Training at or above race pace

Kurt Godel

Taking Dory's Training log derailment onto the main forum...
Her log is too joyful to spoil with this serious back n' forth stuff!

Shotgun

Dory Dory wrote: »

After reading a very wise post on boards today that included the query "are you racing to train, or training to race?", I was very mindful of staying on the plan - i.e., keeping my paces disciplined.

Nothing wrong with sticking to the plan, or keeping paces disciplined, but I don't know how much of that post by Larry Brent is applicable to Tri. Its great advice for distance runners, "Hold back a bit in training so it is there for the race", but you're often going to go faster (and harder) in training doing a single discipline, than you are during the race doing all three. I don't think there's much overlap between training for distance running, and training for Tri (no more so than there would be for distance swimmers and Tri). I've no scientific basis for saying that, just my own experience.

Oryx

What is this thread you speak of? (I was too busy thinking up long intelligent words in that game )

Kurt Godel

Oryx wrote: »

What is this thread you speak of? (I was too busy thinking up long intelligent words in that game )

Here on the running forum. Larry Brent is one of the best ever posters when it comes to running training, but I've strongly disagreed with almost anything he has posted on the Tri forum. As I see it, he applies standard running coach practice to tri training (specifically when it comes to training/racing paces), and I don't think thats in any way useful. A triathlete may often train close/above their race pace for a discipline, and that can be the optimal way to train (different for a distance runner, obviously). A triathlete may include more intense sessions in a week, which will have less injury impact as they are spread across disciplines. Etc. Different sports, different structures, and I'd be wary of any perceived training crossover (and obviously I remain open to correction, its just my opinion).

(PS "Annealing", lovely word)

RayCun

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Here on the running forum. Larry Brent is one of the best ever posters when it comes to running training, but I've strongly disagreed with almost anything he has posted on the Tri forum. As I see it, he applies standard running coach practice to tri training (specifically when it comes to training/racing paces), and I don't think thats in any way useful. A triathlete may often train close/above their race pace for a discipline, and that can be the optimal way to train (different for a distance runner, obviously). A triathlete may include more intense sessions in a week, which will have less injury impact as they are spread across disciplines. Etc. Different sports, different structures, and I'd be wary of any perceived training crossover (and obviously I remain open to correction, its just my opinion).

(PS "Annealing", lovely word)

I agree about the possibility of spreading intensity across different disciplines, although the average triathlete probably does more hours of training so perhaps the ratio of intense:easier work doesn't change overall.
But I think he makes a good point about the questionable point of doing a lot of training (especially run training) at faster than planned race pace, and the value given to 'suffering' in this forum.

Kurt Godel

RayCun wrote: »

I agree about the possibility of spreading intensity across different disciplines, although the average triathlete probably does more hours of training so perhaps the ratio of intense:easier work doesn't change overall.
But I think he makes a good point about the questionable point of doing a lot of training (especially run training) at faster than planned race pace, and the value given to 'suffering' in this forum.

About half my bike training, and probably 75% of my swim training, is done at a pace/intensity faster than I would do in a tri race. I suffer during both. What paces would you suggest I do bike or swim training at, and for what benefit?

RayCun

Kurt Godel wrote: »

About half my bike training, and probably 75% of my swim training, is done at a pace/intensity faster than I would do in a tri race. I suffer during both. What paces would you suggest I do bike or swim training at, and for what benefit?

Ask it the other way - how do you benefit from cycling or swimming faster in training than you will in a race?

Oryx

I wondered why you thanked annealing.

Sorry for the hijack Dory, but this is interesting. You may have noticed the discussion with tunney on polarisation, and this is a training scheme I have seen quite a bit in the last while and it was promoted heavily by TI in last year's coaching series. An 80/20 split between easy/hard work. I can see how this works for all levels, whereas too much intensity without corresponding easy work I reckon will break anyone who tries it, over time.

