Righto runners

Had my second ever "track" running session today. I actually enjoyed it. Reminded me of footy training. Got my first ever run technique correction from the coach too. Told me to get forward and over feet instead of being back on my heels. It was a Fartlek session of two and one minute ON, with half the ON time as recovery. I immediately felt better for the correction too. It would probably explain why I always seemed to get sore in the hammies when going fast, as the sensation was of my feet landing out in front and my hammies activating to drag me forward. So including 3kms of warmups and recovery time, we ticked off over 9km in 43 mins. There was a total of 18 mins at ON intensity. Flying by my humble standards. I spent a lot of time 3:30-3:45pace in the ON sets so maybe there is hope of a sub 20 min 5km for me. Best is 20:45 as it stands.

Last week was 6 x 800's and that smashed me up. I still managed to run the next day, but geez intensity is a shock when you haven't done it a while.

So Operation White Kenyan has progressed to a speed session to add to my soon to be 60-70km standard week that I was knocking out pre-FFFTM. What will come first? Injury or Improvement?

I think your on the right track doing interval sessions. I can remember "Paulo" on Slowtwitch saying there is no scientific evidence to prove that high intensity training makes you more suseptable to injury.

Bevan also has suggested that the high intensity work opens up the muscle fibres to assist in the development of endurance work the next day.

You could be onto something here Mick. Hard track sessions followed by a long ride or run the next day. Mmmmmm!

fluro
P.S does this forum have a spell checker, if not I'm outa here

A spin off question for the runners. Do you need to learn to breath? I ask because my breathing was pretty ragged and short and sharp, and the coach kept yelling out, "Just breath". I was going cross eyed so just ignored him, but is it something runners think about or train?

breathe

Paul F wrote:I think your on the right track doing interval sessions. I can remember "Paulo" on Slowtwitch saying there is no scientific evidence to prove that high intensity training makes you more suseptable to injury.

Bevan also has suggested that the high intensity work opens up the muscle fibres to assist in the development of endurance work the next day.

You could be onto something here Mick. Hard track sessions followed by a long ride or run the next day. Mmmmmm!

fluro
P.S does this forum have a spell checker, if not I'm outa here

I think that Paulo's science lacks a practical aspect to it!!!

Doing high intensity running is like adding fuel to the fire...and unless you progress very gradually (ESPECIALLY if that high intensity running is on an aths track) you're on a fast road to injury.

Track sessions do have a role and purpose, but not for age group triathletes. There's a significant amount you can do NOT on a track. In track sessions you tend to run far harder than elsewhere, with the added intensity increasing the stress on every aspect of your running infrastructure.

As a rule of thumb, schedule a relatively easy day after a hard/high intensity run session. No long run. No long ride. No hilly rides. Some mod/hard intensity bike riding could be OK...you really need to resect the damage hard running does to your body. It's exponentially greater than riding (or swimming).

Re, breathing...don't think about it. Just breathe. Don't complicate it.

Thanks Campbell. "Track" may be slightly misleading. It is a 410m circular grass manicured oval, so soft surface all the way. Sessions are just "track" in nature. Not sure if your concern is the nature of the session or the "aths track".

My saving grace is that I have never had enough explosive speed (or speed of any type for that matter) to injure myself in the classic sporting way of blowing a quad or a hammie. I am hoping that is still the case.

Track sessions certanly have their place! It is a convieniant way to get pacing down. (boring as hell though) Changing foot strike from landing on the heels to forefoot I have found has definetly helped with my running off the bike although at a cost cf ongoing problems with shin splints and ITB problems. Problem with forefoot runnong is that it loads up the calfs.
Although if you are making the switch it would be a good idea to stick with the grass track, also to stretch stretch stretch.

I used to run on the 400m mondo athletics track and moved to a 500m grass oval. The key to getting good improvement and recovery was a great warm up.
I used to take the bike and a set of rollers, Ride for 15min before everyone else arrived at the track, then do the normal run session and ride the rollers for 15mins after we finished to cool down and cycle all the lactate and junk out of my legs.

