists or runners, we a triathletes and we need to look deeper into the demands of our events and start addressing those demands in training.


I have other ideas I want to address and these will include



Brick sessions

Long bike

Swim intensity

Training in 2-3 day blocks





Hope it helps





Fluro

I wouldn't think a 2 hour long run would cut it for IM.
For a good HIM runner, it would. For someone like me in HIM, it's probably only just long enough.
It would be interesting to see if Wongstar would have had similar improvements by just going from a 2 hr long run to say a 3-3.5 hour long run.

My idea at the moment is to stretch my long runs, eventually, to around 4 hours, probably around the end of Feb if I'm looking at IM.

I'd think, if you're looking at a suitable run volume for IM, then you'd be better served taking a queue from ultra runners rather than marathon runners.

I had a look at most of Brick's training this year, as far as I could see he races heaps, anything from half maras up, even maras on consecutive weekends. Outside races, the longest session I saw on his Triathlog was 3:40 ish, which included ~ 1:30 of hilly trail running.

Then you have guys like Welch and Alexander who run Ok and never do more than 2hrs20 before winning Kona.

Welch and Alexandria are gifted runners, they have a natural style. I think Paul is onto something. Once you start doing longer runs then the risk on injury is more likely however if you build up to it, your body will get use to it. I think that longer runs, upto about 4 hours are worth it as you are out that long on the day and your legs need to get use to it and I think that is why people fad so badly at the 30km mark. They are just not use to it.

Matt Mac wrote:Then you have guys like Welch and Alexander who run Ok and never do more than 2hrs20 before winning Kona.

But their IM marathons are only 20 minutes slower than that. For the 4:00 runner, this is similar to a 3:40 run.


In my personal experience, I find longer runs (20+km) at race pace off longish easy bikes (100+km) are more worthwhile than a straight long run (30+km). The Cycos signature session used to be 8x laps of Mt Cootha then off and run 3. The loop is 9.5km with a 2.2km long 10% average climb. That third lap on the run is harder than any running I have ever done in an Ironman.

There have been six-time winners that ran like ducks and had no running "style". essentially I think it comes down to your philosophy for run preparation. Do you go "top-down" and do shorter long runs with some quality in them, or do you go "bottom-up" and run as long or longer than race duration at low intensity. Pros for the former include less training hours required and variable pace training runs adding interest to program. Pros for the latter include ? psychological knowing you can stay on your feet for the projected run duration. In my opinion injury risk is independent of either approach and more related to rapid change in one or more training parameter.

My coach goes top-down. All my long runs are negative split, soft-surface, with longest 2.40 3 weeks out. I anticipate this will be the same again this year.

Disclaimer: I pulled out before IMPM this year with injury after doing that 2.40 on unfamiliar surface (harden up my feet and legs) in 2 new pairs of shoes (changed at half-way mark) and at a slightly higher sustained even pace for the entire duration. These mistakes will not be repeated.

Alex R wrote:

Matt Mac wrote:Then you have guys like Welch and Alexander who run Ok and never do more than 2hrs20 before winning Kona.

But their IM marathons are only 20 minutes slower than that. For the 4:00 runner, this is similar to a 3:40 run.


In my personal experience, I find longer runs (20+km) at race pace off longish easy bikes (100+km) are more worthwhile than a straight long run (30+km). The Cycos signature session used to be 8x laps of Mt Cootha then off and run 3. The loop is 9.5km with a 2.2km long 10% average climb. That third lap on the run is harder than any running I have ever done in an Ironman.

I think your right on the money with the longer brick sessions. Animal pointed out an interesting fact that it takes thousands of "impact steps" to run a marathon and 20km runs just don't address the impact costs of running a marathon.

I'm not sure what the impact difference is in terms of doing a long run easy to cover the distance as opposed to running shorter but at a higher intensity??

Does the short higher intensity run replicate all those extra steps your not doing by running longer in terms of muscular fatigue??

I don't think they do? Maybe Matt with his background can share his knowledge on the weight bearing stress, ie "impact costs" that change in terms of the intensity we run at.

I've heard on the grapevine that our foot strike carries close to 10 times oour body weight, does that increase as we run faster, to 11 times, 12 times etc? if it doesn't then the shorter higher intensity run can't be specifically meeting the demands of an IM run in terms of muscular breakdown??


