">
15 weeks to Port
Plan
swim: 2 sessions
Bike: 2 sessions
Run: 3 sessions
The plan this week is to recover. I'm suffering from deep DOMS at the moment and is probably the worst case I have ever had. It is definitely not a good strategy to enter a race underprepared. I am certainly paying for it now. It's been 3 days since the race and I'm still having trouble with my quads walking down stairs. The pain just doesn't seem to want to subside. Hopefully things will be better by the weekend.
If you after some good reading, now is the time to head over to Gordoworld.com. There are some excellent dicussions happening at present in relation to training intensities. Pay special attention to the stuff ozroberts has written. Here is an example from part of the discussion.
Good idea. Norman has asked a number of good questions. Ashburn has also asked 'what is base', and answered that by saying it's just fitness. I've had some thoughts here that I'll share.
What is Base?
IMO Base is not a type of fitness but a type of training. Leaving aside questions of other disciplines/distances and talking SOLELY about performance in and training for Ironman distance events (12-hr TTs would be similar IMO), I'd say that Base is the foundation on which we build our performance. The Base of our training is that we have, in IM, to swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 and run 26.2 in the course of a single, basically continuous, event. So we must train to be able to cover those distances AT ALL. And this is the Base of our fitness: that we are able to cover something approaching the distances/durations required by our event, and that we can do so easily enough to be able to repeat it for training purposes. I suppose that what I'm getting at is that Base training and fitness is about building up to a level of maximum repeatable volume. This max volume is often predetermined by worfk/life issues, but it's still a necessary component of the process. You can't, for example, do a 2-hour FT/LT bike ride if you aren't fit enought to ride for 2 hours slowly without even noticing it.
How do you build Base?
I don't think you do. I think you build fitness, and the first level you build it at is a Base level. It's a level that - barring illness or injury - you could continue to train at every day without noticeable fatigue, probably even if you were adding, say 10 per cent to the weekly total each week.
How much Base work do you need for IM?
This will depend on how you respond to training, and on how much time you have, but I'd suggest that you'd want to reach a series of levels (adapted shamelessly from g's blog)
* Be able to train six days a week for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Be able to train twice a day, six days a week, for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Ideally, be able to train three times a day, six days a week, for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Build up until you can swim at least race distance non-stop aerobic once a week with no major fatigue.
* Build up until you can ride at least race distance non-stop aerobic once a week with no major fatigue.
* Be able to do the swim and the run in the same week each week with no major fatigue.
* Be able to do the swim and the run in the same day.
Unlike g, you'll notice I've left out running. This is because I think so much of this depends on your individual speed and running history, and also because I believe that, for almost everyone, an attempt to make full marathon distance in one run (or even, say, 20 miles in one run) - even an easy run - a weekly 'incidental' session would probably result in injury and overtraining far sooner than it resulted in a useful training effect because of the impact forces involved in running. I would suggest that a more reasonable target might be 2.5 hours (rather than run further than that at any point, I'd rather add up to 45 minutes of aquajogging onto the end of the session). I also don't think it would be sensible to try to tack that run onto any other session (although you could try doing in the same day as a short, easy spin or a tech swim).
Once you have built that sort of volume and are happy with it, or have filled as much time as you can really find with this sort of training, then you can start thinking about adding in extras that will add to your fitness without the need for more volume. I'm thinking particularly here of sessions involving sub-FT/LT/50TT pace work, which to my mind is better than IM race pace in terms of the fitness returns for effort put in. Big Gear work is another type of session that might go in here, as are hilly runs (not hill intervals).
Obviously, after your first IM a lot of this stuff can be compacted or run side by side. There's poss. no need to go right back to the start, but since the body will need rest as much as training, it's probably not a bad idea to spend some time each year doing no 'hard' training.
Can you get the same Base from non-typical Base training?
Yes, because all training builds fitness (up to a point - specificity has a large role here, and sprint work is unlikely to provide the real benefits needed for IM). You could even build the same level of fitness with less volume and more intensity. The problem - as has been discussed elsewhere - it that you have to do so very carefully. I THINK I'm right in saying that, physiologically, the recovery cost of all training up to JUST BELOW FT/LT is largely the same, and that major increases in recovery cost only appear above FT/LT. (Incidentally, this is why 'anaerobic' intervals and speedwork are only appropriate when you're trying to squeeze out the last increases in performance in the final build up to your race - it also helps here that these sorts of sessions work so quickly.)
The relatively low recovery work of just-sub-FT/LT work means that you can train at that intensity and get a lot of 'bang for your buck' (e.g. a 4hr ride which contains 4x20 mins at 50TT pace might provide a training effect similar to a 5-5.5hr slow ride or a 4hr IM pace ride, but would only be slightly more knackering than a slower pace 4hr ride, and in my experience is significantly less knackering than a 4hr IM pace ride). This has obvious benefits if you are (as we all are) time constrained. But it has drawbacks because it's easy to push too hard during the 'harder' sections of the training. It's something I think is only appropriate for the experienced athlete, not the novice.
I think its safest and most elegant to think of fitness for IM as a crescendo: we build up the frequency, then the volume, then the intensity. Then we race.
comments?
ozroberts
Next week I start my build up to Port. I have been waiting in anticipation for over 6months now and to my relief I have overcome some setbacks along the way, but I'm in and I can't wait to start training again.
