Shownotes

Jack’s update

01:01 -

• I mentioned in our previous podcast that I was planning some aerodynamic testing, and I recently completed that work at the Portuguese National Velodrome with AeroEdge.
• We ran a series of controlled tests that included wheels, tri-suits, calf guards, and positional adjustments. One of the most significant findings came from moving my extensions as far forward as the regulations allow.
• Under the current rule, the front of the time-trial bars cannot extend beyond the front wheel, and I still had roughly four centimetres of available space. 
• By pushing the position to that limit, I appear to have achieved a saving in the range of ten to fifteen watts at race pace. I do not yet have the fully analysed dataset, but the preliminary numbers indicate a meaningful improvement.
• I also tested calf guards. I personally dislike them—they are uncomfortable, inconvenient, and aesthetically unappealing—but the results were clear. At least for the models I tested and normally use, they were significantly faster.
• CdA values cannot be compared between different athletes or different testing environments. They are only meaningful within the context of one athlete’s own controlled conditions.
• With that in mind, during this session, my CdA decreased from approximately 0.215 to around 0.20. The exact figure is difficult to pinpoint because I used different wheels for the baseline run compared to my race wheels, which introduces a small penalty and complicates a direct comparison. Still, the improvement is substantial.
• Based on the preliminary data—and pending Bernardo’s full analysis—it represents roughly a 0.015 reduction in CdA, potentially more.

Running during the base period

08:20 -

• I apply some of the same principles to run training that I use for swimming and cycling, but the fundamental difference is the significantly higher injury risk.
• Because of that, I need to be much more conservative when progressing volume and load, particularly during special blocks or phases of increased training stress.
• For me—both personally and in how I coach—the absolute priority in run training is staying injury-free. 
• I am comfortable increasing overall training volume quite quickly at this time of year, but almost all of that additional load comes from the bike and the swim.
• The run volume does increase, but it does so very slowly. As a general rule of thumb, I avoid increasing an athlete’s run duration by more than five minutes per run per week.
• For very experienced athletes who have a history of tolerating higher volumes—for example, those accustomed to running five hours per week—I may allow an increase of up to ten minutes per run. 
• Even then, that only applies if I am confident they are not prone to injury. In most cases, five minutes per run per week is the safer and more appropriate guideline.
• This conservative approach also applies to intensity. It is not only a matter of what types of intensity we include and how much of it we prescribe in a given session, but also how quickly we progress those elements. Being careful with the rate of progression is essential.
• At this time of year, I like to incorporate a substantial amount of running on rolling or even hilly terrain.
• This helps develop strength and may also improve running economy, which becomes an increasingly important performance factor after an athlete has spent several years in the sport and other physiological adaptations become harder to achieve. 
• I also regularly include hill sprints and strides to address neuromuscular qualities in a way that parallels some of the strength and speed elements we include in swim and bike training.
• The long run deserves particular attention. Even though I progress it very gradually, I aim to establish a consistent long-term goal during the base phase, provided the athlete is not preparing specifically for Ironman racing. Ironman athletes still complete a long run, but it is not the central focus and does not need to be excessively long.
• For athletes targeting Olympic-distance or half-distance events, I find that once we have built up to it safely during the base period, the long run becomes a valuable component at this time of year.
• Interestingly, once race season approaches, the overall training volume decreases, and the long run typically becomes shorter.

