Shownotes

Maximizing Performance on 10–12 Hours per Week

01:28 -

• I have been fortunate to work with athletes who train between 10 and 12 hours per week and still aim to qualify for Kona or complete an Ironman in under nine hours.
• When the available time is limited, the starting point is clear and structured communication. Because most of my athletes are remote, I require them to outline in detail how much time they have available each day.
• This often changes weekly due to travel or professional commitments, so it is essential that I understand their schedule in advance and plan accordingly.
• From there, I focus on identifying the athlete’s specific needs and aligning them with their performance goals. For example, I coached an athlete in his 50s who achieved a low nine-hour Ironman while training 10 to 12 hours per week.
• He was already a strong swimmer, which meant we did not need to allocate excessive time to that discipline. Whether he swam three or four times per week, or only twice, the outcome would likely have been similar. In contrast, other athletes require a different approach, particularly in terms of frequency across the three disciplines.
• I place significant importance on frequency, and with a constrained schedule, this often requires doubling up sessions strategically.
• If an athlete is going to the pool, I may reduce the session from 4,000 meters to 2,500 meters to preserve time, while incorporating strength or mobility work during the same visit, even if only for 30 minutes. The same principle applies to cycling and running.
• I determine how often each discipline must be trained—three or four times per week, for example—and then condense sessions accordingly.
• This might involve shortening cool-downs or adjusting session structure, provided the essential components such as an effective warm-up are preserved. The objective is to maintain the necessary frequency while respecting the athlete’s limited availability.
• To maximize each session, I ensure that the purpose of the workout is clearly defined and fully understood by the athlete. Precision in training zones is critical. I frequently encounter athletes who have limited training time but fail to execute sessions at the intended intensity, which compromises adaptation.
• Every workout must target specific objectives, and I encourage athletes to take ownership during execution. If a session is prescribed at threshold but heart rate or perceived effort does not align, adjustments must be made in real time. With limited hours available, there is no margin for ineffective work.
• Finally, I incorporate targeted tools within sessions to accelerate adaptation, always considering what the athlete can tolerate and recover from. This may include specific big gear work or additional intensity, provided recovery capacity supports it.
• When applied appropriately, these strategies increase the return on each hour invested in training. Overall, maximizing a 10- to 12-hour training week requires individualized planning, disciplined execution, and strategic session design to ensure that every minute contributes meaningfully to performance progression.
• When the available training time is limited, particularly for an Ironman build, it becomes essential to define clearly what is realistic and what is not. Even when schedules fluctuate due to travel or work, there is strong value in identifying an optimal base week structure whenever possible.
• If the athlete’s routine is relatively stable, I aim to design a consistent microcycle template that maximizes efficiency. Repetition creates familiarity, and familiarity improves execution. If Monday consistently includes a swim followed by a gym session, the athlete learns to manage that transition more efficiently over time.
• Small operational gains, such as reducing transition time between sessions, become meaningful when working within tight time constraints.
• Regarding training zones and execution, I see the importance of precision from both perspectives. While some athletes under-execute sessions, others tend to push too hard, particularly during easy training. With limited time, there can be a temptation to increase intensity across the board, but I am cautious about that approach.
• In many cases, time limitations are linked to work and family responsibilities, which already impose significant life stress. That background stress affects recovery capacity and adaptation.
• For that reason, I prefer to preserve the integrity of easy training and maintain it truly easy. Increasing the intensity of endurance work is a last resort rather than a default strategy. Instead, I focus on extracting more quality from the key sessions while protecting recovery.
• When I do introduce progression within endurance sessions, I apply it gradually. For example, rather than raising the intensity of every endurance ride to 70 percent of FTP, which could quickly lead to accumulated fatigue, I may introduce specific torque intervals within a single session.
• Short blocks of higher torque at 70 to 75 percent can represent a controlled and sustainable progression. Over time, I assess adaptation and only then consider building further. Sudden and widespread intensity increases are rarely sustainable.
• The core principles remain the same regardless of whether an athlete trains 12 hours or 16 hours per week. What matters is having a clear training philosophy and continuously evaluating whether the athlete is progressing toward the goal based on objective data. I only introduce additional stress if progression stalls or if the goal demands it.
• Recovery capacity also becomes evident only when stress is applied. Some athletes require an easy day immediately after an intense session, while others demonstrate resilience and can tolerate two or even three demanding days consecutively.
• The determining factor is often not just physiology but also the execution of foundational elements such as preparation, fueling, sleep, and overall life stress management. When these elements are consistently optimized, resilience improves.
• For an Ironman preparation on a 12-hour training week, I work backward from the race demands. I identify the key sessions that must be present and ensure they are protected.
• The long bike session is typically non-negotiable. It must simulate, as closely as possible, the power output, fatigue profile, and physiological demands of race day. Around that session, I structure the remaining training to support execution and recovery. The same reasoning applies to the swim and run.
• Although swim training volume may appear less critical for some athletes, its role must be evaluated in the context of overall race performance. For certain individuals, reducing swim frequency has minimal impact on their ability to bike and run effectively.
• For others, insufficient swim preparation results in excessive fatigue exiting the water, which compromises the entire race. In those cases, prioritizing swim development may require reducing run volume to preserve overall performance quality.
• Small adjustments in discipline emphasis can produce disproportionately large effects on race outcomes.