Mick B wrote:A spin off question for the runners. Do you need to learn to breath? I ask because my breathing was pretty ragged and short and sharp, and the coach kept yelling out, "Just breath". I was going cross eyed so just ignored him, but is it something runners think about or train?

Ok I am no way near as experienced as (I’m guessing) everyone else on here. I had a lot of trouble with the breathing especially when swimming and running. I have an appalling VO2 (I think tats the term) some of that is genetic some is due to the systematic abuse my poor lungs suffered before tri.

I found that “just breathe” did not work for me. In fact the more I concentrated on breathing the worse it got – too many things to think about and my pea brain has a hissy fit

So I did some reading on asthma as some of the instances got close to that type of attack. I read that often asthmatics had an issue not getting air in, but getting it out (if your lungs are already full they can't be topped up) Anyway I tried out focusing on breathing out harder when things were getting sketchy and it works well. The lungs will automatically fill so you don’t need to think on that. So try just a couple of big breaths out to help settle things a little. I do practice this in training so that I remember it is there when I am in a more stressed/distracted environment.

Campbell M wrote:

Paul F wrote:I think your on the right track doing interval sessions. I can remember "Paulo" on Slowtwitch saying there is no scientific evidence to prove that high intensity training makes you more suseptable to injury.

Bevan also has suggested that the high intensity work opens up the muscle fibres to assist in the development of endurance work the next day.

You could be onto something here Mick. Hard track sessions followed by a long ride or run the next day. Mmmmmm!

fluro
P.S does this forum have a spell checker, if not I'm outa here

I think that Paulo's science lacks a practical aspect to it!!!

Doing high intensity running is like adding fuel to the fire...and unless you progress very gradually (ESPECIALLY if that high intensity running is on an aths track) you're on a fast road to injury.

Track sessions do have a role and purpose, but not for age group triathletes. There's a significant amount you can do NOT on a track. In track sessions you tend to run far harder than elsewhere, with the added intensity increasing the stress on every aspect of your running infrastructure.

As a rule of thumb, schedule a relatively easy day after a hard/high intensity run session. No long run. No long ride. No hilly rides. Some mod/hard intensity bike riding could be OK...you really need to resect the damage hard running does to your body. It's exponentially greater than riding (or swimming).

Re, breathing...don't think about it. Just breathe. Don't complicate it.

As triathletes I think it becomes more relevant to stack training sessions together in order to utilise one session so that it will benefit the later session .

Ironguides appear to use this approach by doing things like double rides days with the PM ride being shorter but has some higher intensity efforts. This is building on the morning longer endurance set.

So rather then spread the sessions out to encourage recovery between sessions, triathletes might benefit from pulling together 2-3 sessions into a 2 day block and then rest. For example, A hard PM swim followed by a solid AM bike would work.

Doing a shorter higher intensity run the night before a long endurance ride would benefit the athlete and the muscles fibres that were activated with the run can then be used in the longer endurance ride the next day.

One session I would like to do a lot more of are swim/bike combo. A hard swim followed by a 2-3 ride at race intensity would promote better use of pacing stratgies and nutrtional practices. Very rarely do you see triahtletes jumping on the bike straight after a swim, but I think this would sort out many GI problems, pacing issues, etc

It's something I intend of trying out once things warm up a little more.

fluro

Paul , Perhaps the reason there is no scientific evidence to suggest that high intensity running leads to more injuries is because its so hard to control the variables that the data is useless and leaves too many holes in a young honours students research. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it though. Just ask around or perhaps gun it for a couple of weeks everytime you run. Not directed at you in particular just a general observation, but so many hang there hats on the last trendy research data without taking into account that better more comprehensive studies/experiments could be done if it wasn't for the systematic shortfalls in the fields of study. In addition they don't critically evaluate the merits of the study itself and try to identify it strengths and weaknesses to determine the quality/reliability of the information provided. Its also possible that the technology to test it in a useful manner hasn't been developed yet. Some people even take the lack of a specific study as evidence! That just indicates to me that nobody has been concerned enough or have the ability to investigate it yet.

