A Higher Intensity Approach - Testimonial

Several days ago I received an email from a fellow triathlete friend of mine. He is an excellent athlete. A very experienced runner going back to his college days and now an excellent triathlete. It has been fun to watch his progression in the sport.He went through a recent training cycle where he was looking to PR his 5K time. Here are some of his paraphrased quotes from the email:

• Things got much better when I stopped focusing on hitting certain paces, and relied on perceived exertion.
• Ran generally every 3 days, occasional every 2 when feeling good.
• Weekly mileage averaged 13.3, max was 20.
• Mixed biking and swimming between run workouts as active recovery and additional workout stimulation.
• Running breakdown by time: 12% at VO2max, 11% at threshold, 27% at endurance, balance was WU, CD, & recovery.
• Hips, knees, and shins are as pain free as anytime within the past 2 years.
• 40 second improvement in 5k from 2 races 8 weeks apart!!!!

40 seconds to this athlete is significant. I don't know the exact times, but my guess is he was already a consistent sub 20, and maybe a sub 19 5K guy. So to take 40 seconds off is an eternity of time! He went on to make this additional comment:

• My guess is there would be several more weeks of big gains to be had before a plateau, however, it is now off-season.

The athlete was correct with this comment. A well structured higher intensity approach lasts for around 8 weeks. Then from 8 weeks to around 11 weeks you will reach a physiological peak and need to race. At 12 to 16 weeks fitness will decline. After that - forget about it, it is definitely time to recover.

The Case for a Higher Intensity Approach - Reason 5

The next reason for considering a higher intensity approach to your multisport training is the findings of many clinical studies on this topic.

Londeree found through his 1997 cycling and running based study that if you have a VO2 max greater than a modest 60, endurance performance will not improve without the presence of higher intensity training.

In another recent study published in the November 2009 Journal of Applied Physiology (trust me, I really do have a life) exercise scientist Jens Bangsbo at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark asked competitive distance runners to reduce their mileage by 25 percent, and to run 8 to 12 30-second sprints 2-3 times a week, with some additional 0.6-0.8 mile sprints 1 or 2 times per week, for 6 to 9 weeks. The control group of runners continued their regular training program, and showed no improvement. The sprint group improved both their 3K (1.8 mile) and 10K (6 mile) race times by more than three percent (more than a minute in the 10-K race). Half of them ran their best times ever, even though many had been racing for more than five years.

These studies go on and on. You can look at Dempsey in 1986, Rodas in 2000, Barnett in 2004, Laursen in 2002, Hawley in 1997, Brooks and Mercier in 1994, Burgomaster in 2005, and on an on. But I think you get the idea.

Race Results

Congratulations to two PM athletes who had very successful races over the weekend. Barb Patrick completed the Jingle Bell 5K held at Zona Rosa. This was her first 5K ever! She got fourth in her age group and I think surprised herself a little bit :). She did a nice job progressing her pace through the 5K which was the emphasis going into the race. Nice job Barb!

Brent Peterson completed the Gobbler Grin half marathon. Brent set a personal best and had a per mile pace that was 12 seconds faster than his goal pace. Nice job Brent!

Congrats to both of you!

Comparing Race Results

If you are reading this blog, you have at one time or another completed a race, and then made comparisons of your performance to other races, or of the same race the previous year.

In the sport of triathlon, this can be tricky. We don't a perfect 25 or 50 meter pool or a circular track with an electronic scoreboard showing the wind direction and speed! We have such unbelievable differences from race coure to race course that drawing a 100% accurate comparison may not even be possible. Even comparing to the same race course the previous year can be extremely difficult. Lets look at everything that can be in place that would skew results from year to year and course to course.

The Swim

• Differences in water current
• Differences in water temperature
• Buoy placement (they can't be in the exact spot everytime)
• Size of your swim heat
• Water depth
• Water quality
• Water tye (Salt)
• Nature of the heat in front of you (more or less traffic in the water, more or less draft availabile)

The Bike

• WIND!!!! Oh how we love it
• Equipment changes
• Rain/Weather
• Body changes (strength, flexiblity) without compensation for bike fit
• Terrain (hilly, flat)

The Run

• Temperature
• Rain/Weather
• Terrain (hilly, flat)

All Three

• Changes in race strategy (going harder or easier in one discipline will effect the performance of the other two disciplines)

With all the different variables that are present, how can we then judge our fitness from event to event and year to year. Here are some recommendations:

• Make sure you are field testing frequently. Sure, this is not a race, but it is a way to judge fitness and know where you are at.
• Where did you place in the field relative to other events or the prior year? Again, this is not a perfect science but trends from race to race will start to show you where you are at.
• Intelligent comparisons to other races or the previous year. So, when you do make that comparison to another race or the previous year, take into account all of the variables listed above. Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Sometimes having another athlete or coach do this for you will yield a more objective analysis.
• The Power Meter. In cycling, power technology provides us the opportunity to get a more apples to apples comparison of our abilities from workout to workout and race to race. A power meter allows you to overcome some of the variables noted above and also improves the quality of field testing.

The Case for a Higher Intensity Approach - Reason #4

Reason # 4 for a higher intensity approach is quite simple. If structured properly, a lower volume higher intensity approach, can yield better results than a higher volume approach that is not structured properly.

Case in point:

I had an athlete this past season complete a 140.6 race. She finished 1st in her age group and 8th overall in the race. Her time put her right along side the Kona qualifiers in her age group, and she is a master’s athlete at age 47. During the specific preparation in her program, she never did a mid week bike ride longer than 90 minutes, and never did a run longer than 75. And when she did those workouts, there was structured intensity of some type built in. But that isn’t the only case study out there!!!!

The Case for a Higher Intensity Approach - Reason #3

The third reason to accept a higher intensity approach to your endurance training is the simple science behind endurance training.

One of two goals of endurance training is to increase the amount of oxygen an athlete can consume. Thus, we have to increase the number and the size of the mitochondria (powerhouse cells) in our muscles. This gives you the ability to produce more energy in an aerobic state simply because the increase in mitochondria allows the body to oxidize fat and carbohydrate more effectively.

So going back to the Dudley study in 1982, and then the additional gathering of steam in the mid 90s and forward with numerous studies, we have found that the effectiveness of short, higher intensity intervals, to have a stronger correlation to the mitochondrial increase than moderate intensity work for the same duration. And, in fact, after 60 to 75 minutes of work at any intensity, there is a real lack of ability to generate the mitochondrial stimulus we are looking for.

So, to summarize this reasoning, in 60 minutes of structured intervals you gain as much additional mitochondria as you will for a workout last longer than 75 minutes at a moderate to low intensity. Plus, you get the benefit now speed adaptation.

This being said, the other goal of endurance training is to create the nueromuscular attributes to go the distance. Thus, a marathon runner still has to put in multiple 20 mile runs. The iron distance triathlete still has to do 6-8 hour transition workouts. What we can avoid though is the 'medium' training I mentioned back in reason #2.

Hey Coach - What's Your Favorite Type of Athlete?

I was posed this question today by a triathlete. Do you like beginners? Elite's? Age groupers? Iron distance? Sprinters? Male? Female? Youth? Masters?

My response?

"I like an elite level of committment."