Endurance Lifestyle Design — Excerpt 5

Published on 27. Jan, 2010 by in Book, Lifestyle

Comments
Book_Cover_Final.jpg

In the fifth installment from my new book on Endurance Lifestyle Design, I break down the major differences between the New and Old school approaches to endurance training.

If you want to get these excerpts and my other regular posts via email just click here to sign up. You can also subscribe to the RSS Feed or follow me on Twitter for updates.

++++++++++++BEGIN EXCERPT+++++++++++++++

The basic concept of Endurance Lifestyle Design isn’t entirely new…but how we approach it today most certainly is. The intentional integration of sport and lifestyle represents a fundamental shift in both how we live but in also how the sports we play are perceived by the public at large. For a growing percentage of people, being an endurance athlete is now a badge of honor, not something to hide from the boss.

While this is a far cry from the days when endurance sports were male-dominated, relatively off-the-grid affairs, there are still a lot of psychological ties to the Old School.

  • Mistakenly assuming the monk-like training lifestyle/existence of Pro athletes to be a prerequisite of success.
  • The misconception that training with intensity means burning out and ultimately underachieving.
  • An archane annual planning process that forces unrealistic long-term planning.
  • Obsessive tracking of time & distance as critical training benchmarks.

Part of the resilience of the Old School model is due to the fact that our sport is full of legends who have lived that life. In a game of mega training hours and minimal science, of incredible efforts and rudimentary equipment, endurance sports success is more often than not about one thing…attrition. This survivalist scenario means that only those who survived those brutal hours of training were left standing — and leaving the rest of us with a very limited sample size from which to glean our training advice.

The 21st century life is chock full of multitasking, leveraging technology, managing quickly changing priorities and much more. On some level, the Old School endurance lifestyle is extremely alluring precisely because it requires complete attention and devotion. Avoiding the daily problems we face to achieve success in just one area of our lives isn’t a win at all. It’s a non-starter for the vast majority of us who love our families, jobs, and friends as much as — if not more than — our sport.

So what separates the New School (NS) of endurance athletes from their Old School (OS) counterparts? For many it’s an issue of principle, a way of life that came long before the passion for endurance sports took hold. But that doesn’t mean it’s too late for you. While this list is triathlon-specific, the qualities are not limited by sport.

There are plenty of similarities across the spectrum of endurance sports, see if you can find some that map to your personal experience.

OS: Volume of training is most important factor.
NS: Quality training trumps volume.

OS: Consistency defined by daily amounts of training done consecutively.
NS: Consistency defined by continually improving critical benchmarks, accomplished through hard sessions and adequate recovery.

OS: To be incredibly fit.
NS: To be fit for a purpose (what are you training for?), and to leverage that fitness to do cool stuff.

OS: Fill available time with multiple, often contradictory, training exercises (i.e. cross training).
NS: Do the work that needs to be done in each session, extra only if your schedule allows it (sport specificity). Extra time driven into other activities.

OS: It’s the Engine, not the Equipment.
NS: Equipment Matters.

OS: Subjective — Perceived Exertion, Stopwatch.
NS: Objective — Data (Power, Pace, Heart Rate, etc.)

OS: Your life is your training schedule, period.
NS: Training schedule built to fit your life.

OS: Coach / Expert Manages Your Plan
NS: You Manage Your Plan

OS: It’s the destination — Train for an entire year, or multiple years, focused on a single event or athletic goal.
NS: It’s the journey — Balance training and racing to make the process of getting fitter and better more fun.

++++++++++++ END EXCERPT ++++++++++++

Click here to read Part 6 in the weekly Endurance Lifestyle Book update series. Please post your comments below and thanks for your support!

  • Matt
    Thanks Patrick
  • Matt
    So when running, pace could not be used as an objective, because it too would be dependent on external variables such as terrain, wind, heat, etc.. A 8 minute mile at zero percent grade would be less work then an 8 minute mile at 4 percent grade. Thanks again
  • Yes but no. In your initial example you compared time and watts, which are definitely not the same. In between those two things lies speed (or pace). When running, since we don't have a means of measuring how "hard" your muscles are working, we can use pace as the next best thing. There is the concept of Normalized Graded Pace (NGP) where some really smart folks have worked to measure just how harder your 8:00/mi pace uphill is than your 8:00/mi pace downhill. It's not perfect, but again it's waaaaaay better than heart rate alone!
  • Matt
    Thanks again Patrick
  • @Matt, great question. While time is objective, it doesn't take into account how you got there faster unless you kept many other variables constant (gearing, course, conditions). By measuring power, we measure how much actual work your muscles are doing. You might ride a TT loop in 38 mins one day but 44 mins next week. You were slower in week two, but due to the headwinds, you pushed more watts and actually did more work.
  • Matt
    wouldn't a stop watch be as objective as power? Time is time, just like watts are watts. I would think HR would be subjective because it is so easily influenced by external stimuli.
    Thanks
blog comments powered by Disqus