LISTEN TO THE EPISODE HERE:

Scientific Triathlon coaches Mikael Eriksson and Tobias Haumann answer listener questions.

In this episode you'll learn about:

Is there a "round number bias" in training prescription, and what are the potential drawbacks of that?
The cost-benefit ratio of high-intensity intervals - are they really worth it?
Maintaining or developing the capacity to suffer in races
A discussion on running power metrics and devices

Quick Navigation

In this episode you'll learn about:

Shownotes

Tobias' background

02:34 -

I’m based in Germany, in the south of Munich, near the Alps. I live here with my wonderful wife and our young daughter.
My background in triathlon spans several disciplines; I was initially a short-course triathlete, competing at a high level in the German Bundesliga. Later, I transitioned to long-distance racing, though I wouldn’t say I reached the same level of success in that format.
Coaching has been my focus for the past 15 years. Over this time, I’ve worked with a diverse range of athletes, including age groupers, professional triathletes, and para-athletes aiming for the Paralympics.
Most recently, I joined Scientific Triathlon as the first German coach.
Regarding my work with para-athletes, one of my athletes achieved a significant milestone by winning a bronze medal in the triathlon.

Training prescription methodologies

05:20 -

When structuring training sessions, I believe it is important to strike a balance between simplicity and complexity. Training shouldn’t be overly simplified, but it also shouldn’t be unnecessarily complicated.
This is why I favour using round numbers—they make the process more accessible for athletes. For instance, in swimming, there’s a longstanding tradition of using round numbers with the standard 60-second swim clock.
The increments are easy to track, even if, like me, you have a visual impairment.
The overall workload of a training session is more significant than the specific length of each interval. Whether the session is broken into intervals of four, five, or six minutes, the primary goal is the total accumulated workload.
Specificity can be introduced with longer intervals for certain training objectives, but for the most part, I’m not concerned with whether we achieve a 30-minute workload through three or five intervals. For athletes, round numbers make it easier to monitor their progress with tools like watches.
In terms of work-to-rest ratios, individualisation is crucial because recovery needs vary based on whether an athlete is more endurance or speed-focused.
While some rest intervals can indeed be adapted for better outcomes, a general framework exists for what constitutes appropriate rest periods.
For example, if a training block involves two-minute intervals, the rest period might be set at one-third to one-fourth of the work duration. Again, round numbers facilitate this by simplifying calculations, helping athletes maintain focus during training.
When prescribing workout intensities, I avoid setting overly specific targets. Using percentages of Functional Threshold Power (FTP) on a bike, such as aiming for between 217 and 238 watts, can be counterproductive.
I prefer to round off to more manageable numbers, like 230 to 240 watts, which reduces the cognitive load on athletes and allows them to focus on quality performance. The aim is to make the session less mentally taxing while still meeting the physiological requirements.
Furthermore, the body's response to training varies daily. Factors like sleep quality and nutrition can significantly impact an athlete’s performance. By providing broader ranges in training targets, we accommodate these daily fluctuations, allowing athletes to adjust according to how they feel.
If an athlete had a great night’s sleep, they might comfortably hit 98% of their FTP, but after a poor night, it might be more suitable to aim for 280 watts rather than pushing to 300. In both scenarios, the training effect remains effective relative to the body's current state.

Weekly prescription bias

13:50 -

The seven-day training cycle is often more of a necessity due to societal norms and the standard working schedule. For athletes who have regular jobs, it is practical to structure training around this weekly rhythm since it aligns with their work and lifestyle.
However, this structure can sometimes be limiting, particularly when we try to fit multiple high-intensity sessions, like long runs, threshold training, and VO2 max work, into such a short timeframe.
This approach may lead to an overly packed schedule that doesn't leave enough room for proper aerobic development.
For professional athletes whose job is sport, the seven-day cycle is not as crucial. These athletes can work with different cycles, such as three-day, four-day, or even extended multi-day cycles because their training is more flexible.
High-performance athletes often deal with unpredictable training effects and workloads, making shorter cycles beneficial for adjusting to their body's response. It allows for better management of the total workload, giving them the flexibility to recover or ramp up intensity as needed.
There is value in using intuitive training descriptions, where training is based on how the athlete feels rather than rigidly sticking to prescribed intensities or durations.
For example, allowing athletes to self-regulate rest intervals until they feel ready to continue, or stopping a workout when they feel like they have one or two repetitions left in the tank, can be effective.
This approach promotes autonomy and self-awareness, leading to better training execution. It acknowledges that an athlete's performance can vary daily and encourages them to listen to their bodies.
I particularly appreciate using intuitive approaches during rest intervals, especially when running.
Instead of specifying the exact duration of rest, I might describe it as an "endurance rest period," allowing the athlete to run at a pace that feels easy. This approach can reveal an athlete's aerobic fitness and help identify areas for improvement.
For instance, if an athlete can recover quickly and run comfortably at a relatively fast pace, it indicates strong aerobic development. Conversely, if they still need a slower pace to recover, it shows that more aerobic conditioning is required before peak competition form is achieved.