Long run for Ironman athletes

12:39 -

• If we are in January or February and the athlete is preparing for a race in June or July, I do not consider it necessary—or even particularly valuable—for an Ironman athlete to be doing long runs of one hour and forty-five minutes or two hours at that stage.
• I am entirely comfortable with a ninety-minute long run during that part of the season. In contrast, with Olympic-distance athletes, I may extend the long run to an hour and forty-five minutes, or even as long as two hours, during January and February.
• As we move toward the specific preparation period, the Ironman athlete’s long run will increase stepwise. For example, once we reach late March and begin approaching the more specialised block, that ninety-minute run would gradually extend toward two hours so that we are already there by the time specific preparation officially begins.
• You raised a valid question about whether it might be beneficial to build more long-run conditioning earlier in the year, thereby improving the athlete’s resilience for the more demanding Ironman-specific work ahead.
• That argument certainly has merit, and with some athletes—particularly those who are very robust and handle high running loads exceptionally well—I would consider exactly that approach.
• However, many Ironman athletes tend to fall on the “diesel engine” end of the spectrum in terms of their speed-duration and power-duration profile. With them, I want to take advantage of the winter period to improve threshold and, if possible, even VO₂max.
• If I push the long run too far during this period, I risk compromising the quality and effectiveness of those higher-intensity sessions. Once we enter the Ironman-specific training phase, it becomes difficult to meaningfully improve threshold or VO₂max because the primary emphasis shifts toward durability and the ability to handle large training volumes.
• So the issue is primarily one of prioritisation. We cannot improve everything simultaneously, and for Ironman athletes, I prefer to target key physiological qualities in winter without burdening them with excessively long runs that may detract from that work.
• For 70.3 and Olympic-distance athletes, the situation is different. Threshold development remains an important part of the race-specific phase later in the season, so a more traditional approach—building a longer long run during the base period to support the higher-intensity work that follows—makes sense for them.
• You also made a good point about the nature of triathlon running. Even at the 70.3 or Olympic distance, the run has a significant strength component.
• While threshold work remains necessary, especially heading into those races, it is not quite the same as preparing for an open 10K or half marathon. Because of that, including “quality” sessions during the base phase is appropriate, but allowing the long run to grow too large during this period risks diminishing the athlete’s ability to absorb and execute those quality sessions effectively.

Low intensity session

20:05 -

• For pure runners, training is primarily about managing mechanical load, and the total volume is relatively low, so fatigue management is less of a limiting factor.
• For triathletes, however, fatigue management and overall energy availability become central considerations. That is the main reason triathletes often end up running significantly slower than pure runners.
• For runners, it makes sense to run slightly faster in what we might call the upper end of Zone 2 rather than the lower end of Zone 1. You may gain a couple of percentage points in terms of training effect.
• But if you are a triathlete, that marginal gain is not worth the additional fatigue it creates. Running too fast in those supposedly easy sessions simply means you will not be fresh enough to complete your higher-intensity work properly. It ultimately comes down to managing fatigue and managing the athlete’s energy budget.
• In practice, I often prescribe easy running using an RPE range, especially during the base phase. For most athletes, that ends up being an RPE of three to four, which corresponds to high Zone 1 or low Zone 2.
• On certain days, I specify that the run must be genuinely easy, and in those cases, the target becomes an RPE of two to three.
• There are specific runs during this part of the year where I focus more deliberately on accumulating time in Zone 2. In those sessions, the target might be RPE four to five, with heart rate around seventy-five to eighty per cent of maximum.
• I might include a session like that once per week, depending on the athlete. I tend to use it particularly with athletes who are very fit but more constrained by available training time than by their ability to tolerate training load.
• In those cases, adding slightly faster aerobic running can be useful. For most athletes, though, I prefer to leave much of the easy running to self-selected pacing within the prescribed RPE range, and it usually ends up being predominantly Zone 1.
• I find myself aligned with your point about elite runners as well. Even in their base phase, they tend to spend the majority of their easy running in Zone 1 or low Zone 2.
• The upper-Zone-2 work tends to appear later in the build phase, when they are making the final adjustments ahead of competition.