For the hard breather. One of the benefits of running hard even if for short intervals is to become comfortable at your race pace or HRs. This is what good runners really do well, they can be hurting like they have never hurt before but you would think they look so smooth. Running at race pace for runners and for short course triathletes teaches them to deal with the discomfort of being on the limit for extended periods. Lots of running races particularly <10k and Oly Tri races are won by the guy who can hurt the most even though they may not be the better runner. If you were considering long course triathlon this aspect has very little relevance for all but a select few.
I would suspect over the next 4 weeks or so your breathing will settle down, just try to relax your hands and shoulders when you are hurting and see how it goes. I personally try to make sure my face is relaxed. The added benefit of this is the guy next to you on race day might not surge because you look like you are cruisin. Keep the pace but think about relaxing those shoulders the breathing will follow. Think...Poker Face

As for fore foot running...IMO thats a great way to get shin splints and fractures in the feet. By running right out on your fore foot you are not taking advantage of the natural shock absorbers like the heels,achilles and calf muscles. Great way to tire your calf muscles out and slow down. Would you prefer to use the biggest muscle in the legs to propel you forward or the tiny calves? Don't beleive? me walk around on your toes for a night. Its true heel striking can indicate a problem such as overstriding but I tend to think the foot strike is always changing due to factors like but not limited to speed (relative to ones ability), inclines, fatigue, and accelerations. Thinking about foot strike to determine running gait is akin to thinking the tail wags the dog. Cam has said it once before, body position has more effect than concentrating on foot position.

Nice one.

Personal Q for you Glenn, what do the soles of your shoes look like after say 800km of use? Same Q for Cam if he reads this. Do your race shoes/flats (if you use them) look the same? Not a loaded question at all but a legitimate query for my interest.

I did a picture of 5 pairs of Asics Nimbus over a 2 year period. I used them for between 8 and 900km. I have it on my old web space that I can't access but it was great to see how the wear went from an obvious outside rear heel wear to a much more even wear by the last pair. I have mentioned to Glenn before a bloke by the name of Toby Sommerville who I train with. His running is just superb to watch. He was one of the top 15 or so Agers at Port this year and is in his 40s. I have googled him but can't confrm but folklore has him running a 2:2X marathon 20 years ago. He was showing me his shoes one day. These things were down to the rubber through the grip part of the sole right on the ball of the foot. He tells me it was from getting lazy during Ironman with his push off. I don't know what this means but was interesting hence my question to you two excellent runners.

Hi Alex, Mine wear on the fore foot. Many might think this indicates a fore foot runner. Its far more likley this wear is due to the toe off/slash trying to accelerate the foot to propel you forward.

I don't know the answer to the question and don't expect one it just to promote thought. Did your shoe wear change due to a targeted change in technique or because you became a better runner through consistency and hard work?

The old way of changing techniques was if you wanted to be more economical you ran longer, I think this also shortens stride length naturally( a good solution for overstriding). I started taking my dog out running and the first time he came he bounded (power) along and was worn out very quickly. After a few of these runs his stride changed and started churning his legs over taking shorter strides subsequently lasting longer (economy). I noticed the same thing when I first started running long. Perhaps thats one way to look at run training. I know I have done lots of long miles to be able to run well at IM but now I have terrible 10k running form and mostly rely on aerobic fitness to stay up there. If I were to concentrate on 10k I would do speed work to change the leg strength and speed to become more mechanically efficient at those paces. Maybe that is what I need to do for IM to really get the time down??????