Cheers
Fluro
swim: 2 sessions
Bike: 2 sessions
Run: 3 sessions
The plan this week is to recover. I'm suffering from deep DOMS at the moment and is probably the worst case I have ever had. It is definitely not a good strategy to enter a race underprepared. I am certainly paying for it now. It's been 3 days since the race and I'm still having trouble with my quads walking down stairs. The pain just doesn't seem to want to subside. Hopefully things will be better by the weekend.
If you after some good reading, now is the time to head over to Gordoworld.com. There are some excellent dicussions happening at present in relation to training intensities. Pay special attention to the stuff ozroberts has written. Here is an example from part of the discussion.
Good idea. Norman has asked a number of good questions. Ashburn has also asked 'what is base', and answered that by saying it's just fitness. I've had some thoughts here that I'll share.
What is Base?
IMO Base is not a type of fitness but a type of training. Leaving aside questions of other disciplines/distances and talking SOLELY about performance in and training for Ironman distance events (12-hr TTs would be similar IMO), I'd say that Base is the foundation on which we build our performance. The Base of our training is that we have, in IM, to swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 and run 26.2 in the course of a single, basically continuous, event. So we must train to be able to cover those distances AT ALL. And this is the Base of our fitness: that we are able to cover something approaching the distances/durations required by our event, and that we can do so easily enough to be able to repeat it for training purposes. I suppose that what I'm getting at is that Base training and fitness is about building up to a level of maximum repeatable volume. This max volume is often predetermined by worfk/life issues, but it's still a necessary component of the process. You can't, for example, do a 2-hour FT/LT bike ride if you aren't fit enought to ride for 2 hours slowly without even noticing it.
How do you build Base?
I don't think you do. I think you build fitness, and the first level you build it at is a Base level. It's a level that - barring illness or injury - you could continue to train at every day without noticeable fatigue, probably even if you were adding, say 10 per cent to the weekly total each week.
How much Base work do you need for IM?
This will depend on how you respond to training, and on how much time you have, but I'd suggest that you'd want to reach a series of levels (adapted shamelessly from g's blog)
* Be able to train six days a week for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Be able to train twice a day, six days a week, for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Ideally, be able to train three times a day, six days a week, for an hour a session with no major fatigue.
* Build up until you can swim at least race distance non-stop aerobic once a week with no major fatigue.
* Build up until you can ride at least race distance non-stop aerobic once a week with no major fatigue.
* Be able to do the swim and the run in the same week each week with no major fatigue.
* Be able to do the swim and the run in the same day.
Unlike g, you'll notice I've left out running. This is because I think so much of this depends on your individual speed and running history, and also because I believe that, for almost everyone, an attempt to make full marathon distance in one run (or even, say, 20 miles in one run) - even an easy run - a weekly 'incidental' session would probably result in injury and overtraining far sooner than it resulted in a useful training effect because of the impact forces involved in running. I would suggest that a more reasonable target might be 2.5 hours (rather than run further than that at any point, I'd rather add up to 45 minutes of aquajogging onto the end of the session). I also don't think it would be sensible to try to tack that run onto any other session (although you could try doing in the same day as a short, easy spin or a tech swim).
Once you have built that sort of volume and are happy with it, or have filled as much time as you can really find with this sort of training, then you can start thinking about adding in extras that will add to your fitness without the need for more volume. I'm thinking particularly here of sessions involving sub-FT/LT/50TT pace work, which to my mind is better than IM race pace in terms of the fitness returns for effort put in. Big Gear work is another type of session that might go in here, as are hilly runs (not hill intervals).
Obviously, after your first IM a lot of this stuff can be compacted or run side by side. There's poss. no need to go right back to the start, but since the body will need rest as much as training, it's probably not a bad idea to spend some time each year doing no 'hard' training.
Can you get the same Base from non-typical Base training?
Yes, because all training builds fitness (up to a point - specificity has a large role here, and sprint work is unlikely to provide the real benefits needed for IM). You could even build the same level of fitness with less volume and more intensity. The problem - as has been discussed elsewhere - it that you have to do so very carefully. I THINK I'm right in saying that, physiologically, the recovery cost of all training up to JUST BELOW FT/LT is largely the same, and that major increases in recovery cost only appear above FT/LT. (Incidentally, this is why 'anaerobic' intervals and speedwork are only appropriate when you're trying to squeeze out the last increases in performance in the final build up to your race - it also helps here that these sorts of sessions work so quickly.)
The relatively low recovery work of just-sub-FT/LT work means that you can train at that intensity and get a lot of 'bang for your buck' (e.g. a 4hr ride which contains 4x20 mins at 50TT pace might provide a training effect similar to a 5-5.5hr slow ride or a 4hr IM pace ride, but would only be slightly more knackering than a slower pace 4hr ride, and in my experience is significantly less knackering than a 4hr IM pace ride). This has obvious benefits if you are (as we all are) time constrained. But it has drawbacks because it's easy to push too hard during the 'harder' sections of the training. It's something I think is only appropriate for the experienced athlete, not the novice.
I think its safest and most elegant to think of fitness for IM as a crescendo: we build up the frequency, then the volume, then the intensity. Then we race.
comments?
ozroberts
Next week I start my build up to Port. I have been waiting in anticipation for over 6months now and to my relief I have overcome some setbacks along the way, but I'm in and I can't wait to start training again.
Cheers
Fluro
posted by Paul Fleuren at 2:13 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home