I also think how someone trains will differ according to experience, fitness, injury history, base, and race distance. The biggest mistake I see novices make is they do all their training at one mid-intensity level, as they don't see the benefit in training in the lower zones, and because their main work is tough, they cannot maintain higher levels when required. The problem being midlevel its neither easy enough to build base or help recovery, nor hard enough to really stress the systems and promote progress. I think what LB is saying makes a heck of a lot of sense to a heck of a lot of triathletes, in that if you are going to get it wrong, you are better to undercook than overcook your training. The biggest downfall of very ambitious athletes is burnout. Look around, you already know people who have succumbed. So it is sensible advice.

Kurt Godel

RayCun wrote: »

Ask it the other way - how do you benefit from cycling or swimming faster in training than you will in a race?

I know how I benefit. If you can answer my question, I'll acknowledge that you know more about the swim and bike parts in Tri training, than I currently give you credit for. (That's not a dig by the way; you and LB are runners, I don't particularly see why you'd know about these aspects of Tri training).

So, given that you say that its questionable to train at faster than planned race pace, and I've given you % examples of what faster work I do for swim and bike; can you tell me what paces I should be training at, and for what benefit?

RayCun

Kurt Godel wrote: »

I know how I benefit.

Oookay

Kurt Godel

Sorry Dory, didn't mean to hijack your log. Lots of opinions out there, good luck whatever you decide.

Larry Brent

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Here on the running forum. Larry Brent is one of the best ever posters when it comes to running training, but I've strongly disagreed with almost anything he has posted on the Tri forum. As I see it, he applies standard running coach practice to tri training (specifically when it comes to training/racing paces), and I don't think thats in any way useful. A triathlete may often train close/above their race pace for a discipline, and that can be the optimal way to train (different for a distance runner, obviously). A triathlete may include more intense sessions in a week, which will have less injury impact as they are spread across disciplines. Etc. Different sports, different structures, and I'd be wary of any perceived training crossover (and obviously I remain open to correction, its just my opinion).

(PS "Annealing", lovely word)

Hi Kurt,

I very, very rarely post on the tri forum for good reason; as you mentioned, I have no experience tri training, so I know extremely little about it, so any views I may have are strictly based on limited reading on this forum and the odd foray to slowtwitch. So do take anything I say about tri with the tiniest pinch of salt and I should probably even say nothing about it! My comment was just based on an observation, that often on tri logs I read about how hard a particular training session was, like the person had to be peeled off the floor afterwards, fell off the turbo etc. after being in the pain cave and I didn’t think such intensity was beneficial for a long distance triathlete. But as you rightly pointed out this is based on my running ‘knowledge’, so perhaps I am completely off the mark.

Sorry Dory!

griffin100

Kurt Godel wrote: »

About half my bike training, and probably 75% of my swim training, is done at a pace/intensity faster than I would do in a tri race. I suffer during both. What paces would you suggest I do bike or swim training at, and for what benefit?

In their section on CSS swimsmooth talk about pacing and suggest that the vast majority of swim training should be done at slower than threshold pace. They favour a slightly slower pace with shorter recoveries approach.

Kurt Godel

Larry Brent wrote: »

Hi Kurt,

I very, very rarely post on the tri forum for good reason; as you mentioned, I have no experience tri training, so I know extremely little about it, so any views I may have are strictly based on limited reading on this forum and the odd foray to slowtwitch. So do take anything I say about tri with the tiniest pinch of salt and I should probably even say nothing about it! My comment was just based on an observation, that often on tri logs I read about how hard a particular training session was, like the person had to be peeled off the floor afterwards, fell off the turbo etc. after being in the pain cave and I didn’t think such intensity was beneficial for a long distance triathlete. But as you rightly pointed out this is based on my running ‘knowledge’, so perhaps I am completely off the mark.

Sorry Dory!

Howdy Larry,

let me restate that I have nothing scientific to back me up, and I am open to correction. And when I talk about Tri I include the less-endurance based distances, probably to a fault as they are my focus. So running/endurance advice may carry further into IM or HIM distances than those I have in mind when I say Tri (the majority are training for shorter distances).