How to schedule longer workouts

11:24 -

• In my experience, most athletes who are constrained by a typical Monday-to-Friday work schedule can consistently manage one hour per weekday and then allocate four to five hours on the weekend.
• Because of that structure, I ensure that the longer sessions are placed on the weekend. However, the critical factor is how I manage the stress distribution across those two days. If Saturday includes a four-hour bike session, I do not attempt to simultaneously increase run volume on Sunday.
• For example, if the weekend totals six hours, that may consist of a four-hour bike and a two-hour run. The following weekend, I may invert the emphasis.
• We might complete a three-hour bike ride with high specificity and clear performance targets, maintaining similar stress through intensity and structure rather than duration, and then follow it with a longer run the next day. 
• By alternating the primary stressor between disciplines, I create a structured up-and-down pattern that allows the athlete to enter the following week without excessive residual fatigue.
• The objective is not only to accumulate hours but to distribute them intelligently so that adaptation continues without compromising the subsequent training block.
• Another approach I find effective, particularly outside the final build phase of an Ironman, is to maximize weekend cycling volume through back-to-back bike sessions. For athletes targeting shorter distances or in earlier phases of Ironman preparation, performing a long ride on Saturday and a medium-long ride on Sunday, possibly with a short brick run, allows full use of available weekend time.
• A 90-minute run midweek can be sufficient for a 70.3 build, and during general preparation for an Ironman, this structure can work well before transitioning into longer standalone runs in the final 8 to 12 weeks. This method allows meaningful aerobic development while respecting weekday constraints.
• I also use discipline-focused blocks when progress plateaus. If an athlete stops progressing, I may dedicate a week, a weekend, or even a short block to prioritizing one discipline while maintaining the others. For example, focusing heavily on cycling for a defin
• ed period can produce a noticeable jump in bike fitness, while swim and run are maintained. 
• The same approach applies to the swim. Concentrated emphasis in a short block often produces a breakthrough that would not occur through evenly distributed training alone.
• From a practical standpoint, I have also found that breaking long sessions into multiple shorter sessions within the same day can increase quality. Instead of completing a continuous five-hour indoor ride, I may prescribe two focused two-hour sessions separated by a break.
• This structure allows for greater concentration, higher intensity where needed, and better execution overall. In some cases, three shorter sessions in a single day produce more effective work than one prolonged session where focus gradually declines. The key is ensuring that the athlete can tolerate that structure and recover appropriately.
• For more advanced athletes with strong resilience, I frequently implement double-session days incorporating intensity. A microcycle might include double intensity sessions on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, with purely aerobic days in between.
• This separation allows for both physical and mental recovery from high-intensity work. However, I reserve this approach for athletes who have developed sufficient training background and can tolerate higher frequency and density of load.
• For newer or less experienced athletes, I apply this strategy more cautiously, as foundational capacity must be established before increasing complexity and intensity density.