Hi Alex, Mine wear on the fore foot. Many might think this indicates a fore foot runner. Its far more likley this wear is due to the toe off/slash trying to accelerate the foot to propel you forward.

This is exactly what I took Toby's point to be. His wear was not from the strike but from the push off.

I don't know the answer to the question and don't expect one it just to promote thought. Did your shoe wear change due to a targeted change in technique or because you became a better runner through consistency and hard work?

Supplemenary to the above, I think my wear on pair #1 was purely from the strike. It pains me to say it but the biggest change came when I went running with Dave C (Steely) for the first time and he said 'lift your god damned feet!!!!'. Then at Port Long Course I ran with chris from transitions who exclaimed the same thing. I always ran with an iPod type device and just never knew I had got into such a bad habit. I then ditched that thing and started thinking about knee liftt and the like. Being self coached I of course talked myself into over striding and ended up with a hip problem but eventually got some good advice about some things to focus on and it came along pretty quick.


Last year I fell into the forefoot trap and convinced myself I had to run on my toes. My calves always hurt and I mean always. Sleeping, walking, sitting. I forced myself to do it. I think we exchanged a couple of emails on the matter and you said muuch the same as you said above. I of course read but straight in one ear, oout the other :rolleyes: Since having time off, I have started running with three points of note. Let it be easy, strike under the body and turnover. No sore calves,, hips or crazy shoe wear. Don't tell Al but I have been doing the odd run with an iPod again.

Let it be easy, strike under the body and turnover

Mate...Thats perfect and exactly what I think when I go running. I actually think leg turnover throughout the run is the most important part of running well. When I get tired I only focus on leg turnover and nothing else.

“Paul , Perhaps the reason there is no scientific evidence to suggest that high intensity running leads to more injuries is because its so hard to control the variables that the data is useless and leaves too many holes in a young honours students research. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it though. Just ask around or perhaps gun it for a couple of weeks everytime you run.”
I’m not sure I agree with you here. I think we all have the potential to train at higher intensities week in week out, what varies is how much intensity we can handle. I could go done to the track and belt out 1 x 1km hard effort each week and it won’t really impact on me that much. But if I was to do 10 x 1km hard efforts it probably will lead to a breakdown, not because of the intensity, but more because of the volume of intensity.
Doing too much low intensity high volume training will break you down also.
“Not directed at you in particular just a general observation, but so many hang there hats on the last trendy research data without taking into account that better more comprehensive studies/experiments could be done if it wasn't for the systematic shortfalls in the fields of study. In addition they don't critically evaluate the merits of the study itself and try to identify it strengths and weaknesses to determine the quality/reliability of the information provided. “

I think for me personally I don’t rely on the research but I do jump on the results and what does happen in races. I also look at theories and process the ideas behind those theories right back to an evolutionary point of view. Sound silly I know, but if it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view then I’ll run with it. For example, doing your long rides on just water, never made sense to me, we need fuel to keep moving forward, water alone goes against that theory.
This is where you and me need to field test theories on an ongoing basis, sub-optimal for sure, but still being out there and trying things out I believe is the true scientific test.
What we need to be VERY careful of is putting boundaries on what CAN be achieved. For example,
Why do we limit our long run to 2.5hr?
How does the human body define that limit? Why can’t we so a 40-50km long training runs? People who train for ultras do them successfully, without breaking down.
“Its also possible that the technology to test it in a useful manner hasn't been developed yet. Some people even take the lack of a specific study as evidence! That just indicates to me that nobody has been concerned enough or have the ability to investigate it yet.”

I agree again.
One thing I have learnt being a teacher is that when you allow students to be creative in how they learn and develop they will excel beyond what you could possibly expect from them. My expectations as an adult, in particular societies expectations, have uneducated my ability to be, for example, an artist, or an actor, etc. It’s been educated out of me.
Here is a quote. “We are all born t be artist, so what went wrong along the way”.
We constantly put barriers, and limits or what we can achieve and we don’t even realize we are doing it.