Having moved to Tri from a few marathon-based years, I'm only suggesting caution in applying general running training advice to a tri-specific training program. For instance, if I wanted to get faster as a runner, I could just up the milage (forget about the intensity for a moment). I tried doing this as a swimmer (upping the distance), and I quickly hit a plateau. (That's pretty common in new swimmers). Advice I got was to do much faster sets of intervals- to the exclusion of distance if needs be (although doing both are preferable). So the majority of my swimming is now done pretty fast, as in sets of fast 100m or 200m, with a few seconds rest in between. I'd be pretty much beat after these sessions, but (and here's the important thing) recovery is quick as its non-impact. I've gotten much faster in races, since doing these sessions, and that's a common factor with most triathletes.

Ditto the bike/turbo work, at least two workouts a week are tough, high HR sessions, but recovery is quicker than if I had done an equivilant 60m tempo run. Of course, its not just about impact stress, so the following day would be an easy one. For the sake of comparision, most of my runs are done very slow (although include one key run session at least is the goal).

I guess from the above, what I'm saying is the difference is recovery (again, always up for debate)- Tri allows for more "intense" sessions in a week as they are across different muscle groups. Of course, overtraining is overtraining, and anyone who overtaxes their system in training will suffer in races, runner or triathlete alike.

In regards to pace- running at your threshold pace in a pure running race is optimal, but impractical at the end of a tough swim and bike, when you're often just trying to hang on. So running race pace in a Tri is often less than (or equivilant to) much of running tempo training pace. Ditto the swim and bike sections- no point in redlining by the end of either, so race pace has to be controlled to leave enough for the next discipline.

(Caveat, IMO, buyer beware, novice advice- but its more interesting than the Multivariate Analysis its taking me away from;))

griffin100 wrote: »

In their section on CSS swimsmooth talk about pacing and suggest that the vast majority of swim training should be done at slower than threshold pace. They favour a slightly slower pace with shorter recoveries approach.

I'd include this "slightly slower" as being within the variance of Tri race pacing in the discussion. A couple of seconds per 100m slower swim pace can make a huge difference to effort, but is I think a different thing than the variance in running racing/slow training paces. It would be a specific example of where training terms/practices do not cross over between the disciplines.

Dory Dory

Oh my!! Look what happens when I am busy slicing and dicing on little puppies and kittens. But some good dialog here, and all food for thought.

As far as why I referenced that post, it was strictly in the running sense since I was doing an Ecoli provided session with definite instructions. As Kurt knows too well (and has called me out on several times), my tendency is to go faster than instructed, thus defeating the purpose of the session. As soon as I laced up my runners and took my first stride last night, my body wanted to go 7:50 for easy, 7:30 for steady, and 7:00 for MP....but, because all those paces are closer to steady, MP, and 10k, then I would have totally ignored what I was told to do, which would, among other things, beg the question: why am I wasting Ecoli's time? And Larry's passage about am I training to race or racing to train really hit home and emphasized what I already know but don't always practice.

One of the reasons it has been so hard for me to get used to training (talking purely running!) at easy paces is because of my swimming background in which every lap was timed and came with high expectations. The concept of running slower than possible is counterintuitive and contradictory to what I was taught in the pool. However, through the likes of Larry and Ecoli and Ray and Kurt and others, I have an understanding of why different disciplines require different approaches for successful results.

Regarding Larry's entire referenced post, I loved it. I reread it this morning and see no holes in it as it applies to any discipline. Sudden Changes, Mileage Obsession, Racing to Train or Training to Race?, Following a Plan, Peaking too Soon. Yep, all good, solid advice from my perspective....and I did not see anything too specific to exclude its intent from triathlon. I don't know what Larry does for a living or what his background is, but every freakin' time I read something he has written regarding running I learn and benefit from it, so thank you, Larry. I think he was in Boston last year with Abhainn and I regret not meeting him.

Any way....if there are any triathlon specific coaches out there that have an opinion on this subject, I welcome their perspective.

Dory Dory

Oh....and look, I got moved!!!! Sort of.

Kurt Godel

Dory Dory wrote: »

As far as why I referenced that post, it was strictly in the running sense since I was doing an Ecoli provided session with definite instructions. As Kurt knows too well (and has called me out on several times), my tendency is to go faster than instructed, thus defeating the purpose of the session.