This is what I hope to learn more about.

fluro

Hey Paul,

I'm not sure if you're on the right track here. I'm all about being open minded and all but if we go along the lines of what you are saying we'll end up agreeing that to do well in Ironman distances an athlete needs to do 180km rides followed by 42km runs.

I'm sure you can argue that more is more all day long but we also have to look at the practical side of things and understand life's constraints which Eric has touched on. Long bricks might be a good way to develop your endurance/durability/specificity of IM racing but which one of us can honestly say they would have not only the time to do it but also the right circumstances in life to recover from these sessions?

I know of two guys who have trained with John Hill for the last season after working with AP before that. Allan is a low to moderate volume kind of coach whereas JHill had the guys doing 180km/30km brick sessions a few times during their prep.

In the end both had very disappointing performances at Port 2009 compared to 1. the amount of training they have done and 2. their previous results in racing. After having a chat to one of the guys post race he pretty much admitted that they got to the race completely overcooked.

Have a read at this guys race report at http://www.slowtwitch.com/Interview/Max_Renko_speaks_his_mind_1096.html

And here's an interesting quote from him:

Well, my 3:08 might not seem that exciting on paper, as I’ve gone 3:09 twice before without any long jogs or serious run training. But this year Kona was really hard with the heat and the speed on the first 15 KM were pretty good. I just gotta do more run training in order to sustain the pace until the finish line and I’ll be fine. I know I have the engine to do 2:55, probably lower. Next year I might blow up after 25 KM, the following year after 30 and so on. I won’t start out slower. It doesn’t make a difference whether I run 4:15/KM or 4:30/KM – it’s all below the anaerobic threshold and the mechanical shocks will wear me out anyway after 7 hours into the race. So I try to go fast as long as the legs hold up.

G'day Rog,

I'm thinking outside of the box

When you look at the session Alex has mentioned above 100/20, do you think it is targeting an IM event or a HIM event. I would lean more towards this session being more specific for HIM's.

Consequently, if us males compare our results against Pro women, have you had more success at beating Pro women over HIM's or IM's? I already know that answer

I think what is letting down male age group athletes in this example, is intensity. It's not carrying over to faster IM times but it does move us up the ranks over HIM's when those times are compared with Pro women. Lot's to think about there. To measure your success comparing how you would go as a Pro women in a HIM and also then an IM would make your think differently when it comes to implementing above race pace efforts. Are those above race pace efforts effectively producing better IM times by meeting the demands of an IM??. It doesn't appear to be over the IM distance but it does over HIM's.

I agree we can't do 180/42 but I do feel we can improve our specificity for IM's. If we do 100/20 we are looking at around 4-4.5hr training session, is it too out there to think we can't build our long run up to that to make it IM specific.

To overcome time, which at the end of the day is our greatest limiter you could consider working in multiple training blocks. That is to stack sessions closer together in 2-3 days blocks then rest. For example, if you want to ride 180km mid week but dont have the time, then you might consider doing 2hr Tuesday morning, 2hr Tuesday evening and then 2hrs again Wednesday morning. Increase the intensity in each each session (sub IMeffort, IM effort, HIMeffort). To me that would be more specific to an IM event then riding Mon 2hrs, recover, Wed 2hrs, recover, Fri 2hrs, recover.

In terms of being overcooked this sort of approach would probably require a slightly longer taper because you training has focused more on the demands of the event which would induce greater level of fatigue. You would have to adjust your recovery strategies to account for this. If these guys were cooked then they probably just weren't tapered enough. They probably hit those long sessions too close to the race.

Does that make sense?

fluro

Paul F wrote:

When you look at the session Alex has mentioned above 100/20, do you think it is targeting an IM event or a HIM event. I would lean more towards this session being more specific for HIM's.



fluro

Keep in mind I said + for both of those. That specific Mt Cootha session takes around 6:30 up to as much a 7:30 for slower persons. This then comes back to why I used the example of these bricks. It means that you have 5+ hours of work in your legs and then run another hour or so. A long run of 30-40km while higher impact in my experiences does not simulate what you are doing in the run leg of an Ironman. I am going to refer to it as the 'run leg' from now on because the only thing it has in common with a Marathon is that is is 42.2km long.