Working on strengths and weaknesses

17:00 -

• When I evaluate weaknesses, I first determine whether that weakness will meaningfully affect race execution. It is not enough to label something as weak; I need to understand whether it is truly limiting performance.
• For example, in an Ironman context, a significantly underdeveloped swim can fundamentally alter the race. If an athlete exits the water in 1:20 or 1:25 instead of closer to 1:10, the entire race dynamic changes.
• That shift places them in a different group of cyclists, alters pacing dynamics, and often exposes them to more wind and heat for longer periods.
• Exiting the water earlier can mean riding with stronger cyclists, getting through sections of the course sooner, and ultimately starting the run under different physiological conditions.
• Those differences compound over the course of the day. With limited training time, I must therefore decide whether the weakness is severe enough to justify reallocating time toward it.
• Once that decision is made, I consider whether improvement can be achieved through shorter, more frequent sessions within the existing time constraints, or whether something else must be reduced to meaningfully advance that discipline.
• In some cases, I implement focused swim blocks within the overall build. I often place these during recovery weeks. After two or three solid weeks of training, when the athlete naturally requires reduced load on the legs, I may use three or four days to increase swim volume and frequency. This allows progress in the water while providing relative recovery for the run and bike.
• When I look specifically at Ironman preparation, I place a strong emphasis on the bike. If I must prioritize between the bike and the run, I choose the bike.
• Cycling allows for substantial aerobic and strength-endurance gains with comparatively lower injury risk. Improvements on the bike carry directly into the run by reducing overall fatigue and shortening time spent under race stress.
• In contrast, aggressively prioritizing the run increases injury risk and rarely yields rapid, sustainable gains. Running adaptations require gradual progression. Unlike other disciplines, the run cannot be accelerated abruptly without consequence.
• At the same time, I differentiate between a true limiter and a relative weakness. If an athlete is a 90-minute swimmer aiming for a specific Ironman performance, progressing to 1:10 may not be necessary, but moving closer to 1:10 from a slower baseline might be essential for the overall goal to be realistic.
• That is a limiter. However, an athlete might be a 1:10 swimmer while comparatively stronger on the bike and run. In that case, the swim is a relative weakness but not a limiting factor. With time-constrained athletes, I often prefer to invest in strengths rather than chase minor gains in weaker areas that require disproportionate effort.
• My reasoning is that strengths often reflect a degree of natural aptitude. An athlete tends to respond more efficiently to stimulus in areas where they are already strong.
• If cycling is a clear strength, I can often generate meaningful gains from five hours per week of structured bike work. Attempting to transform a natural weakness with the same time investment may yield far smaller returns. 
• Therefore, once true limiters are addressed to the point that they no longer compromise race viability, I am inclined to lean into strengths and maximize return on investment.
• With the run, even if it is a strength, I apply greater caution. Progression must remain gradual to avoid unnecessary injury risk. Interestingly, athletes who are naturally strong runners often demonstrate better durability and fewer chronic issues, which allows for continued, careful development.
• Ultimately, the objective is to accept certain weaknesses when further improvement offers minimal benefit, ensure they do not undermine performance, and direct limited training time toward areas where measurable, high-impact gains are achievable.

Training intensity

24:34 -

• If I am honest, everything depends on the athlete. Many athletes who aim to train 10 to 12 hours per week have not yet built the foundation required to tolerate that load consistently.
• That volume alone represents a significant stressor, and it must be something they have already adapted to while simultaneously managing professional and personal responsibilities.
• If they are already executing the fundamentals well—nutrition, sleep, recovery habits—then I may consider introducing slightly more stress. The only way to determine whether they can handle it is to apply it and observe the response.
• There is both a physical and a mental component to this. Physically, they must be able to complete the sessions. Mentally, they must be able to sustain the rhythm of high engagement without burnout.
• Some athletes can complete a high-quality bike session on Tuesday, include a faster run off the bike, and still return the next day to execute another quality session. Others require a lighter day immediately afterward.
• For some, Thursday becomes the necessary point of deload; for others, they can sustain intensity longer before backing off. I constantly evaluate whether the athlete is truly recovering and whether performance metrics show progression.
• There is a clear distinction between productive overload and simple accumulation of fatigue. If week after week I observe measurable improvement, the load is appropriate. If I only see fatigue without progress, the structure needs adjustment.
• In practical terms, I find that most athletes can tolerate two, sometimes three, high-quality bike sessions per week, given the lower injury risk associated with cycling.
• Swimming also allows for relatively high intensity frequency from a physical standpoint. However, I consider the mental cost as well. Even if the body could tolerate more, I typically limit intense swim sessions to twice per week because that tends to be the sustainable threshold for most athletes.
• When I schedule a demanding Saturday session, especially one that combines substantial bike and run stress, I prefer to keep the preceding day relatively easy. That mental reprieve often improves the quality of the key session.
• In the past, I sometimes scheduled a hard Friday session following an endurance Thursday, but I found that this could compromise Saturday performance.
• I now prefer to cluster intensity deliberately. I keep intense days truly intense, sometimes combining a hard swim and a hard bike on the same day, followed by a genuinely easier day to promote recovery. This allows athletes to deload mentally and physically before the next high-quality session later in the week.
• For the run, intensity frequency is highly individual. For an athlete targeting a nine-hour Ironman within a limited time budget, I typically include one structured intensity session per week, such as threshold or tempo work.
• As the race approaches, I introduce sessions that include harder running off the bike to simulate race demands. If I am not placing that intensity off the bike, I ensure that the long run includes segments at intended race pace so that the athlete develops familiarity with the expected effort.
• In practice, this often results in two more demanding run stimuli per week—one standalone quality session and one race-specific effort—surrounded by shorter and easier runs that protect durability and support recovery.