Strictly in the running sense, it's great advice. Have I ever called you out on going too fast on a swim or bike session? (and that's not calling you slow;))

Larry Brent

I’ve a lot to learn. Your explanation there Kurt makes a lot of sense. My wife has held some Irish swimming records in her time and I’ve often said to her that if I was to train for an long distance triathlon swim (starting off as a non-swimmer, essentially) that I think I’d be best follow a Total Immersion approach, and just try to get used to swimming for about an hour with it taking as little as possible out of me. I imagined, just long endurance swimming would be the way to go, but she insists that lots of typical swim sets, 100m reps etc. would be the way to go. I’ll have to find out some day through an experiment of one...So ignore anything I’ve said about training intensities. Saying that, would I be right in thinking that triathletes, more often than runners, leave their race in training? i.e. they do very good training sessions, but the race doesn’t go as well as expected? I could be totally wrong there having a very small sample to chose from.

Green&Red

Larry Brent wrote: »

I’ve a lot to learn. Your explanation there Kurt makes a lot of sense. My wife has held some Irish swimming records in her time and I’ve often said to her that if I was to train for an long distance triathlon swim (starting off as a non-swimmer, essentially) that I think I’d be best follow a Total Immersion approach, and just try to get used to swimming for about an hour with it taking as little as possible out of me. I imagined, just long endurance swimming would be the way to go, but she insists that lots of typical swim sets, 100m reps etc. would be the way to go. I’ll have to find out some day through an experiment of one...So ignore anything I’ve said about training intensities. Saying that, would I be right in thinking that triathletes, more often than runners, leave their race in training? i.e. they do very good training sessions, but the race doesn’t go as well as expected? I could be totally wrong there having a very small sample to chose from.

I find this and I put it down to triathletes over-training, which we all seem to do.
Coming from a different background (GAA) we would have had league games every week and championship less often, week leading up to league would be full training, possibly training the evening before or day after and the match would almost be training also. Championship week would be easy street, training would be some ball work and a few sprints.

Also (and again I'd say almost 100%) triathletes whinge like no one else, i cramped, my brakes, my set up, couldnt get the wetsuit off, went off course, bashed by waves etc

peter kern

I read all this and go there is guys winning world titles with many different approaches so why does it always have to be one approach
all the studies we see are often 12 weeks studies which are very interesting but there is very few 4 year studies which could give a better picture. and in every study you have responder and non responder which clearly showes there is not 1 system to fit all.

peter kern

Larry Brent wrote: »

I’ve a lot to learn. Your explanation there Kurt makes a lot of sense. My wife has held some Irish swimming records in her time and I’ve often said to her that if I was to train for an long distance triathlon swim (starting off as a non-swimmer, essentially) that I think I’d be best follow a Total Immersion approach, and just try to get used to swimming for about an hour with it taking as little as possible out of me. I imagined, just long endurance swimming would be the way to go, but she insists that lots of typical swim sets, 100m reps etc. would be the way to go. I’ll have to find out some day through an experiment of one...So ignore anything I’ve said about training intensities. Saying that, would I be right in thinking that triathletes, more often than runners, leave their race in training? i.e. they do very good training sessions, but the race doesn’t go as well as expected? I could be totally wrong there having a very small sample to chose from.

great post

tunney

RayCun wrote: »

Ask it the other way - how do you benefit from cycling or swimming faster in training than you will in a race?

Really? After all these years ?

Ahhhh remembering why we split from the joggers...

Fazz

Kurt Godel wrote: »

About half my bike training, and probably 75% of my swim training, is done at a pace/intensity faster than I would do in a tri race. I suffer during both. What paces would you suggest I do bike or swim training at, and for what benefit?

F&%* me...

50% of your bike work is at or above your planned race pace?
How much volume can you get done at that effort per week?
I'd suggest trying a different approach unless you strongly feel this is what works best for you.

Up to last Oct, about 80% of my biking would be easy each week. That is around the 60% FTP mark give or take.
20% was hard aka turbo pain cave sessions or a bit of hills on long ride etc.