G;day Alex,
Keep in mind I said + for both of those. That specific Mt Cootha session takes around 6:30 up to as much a 7:30 for slower persons. This then comes back to why I used the example of these bricks. It means that you have 5+ hours of work in your legs and then run another hour or so.
That does change the picture a little bit. You then are heading into the territory of executing excellent nutritional strategies and also pacing strategies in a fatigued state of mind and body.
The dynamics of a session greatly change once you extend beyond that 5-6hr barrier. You always execute the session different when compared to 3-4hr sessions, and this is greatly influenced by the onset of fatigue.

A long run of 30-40km while higher impact in my experiences does not simulate what you are doing in the run leg of an Ironman.
I actually think it does. It’s the impact stresses that running places on our lower limbs that we need to address in training. We need to teach our bodies to adapt to the impact stress by acustomising ourselves to the repetitive nature of running a marathon. This is difficult to achieve while training for swimming and cycling.
Our legs deteriorate so fast in an IM run that we need to pay close attention to overcoming that in a race. How do we build up a resistance to that?

I am going to refer to it as the 'run leg' from now on because the only thing it has in common with a Marathon is that is is 42.2km long.

This is a great point. Lots of food for thought right here. The IM run is performed at such a low level of intensity that we barely can hold even our recovery zone run paces.
What is the best run protocol for being able to hold this pace? Is it distance driven, time drive, intensity driven, frequency focused driven??

fluro

Stumbled across this one on the TBB forum and I thought this was an interesting take Sutton has on Arthur Lydiard.

fluro

he was a man before his time ,
like percy cerutty , and one so called nutty tri coach
he tested out all his theories on himself , before inflicting them on his athletes .
mostly the bad ones , called trial and error , the white coats dont need that these days
as they sit in uni for 4 yrs and become experts .
the man , is a legend .
his knowledge can best be somed up by his best and most discenting pupil
.
i heard him say this at a lecture .
when asked about why he became a sports scientist
his quote
to be honest , i could never truely believe what arthur was telling me about the mileage here i was an 800m runner and 3 months before my biggest events he had me running marathons and every sunday over the hilliest course in auckland which measured 22 miles
we fought often , but we some how stuck it out , my interest , that there was a better way was most prominant when i retired .
so ,
for the past 20 yrs i have been a research physioligest , trying to find a better way , and to be honest
its been a reflection of bitter sweet sentiments , as i have spent all this time , and apart from what i would call miniscule changes , i have only proven the crusty old bastard , was right all along .
one part wants to cry at my time in the search ,the other wants to cry in appreciation that i ran into a man that had a better grip of running science than anybody alive at the time , and possibly still equal to any body today ;

Fluro, he is referencing Lydiard who was 13 run sessions a week, not one. That doesn't do much for your case.

It's the concepts that underly what he is talking about


e.g

he tested out all his theories on himself

called trial and error

i could never truely believe what arthur was telling me about the mileage here i was an 800m runner and 3 months before my biggest events he had me running marathons and every sunday over the hilliest course in auckland which measured 22 miles

trying to find a better way

i have only proven the crusty old bastard , was right all along .

a man that had a better grip of running science than anybody alive at the time , and possibly still equal to any body today ;

By the way triathletes regularly do 13 sessions of training each week, so it's not that far removed from Lydiards principles.

Here is a quote from the Lore of Running that should get you thinking a little more

Law 3: It is the distance and not the pace that is going to kill in the long distance event

fluro

Paul F wrote:
When you look at the session Alex has mentioned above 100/20, do you think it is targeting an IM event or a HIM event. I would lean more towards this session being more specific for HIM's.

Consequently, if us males compare our results against Pro women, have you had more success at beating Pro women over HIM's or IM's? I already know that answer

I think what is letting down male age group athletes in this example, is intensity.....
fluro

Or it could possibly be an Agers ability to recover from the greater demands of IM training as they are more leaning towards being a working athlete than a pro that does some work or none at all. Does the gap widen between AG women and Pro women between HIM and IM? or between AG Men and Pro Men also? I don't know and don't care to spend the time looking, but if that trend is consistent among the other comparisons as well one would suggest there are other factors at play.