Avoid rigid training rules

30:05 -

• When I prescribe race pace running for an Ironman, I am aware that, physiologically, it may fall close to what is classified as low intensity, often around LT1.
• However, in practice, it does not feel easy. When that effort is sustained for a prolonged duration and layered on top of accumulated fatigue from the rest of the week, it becomes a perceptually demanding session.
• The classification alone does not reflect the real cost of the workout. What ultimately matters is whether the athlete can recover from it, absorb it, and demonstrate progression over time.
• I approach training distribution as an ongoing experiment rather than as a rigid formula. There is a tendency within endurance sports to adhere strictly to rules, such as a fixed 80/20 distribution or predetermined numbers of hard sessions per week. I do not find those frameworks universally helpful.
• Some athletes unnecessarily restrict how much quality work they could handle, while others assume they must include multiple intense sessions across all disciplines each week. In reality, for some athletes, one hard session per discipline is sufficient.
• In certain contexts, even that may be unnecessary. The appropriate structure depends entirely on the individual, their background, and their goals.
• I am also mindful that athletes who successfully manage relatively high-intensity programs with limited weekly hours often do so on the foundation of many years in the sport.
• Ten, fifteen, or even twenty years of accumulated aerobic development allows them to tolerate and benefit from that structure. Without that base, replicating such programs is rarely appropriate.
• On the other end of the spectrum, beginners frequently require very little intensity to improve significantly. I have implemented off-season blocks consisting almost entirely of zone one progressing into zone two, with only occasional exposure to the upper end of zone two.
• The improvements in aerobic capacity and durability can be substantial, even without structured high-intensity work. Consistency, frequency, and controlled endurance stimulus alone can drive meaningful progress. In fact, many newer athletes overestimate the amount of intensity they require.
• Simply executing steady endurance training consistently often produces remarkable gains.
• I also differentiate the type of intensity based on experience level. For a beginner, progression may naturally move from zone one into zone two and then gradually toward zone three as fitness develops. In contrast, for an advanced athlete, particularly one constrained by time, zone three work during general preparation is often limited.
• During that phase, I typically emphasize higher-intensity efforts, such as zone four and zone five in a five-zone model, to generate sufficient stimulus.
• If I incorporate work in the upper end of zone three or low zone four—sometimes described as sweet spot—that represents the lower boundary of intensity that I consider productive for a well-trained athlete during general preparation. 
• Zone three becomes more relevant during specific race preparation, when I need to replicate the demands of competition. At that stage, the intensity distribution reflects the physiological requirements of race day rather than general fitness development.

Other time efficiency hacks

32:36 -

• I strongly believe that the quality of attention within a session is often more important than its duration. An athlete can train for 90 minutes with minimal focus and gain less than someone who trains for 45 minutes with full intention.
• When an athlete is fully engaged—concentrating on technique, breathing patterns, posture, and mental presence—the return on that time investment increases significantly. In swimming, for example, I want the athlete to know exactly what they are focusing on in each session and how that focus connects to race-day execution.
• I expect them to understand the purpose of each set, the pacing targets, and the specific cues that will anchor their stroke when fatigue sets in.
• Descending pace, alternating breathing patterns, or holding race pace under fatigue are not just instructions; they are deliberate rehearsals for competition. Simply completing the distance without engagement does not provide the same adaptation.
• Execution is where I often see breakdowns, particularly when technology replaces awareness. Recording sessions is not inherently problematic, but blindly following a structured workout on a device without reading and understanding the full description can undermine the purpose of the session.
• A written workout often includes technical cues, breathing patterns, or pacing instructions that are not fully conveyed on a watch screen. If an athlete only sees “10 x 200” on their device, they may miss the intent behind the set.
• The result is mechanical compliance rather than purposeful execution. I prefer athletes to have the full description visible and to understand the objective of the work they are doing.
• In the pool specifically, I am cautious with watches for another reason. I work with many newer swimmers, and I frequently observe them disrupting their push-off to press their watch.
• A strong, streamlined push-off sets the tone for body position, core engagement, and stroke efficiency. Interrupting that sequence to manage a device compromises the very elements we are trying to improve.
• Similarly, approaching the wall and slowing down prematurely to interact with a watch detracts from the quality of the effort. In certain cases, especially in group or squad environments, I remove watches entirely because they interfere with flow and consistency.
• I place significant value on athletes learning to read the pace clock and manage base intervals. Understanding that they must consistently arrive at the wall at a specific time and depart on a fixed interval develops discipline and internal pacing awareness.
• When the base interval is clear and consistent, athletes remain accountable to the intended intensity. Excessive reliance on device-calculated rest periods can distort that structure and allow unintended variation in effort.
• Mastering the clock builds rhythm, honesty in pacing, and race-relevant awareness that cannot be fully replicated through automated prompts.