Benefits of anaerobic efforts

21:14 -

It's important to view anaerobic training with a nuanced understanding. Anaerobic training isn't a single approach; it encompasses different types, primarily lactic and lactic training.
Alactic training focuses on energy derived from phosphates, such as ATP and creatine phosphate, and is typical for activities like sprinting and strength training. On the other hand, lactic anaerobic training works within the anaerobic glycolysis process, where the body breaks down glucose to form lactic acid when oxygen levels are insufficient.
This often results in the familiar burning sensation in muscles. While oxygen is almost always involved, the dominant energy system varies depending on the intensity and type of exercise.
Both anaerobic systems have roles in training, depending on the desired development. Alactic efforts are beneficial for muscle coordination, technical skills, and raw speed, which are crucial for endurance athletes.
The importance of lactic anaerobic training is more event-specific; the longer the endurance event, such as a triathlon, the less significant the anaerobic system becomes for race success.
However, it's still valuable in an athlete's development, teaching the body to manage lactic acid and work efficiently under those conditions.
Incorporating VO2 max intervals, which are often considered anaerobic, can actually enhance the aerobic system, which is essential for success in endurance sports. This further illustrates how outdated terms like "anaerobic" and "aerobic" can be misleading.
These terms originated decades ago based on the scientific understanding at the time. Nowadays, we recognize that energy production isn't purely aerobic or anaerobic but involves a mix of oxidative, glycolytic, and phosphocreatine processes.
When planning training, I prefer to frame workouts in terms of race-specific efforts rather than relying on physiological jargon.
For instance, using pace descriptors such as marathon, half-marathon, or 5K pace makes it easier to target specific performance demands. This approach also indirectly addresses the physiological adaptations by focusing on the outputs required for those paces.
Periodisation is key, in determining when to incorporate different types of intervals. Athletes can benefit from short, intense intervals, especially early in the training cycle, as they help develop glycolytic capacity.
This, in turn, can improve the execution of longer, VO2 max-targeted intervals by maintaining a higher intensity for longer periods. For example, starting with 10-20 second sprints, then progressing to intervals ranging from two to four minutes with equal rest, can build a robust foundation.
Moreover, anaerobic training shouldn't just aim to enhance the metabolic system; it's also crucial for developing muscle function.
No athlete has purely fast- or slow-twitch muscle fibres, so it's essential to work across all skills for a well-rounded athletic profile. Speed and anaerobic capabilities, even if not primary for the event, contribute significantly to overall endurance performance.
Many athletes mistakenly focus too much on race-specific training, often trying to mimic what professionals do. However, elite athletes typically have a background in various sports, incorporating diverse skill sets from a young age.
Their training now emphasizes race-specific work because they already have a well-rounded athletic foundation. For less experienced athletes, it's beneficial to adopt a more comprehensive approach to training, incorporating skill development, speed, and strength work alongside endurance sessions.
Being a versatile athlete will always raise your potential across all distances and sports. The key is balancing specificity with foundational skills to create a resilient, adaptable athlete.
It's essential to recognize that anaerobic training, while beneficial in some contexts, doesn't always play a central role.
However, one potential advantage is its ability to increase the basal metabolic rate, which could be a valuable addition to the training regimen for certain athletes. Despite this, it's not a critical component within the scope of triathlon preparation.
A common mistake I observe is the tendency for athletes to combine high-intensity intervals with overly strenuous endurance training.
In a five-zone training system, this often manifests as athletes consistently training in zone two, rather than keeping their endurance sessions strictly in zone one. It’s crucial to maintain a clear separation between hard interval sessions and easy endurance training. When you push yourself hard during intervals, your endurance work should be correspondingly easier, allowing for sufficient recovery and adaptation.
There’s also a specific athlete profile where I’d be cautious about incorporating too many high-intensity intervals: athletes with a naturally explosive or fast-twitch profile.
This includes individuals transitioning from sports like soccer, combat sports, or other power-based disciplines, where they might already possess a high VO2 max and a well-developed glycolytic capacity but lack endurance and durability. For these athletes, focusing on building aerobic capacity and enhancing endurance before introducing frequent high-intensity intervals may be more beneficial.
The priority should be to highlight any disparities between their strengths and weaknesses, particularly regarding the demands of triathlon training.
When working with athletes who have a power-focused background, I adapt the interval structure by incorporating longer rest periods.
This approach allows their systems adequate time to recover before the next intense effort. In contrast, athletes with higher aerobic development can handle shorter rest intervals effectively, leading to better training adaptations.
Intensity control during anaerobic sessions is paramount to avoid overreaching, which can compromise recovery and overall progress.
Ensuring that athletes don’t push too hard in these sessions helps maintain balance in their training and prevents the negative consequences associated with excessive fatigue.

