Anyone else seen this?
http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2010/02/specificity-of-training.html#c9213653545028199884
Before you read his entire post on specificity training just check out his recommended TSS numbers. I don't understand... How does someone like Joe Friel screw this up? His general guideline for the bike is 300 - 360!! Even his low number is (borderline) too high.
Now read the entire post. I know it's more appropriate for General Training Discussions forum but here's another one that really shocks me:
If your goal is to run a 7-minute pace you need to do a lot of 7-minute-paced running. Not 8 minutes and not 6 minutes. There is this thing called “economy” which relates to the principle of specificity. If you spend a lot of time running 6- or 8-minute pace you will not be as economical at 7 minutes as you could have otherwise been. Economy has to do with how much energy you use (or waste) at a given pace.
I'm curious, how many of you out there believe the above is true? If so then could you explain why.
Thanks, Chris
Comments
Chris,
I can't comment on the IM TSS #'s, as my inaugural one will be this July. I can only say that seeing what I've seen from this team, I believe that those numbers are too high, and you could drive a truck through the difference between 300 and 360.
On the run pace comment, I've got a couple of thoughts:
Glad you brought it up. What are your thoughts?
Mike
I actually sort of agree with the run thing, but only for a short period. The last month before my A-race I like to spend most of my time running at my target race pace. Whether it is good or not, I figure that last 4 weeks isn't going to gain or lose me much fitness as long as I am still running. It just helps me to get very very comfortable at running at that pace and knowing what it feels like. The other 48 weeks of the year, I totally disagree and train by my vdot zones.
But Matt, the question isn't whether dping a lot of running at goal race pace makes you more comfortable and helping you know what it feels like, it's about whether doing a lot of running at that pace improves your running economy.
Thanks, Chris
Ahh, another brain-buster from Chris.
As to TSS numbers, I suspect there may be a few pros and sub 9 hour AGers who do run up a TSS of 300-320 on the bike in an IM, and still run a decent 26.2. A few. Maybe Joe is thinking about them?
More intriguing is this challenge:
"If your goal is to run a 7-minute pace you need to do a lot of 7-minute-paced running. Not 8 minutes and not 6 minutes. There is this thing called “economy” which relates to the principle of specificity. If you spend a lot of time running 6- or 8-minute pace you will not be as economical at 7 minutes as you could have otherwise been. Economy has to do with how much energy you use (or waste) at a given pace.
I'm curious, how many of you out there believe the above is true? If so then could you explain why"
I think that, for an IM, something like this is true, but not for the reasons that Friel implies. The specifity is not to replicate the IM marathon race pace in one's training paces - I think this would be Friel's argument. Rather, the specificity is to replicate the energy source and RPE being experienced during the IM marathon in one's training efforts.
When I run a 9:10 mile in an IM, it feels like an 8:10-8:50 mile in training. And it is at that pace that I am perfecting the optimum blanace of fat and carbo burning which I am allowed in an IM, when I'm running having burned off all my stored glycogen, So I have to train my ability to run for hours relying on just fat burning and whatever insufficient carbs I can absorb during the run. I suggest that a lot of time, both in transition runs off the bike, and "long" runs (100-150 minutes) at a combo of my MP and EP, works best to train both the RPE and the actual underlying muscle physiology needed for an IM marathon.
Mike,
Here are my thoughts:
http://chris-lakerfan.blogspot.com/2010/02/running-economy-myth.html
Yes, I do happen to believe in the part of the Specificity Principle that says, "Training must go from general to specific." The problem is that most people misunderstand the term "specific." Whether you ride for 6hrs @ 72% every weekend or ride 4.5hrs @ 80% every weekend, they both fall under the category of being specific for IM. Remember, specific doesn't mean we have to do everything at the same length and pace/power in training as we do when racing. It just means we have to do the things that help us build the type of strength or flexibility (eg, time required in aero position) and endurance required to meets the demands of the event (using layman's terms). In order to meet the demands of an IM we need to focus on raising (or filling) the right side of our power curve. Both scenarios above will do that as long as the stimulus is optimal. Of course, what determines whether the stimulus is optimal or not is dependent on other factors too. This is why neither of the above scenarios is better than the other. It depends on the individual. But in either case, they're specific enough.
Thanks, Chris
Yes, my bet is Chris Lieto did this at Kona. However, that's one person. I was told by a very reliable source that he biked at IF = .80. Now you know why he can't beat Crowie.
I think you're missing what he said. Remember, this about improving your running economy. It's not about the balance of fat/CHO as a fuel. Those two are not the same thing. Just because your balance might change doesn't mean your economy has changed. And, as a matter of fact, I'd bet your running economy didn't change at all.
Also, if you're not getting in a sufficient amount of carbs during the bike and run you will bonk without a doubt. Your body is pretty damn dependent on CHO during the run.
Thanks, Chris
Very fair point ... I don't think I see any kind of gain in running economy because of running at race pace. I guess I was just trying to make the point that I feel there is a time that I do feel workouts at race pace are beneficial to me (outside of just the 2 race rehearsals).
Thanks for sharing the link to your blog... I'm looking forward to reading it when I can pay more attention and don't have a crying little one on my lap.
Energy is defined in terms of oxygen consumption; the farther the person can run per unit of oxygen consumed -- or, stated another way, the less oxygen he/she consumes in running a given distance -- the more economical he/she is.