In Nov, as I kicked off more run volume I dropped the biking to 4-5 hours per week, with about 2 of these sessions being at medium/strong intensity.
I gained very little, definitely fell back and lost power, or at best maintained the power I started back with.
Just felt like my engine wasn't built back enough to be able to absorb the quality.
But we are all different and respond to different trainings.
Since I've picked up my bike volume I already feel better and am biking better.
So for me, the 80/20 rule is currently ringing true anyway.

Maybe it's because the volume just can't be done if on a 50/50 routine.
If you want to be a better biker, ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike.

My 2 cents based on my experience.

Kurt Godel

Fazz wrote: »

F&%* me...

50% of your bike work is at or above your planned race pace?
How much volume can you get done at that effort per week?
I'd suggest trying a different approach unless you strongly feel this is what works best for you.

Little volume (150-120km/week), done over 4 or 5 turbo sessions. At least two of which are hard, meaning I'm fecked after them. Race pace is about 32kph (for Standard distance), so most of them would be at least as fast as that (with breaks in between, fartlek based). I don't do long weekend bike rides, if I did, that 50% figure would go way down. Every run I've done in the past year has been very easy pace, so I try and put in effort in the bike (achilles/knee issues). You're probably right in that a different approach would produce better results- I'm very interested in the whole debate between volume and intensity, and I sort of find intensity works best for me.

shotgunmcos

Triathlon, different disciplines of which two are non impact, different muscles..
Some folk respond well to high intensity low volume
Other folk respond well to volume base zone and are more at risk in the red zone
Some folk perceive the grey area between easy and hard as junk
Other folk find a sweet spot here that yields bang for buck

The main thing I've learned from different folk who tend to do well is that whatever approach you take, bury the gadgets for a while and tune into what works best for you By feel. Then do it consistently. Consistency, consistency, consistency....

The Lost Sheep

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Triathlon, different disciplines of which two are non impact, different muscles..
Some folk respond well to high intensity low volume
Other folk respond well to volume base zone and are more at risk in the red zone
Some folk perceive the grey area between easy and hard as junk
Other folk find a sweet spot here that yields bang for buck

The main thing I've learned from different folk who tend to do well is that whatever approach you take, bury the gadgets for a while and tune into what works best for you By feel. Then do it consistently. Consistency, consistency, consistency....

Totally agree. Its the consistency of your training and racing that builds your improvements etc.
Its how you get the best of your abilities multiplied by your training circumstances(work, hours etc) multiplied by your will/desire.
for some junk hours would be walking the dog at end of the day while for others that is a cardio session(well almost )

Cant but agree 100% with your last paragraph. work with how your body feels in sets/sessions and build off that. don't have gadgets to say you must do x/y/z train without them and train as if you don't have them in a race. and just train consistently. build a pattern and keep to it at all times unless its virtually impossible to keep

pgibbo

Queston for Kurt - does intensity really wortk for you? What I mean by this is have you tried the 80-20 approach - for triathlon? I'm guessing you haven't because you are time constrained like most of us. Hence I think, but could be way off the mark, that intensity works best in your current circumstances. The reality is probably that you dodn't have the time.

As mentioned already, consistency is key - plus recovery and maintenance.

Kurt Godel

pgibbo wrote: »

Queston for Kurt - does intensity really wortk for you? What I mean by this is have you tried the 80-20 approach - for triathlon? I'm guessing you haven't because you are time constrained like most of us. Hence I think, but could be way off the mark, that intensity works best in your current circumstances. The reality is probably that you dodn't have the time.

As mentioned already, consistency is key - plus recovery and maintenance.

Hi P,

This is only really my second year in Tri, so I don't really have a set of variables I can compare between, in regards to what training method produces better results. (Comparing my previous life's jogging results, intensity beat volume hands down). Last year I averaged 99 points in NS races; this year I'm targeting 110, on greater intensity, and increased volume, in that order. While I'm new to Tri, I've been training enough years to recognise overtraining/burnout symptoms, and also to recognise what seems to be working fitness wise. Obviously the proof in the pudding will be this season's NS results, but for the moment I'm reasonably content to say I'm improving fitness-wise, and am not overtraining.

