Jami Dulaney interviews Matt Fitzgerald

[Skip]

For you endurance athletes, I found the following interview enlightening:
http://jaimeladulaneymd.podbean.com/
It is called Episode 18, dated Feb. 11, 2015

Matt Fitzgerald advocate the so called 80/20 rule for endurance training where 80% of training is done in the low intensity range and 20% of training is done in the high intensity range. This rule was devised by studying how elite endurance athletes train. Matt tells us that most recreational endurance athletes do not train enough at the low intensities.

Jami Dulaney has a bunch of other great podcasts on the referenced site.

[vgpedlr]

I'd never seen this podcast before. Thanks for the heads up. I like Matt Fitgerlad and have read several of his books and heard him speak at my triathlon club. I have 80/20, but haven't read it yet.

[Spiral]

I listened to the podcast and now I am interested in reading the 80/20 book.

I guess my question to Matt Fitzgerald would have been, had I been the interviewer, "How about a 100/0 plan where 100 percent of the training is relatively easy? If aerobic development is so important and marathons are 99 percent aerobic, why bother with speed work or tempo runs? Have their been any studies comparing 80/20 to 90/10 or 100/0 ?

[Skip]

Have their been any studies comparing 80/20 to 90/10 or 100/0 ?

Most of the people (recreational athletes) train in the a zone that is to much high intensity vs low intensity, like 60/40. The studies that he sites shows that the optimal training improvments happen when these athletes slow down and train 80/20. For someone who is training 100/0, they are not doing enough speed work to optimize their performance and improvement over time (while it is still a very healthy way to train).

For me, it is boring training 100/0 and I look forward to pushing it 20% of the time. I have found it a much more challenging and effective way to improve my endurance and confidence.

But I guess is depends on the distances you are going. If you are running ultra distances, it probably isn't that useful.

[Spiral]

Have their been any studies comparing 80/20 to 90/10 or 100/0 ?

Most of the people (recreational athletes) train in the a zone that is to much high intensity vs low intensity, like 60/40. The studies that he sites shows that the optimal training improvments happen when these athletes slow down and train 80/20. For someone who is training 100/0, they are not doing enough speed work to optimize their performance and improvement over time (while it is still a very healthy way to train).

For me, it is boring training 100/0 and I look forward to pushing it 20% of the time. I have found it a much more challenging and effective way to improve my endurance and confidence.

But I guess is depends on the distances you are going. If you are running ultra distances, it probably isn't that useful.

I have heard that Dr. Phil Maffetone believes that doing 100 percent of your training in an "easy" zone (at a heart rate equivalent to 180 minus age or thereabouts) is the most effective way to train. But Maffetone does believe that speedwork has its place when an athlete hits a plateau.

So, it would be interesting to know where this 80 / 20 ratio came from. Could a 90 / 10 ratio be more effective?

[Skip]

In his book, Matt Fitzgerald credits the 80/20 rule to a number of studies and researchers. The main researcher is Stephen Seiler.

You might want to go to amazon and read the free "look inside" portion of the book and read the" Introduction" section:

http://www.amazon.com/80-20-Running-Str ... 20+running

[vgpedlr]

About halfway through the book and liking it a lot. Much, but not all, of the research I've seen, but Fitzgerald puts it all together well. The stuff I' haven't seen is really interesting, like polarized training versus "moderate intensity." I haven't gotten to the practical suggestions yet.

[vgpedlr]

Finished the book. I like it. The differences between 80/20 and polarized training was interesting. Unfortunately on my Kindle, the charts related to the training programs were very hard to read, and I couldn't flip back to the workout menu to see the progressions. In any case, it won't change my training significantly as I feel the Maffetone Method works best for my needs. I will continue with that, building as big a base as I can before adding any intensity. Most likely I'll just let the intensity come to me because I train a lot and race exclusively off road. It's far more difficult to change up intensity when you can't control the trail, though with a HRM you can keep intensity low. I also might slightly adjust my heart rate zones and see if that makes any difference.

[Skip]

Finished the book. I like it. The differences between 80/20 and polarized training was interesting. Unfortunately on my Kindle, the charts related to the training programs were very hard to read, and I couldn't flip back to the workout menu to see the progressions. In any case, it won't change my training significantly as I feel the Maffetone Method works best for my needs. I will continue with that, building as big a base as I can before adding any intensity. Most likely I'll just let the intensity come to me because I train a lot and race exclusively off road. It's far more difficult to change up intensity when you can't control the trail, though with a HRM you can keep intensity low. I also might slightly adjust my heart rate zones and see if that makes any difference.

I think that by adding some intensity, that will help to build a bigger base and more speed. Agree?

[vgpedlr]

I think that by adding some intensity, that will help to build a bigger base and more speed. Agree?

No.