Zwift training

38:11 -

• Another execution issue I frequently observe relates to data management, particularly when athletes train indoors using platforms such as Zwift.
• A common problem arises when the FTP value set in Zwift differs from the FTP set in TrainingPeaks or whichever planning platform is being used. As a coach, I typically do not have access to the athlete’s Zwift account, so I cannot directly verify whether those values are aligned.
• The athlete often assumes that the prescribed workout will translate identically across platforms, but in reality, the training platform pushes percentages of FTP, not absolute power targets.
• If the FTP values differ between systems, the athlete may complete the session at an unintended intensity. This is a preventable error that significantly reduces the effectiveness of the workout and limits the return on training time.
• I see this misalignment as a major reason why athletes sometimes fail to improve. When athletes train with structure and consistent feedback, progression can occur rapidly. I monitor the relationship between power, heart rate, and perceived exertion.
• If I observe that a session intended to be at threshold is clearly not eliciting the appropriate physiological response, I do not wait for a formal retest. Instead, I instruct the athlete to adjust their FTP setting accordingly, sometimes increasing it by 10 watts immediately, so that subsequent sessions are performed in the correct zone.
• If the prescribed threshold intervals are being completed with heart rate too low or perceived effort too moderate, then the session is not producing the intended adaptation.
• I also expect athletes to take ownership within the workout itself. If they recognize that a session designed to target threshold is effectively being executed at zone three intensity, they must adjust in real time. There is no value in completing a full set at the wrong intensity simply because it was programmed that way.
• With limited training hours available, every session must be optimized. Adjustments to power targets during the session are not deviations from the plan; they are necessary corrections to ensure the physiological objective is achieved.

Giving athletes autonomy

40:03 -

• When I give athletes autonomy in training, I do so through education and progressive responsibility. Initially, I analyze the data and provide direct feedback. I show them how their power, heart rate, and perceived effort align.
• For example, if at 200 watts their heart rate was 160 beats per minute last week and that clearly placed them in zone four, but this week the same power only elicits 155 beats per minute, I explain what that means.
• I teach them that if the session is meant to target zone four and their physiological response is not reaching that range, they must adjust the power upward in real time. 
• Over time, they learn to recognize these discrepancies themselves. The goal is not blind compliance with numbers but understanding what those numbers represent physiologically.
• At the same time, I educate them on the opposite scenario. If a session is prescribed as zone two and they begin the workout with heart rate already elevated into zone four due to accumulated stress or fatigue, that is a signal.
• In that case, pushing through the original prescription may not be productive. I want them to recognize when the body is not responding as expected and to communicate that immediately.
• We may downgrade the session, shift intensity later in the week, or accept that the priority is recovery. The context of the week matters. If the missed session was critical and the schedule allows, we may reposition it. If not, we move forward.
• I program one week at a time for this reason. I have a broad framework in mind, but each week is built on the reality of how the previous week was executed. Power-to-heart-rate relationships, subjective feedback, and recovery markers guide the next step.
• Importantly, I never look at heart rate in isolation. If heart rate is lower at a given power but perceived exertion is significantly higher, that may indicate fatigue rather than improvement. A suppressed heart rate combined with elevated RPE can reflect accumulated stress or early signs of overreaching.
• Many athletes mistakenly interpret a lower heart rate as automatic progress, but without context, that assumption can be misleading. That is why I insist on collecting RPE and written feedback after every session. Data points alone are insufficient. I need to know how the athlete experienced the session relative to expectations.
• I require athletes to comment on every workout. If they expect detailed analysis from me, I expect qualitative input from them. Numbers provide part of the picture; perception completes it. I ask them to evaluate their performance relative to what they anticipated.
• A session can be extremely demanding yet feel positive if it exceeded their expectations. Conversely, a moderate session can feel poor if performance falls short of what they believed possible.
• Understanding that comparison between expectation and execution allows me to interpret the objective data accurately and make informed decisions for the following week.

