Back to Base(ics)
Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 11:01PM A couple of days ago I came across a post on Mountain Athlete's website where a reader was asking Rob Shaul advice regarding training for endurance sports. Although Rob would never claim to be a true endurance athlete, he does dabble in longer efforts in the mountains and is surrounded by athletes he trains who are true competitive endurance types. More importantly, he's a coach with a voracious appetite for information regarding all things pertaining to sport performance. He and I've had numerous discussions over the past few years regarding my evolution as a born-again road cyclist and the training methodology I've pursued. Previous posts on this site document much of that journey if you're interested.
In any case, it was quite interesting to read Rob referencing some of my experiences on his way to answering the reader's question. I guess that's the fate of an internet pundit. I thought I'd take this opportunity to revisit the issue, adding some of this season's impressions thus far.
As Rob's reader brought up, there's a lot of disagreement in some of the hybrid training world (Crossfit, mainly), regarding the efficacy and necessity of long distance training. These naysayers' contention is that training slowly for long hours is not only an inefficient use of training time and energy but may actually be harmful to the athlete's health in the long run. Interesting. Let's break this down point by point.
First, can we actually perform adequately, or as Crossfit Endurance contends, perform better by doing shorter, harder workouts and forgoing long slow training altogether? Wouldn't that be nice? Think of all the time various endurance athletes would have on their hands training just 10 hours a week instead of 20 to 30. We could probably solve all the world's problems with that kind of idle time!
Suggesting in a blanket recommendation to train harder and shorter is a bit vague. What sports, exactly, are we talking about? If they're referring to 5-10 km runs and sprint distance triathlons then perhaps there's the possibility of doing well without the volume. Those events are under 2 hours. On the other hand, if they're suggesting that the average Tour de France road cyclist stop training 20-30 hours a week, I have to laugh. The talking heads at Crossfit Endurance suggest that their training methods will be the norm in 10 years. Really? I'm sorry but unless they live in some alternate universe, the evidence from decades of athletic research and training trial and error from thousands of coaches world-wide suggest otherwise. I'm not going to repeat the concepts again but you can refer to my previous post on the topic and get the gist here.
That's not to say you can't get fast doing short, intense intervals. Far from it. In fact, my regimen and that of every other skimo racer I know has a strong dose of these efforts in most in-season training weeks. But to suggest that most training should consist of these efforts is ludicrous. In cycling, this is known as the Master's Syndrome. Races in this category are traditionally short and can be fast. If you don't train the high end, success will be elusive. With most races ending in less than two hours, a big endurance base rarely comes into play. However, many coaches have discovered that this sort of heavy anaerobic training only gets you so far. We hit what Mark Twight calls the "anaerobic ceiling". Other coaches have found that season to season progression is minimal with this training practice. The athlete can get quite fit but fails to build on the previous season to ascend to the next level. Instead, he simply reaches the familiar level of fitness without exceeding it season after season. However, with limited time resources due to the usual adult time sucks, it's a viable and attractive option, although not without its short comings.
For an athlete who previously did only long slow riding or running, the interval prescription would, indeed, yield eye-opening increases in performance. Perhaps that's why this idea is popular. But for those of us who've always included high-intensity training interspersed with easier miles on other days, this is no revelation.
One of my concerns is what harm all the intensity can do to our energy systems. Many sport scientists believe that the mitochondria, our cellular power houses where everything important happens for energy production, are damaged in some way when too much high intensity training is undertaken. Many suggest it's the constant exposure to low pH (think lactic acid overload) as a possible mechanism for this injury. I also wonder what the consequences of such high catecholamine production is in the long run. This is the endocrine system's "fight or flight" mechanism. There has to be a burn-out price to pay at some point.
As you can tell, I'm a fan of more, easier miles with some sharp efforts placed intelligently in the program. Although I race as a master most of the time, I'm training for a 209 mile road race in September. In my mind, and in the minds of many great coaches, preparation for such an effort needs to involve significant volume. As I've acquired this volume this season, I've also raced in shorter events. Without fail, I was the dominant rider at the ends of races lasting 3 hours or more. In races of shorter duration most of the front runners were on equal footing but as the race wore on, many faded. There's simply no way to prepare for longer events without subjecting one's physiology to these demands during training. Not to beat a dead horse here but, as Twight says, "...you have to train long to go long."
So, lets talk about the injury issue. Even Rob Shaul, who's a believer in longer efforts, thinks that over-use issues and muscle imbalances will become an issue. In concept, I agree. However, over-training and over-use injuries are arrived at by a combination of insidious events over time. I truly believe that intensity is, once again, the variable that must be attended to here. Go too hard too long and you're asking for trouble. Keep the pace low and most athletes can go long without fear of injury. The definition of slow and easy is different from athlete to athlete. The proper level for each is often discovered through trial and error. Some athletes use heart rate as a measurable governor for these efforts and it may be a reasonable place to start. At the proper intensity, energy system adaptation can be achieved without detriment. My mantra has become, "go hard or go long but don't do both too often in the same workout." The hard and long effort should be reserved for competitive events.
The other type of injury these guys like to bat around involves the effects of oxidative stress on our health. Their contention is that the high amount of oxygen free radicals produced during long aerobic training will have far reaching health consequences down the road. They often refer to the appearance of legendary triathletes Mark Allen and Paula Newby Frasier as evidence of this effect. Now, I'll assume that these two long-time endurance animals look a bit weathered, although I haven't seen recent pictures. But why wouldn't they? They spent the bulk of their careers living in sunny climates training year around 20-30 hours a week. Now my emperic mind defaults to ultra violet radiation skin damage for the cause of this weathered look. But that's just me. The Crossfit Endurance folks like the more esoteric explanation. Anything is possible but this kind of claim backed up by some sort of observation concerning the cosmetic appearance of two athletes is ridiculous and cannot be claimed as proof of anything but bad skin!
So, as sexy as doing more with less training is, it looks and smells like Koolaid to me. I'm not drinking yet. When the proponents come up with some hard evidence that this idea actually works for athletes in events that are longer than a couple of hours, I might hold a glass in my hand and ponder a sip. When someone like Alberto Contador cuts his training volume drastically and still wins the Tour de France I'll grab a straw and slake my thirst! Until then, I'll see you on the road, 15-20 hours a week. - Brian
Reader Comments (4)
I'm married to a pundit! A pretty good one, too.
I like how Twight wrote that "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". I am by no means an expert, but I have ran a couple of 50 mile ultras and wouldn't even think of entering one if my training volume wasn't up to snuff. I read in MFT's article that Steve House had accumulated over 600 hours training volume before June 08 in preparation for Makalu. I just read on Crossfit Endurance's site that you can COMPETE at Ultra/Ironman distances on 6-8 hours a week. Bull$hit...
Yeah, MFT drank the Koolaid early for the rest of us and came out the other side wiser for the effort. TNSTAAFL is his seminal piece on the topic and one I reference in a previous post. It is my conversations with him that have inspired similar pieces here.
Hey Brian, I am the guy you are talking about that contacted Rob on mtnathlete. Thanks for talking more about this issue. I think a big problem for some of the people who are fans of the "Crossfit" method is that they don't see the full history of the athletes they are claiming that have had success. Many of the athletes who have had great successes with intensity work have likely been building up a sound aerobic base for years. I think that is key. I don't think that all elite endurance athletes are doing lots of volume cuz its "trendy".....it isn't a coincidence.