I like many Agers need to be able to function at work so must make do as best I can in my training.

Hit the nail on the head, Glenn. There are only so many hours in the day and for most people triathlon is rightly a fair way down the pecking order.

Just reading through some more of the Lore of Running.

Galloway’s 4 hour marathon training program still builds up to a long run of 43-45km

Bob Williams marathon program based on a 65-95km training week still builds the long run up to 40km.

Pete Pfitzingers marathon program builds a long run up to 35km

Tim Noakes marathon program builds the long run up to 42-60km

Looking at a novice training program for someone doing Comrades their long run builds up to 50-60km.


Doing more and more research on this is starting to move me in the direction that the long run training principles needs to fall somewhere between the long run for a marathon the long run for an Ultra, purely because the IM run is based around a much lower intensity, the distance becomes more important determinant of success.


I don’t really see time as a limiting factor as we really are only comparing a 2hr long run to a 4hr long run and to add you would drop other sessions in order to improve your recovery. It's not about doing more running, it's more to do with doing better things with the time we have.


Maybe it is more mental?


fluro

Paul F wrote:Just reading through some more of the Lore of Running.

Galloway’s 4 hour marathon training program still builds up to a long run of 43-45km

Bob Williams marathon program based on a 65-95km training week still builds the long run up to 40km.

Pete Pfitzingers marathon program builds a long run up to 35km

Tim Noakes marathon program builds the long run up to 42-60km

Looking at a novice training program for someone doing Comrades their long run builds up to 50-60km.

Doing more and more research on this is starting to move me in the direction that the long run training principles needs to fall somewhere between the long run for a marathon the long run for an Ultra, purely because the IM run is based around a much lower intensity, the distance becomes more important determinant of success.

I don’t really see time as a limiting factor as we really are only comparing a 2hr long run to a 4hr long run and to add you would drop other sessions in order to improve your recovery. It's not about doing more running, it's more to do with doing better things with the time we have.

Maybe it is more mental?

fluro

Fluro,

Although in some respects it is good thinking to look at what runners are doing, however, you need to keep in mind that's all they're doing. They're not going out and biking for endless hours, or swimming.

Runners NEED to run long because that's the longest duration session of their week. But triathletes are probably doing 1-3 sessions equal to or longer in duration than the runners.

So I think it's a little misguided to be taking a direct lead from what runners do. Geez, if you were going to do that you'd be riding 1000km/wk and swimming 60km/wk.

Read what individual sport athletes are doing...and take it with a grain (or a spade full) of salt.

It seems you're grasping at any bit of information to support your theorem - the theorem is the starting point - rather than considering all the information to develop a theorem.

It seems you're grasping at any bit of information to support your theorem - the theorem is the starting point - rather than considering all the information to develop a theorem.

Definitely not grasping just in the prcess of developing.

I'm trying to develop a concept (a way of doing something) that meets the demand of event (IM).

The concept is being based around the intensity you are expected to run at in an IM, not a marathon. Consequently, the intensity is much much lower, therefore in theory there is no reason to limit the length of a long run based on principles that have been built aorund a higher intensity event.

The long run should make up one of 2-3 key IM specific sessions each week. Limiting that long run to only 2-2.5hrs is limiting your chances of being able to execute a pace that is consistent and that you can hold for the length of an IM run.

My next step once exams are over is to then look at the physiological impacts a long run has on the body, IF, the long run is built up at an intensity that closely resembles the demands of an IM.

Already I'm looking into the Central Governor theory, and how the brain measures the effect of fatigue on the muscles in order to protect the heart. I'll then need to look at how the muscle fatigues in relation to impacts stress placed on the body. To me this one is the key to not slowing down at a low intensity (IM run).


This is still very early days in terms of finding out what works and what doesn't work, over time, the results will start to come in, that will either support what I believe might work or lead to a complete breakdown of the body which seems to be the main concern.

I'll reiterate again

called trial and error

trying to find a better way

i have only proven the crusty old bastard , was right all along .

Unless we try we'll never know.