Performance analysis and athlete communication

43:00 -

• In practice, if I do not receive meaningful feedback from an athlete, it becomes difficult to provide meaningful analysis in return. It is not a matter of withholding comments deliberately; rather, without context, I am operating with incomplete information.
• This situation occurs most often after easier sessions, and while it is not critical in those cases, the absence of qualitative input still limits the depth of feedback I can provide.
• Without understanding how the session felt, what challenges arose, or how the athlete interpreted the effort, I am analyzing only partial data.
• Because of that, I place significant emphasis on communication. When coaching remotely, comprehensive communication is essential to doing the job properly.
• Over time, I have refined how I gather that information. Working with different athletes teaches me what level of questioning generates the most meaningful insight.
• For example, I began implementing a simple daily reflection structure inspired by a professional triathlete I coach, Lydia Russell, who carried over a practice from her collegiate experience called “high, low, buffalo.” Each day, the athlete identifies a high point, a low point, and one unrelated or random reflection.
• This framework consistently reveals more depth than a standard workout comment. The “high” often captures psychological breakthroughs, such as completing a session they doubted they could finish.
• The “low” may expose fueling mistakes, stress, or frustration that directly influenced performance. The final element fosters connection and personal understanding, strengthening the coach–athlete relationship beyond pure metrics.
• In addition, I implement structured weekly recaps. Athletes complete a formatted reflection in their training platform, summarizing their wins, key lessons, and most importantly, what they intend to improve the following week.
• That final question is particularly powerful. When athletes articulate where they fell short or what they want to execute better, it increases accountability. Writing it down makes it tangible. It shifts responsibility toward self-awareness and ownership rather than passive participation in a program.
• For me, this level of communication ensures that the athlete’s investment of time, energy, and financial resources is matched by a thoughtful and responsive coaching process.
• The relationship is not purely transactional. While it remains professional, a deeper level of understanding enhances performance outcomes. When there is mutual trust and open dialogue, the quality of decision-making improves, and the athlete is far more likely to extract the full benefit of the training process.

Things that most athletes need to improve

47:16 -

• The first element that comes to mind when discussing execution and feedback is fueling. I am consistently surprised by how often fueling remains an afterthought for athletes.
• From the outset of a coaching relationship, I make it clear that we will meet them where they are. I begin by reviewing what they have previously been doing, both in terms of training structure and nutritional strategy. I ask them to document precisely what they are consuming, in what quantities, and with which products.
• From there, I provide structured adjustments. We experiment methodically, refine carbohydrate intake for specific sessions, and ensure fueling is aligned with the intensity and duration of the workout. In many cases, I program carbohydrate targets directly into the session description so there is no ambiguity. That alone can transform adaptation.
• Beyond fueling, the ongoing dialogue about how sessions feel remains critical. An athlete may complete the prescribed work, but if overall life stress has increased, that session may represent excessive load for that particular week.
• Without communication, they may push through simply because it is written in the plan. That is often where problems begin. Through consistent feedback and awareness of how sessions should feel, I have likely prevented numerous overuse injuries and excessive fatigue cycles. Understanding expected sensations at each intensity allows athletes to self-regulate intelligently rather than rigidly adhering to what is written.
• A recurring theme I observe is the need to better separate intensity. Many athletes benefit from clearer polarization. Easy days should truly be easy, and hard days should be purposeful and demanding.
• For intermediate and advanced athletes, this often does not mean simply increasing peak intensity but expanding the density or volume of quality work. Instead of performing four repetitions at threshold, they may progress to eight or ten, provided they can recover appropriately.
• At the same time, I see many athletes who unintentionally push their easy sessions too hard, blurring the distinction between stimulus and recovery. Less frequently, I see athletes who are hesitant to embrace structured intensity at all, even when they are capable of handling it. Both tendencies limit progress. The objective is not maximal effort at all times, but rather appropriate effort at the right time.
• Another analytical element I pay close attention to is cadence, both on the bike and the run. Cadence patterns often reveal inefficiencies that athletes are unaware of.
• For example, an athlete may train indoors consistently at 75 revolutions per minute and then attempt to ride at 90 revolutions per minute on race day. That mismatch can elevate heart rate, reduce mechanical efficiency, and create unnecessary strain. Training cadence must reflect race cadence. The same principle applies to running.
• If I see a consistently low run cadence, I question whether overstriding or inefficiency is present and request video analysis to confirm. Small technical adjustments in cadence can produce meaningful improvements in efficiency and sustainability.
• On the bike in particular, cadence work is an effective way to extract more value from lower-intensity sessions. I regularly dedicate specific rides to cadence development, even when the overall intensity remains within zone one or zone two.
• Rather than leaving cadence entirely to habit, I intentionally structure sessions around either higher or lower cadence targets.
• Typically, I separate these focuses across different rides. One week may include a session dedicated to high-cadence work, while another ride is devoted to low-cadence torque work.
• These efforts are often performed in zone two, sometimes in the upper end of zone two, where there is sufficient load to create adaptation without turning the session into a threshold workout. The objective is not to increase intensity, but to expand the athlete’s effective cadence range.
• By systematically working at both ends of the cadence spectrum, the athlete improves neuromuscular coordination, muscular endurance, and metabolic efficiency across a broader range of movement patterns. Over time, this increases adaptability.
• While I generally prescribe self-selected cadence on race day—allowing the athlete to settle into what feels most natural and sustainable—the quality of that self-selected cadence depends on the range they have trained.
• If an athlete has only ever ridden within a narrow cadence band, their “natural” choice may not be the most efficient one available to them.