Intensity blocks

24:25 -

• This type of training takes more consideration, but over the years, I have become less worried about it. I trust my athletes to regulate themselves, and I have seen good results from including VO₂max training in the run.
• The usual caveat applies: if an athlete is injury-prone, this approach must be taken with extreme caution. But if the athlete is robust, VO₂max work can provide a substantial benefit.
• I find this especially true for amateur triathletes. The closer an athlete is to their full potential, the smaller the gains they can expect from VO₂max training, because they are already operating near their physiological ceiling. 
• I still manage the overall load carefully. A typical structure might include two hard swim sessions, two hard bike sessions, and only one hard run session in a given week. In some cases, that hard run may even be spaced across ten to twelve days rather than weekly.
• There are also ways to reduce injury risk. Instead of doing high-intensity sessions on the track or a flat road, I often prescribe them as hill repetitions.
• Depending on biomechanics and injury history, uphill running can significantly reduce impact loading on the knees, calves, Achilles, and shins. It still places stress on the hamstrings, especially if they are weak, but overall, it can be a safer option.
• I also make use of the treadmill. It is not inherently safer from a biomechanical standpoint, but I find that athletes are more likely to stop immediately if they feel something wrong.
• On a track, they may be reluctant to stop after committing the time and effort to travel there. On a treadmill—in a gym or at home—it is easier to step off as soon as a niggle appears.
• Many athletes can benefit from VO₂max running sessions. One example I frequently use is 800-meter repetitions. I might start with a one-to-one work-to-rest ratio and gradually progress toward a two-to-one ratio as the athlete adapts. The session is simple: five, six, seven, or eight times 800 meters, depending on the athlete’s speed, targeting roughly fifteen to twenty minutes of total work. Only athletes at a high level can extend that total workload beyond twenty minutes.
• It is easy to overdo intensity in VO₂max work, especially in running, where some athletes interpret “VO₂max” to mean “run as fast as possible.” That is not the best way to execute the session.
• I also like to include shorter-interval formats, such as fartlek-style work or variations like the 40-20 structure. These can be easier to execute psychologically and physically, and in some cases, they may even provide a better training stimulus.
• I often alternate between short-interval VO₂max sessions and longer-interval ones. In cycling, for example, a VO₂max block might include a session of 30-15s and another session of four- or five-minute intervals in the same week.
• The idea is not to put all your eggs in one basket; some athletes respond better to short reps, others to long reps, and alternating both can be useful. I apply a similar philosophy in running.
• Pacing is critical. These sessions may look manageable on paper, but if you start too hard, they become unsustainable. Using recent race data—for example, 5K pace—is a reliable benchmark for most VO₂max intervals.
• There is rarely a need to run faster than that, except in the very short repetitions. Athletes often push too hard because they feel VO₂max sessions should be maximal, but that is not the goal. Executing them with disciplined, progressive pacing almost always leads to better outcomes.

Threshold sessions

31:23 -

• When it comes to threshold training during the base phase, the classic structure involves repetitions between one and two kilometres, sometimes slightly longer, depending on the athlete. The goal is generally to accumulate somewhere between six and fifteen kilometres of work at threshold intensity.
• Examples of this include sessions such as four times two kilometres, six times one kilometre, or three times two kilometres. I also like using shorter threshold intervals—between four hundred and eight hundred meters—while keeping the recoveries relatively short.
• The purpose is to prevent the heart rate from dropping too much, ensuring we maintain continuous work near threshold.
• If an athlete needs excessively long recoveries—something resembling a two-to-one rest ratio—it is usually a sign that the session is being executed too hard, especially in the base phase.
• Even with one-kilometre repetitions, I prefer recoveries of around one minute to seventy-five seconds. The goal is to maximise the total duration at threshold, not to see how fast the first few repetitions can be before fading. If the athlete fades significantly, the session drifts toward VO₂max intensity without truly achieving the intended stimulus.
• I have incorporated uphill threshold sessions in recent years, particularly in a triathlon context. The main limitation is that threshold hill sessions work best on a treadmill, simply because outdoor terrain often creates logistical issues with recovery time.
• Unless you live in the mountains, it becomes difficult to descend quickly enough between repetitions. If you do have long outdoor climbs, the sessions can be great, but you will likely need someone to pick you up at the top, or you will end up with a long run back down at the end.
• The structure is similar to what you described, but based on time rather than distance. Typical sessions might include intervals of four to eight minutes at threshold effort with work-to-rest ratios of three-to-one or four-to-one. It is a more advanced type of session, and while I would still prioritise flat threshold running for most athletes, hill-based threshold work has clear benefits.
• It develops the strength component that is important for triathlon running while also reducing impact forces. 
• Another advantage is psychological. Because the pace varies naturally with gradient, athletes are less likely to chase splits or overpace the early repetitions. Instead, they can focus on heart rate, RPE, or a combination of both, making it easier to execute the session correctly.
• A pattern I sometimes use is two flat threshold sessions followed by one threshold hill session, and many athletes respond well to that, although not everyone does.