We can't always follow the rules, if we do things would never change and progress.

fluro

[quote="Paul FAlready I'm looking into the Central Governor theory, and how the brain measures the effect of fatigue on the muscles in order to protect the heart. I'll then need to look at how the muscle fatigues in relation to impacts stress placed on the body. To me this one is the key to not slowing down at a low intensity (IM run).
[/quote]
The Science of Sport guys have written a lot about fatigue both on their web-site (they did a whole series on it) and in their excellent book. It relates to both racing and training.

Thanks for the reminder about the Science of Sport Blog. It's a great site.

Here are some more randoms thoughts and ideas I would throw out there while they are fresh in my mind.

“So here's the thing - we know that muscle is not 100% active during your 10km race. In fact, even when you do your best to exert maximal force for FIVE SECONDS, there is evidence that you still keep some "reserve" capacity.” (Science of Sport Blog)

I like this point above and is something I have read before. If we continue to do the same 2-2.5hr run each week we are in effectively developing the same group of muscles fibres over and over again. If we extend that run out a 2.5-3hrs we are then activating more muscle fibres. These new muscles fibres then have a chance to react, grow and adapt to the new stimulus of a longer run. If we decided not to run longer then we are effectively enhancing the same muscles fibres in order to delay fatigue, which does contribute to improving your endurance. However, are these fibres conditioned well enough to assist us in running a full IM run? IM results don’t appear to support that idea.
So if your training for an IM run and you limit your long run to only 60% (2-2.5hrs) of the time you are going to be running for in a race, then how are you expected to recruit further muscles fibres that lack conditioning if they haven’t been recruited in training. There is no doubting the IM run leg will active these fibres as you become fatigued, but how are these fibres conditioned well enough in training to keep you from slowing down in a race due to fatigue?
Athletes at some point in their training will become conditioned to handle a 2-2.5hr training run. We all know what muscle soreness feels like when we initially start running that distance in training. Over time, the muscles soreness each week will become less and less. It will reach a point where you have conditioned a certain % of muscles fibres to allow you to run for 2-2.5hrs and recover well. However, this distance will still not continue to recruit a high % of muscle fibres, the unused ones, needed to run a full IM run.
So by then deciding the run further 2.5-3hrs, those conditioned muscles fibres once again become fatigued, more muscles fibres are recruited and the whole process starts over again. But this time you have conditioned your body to recruit a higher % of muscles fibres. It is these new muscles fibres are the ones that will be called upon in the later portions in an IM run. In training by recruiting a higher % of muscles fibres you are creating further adaptations to more muscle fibres that will then contribute to the delay in fatigue.
The question is, can intensity be a substitute for recruiting muscle fibres?
If you’re a 3.5hr IM runner, instead of developing a long run up to 40-45km @ 4:50-5;00min/k pace, would it be just as beneficial to develop a long run of 2hr @ 4:20-4:30min/k to achieve the same outcome?
I’m not sure, but my uneducated guess would be that intensity improves the functionality of the muscle fibres that are being used and the ones you already have conditioned. I don’t believe, yet, that intensity will directly impact on the recruitment of more muscle fibres. In layman’s terms, intensity just improves what you already have and not necessarily what you actually need ( ie higher % of muscle fibre recruitment).
So while intensity, I feel lacks the ability to recruit the muscle fibres needed late in an IM run it will do a great job in developing the muscles fibres enhancing those already conditioned muscle fibres that are first called on within the first couple of hours of a run. Intensity enhances each muscle fibre without recruiting new muscle fibres. Intensity will fatigue muscles fibres quicker thus recruiting a higher % of muscles fibres, but endurance sports is not about quickly fatiguing muscle fibres. It’s the opposite in fact, an IM athletes goal is to delay the onset of fatigue in each muscle fibre for as long as possible.

Thus, the athlete should start slowing down even though the body temperature is not different from that in the cool condition. As a result of slowing down, the athlete would be producing less heat, and so the fall in work rate will ultimately produce body temperatures that are not different to those measured in the cool conditions! In otherwords, you don't slow down BECAUSE you are hot, you slow down in order to prevent yourself from getting hot!

This another good point, and a concept that has been brought up a few time on the Science of Sport blog. “You don’t slow down because you are hot, you slow down in order to prevent yourself from getting hot”
I wonder how much this is connected to fatigue, the long run of 2-2.5hr and slowing down in the 2nd ½ of an IM run. Do we slow down in IM runs because we have conditioned our bodies to run well for 2-2.5hr? There seems to be a correlation there.

