A little worried about the Volume Elephant
I do not mean this question in a critical way, I really am looking for reassurance at this point. I am getting ready for IM Canada at the end of August this year. I have done 4 ironman races before this (06, 07, and 2 in 08). I have always worked with the same coach before and this is my first year over here. I came over in the November OS, used the intermediate plan, then did 8 weeks of the Intermediate HIM plan to get ready for TTT in May. Had a PB race there. Awesome gains on the bike and my run and swim were just as good as before (which were already pretty good - the bike was my historic problem).
I am now looking forward in the Intermediate IM plan and see only 2 runs of 2.5 hours. I haven't run 2 hours in the IM training plan yet. With my old coach I would have been running 2 hours as my long run since April and would have started 2:15 to 2:30 runs by this week (for IM Canada). In the end, I would generally do 6 or 7 2.5 hour long runs (she often asked for 2:40, 2:45, or 3:00 runs but I never did them - I cut it at 2:30 - I did one 2:45 run once). I am feeling a little nervous about the low number of long (2:15-2:30) runs. Tell me I will be OK. Or tell me, if I can fit it in, to do some longer runs! FWIW, I run a 4:00 - 4:10 IM marathon.
Thanks all for your insight and advice.
---Ann.
Comments
Check out this article: http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/06/training/the-endangered-outdoor-ride_31264
You've made the right choice now trust the plan.
PS- With dozens of marathons (including a BQ) and one IM under my belt, I had my doubts/concerns too when I first joined EN. But I trusted the plan, and I had nearly a 2 hour PR at IMWI. Trust the plan, Follow the 4 Keys.
Also keep in mind that there are several 1:30, 1:45, 2:00+ runs. Those all add up also.
A 2 hr EN style runs are more work than a steady MP 3 hr run. Example of the 2 hr main set MS: 2 x 12' (3') @ z3/HMP, 30' @ z1/LRP, 20' @ z2/MP. The Z3 intervals upfront ensure tired legs for the rest of the run and create a high total stress on the system with less overall pounding that can drive injuries. You will be strong at IMCAN.
@Dewey, yes, basically. Excellent comments.
In the rest of the Ironman training world, volume is the primary measuring stick because frequency is very rarely discussed (it also becomes very fixed because there's only so many sessions you can fit into a training week...this is just common sense) and intensity is always the same: Z1-2. So PnI get similar questions like this all the time from people who buy our plans, immediately go to the back of the book, so to speak, and see rides of "only" 4-4.5hrs and runs of 2-2.25hrs. They're not looking at the intensity of those sessions, just the duration, and so are not getting the full story. My reply is always "go out and actually do an EN-flavor long ride and long run and tell me they aren't challenging enough." We offer a 30-day money back guarantee with our plans...and we don't process very many refunds at all
.
So, yes, the intent here is to shift the focus from volume to intensity so that you pack 6hrs (on the bike) or 3hrs (on the run) worth of Z1-2 training stress into a 4-4.5hr or 2hr session, saving you time. But, more importantly, by having you ride "only" 4hrs or run "only" 2hrs, we can insert a good bit of "make me faster" work into those session, so that the long bike and long run are then continuations of the get-faster interval work you do during the week in your other sessions.
Yesterday I rode 112 miles in 5:14, down the coast from my house to a town north of San Diego. While I did some informal 80-85% stuff, the majority of the ride was a 70-75%, more due to the nature of riding down the coast than by choice: traffic, lights, some admin stuff, etc. I think my final IF was ~.73 and a Pnorm of 216w, exactly what I did at IMCDA'08. While the ride was valuable in that I learned a good bit about my position on the bike, was reminded of some things that I've learned over the years from doing these rides (ie, relearned lessons about pacing, hydration, little aero tricks, etc), I am absolutely 100% certain that this ride did not make me faster. Why? Because over the last 10yrs I've done a gillion rides like this, and a gillion more much longer. From this experience I can say, as sure as the sky is blue, that these rides do not make you faster. They make you better at/set your comfort expectations for sitting on the bike for a long time....but they don't make you faster.
Similar on the run, but a little different. For the run, there is a huge opportunity cost of doing week after week after week of 2.5-3hr runs, especially if those runs are done on the weekend within 24hrs of a long bike. The cost is the lost/compromised opportunity to:
But I want to bring this discussion around full circle by telling you that pretty much none of this above matters
.
The IM run course is littered with the bodies of very, very fit people who've built their fitness through whatever means you want to discuss. LSD, Maffetone, ludicrous volume, friggin' Crossfit...whatever. A 140.6 mile race on the calendar has a way of making a guy/gal come to Jesus and get the work done, however you want to define work. But they fail, not because they don't have the fitness, but because they don't know how to race.
But the tri world doesn't force you to think about execution as a solution...the default setting is to think that training, lack of equipment, etc was the culprit... and so the cycle continues.
I will also go and absorb the Four Keys. I think my execution in my past 4 races has been OK - I had one stupid bike at LP in 2007 (and a 13 minute T2 to get the cramps out of my legs - but I managed to run the run after that). I have always run the run and finished without needing medical attention. But maybe that is too low a standard. Ha!
Again, thanks all.