Lower HR during races

54:02 -

I believe that current devices claiming to measure running power lack accuracy, especially compared to the precise methods used in laboratories, such as high-speed multi-camera analysis, ground reaction force plates, or instrumented treadmills.
These setups are required to obtain accurate measurements of the power output related to running speed. The tools currently available, like Garmin, Stryd, RunScribe, and Polar, mostly use algorithms to estimate running power, making their output incomparable to established cycling power standards.
There is an interesting study by a Spanish research group titled "Are We Ready to Measure Running Power?" which I recommend. It evaluates the repeatability and validity of various commercial technologies, such as Garmin, Stryd, and others.
The study concluded that Stryd stands out as the most reliable and valid among the options, but even with Stryd, it is impossible to compare the power output against that of FDDA.
In my experience, we use Stryd with athletes not for pacing but rather as a tool to measure running economy. For instance, it can offer insights into which shoe makes an athlete more efficient in terms of power output.
However, when it comes to steering the training process, I don’t rely on running power metrics. It serves as secondary data, similar to heart rate, but it does not guide the training itself.
There is still a debate about using power meters for pacing, particularly for uphill running or headwinds. Although some athletes find it useful for maintaining consistency under such conditions, I remain sceptical about their sensitivity to changes.
For example, the numbers can differ if the device is worn on the right foot versus the left, or when running on a track. Furthermore, I find that the power values are often too closely related to running speed, which means they do not provide a true measure of efficiency or economy.
An interesting point from the study mentioned earlier is that Stryd’s power readings correlate well with oxygen uptake, which suggests that it can be a good proxy for metabolic power—essentially, how hard the body is working. Stryd’s documentation implies it aims to measure metabolic power rather than mechanical power, which differs from Garmin’s approach.
Garmin explicitly claims to measure mechanical power, or propulsive power applied to the road, considering the major components of work done during running. However, accurately measuring mechanical power with just a wristwatch is questionable.
Unlike cycling power meters, which calculate torque times angular velocity without proprietary algorithms, each running power meter uses a different algorithm, making their data non-comparable.
Stryd's focus on metabolic power contrasts with Garmin's emphasis on mechanical power, leading to inconsistencies between devices. This means the numbers cannot reliably compare one runner's efficiency to another's based on power metrics alone.

How Toby uses running power

1:03:31 -

When I tried using this approach, I honestly didn’t find it effective. It didn’t align with the power numbers, and I don’t think it was the best strategy for a challenging course like this.
Even when adapted, I would have preferred a different method. In my coaching practice, I set clear parameters with athletes, including tracking the equipment used, such as specific shoes, as these details significantly impact training. We scientifically monitor everything through established training platforms to ensure accuracy.
When it comes to measuring metabolic power output, I agree that the data can be relevant. However, I don’t use it for pacing in races because, when I’m rested, the numbers often don’t correlate for me.
If I were to steer training based purely on metabolic measurements, I would lean towards a more metabolic-based approach. There are renowned coaches who apply this method to create metabolic profiles based on daily or weekly outputs.
While this approach has some validity, I view it as more of a supplementary tool than a primary training guide. I certainly wouldn’t base my race strategies on it.
One issue is that we’re currently overwhelmed with data, particularly from popular wearable devices. When I analyse the daily data from these sources, I question its accuracy because some metrics can only be precisely measured in controlled, light-based environments.
It’s a useful estimate and can provide insights, such as race predictions or recovery scores, which keep athletes aware of certain factors. That’s beneficial, but if athletes start depending solely on this data, it becomes problematic. As coaches, we need to guide athletes towards focusing on the metrics that truly matter.
Moreover, I believe in developing antifragility in athletes. The more variables incorporated into training, the more fragile the athlete becomes. Therefore, we should aim to simplify the process and

LINKS AND RESOURCES:

Bernardo Gonçalves

Bernardo is a Portuguese elite cyclist and co-founder of SpeedEdge Performance, a company focused on optimising cycling and triathlon performance. He writes the shownotes for That Triathlon Show, and also produces social media content for each new episode.