I define base fitness as Maffetone does, which is low intensity. Adding intensity builds a different kind of fitness. It is valuable, but I think less important than true low end aerobic power. My take from the book is that nearly everybody goes too hard, too often. By clearly defining low intensity, and wearing a heart rate monitor to stay honest, one can reap the benefits. I focus on the 80%, not the 20%.

[Skip]

I think that by adding some intensity, that will help to build a bigger base and more speed. Agree?

No.

I define base fitness as Maffetone does, which is low intensity. Adding intensity builds a different kind of fitness. It is valuable, but I think less important than true low end aerobic power. My take from the book is that nearly everybody goes too hard, too often. By clearly defining low intensity, and wearing a heart rate monitor to stay honest, one can reap the benefits. I focus on the 80%, not the 20%.

Suppose you have just finished or about to finish (perhaps in cool down mode) your Maffetone workout and are about to end for the day. But now, instead of stopping, you add a high intensity burst at the end. This can only add to the benefits of the workout, unless you push yourself so hard that you get inured. Agree?

[Spiral]

I think that by adding some intensity, that will help to build a bigger base and more speed. Agree?

No.

I define base fitness as Maffetone does, which is low intensity. Adding intensity builds a different kind of fitness. It is valuable, but I think less important than true low end aerobic power. My take from the book is that nearly everybody goes too hard, too often. By clearly defining low intensity, and wearing a heart rate monitor to stay honest, one can reap the benefits. I focus on the 80%, not the 20%.

Suppose you have just finished or about to finish (perhaps in cool down mode) your Maffetone workout and are about to end for the day. But now, instead of stopping, you add a high intensity burst at the end. This can only add to the benefits of the workout, unless you push yourself so hard that you get inured. Agree?

I am not sure if I agree or not. Here is something written by Greg McMillan, a well known running coach and host of the McMillan running calculator.

Arthur Lydiard learned this more than 50 years ago. Too much speed work in your base phase will interrupt your fitness development. Olympic bronze medalist Lorraine Moller, whose training was Lydiard-based, says that in the era of New Zealand track domination, "Going to the track to do speed work during the base phase was considered the height of folly and something only the ignorant would do."

Endurance training (all training at an easy effort, below your lactate threshold) causes two important adaptations within the muscle cells. First, you grow more and larger mitochondria, often called the "powerhouses" of your cells because they provide essential energy for distance running. This increase allows you to run faster and is a primary reason why new runners find their pace gets quicker over the first two to six months of training. This aerobic (with oxygen) energy system has no detrimental side.

Within the mitochondria are key enzymes that help liberate energy from our fuel stores. Endurance training produces more of these aerobic enzymes, the second key adaptation that occurs during base or conditioning training.

In preaching against speed work during endurance training, Lydiard was fond of saying, "Don't pull down the pH in your base phase." Peter Snell, exercise physiologist and Lydiard's most famous runner, explains that the enzymes within the mitochondria operate at an optimal acidity (or pH) level. High-intensity exercise, however, causes significant and repeated high levels of lactic acid (and thus decreased pH) in the muscle cell. Given too much intensity, the environment within the cell becomes overly acidic and the enzymes can become damaged. Snell says that the increased acidity is also harmful to the membranes of the mitochondria, and it takes additional recovery time to allow the membranes to heal.

Interesting, huh? Wonder if it's true.

[Skip]

I would agree that "to much" speed work in your base phase will interrupt your fitness development. The question is how much is to much? And might a small amount of speed work be beneficial?

[Spiral]

I would agree that "to much" speed work in your base phase will interrupt your fitness development. The question is how much is to much? And might a small amount of speed work be beneficial?

A few months ago, I read "The Hansons Half-Marathon Method." The advanced training plan calls for either speed work or a strength workout once per week and one tempo run once per week. The rest of the runs are at an aerobic pace, not real fast but not super slow either.

I tried it and got burned out with the speed work in about 4 weeks. I like running easy much better. But I imagine the high intensity workouts to help if they are done in the proper amounts and frequency and at the right pace, perhaps VO max.

[vgpedlr]

Suppose you have just finished or about to finish (perhaps in cool down mode) your Maffetone workout and are about to end for the day. But now, instead of stopping, you add a high intensity burst at the end. This can only add to the benefits of the workout, unless you push yourself so hard that you get inured. Agree?

If the fast finish happens before the cool down, then that would be like a progression run, which is a good workout. But a solid cool down is super important for recovery in my opinion.

I agree with Lydiard that base training should not incorporate intensity. I am experimenting with strength training, with good results. Going forward I will incorporate intensity by loosening up the discipline and letting the trails dictate the pace.

How much is too much?

It depends on the athlete. We're all different. I know that intensity burns me out very quickly, so I was relieved to discover Maffetone.