When you find you have to do more volume

51:55 -

• When working with time-limited athletes, I believe creativity must be exhausted before concluding that progress requires more volume.
• I first explore every structural adjustment available within the existing time budget. That includes manipulating frequency, reorganizing session timing, and refining execution so that each session becomes more efficient. 
• Only when I am confident that we have optimized structure, intensity distribution, fueling, and recovery do I seriously consider increasing volume.
• At that point, the question becomes whether additional minutes can be introduced strategically—small increments such as ten minutes here and there that, over time, accumulate into meaningful weekly gains.
• However, I am also direct when necessary. If an athlete has already addressed the low-hanging fruit and the intermediate adjustments, and performance still plateaus, I may acknowledge that more volume is likely required.
• That does not necessarily mean radically restructuring their life, but it does require examining how time is currently allocated. Practical strategies can include integrating training into commuting, such as cycling or running to work or to the pool. These are methods of increasing load without the perception of adding separate sessions.
• Another powerful strategy is the implementation of structured high-volume weeks. Self-organized training camps, even once or twice per year, can create a lasting fitness effect.
• Accumulating significant volume—particularly on the bike—within a concentrated week can elevate aerobic capacity in a way that carries forward for months.
• Similarly, athletes who have unused vacation days may strategically take midweek days off work to create additional training opportunities. A midweek high-volume day can distribute load more evenly and prevent excessive fatigue accumulation over a two-day weekend.
• Ultimately, there is a point where honesty is required. If volume cannot be increased and all structural optimizations have been applied, expectations must be aligned with reality.
• Progress is not always linear, and maintaining a high level of performance under constrained time can itself be a success. In some cases, athletes may reprioritize aspects of their life to create more training time.
• In others, they may accept that current volume supports maintenance rather than continued upward progression. That discussion is important and must be handled transparently.
• Before making any of these decisions, I encourage athletes to perform a time audit. Recording how every hour is spent—even for just a few days—often reveals opportunities that were previously unnoticed.
• The act of tracking alone changes behavior. When time becomes visible, it becomes manageable. I have applied this principle in my own professional life for years, and the same logic applies to training. Once time allocation is examined objectively, small but meaningful adjustments often emerge.
• In the end, maximizing limited training time requires both structural creativity and personal accountability. It involves refining session quality, reorganizing schedules, leveraging occasional high-volume blocks, and maintaining honest communication about what is realistically achievable.

Check when you are under too much load

1:01:55 -

• When I evaluate whether more load is required, I first look for stagnation. If performance metrics plateau and there is no measurable improvement, then a change is necessary.
• However, it is equally important to recognize when the load is excessive. Signs of overreaching often appear subtly at first. Easy sessions begin to feel disproportionately difficult.
• Hard workouts can no longer be executed at the prescribed intensity. Mood shifts, irritability increases, and overall motivation declines. Sometimes the athlete can still complete the sessions, but something feels off. Those subjective markers matter.
• Before reducing load, I investigate the underlying causes. Fueling is always the first variable I address. If carbohydrate intake is insufficient, the athlete may appear fatigued simply because the sessions are under-fueled.
• Small adjustments there can produce immediate improvement. I also examine psychological readiness. If mindset going into sessions is tense or distracted, simple pre-session routines—such as breathing work or short mindfulness exercises—can improve execution and stress tolerance.
• Mechanical factors also matter. If cadence is too low on the bike, for example, muscular fatigue may accumulate unnecessarily, impairing recovery. The objective is to analyze the details before concluding that total load is the problem.
• When load is truly excessive, it most commonly manifests in the run. Injury risk increases rapidly when run intensity or volume is escalated too aggressively.
• On the bike, it is less likely to result in acute injury but often shows up as persistent heavy legs or an inability to elevate heart rate during quality sessions.
• Motivation may decline, mood may deteriorate, and recovery markers worsen. These are early warning signs that should be recognized before a more serious setback occurs.
• This is why I prefer a bottom-up approach to progression. Building gradually from a conservative starting point allows both coach and athlete to clearly observe the response to incremental increases.
• If an athlete begins a structured program abruptly at a high load—particularly one sourced generically rather than individually tailored—it becomes difficult to determine whether lack of progress reflects insufficient stimulus or excessive stress. 
• By starting slightly below capacity and adding load progressively, I create clarity. The athlete can handle the work, adaptation occurs, and then I layer more on top. This approach is not glamorous and does not promise rapid transformation, but it is sustainable.
• As a coach, there is sometimes pressure to appear innovative or to deliver something complex that justifies the service being provided. However, the most effective strategy often involves refining what the athlete is already doing rather than replacing it entirely.
• I frequently begin by maintaining their current structure but improving execution—better fueling, more intentional pacing, improved technical awareness, and more precise intensity control.
• Once that foundation is optimized, additional load can be layered progressively. Patience in the early stages may not be dramatic, but it produces durable gains and reduces the likelihood of regression.