Terrain types

37:03 -

• For aerobic Zone 1 to 2 running, I always encourage athletes to vary the terrain and surface as much as they can. Doing so improves proprioception and strengthens the smaller stabilising muscles of the foot and ankle.
• Even slight variations in how the foot lands with each stride can help develop those structures, which in turn reduces injury risk. Of course, if an athlete is returning from an injury and is prone to rolling their ankle or suffering sprains, then they need to exercise more caution.
• The common argument is that varied surfaces reduce injury risk, and while that may be true, the research is mixed. That said, not everything needs to be backed by research to be valid.
• For me, the stronger argument is that it simply creates a more well-rounded athlete. There are also mental benefits. On softer or more varied surfaces, athletes feel less pressure to hit exact paces. They’re less likely to chase splits the way they might on a perfectly flat road.
• I like the treadmill, but I’ve seen issues arise when athletes use it exclusively. Some have transitioned from months of treadmill-only running to outdoor runs and ended up so beat up afterwards that they couldn’t train properly for two weeks. You do need to build resilience to the pounding of paved surfaces if you plan to race on them.
• On the other hand, only running on soft surfaces wouldn’t prepare you well either. You need some exposure to harder surfaces to develop the durability required for racing.
• When climates force you indoors for long stretches, you can still build excellent fitness on the treadmill, just as you can on the indoor bike trainer.
• But as soon as conditions improve, you should transition back to outdoor running, at least partially, to develop the broader qualities required for racing.
• There are also simple practical benefits. During harder sessions, athletes tend to fuel better on the treadmill because everything they need is right there.
• When you're on the road, most athletes don’t bring enough hydration or carbohydrates, especially for longer threshold sessions. On the treadmill, nutrition and hydration are within arm’s reach, so athletes execute these sessions more effectively.

Brick runs

43:50 -

• Regarding brick runs in the base phase, I only include them when they make practical sense from a logistical standpoint—essentially, when running immediately after the bike allows the athlete to fit in an additional short run that they might not otherwise complete.
• The purpose at this time of year is not to practise running off the bike; it is simply a convenient way to add frequency.
• When it comes to the order and timing of sessions around swim and bike training, my priority in the base phase is always the athlete’s limiter. If the run is the weakness, I try to schedule key run sessions when I am freshest. If the bike is the limiter, I apply the same logic there.
• Of course, logistical constraints often dictate scheduling, particularly with swims, which tend to be fixed in most athletes’ routines. If I have a mandatory swim session at a certain time, then the bike or run simply goes where it fits.
• But if I do have the flexibility, I always try to place the harder run sessions earlier in the day when fatigue is lowest.
• I agree with that approach. For more advanced runners, I am a strong advocate of the double-threshold bike-run day, where I complete a bike threshold session in the morning and a run threshold session later in the day.
• Since triathlon running has such a strong strength component, getting used to running with some fatigue in the legs is valuable. It provides an early introduction to the sensations that will come later from true brick sessions in the competition phase. A bit of accumulated fatigue is not a problem for threshold running, and often it is beneficial.
• Where I am more cautious is with VO₂max work or neuromuscular sessions. For those types of training, I want to be completely fresh.
• The quality of execution matters too much to compromise with pre-fatigue, and I feel strongly that those sessions should not be performed on tired legs.
• As for the swim, I do not believe it has a major impact on how well I can execute a run session later in the day. The exception would be a very intense master's swim squad workout, the type that includes hard anaerobic efforts I would not prescribe myself. In those rare cases, a demanding swim could affect a subsequent run, but it is uncommon.
• I also agree with the value of the double-threshold bike-run day. It is definitely a more advanced strategy, but when used with the right athletes and at the right time of year, it can be extremely effective.