While I don’t have all the facts, I posted “wongstar” IM progress on triahtlog. For 5years she did around 12-13hr IM’s, went to Sutton and does a 9:55 a year later and beats 9 out of 10 male Pro’s. To me that is breaking down barriers.


Question for you Glenn, good topic by the way, if you have planned you long run to be 2hrs and your absolutely having a great day, why stop at 2hrs, why not run 3, even 4hrs to a point where you reach your normal overload based on previous long runs?

It impossible to judge how we feel when we wake up in the morning, yet we make that judgment sometimes weeks in advanced with training plans based on how we should feel when we wake up.

I feel experienced athletes need to start looking beyond those barriers.

fluro

Hi Silvia, Shin splints are not just caused by fore foot running. Too much intensity or volume can also cause them as can a new pair of running shoes. I also think uneven ground can as well. Were you knew to this stuff when you got the shin splints or had you changed any of the above?

Question for you Glenn, good topic by the way, if you have planned you long run to be 2hrs and your absolutely having a great day, why stop at 2hrs, why not run 3, even 4hrs to a point where you reach your normal overload based on previous long runs? Great question Paul, I think you are getting at a conversation we had over the winter where I limited myslef on a run when I probably could have done it differently. Point taken. I take a cautious approach and would prefer to have the psychological benefit of having executed a session well than the possible down side of overdoing it. If it happens twice then I will look to change the workout to extend myself again. I just don't trust that much in the ability to always accurately asses where I'm at. I prefer to look at trends to avoid any potential mistakes (overzealous training) that may put me out of action. I do plan ahead, but when I wake up I think about wether I'm ready for that day or not. In regards to running I rarely wake up and think okay I'm gonna double it today where if it were cycling I have extended a workout as the risk of injury is lower.

[quote="Paul FQuestion for you Glenn, good topic by the way, if you have planned you long run to be 2hrs and your absolutely having a great day, why stop at 2hrs, why not run 3, even 4hrs to a point where you reach your normal overload based on previous long runs?

It impossible to judge how we feel when we wake up in the morning, yet we make that judgment sometimes weeks in advanced with training plans based on how we should feel when we wake up.

I feel experienced athletes need to start looking beyond those barriers.

fluro[/quote]
I'm not Glenn but I'll give my take on this!!

A great coach I know says that "when things are going well, be conservative." What that means (to me) is that if/when you're having a great day, enjoy it, but don't use it as a reason to do anything more / greater than what you had planned...because to do so risks changing the effect of a training session, and putting into a tailspin the overal workload balance in a program.

A good training program balances out training stress with the recovery in a delicate balance. An even better program - and coach - will adapt the sessions from day-to-day according to the current state of an athlete.

Consistency across each day/week/month is the most important part of training - a key objective - so it's wise to avoid doing any single training session that risks that consistency. Champions are not made from a single session / day / week / month or even year of training. They're made from 1000's of hours over years and year of consistent training over a lifetime. So while there will be gut-busting hard sessions in there, they are just part of the overall workload.

Don't lose sight of the forest for sake of the trees.

Doing a longer / harder session on a whim because you're feeling great will usually have repercussions further down the track. It's all about risk management...so you can do the maximum amount of training without risking your health.

Re, foot strike...I think it's miss-directed to discuss foot strike in isolation to overal running form. Foot strike is a consequence of how you run, NOT the other way around.

Glenn C wrote:

Question for you Glenn, good topic by the way, if you have planned you long run to be 2hrs and your absolutely having a great day, why stop at 2hrs, why not run 3, even 4hrs to a point where you reach your normal overload based on previous long runs? Great question Paul, I think you are getting at a conversation we had over the winter where I limited myslef on a run when I probably could have done it differently. Point taken. I take a cautious approach and would prefer to have the psychological benefit of having executed a session well than the possible down side of overdoing it. If it happens twice then I will look to change the workout to extend myself again. I just don't trust that much in the ability to always accurately asses where I'm at. I prefer to look at trends to avoid any potential mistakes (overzealous training) that may put me out of action. I do plan ahead, but when I wake up I think about wether I'm ready for that day or not. In regards to running I rarely wake up and think okay I'm gonna double it today where if it were cycling I have extended a workout as the risk of injury is lower.