Listener questions

1:06:58 -

Discipline layout in a seven-day cycle, including combining workouts for efficiency. How should a microcycle be structured?

I generally work with structured seven-day cycles and adjust them based on the athlete’s capacity and available time. For many athletes, especially those balancing work and family commitments, I use a Monday-to-Sunday framework that alternates emphasis week to week.

In a more standard structure, Monday serves as an active recovery day. That typically includes mobility work and a technique-focused or recovery swim, especially since most athletes come off a demanding weekend. Tuesday becomes a key bike session, often intense depending on the phase of training, with a short run off the bike. Early in the season that run may be aerobic; closer to racing, it may include strides or race-specific pacing.

Wednesday typically includes a quality run session, supported by swim frequency if the athlete swims three times per week. I like an every-other-day swim rhythm for most age-group athletes. Thursday becomes more aerobic again, often a zone two ride with added technical elements such as aero-position practice or cadence development. Gym work frequently fits here for practical reasons, even if it is not physiologically ideal.

Friday prepares the athlete for the weekend with a swim and light aerobic work. Saturday is usually a long ride with specific intervals embedded, sometimes followed by a controlled brick run. Sunday is the long run, either purely aerobic or including controlled race-pace segments. For stronger athletes, Sunday may also include a swim as active recovery.

For athletes with more time and higher tolerance, I shift the structure to emphasize larger midweek sessions. In those cases, the biggest bike session might fall on Wednesday rather than Tuesday, allowing more recovery from the weekend. Swim frequency increases to four or even five sessions per week. Hard days are often stacked—heavy gym work follows track sessions, for example—so that recovery days are clearly separated. With professionals, I am more deliberate about alternating load and recovery, whereas with age-group athletes I prioritize routine and repeatability.

Another common template I use for athletes swimming, biking, and running three times per week each distributes intensity more evenly. Monday is easy. Tuesday includes a hard bike and easy run. Wednesday includes a hard swim and easy bike. Thursday focuses on the run as the primary quality session. Friday is rest from swim, bike, and run. Saturday and Sunday carry the longer bike and run sessions respectively, with race-specific work layered in as appropriate. This structure allows at least one clear intensity session per discipline each week while preserving recovery.

For some athletes, I concentrate intensity even more. For example, I may combine a hard swim and hard bike on the same day, followed by a purely aerobic day. This clustering allows deeper recovery between demanding sessions. There are many viable structures; the correct one depends on frequency, experience level, and recovery capacity. The principle remains consistent: align key sessions with adequate preparation and recovery while maintaining frequency across disciplines.

I can’t swim often. What is the best cross-training alternative if I already run and bike a lot?

There is no true substitute for swimming. Nothing replicates feel for the water. Devices such as Vasa trainers or stretch cords can help maintain upper-body strength and muscular endurance, particularly for athletes with a prior swim background. However, they do not replace the technical and neuromuscular components of actual pool time.

If swimming frequency is constrained, I would consider strategic scheduling rather than forcing cross-training substitutes. For example, it may be possible to deprioritize swimming during parts of the year and then commit to two consistent swim sessions per week during the final six to eight weeks before a race. That concentrated block can restore much of the lost familiarity with the water, even if it does not fully replicate year-round training.

If pool access is severely limited, I would lean into strengths. Additional cycling volume is typically safer to increase than running volume and may produce meaningful performance gains without elevating injury risk. Rather than replacing swim sessions with unrelated activities, I prefer to maximize return on the disciplines that are already accessible.

When returning to swimming after a break, the first two to three weeks often feel uncomfortable. However, adaptation occurs relatively quickly, especially in experienced swimmers. Within six to eight weeks of consistent training, most athletes can regain functional swim fitness. While individual differences exist, a focused pre-race swim block is often more effective than scattered, inconsistent sessions throughout the year.

Ultimately, if swimming cannot be frequent, the strategy becomes either structured seasonal prioritization or optimizing bike and run performance to compensate. Cross-training modalities rarely provide meaningful direct transfer to swim performance.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• Natasha’s website, Instagram and Youtube (NVDM Coaching)
• Training Talk with Natasha van der Merwe | EP#334 - Natasha’s first appearance on That Triathlon Show