Having said that, time is the biggest constraint. I'm going to be particularly busy this year up until October, and long weekend bike rides would take from family time, so they are going to suffer, if they happen at all. Every triathlete I've talked to has emphasised the importance of long weekend spins, and if I was to include a slow 3 hour spin in my program, my % ratio of easy/hard bike work would immediately move from 50/50 closer to 80/20. So I'd probably make more gains by a) replacing one easy turbo session with a long bike, and b) increasing run intensity, but for the moment I feel I'm making the best use of my time. Not having the time to include them, I could elect to artificially replicate 80/20 by reducing the intensity of some of my current 4/5 turbo hours. Taking a holistic approach, I'm not going to do this, as my runs are all at an easy pace, so there is already sufficient recovery.

joey100

I'm in a similar position to yourself Kurt, second year in tri and still trying to find out what works for me. Last year my bike training would have been very like yours this year. A lot of intensity and mainly on the turbo. A lot of the sessions were so hard I couldn't finish them. This year I've joined a cycling club and have been trying to do at least one long easy-ish spin a week. For me this is working very well, it has definitely improved stamina and I'm going into my hard sessions in much better shape. The last few weeks have seen the long spin replaced with a long easy turbo and to be honest they really aren't the same. The turbo is always tougher (mentally and physically) and while this has it's place I know myself that it led to a bit of burnout last year that affected my whole training.

Aside from that the importance of just being out on the roads on a bike shouldn't be underestimated either. Stuff like bike handling, using the gears properly, and climbing is very hard to replicate on the turbo and was one of the things I found hardest last year going from turbo to outside cycling.

In saying all that though, I'd 100% agree with the others around consistency and if the turbo is the way to get it done then it has to be done.

Kurt Godel

Cheers joey- I'm learning from this thread that the 3-hr weekend bike is indespensable, time will have to be found.

Bike handling etc, agree 100%.

peter kern

if we use seillers studies (lets ignore responders and non responders ) the difference between top nat level norwegian skier and world class is the time spend easy training .
to simplyfy this
norwegianworld class skier proatheltes train to keep it easy 1000ish a year so 200 hours in high intensity training
top level nat nordic skier train appriox 30 % less so lets say 700hish ( but still 200h fast) its 70 3o ( rember the level is quite high in norway in this sport )
so now you tell me where you think how this would go further if we go down to 10 and 6 hours of training a week as an weekly average
so what iam saying is people also need to take in consideration how many hours they train if you train 8 hours a week with 80 20 this is not going to work at all
so while you are certainly saying the right thing ie ride your bike ride your bike
for some people that is not feasble.

Fazz wrote: »

F&%* me...

50% of your bike work is at or above your planned race pace?
How much volume can you get done at that effort per week?
I'd suggest trying a different approach unless you strongly feel this is what works best for you.

Up to last Oct, about 80% of my biking would be easy each week. That is around the 60% FTP mark give or take.
20% was hard aka turbo pain cave sessions or a bit of hills on long ride etc.

In Nov, as I kicked off more run volume I dropped the biking to 4-5 hours per week, with about 2 of these sessions being at medium/strong intensity.
I gained very little, definitely fell back and lost power, or at best maintained the power I started back with.
Just felt like my engine wasn't built back enough to be able to absorb the quality.
But we are all different and respond to different trainings.
Since I've picked up my bike volume I already feel better and am biking better.
So for me, the 80/20 rule is currently ringing true anyway.

Maybe it's because the volume just can't be done if on a 50/50 routine.
If you want to be a better biker, ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike.

My 2 cents based on my experience.

woody1

im in the same boat kurt, family time would suffer greatly if i dissappeared for a long cycle at the weekend, but im hoping when it starts getting bright early in the mornings then i can get out from 6-9, until then its all turbos.. and treadmills..

i think you have it right if the volume has to be low because of time restrictions then the intensity has to be high.. now if only i could put the intensity bit into practice..