I think we are on the same page. I thought my ideas were starting to drift a little to far out there.
Athletes and coaches and a strong ability to forward plan and look ahead. What I would like to see myself move towards is educating athletes about "fatigue awareness" by looking back at patterns that develop over time.
It will always be a mystery as to why some days we wake up and just nail a session that has previously been a real stretch. By developing an awareness of the lead up to those sorts of sessions and consequently the recovery afterward we could learn to replicate those sessions more and more often.

As an example, this morning was meant to be a recovery ride after a solid ride Yesterday. I met up with Dean who was feeling particularly strong and we decided to do some hills repeats. Afterward I had planned for a 20min TT at IMeffort and that turned into 45min, because it felt right, and it was just happening this morning. Tommorrow is a scheduled hard ride, I'll then need to be weary of how this mornings ride will impact on that (Fatigue awareness). If it doesn't happen tomorrow I'll push the session back another day until it does happen.

Forward planning is important but it should be open to allow for the dynamic nature of how a bodies respond to training at a micro level (day to day basis). If we follow a plan too religiously, to often we run the risk of cooking ourselves when we are tired, but also under training ourselves when we are fresh. In most cases these decisions and changes need to be made within the session itself by listening to our bodies.

fluro

Not sure if I have caused the footstrike angle this discussion has taken. In line with Campbell's last comments, I was advised during the session to lean my body forward so I was over my feet. No mention was made at all as to my foot strike as such. I was running directly past the coaches position at the time so he was viewing my side profile. I assume I was very upright to draw the comment from him.

I agree with Cam, as a Sports Physio with 18 years work under the belt and considerably less than that endurance sport training I find it difficult to be objective with my own training on a week to week basis.

The be conservative when things feel great advice is absolute gold. My ignoring this advice 3 weeks out from Port Mac cost me my first IM start. I felt fantastic and did my last pre-taper long run on road when every other one had been trails, did it 15-20sec/km faster than usual and used 2 pairs of new shoes. I felt unreal and finished strongly and full of confidence. When I look back now it is obvious why I broke down 2 days later but when you are so deeply immersed that objectivity disappears.

I have seen it with a lot of people training for IM, they feel really good then decide they'll run to an Ocean Swim and back, or they'll turn their long run into a hilly smash fest, or do their interval run with the faster group instead of dialling into what their coach has prescribed for them. Jimmy C's point on transitions about injury prevention being the responsibility of the athete not the coach was cogent.

G'day Campbell,

Thanks for chiming in, appreciate your input

A great coach I know says that "when things are going well, be conservative." What that means (to me) is that if/when you're having a great day, enjoy it, but don't use it as a reason to do anything more / greater than what you had planned...because to do so risks changing the effect of a training session, and putting into a tailspin the overal workload balance in a program.”

What about being conservative when things aren’t going well? This is what I think we tend to overlook. Greater damage occurs when we try to overdo it when we are tired, not necessarily when we are feeling good. When we feel good, it is because we are rested, recovered, fresh, etc and the risk associated with pushing a little harder (volume, duration and or intensity) during these times would be lower then trying to push through a session when tired because that is what is on paper and we have scheduled to do.
Overdoing I feel is more associated with external factors (session structure, HR targets, power targets, etc) and not internal factor (RPE, fatigue awareness, muscle soreness). If athlete were taught to internalise more they would like be in a better position to make a judgment call on a training session in terms of backing it, doing the actual session, or doing more.