Also read this:
http://www.physfarm.com/inside/articles_planetx_phys.html
Thanks, Chris
Thanks, Chris
Chris -
Being both fairly ignorant about muscle physiology on the molecular level, and quite stubborn to boot, I'm not a convert yet. "... economy. It's not about the balance of fat/CHO as a fuel. Those two are not the same thing..." As I understand things, fat, CHO, and O2 are all fuels - variables - which are on one side of the energy equation, with muscle work - the output - on the other side. The tricky thing about the equation is that the amount of O2 used is dependent on the amount of fat and CHO being "burned". Since the rate of fat burning is basically fixed above a certain work level, the O2 being used will be dependent on the amount of CHO required for a given work level.
I assume that I have used up all my endogenous stores of CHO long before I hit the run, and so the rate limiter for my pace will be how much CHO I can take in during the run. Since my GI system limits the amount of CHO I can absorb while running at an elevated HR, it's to my advantage to train my system to run as fast as it can at the highest possible fat/CHO ratio - which determines how much O2 I'll need. Less CHO required, lower O2 utilization, higher efficiency/economy.
The question, then, is what type of training best prepares the body to run faster at a fixed level of CHO intake for 4 hours (in my case). It's different than what a Kenyan might do preparing to run a 2 hour marathon, as he might be able to do that with just a little top off of his endogenous CHO (glycogen) stores. I think you and I both agree that there isn't any single pace in training which will work to achieve that goal. Rather, a mix of paces works better. And the dilemma is, what ratio of paces in training is optimum for our purposes? I am hypothesizing that the majority of one's training time should be spent at a pace which mimics the ratio of fat/CHO burning (OK, O2 utilization - same thing in my mind).
I also think Matt has a good point, which I also alluded to, that the neurological experience of what that effort level "feels" like has some benefit come race day. Here, I am hypothesizing that the "feel" which equates to race day pace will occur at a faster pace in training, and will be the same pace which equates to the fat/CHO/O2 utilization one can acheive given the amount of gatorade/coke/gu one is able to absorb per unit time during the run on race day.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Al, just so you know, the definition I supplied for "economy" isn't my opinion, it's a well-defined term in sports science literature. Having said that, there is equally no evidence that doing a lot of running at goal race pace helps improve the balance between fat/CHO burning. That is yet another myth often perpetuated by the very same people who believe this economy myth. If you want to improve fat/CHO burning then focus on one thing only: Introducing the Progressive Overload Principle into your training. Sessions should be focused around 1) raising T pace 2) long runs done at an intensity that achieves optimal stimulus 3) balanced overall volume and intensity that helps you achieve optimal stimulus in #1 and #2. The trick is finding optimal stimulus but the best answer, again, depends on many individual characteristics. This is why we have people like RnP.
I fully realize that it appears to be common sense that doing a lot of running at goal race pace achieves all of the above. Unfortunately. like many things in life, I believe this is one of those areas where the right answer is a non-intuitive one.
Matt's point might be a valid one but it has no relationship to the subject. Although, I would argue that doing a lot of running at goal race pace during race-prep for a novice could be helpful but it's likely a waste of time for someone with a fair amount of experience (assuming that their only intention in doing so is to find that "feel" you speak about). Again, which is why I keep saying the best answer tends to be a relatively individual thing (sounding like a broken record). Now when you do something like tell everyone to train 12 - 14hrs/week then you start to target a much larger group of athletes.
This really leads into a discussion about a more fundamental issue though, which is: The lack of understanding surrounding the relationship between cause and effect. This specific issue is probably the primary catalyst as to why so many athletes do something in their training for entirely the wrong reasons. Primary example: When an AGer attempts to replicate the training of a pro just because he/she's a pro.
Thanks, Chris
Chris, 2 things:
I had the chance to hear Phil Skiba talk recently, and got to chat with him in depth about his opinion on this topic with respect to the bike (less controversial), which he completely agreed with (no surprise). I guess that I cannot come up with any plausible reason why this would be true only on the bike, but somehow be different on the run.
Mike
It really can't be different for biking and running can it? Would make no sense otherwise. I however see why a coach would shy away from the same advice when it comes to running as it is a whole lot easier to hurt yourself running than riding and swimming. Along those lines I have never heard anyone advocate LSD when it comes to swimming, or specificity regarding doing all your swimming at IM Pace etc.
Good stuff as usual Chris
Mike, thanks for the kind words...
Ditto for me as well............
300-360 TSS...I don't even know where to start...
I'll post my thoughts as a blog post.
this outta be good
I didn't know where to start either. I felt like adding a comment to his blog that said something along the lines of, "Joe, You might want to revisit those bike TSS numbers." Seriously though, kind of hard to tell someone their guidance is ridiculously way off. Like not even close...
I can't speak for his swim TSS numbers and I don't have a lot of experience run TSS numbers for IM yet but the latter seemed reasonable. My rTSS at IMAZ was 250 and rIF of .80.
Thanks, Chris
It just displays such a lack of understanding of soooo many things. Like Mike said, you can drive a truck between 300 and 360. You can drive a truck between 285 and 305. If you've raced, done rehearsals, punched the clock on the bike, or manage many people through that stuff you can really, really tell the difference, know something is going on, in TSS steps as little as 10pts.
TSS 300-360 It's as simple as going to a race and RUNNING by the group of riders walking the run talking about their killer ride, Enjoy the 5 -6 hr walk.