Plyometrics

47:59 -

• To be honest, I am not very good at prescribing drills within the run itself. I tend to get a bit lazy with that aspect. I do include plyometrics, but usually as part of the gym work my athletes do rather than as a dynamic component of the run session.
• So it sits slightly outside the run structure, but it is still incorporated. When it comes to drills, however, I often end up not prescribing them consistently. 
• In my case, I see the base phase as a great opportunity to reset for the year. I make sure athletes have a solid drill routine that they can perform confidently, and I sometimes ask them to send me footage so we can ensure the execution is correct and the cues are applied properly.
• At this stage, the drills can already have a small direct impact on performance through improvements in economy and neuromuscular control, but what I value most is that they equip the athlete with reliable tools to use later.
• These drills become something they can draw upon to prime themselves for harder run sessions as they progress deeper into the training block, into the winter, and eventually toward the summer race season.
• Running, of course, is not like swimming. Swimming is such an alien movement pattern to humans that everything needs to be intentional and highly structured.
• With running, we are—at least metaphorically—born to run. Efficiency and economy develop naturally with consistent running. Still, I think drills can provide helpful cues that encourage better mechanics and potentially accelerate that natural development.
• They also help athletes finish their warm-up in a more prepared state so they can execute the main run session more effectively.
• When I look at the best runners in the world, they almost all include drills consistently. More often than not, they are doing these things for a reason: they work.
• The closest I get to that within my own programming is through strides and hill sprints, which I prescribe weekly and often multiple times per week.
• Alongside those, I provide a short list of technical cues for the athlete to focus on. It is not the same as breaking the movement down into drills, but it encourages focused, technically aware running. That is the closest approach I consistently use.

Surprise topic: adapting training to the conditions

51:25 -

• I know I often use the treadmill as a solution, but if an athlete has a track session scheduled and the conditions are extremely windy—and they do not have access to a treadmill—then they have no choice but to run on the track.
• In that situation, half of the lap might be into a headwind and the other half with a tailwind. The question then becomes whether to chase the prescribed pace or accept some fluctuation in intensity.
• In the base phase, when the main objective is to improve physiology, I focus on achieving the intended physiological stimulus rather than the pace itself.
• If the purpose of the session is a steady-state threshold effort, then I need to adjust my pacing accordingly. I cannot rely on target numbers derived from still conditions when running into a strong headwind.
• This is where RPE becomes the most important tool. Heart rate remains useful as a ceiling—especially avoiding going above threshold heart rate—but in very windy or cold conditions, heart rate may not respond in the usual way.
• I would not force my heart rate upwards if it naturally sits lower, but the RPE feels like threshold. The key is to match the intended effort, not the pace.
• This is easier said than executed. The best athletes tend to handle this well—they know when effort matters more than pace and when pace becomes more important closer to racing.
• But in November, December, January, and February, when the racing season is still months away, I do not believe it makes sense to force pace artificially in bad conditions.
• I completely agree with that approach. Running a threshold session on a track in heavy wind is extremely challenging. One additional piece of advice I always give athletes is to know their 200-meter splits.
• Many athletes show up to the track with a target pace in mind and rely on their watch, but GPS is often inaccurate on the track. I prefer to know exactly what my lap splits should be. 
• If I’m running 3:20 per kilometre, that’s 80 seconds per lap, which means 40 seconds at 200 meters. With a tailwind, I might be slightly faster; into a headwind, two or three seconds slower.
• Those small deviations will add up across the 400-meter lap, but at least I can monitor and control them. And of course, the simplest solution is to find a treadmill if possible.
• That is usually what I would choose myself. I also use 200-meter checkpoints in wind, for exactly the same reasons. There is also a great calculator on John Davies’ “Running Writings” website that estimates wind adjustment based on wind speed and running velocity.
• He has even talked about creating a track-specific wind-adjustment calculator in the future. Different tracks behave differently, so it may be difficult, but his existing tool already provides a useful reference point.
• By entering the day’s wind speed and your intended running pace, you can see the equivalent pace you would be running in still conditions. 
• This helps quantify how much harder you would be working if you tried to hold your normal pace in strong wind, and it provides a benchmark for adjusting effort appropriately.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• Jack's coaching profile and Instagram
• Triathlon Base Training Series 1 – How to train smarter in winter to race faster in summer
• Triathlon Base Training Series 2 – Swimming
• Triathlon Base Training Series 3 – Cycling
• Running Writings Wind Adjusted calculator