These INPUTS provide what is called afferent feedback to the brain, informing it of the situation. This feedback provides information on things like "How hot is it?", "How much energy is available today?", "What is the pH of the tissues?", "What is the heart doing?", and basically "Is it safe to keep going at this pace?".

It occurs because the finish line is approaching, and the physiological changes are no longer deemed harmful or potentially limiting to continuing exercise. The reserve can thus be activated!

This leads back to the central governor theory about the brain being responsible for assessing fatigue. If the brain has been trained to teach the body to run then we need to consider the impact training has on limiting our long run to well short of the time the body will be out there on race day. If the brain has been trained to run 42km then the brain is conditioned to accept that its body CAN run 42km.

fluro
P.S I'm all on one side of the fence at the moment. I do intend on jumping ship to look more into the negative impacts of running long.

Mick

I know you need to shortened version. In a nutshell, the brain assesses fatigue, and will in fact, slow the body down to prevent harmful damage to the body. What I believe we need to do is run longer to teach the brain that we will run a marathon, as opposed to a 2-2.5hr run. This in theory should delay fatigue and allow us to keep running without slowing down.

fluro

Fluro. What do you think about longer bricks? Roo from trannies who fired out a near 9 flat IM often did a mid 100 ride with a mid 20s run at IM pace off it.

I was talking to a raw beginner who did his first triiathlon recently over the 750/20/5 distance and he said to me that the first km on the run felt like the last km of a 10km run to him. I know from experience that AP has us do the vast majority of our longer running off 3-4 hour bikes. Very rarely do we run over 20km fresh. We often run 18-26km as a brick and sometimes as far as 36. It certainly 'feels' more like triathlon running. Is it possible (legit question for everyone to discuss) that the long run can be substitued by a not so long run of a not so long bike?

Valid question and it forms part of another training principle that seems to be heading to the grave.
Mitch Gold from Counterpart Coaching is right into the long bricks (5/2).
I think this is another session that has been pushed aside for more shorter focused sessions as a substitute. With the right build up and carefully planned out recovery perods it can form a valuable part on an IM training program.
With all these keys sessions you would probably need to look beyond a basic week of training and lean more towards building basic blocks (3-6 weeks) of training that cater for the specific demands of an IM. To do that you would need ample recover time between keys sessions.
For example,
Week 1: Long session focus
Long bike 5-7hrs
Long run 3-4hrs
Long swim 6km
Separate each session as much as possible to promote recovery and adaptation
Week 2: Long Brick focus
Brick 1: long bike 4-5hrs/long run 15-25km
Brick 2: long swim 4km/medium bike 100-120km. (This session is rarely if every done)
Week 3:
Repeat week 1
Week 4: Broken IM over three days
Friday night long swim 4km
Saturday morning long bike 160-200km
Sunday long run 30-40km
Week 5: recovery week.
Recovery week reduced volume across all three disciplines
Sub maximal testing week.

Note: The rest of your week would be focused on recovery, and building a training overload that teaches you to be able to handle the workload in these key sessions. Being able to handle the workout is far more important than just getting out there and doing these sessions for the sake of it.

Potentially this could work and it would be as specific as you could possibly get in terms of meeting the demands of the event. Within each session you would then focus on each athletes personal strength and weaknesses. These would be made up of
• Pacing
• Mental arousal
• Mental toughness
• Stamina in the form of muscular endurance or steady state endurance
• Nutrition
• Accurate race intensity assessment and reflection
• Sticking to the race plan


We need to remember too, key sessions like these above are more than just getting out there and building fitness. They give your mind and body and opportunity to accurately reflect on what to expect come race day. They teach us about dealing with the environment for very long periods of time, coping with the consequences of messing up your nutritional plan, staying calm and relaxed when the hot and windy headwinds pick up, dealing with sunburn, bottles falling off the bike, changing a flat tire when tired, staying calm when some angry motorist skims past you, dealing with the sore back, tired feet, aching neck, sore eyes, toilets stops, etc etc.

In an IM soo much goes on over the course of the day, that the actual execution of your race day plan forms a small part of the bigger picture.

There is a lot to prepare for when you decide to make the jump and do an Ironman.


fluro