Why did a trainer structure training like this?
- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A year or so ago a well known trainer offered to train me for mountain running and skimo and I went in for an assessment and a first month of workouts.
I did a max HR test with a result of 196.
From that test I was given these values:
AnT – 182
Work threshold – 180/185
Average HR for ascent – 175-180
Average HR on flats – 170-175
Slow HR – 165
I was then given the following workouts:
Mon: long run max 4, hr under Ascent HR — Tues: 1 Hr Slow HR on flats — Wed: light bodywork training for loosening up, if running no more than Slow HR 40 min — Thurs: hills 6x (3’30” Ascent HR 1’30” Slow HR) — Fri: 1h 10min Slow hr on flats, stretching — Sat: Rest — Sun: 1hr 15 min hills Slow HR
Mon: long run max 4 hr, run under Ascent HR, with 3×6′ Ascent HR uphill efforts with Slow HR in between — Tues: 1 Hr Slow HR on flats — Wed: light bodywork training for loosening up, if running no more than Slow HR 40 min — Thurs: hills 6x (4’30” Ascent HR 1’30” Slow HR) — Fri: 1h 10min Slow hr on flats, stretching — Sat: Rest — Sun: 1hr 15 min hills Slow HR with the last 5-6 min fast.
Mon: long run max 4 hr, run under Ascent HR, with 2×12′ Ascent HR uphill efforts (8 min at Ascent HR 4 min at work threshold HR) with Slow HR in between — Tues: 1 Hr Slow HR on flats — Wed: light bodywork training for loosening up, if running no more than Slow HR 40 min — Thurs: hills 2x 4x (1’30” Work Threshold HR 1′ Slow HR) — Fri: 1h 10min Slow hr on flats, stretching — Sat: Rest — Sun: 1hr 15 min hills Slow HR ending with 8 x (25″ hard 35″ slow)
Mon: long run max 4 hr, run under Ascent HR, with 3×8′ Work Threshold uphill efforts with Slow HR in between — Tues: 1 Hr Slow HR on flats — Wed: light bodywork training for loosening up, if running no more than Slow HR 40 min — Thurs: hills 2x 5x (1′ Work Threshold HR 1′ Slow HR) 4 min slow HR between sets — Fri: 1h 10min Slow hr on flats, stretching — Sat: Rest — Sun: test on known terrain for benchmarking.
After receiving the following workouts I was highly dubious and didn’t continue after the first month. They looked, to me, to be FAR above my work capacity and that I would over train myself in a week. My question is: what training theory is being employed here? What logic do you think was being applied when creating these workouts and these work rates?
@Ryan G Your question is kind of unanswerable, since none of the Evoke coaches wrote the above plan. It’s very hard for one coach to comment on the how and why of another coach’s plan, since they don’t know what the training philosophy behind it is. Dan John gets questions like these a lot on his podcast, usually about kettlebell programs like Pavel Tsatsouline’s ones, and it generally bugs the shit out of him because he’s not the author of those plans and therefore not best placed to advise on them.
If the trainer is well known, surely they have a website or some other material where they explain what their training philosophy is?
Unless you are young and have a high AeT, AnT of 182 seems high.
As for the plan, short intervals, long intervals, a long run and easy runs are standard components of an endurance training plan. Training is highly individual, a plan that works for one person might not work for someone else so it is hard to say if it is a good plan or not.
My guess is this well-known trainer or the people working for him botched the test or just made an error computing the thresholds.
Andrew – You make a good point, it’s not possible to know exactly why another coach does something unless they openly state it. I was curious if these thresholds and progressions resembled another “school” of training. I had checked their website and they do not indicate any training philosophies (Italians don’t embrace tech quite as much as others).
Alpine – The AnT of 182 seemed high to me as well, especially when the only data given was a max HR test. You’re also right, it resembles most endurance training plans; I thought it included more speed-work than I’m accustomed to seeing in plans but nothing crazy. Funnily enough, I had the given them the “expert halo” and hadn’t considered that it could have been a simple computation error when coming up with the thresholds. I think my biggest fear was the high intensity and minimal aerobic work leading to the 3 month peak with no further progression and no long-term adaptations made.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