A good training program balances out training stress with the recovery in a delicate balance. An even better program - and coach - will adapt the sessions from day-to-day according to the current state of an athlete.

Training stress needs to be monitored by the athlete. A coach can develop a good solid well founded training program but unless the coaches educates the athlete to monitor stress and fatigue and develop an internal awareness of the early warning signs of doing too much then the athlete themselves could place themselves at greater risks of over training.


Consistency across each day/week/month is the most important part of training - a key objective - so it's wise to avoid doing any single training session that risks that consistency. Champions are not made from a single session / day / week / month or even year of training. They're made from 1000's of hours over years and year of consistent training over a lifetime. So while there will be gut-busting hard sessions in there, they are just part of the overall workload.

This is exactly what I’m trying to promote here. Consistency is the key to success. I’m not focusing on single training sessions I’m trying to focus more on developing an idividual ability to develop their fatigue management skills. Because that will promote consistency if athletes fine tune their ability to monitor their fatigue so they know how and when to do more or less on a day to day basis.

Don't lose sight of the forest for sake of the trees.
I never really grasped that saying. LOL

Doing a longer / harder session on a whim because you're feeling great will usually have repercussions further down the track. It's all about risk management...so you can do the maximum amount of training without risking your health.

This is where you might be missing my point a little. You’re not training on a whim, your training according to how you body is feeling.

A reasonable training program provides the canvas for the artist to paint.

A good training program will provide the paints and brushes.

A great training program will allow the athlete to paint their own piece of artwork.

If you get a chance read a book called “Luke way of Looking” it children’s picture book that highlights what I’m getting at.

fluro

Paul F wrote:
This is where you might be missing my point a little. You’re not training on a whim, your training according to how you body is feeling.

I think what the others are saying is, even if you feel 100% about doing a longer/harder session on the day, the possible negative impacts could outweigh any gains made.

You might not notice the negative until a day or 2 later, but you can't go back and undo the extra effort/distamce.

For most people who have an IM or HIM as a major goal, doing a little less than you might be capable of, to ensure you get to the start line in good shape would be a better option than using an extra hard session that might end up saving you a minute or two on the day, but could also end up meaning you can't race.

Dave Tyno wrote:

Paul F wrote:
This is where you might be missing my point a little. You’re not training on a whim, your training according to how you body is feeling.

I think what the others are saying is, even if you feel 100% about doing a longer/harder session on the day, the possible negative impacts could outweigh any gains made.

You might not notice the negative until a day or 2 later, but you can't go back and undo the extra effort/distamce.

For most people who have an IM or HIM as a major goal, doing a little less than you might be capable of, to ensure you get to the start line in good shape would be a better option than using an extra hard session that might end up saving you a minute or two on the day, but could also end up meaning you can't race.

G'day Dave,

I think if you are feeling 100% on the day then this will allow increase your chances of recovering faster, because you have entered the session fresh and rested. It's when you start sessions tired and fatigued you are more susceptible to overtraining and injuring yourself. Adhering strictly to a program without listening to your body will have you doing some sessions with too much fatigue at times, not all the time but definitely at times.

Do a little less when you are tired do a little more when you are fresh. Listen to your body the next few days and then assess whether or not it was too much.

A 2-3 week taper should clear out all the fatigue in order to peak for the race. The taper is the best time to always to less then what you need.

Being able to dig deep in training at the RIGHT times is the key for continued improvements. This becomes even more relevant with experienced athletes.

No session should be that hard that it will impact on your race, if it does then that is probably a classic example of not listening to your body which is probably a consequence of following a training plan too strictly.

My underlying theme is about learning to internalise, the causes and effects training has on the body. We can fall into the habit of externalising our training by relying too much on HR monitors, powermeters, GPS, bike computers, to tell us that we are training hard or easy.

Don't get me wrong the tools work but they fail in teaching us about stress from a holistic point of view. They record stress as it happens, but not before it happens and the effects it has on us afterwards.

fluro