The long workout, which I’ll define as 90 minutes in the pool, 2+ hours biking and 90+ minutes running, is the foundation of any endurance athlete’s training program.  At the end of the day, you can do all the TT-specific or high-intensity intervals you want, but if your aerobic foundation is shaky, then the wheels will come off the bus well before you hit the finish line.  And, you’ll probably think you started out the race too hard and burned too many matches and so ran out of gas.  Maybe, but most likely not.  With a strong aerobic foundation, you will most definitely be able to hold faster pacing for longer periods of time both in you workouts as well as your races.

For Masters athletes, executing longer workouts properly is even more critical.  As we age, we do get slower, especially the farther past 40 we get.  But, we can certainly train every bit as intensely during our hard workouts as we did 10-20 years ago; we just can’t handle the volume of high-intensity work that we used to because our bodies don’t recover as quickly as they used to.  The rub is that the high-intensity work is even more critical for Masters athletes than when we were younger. 

So, what do I mean by “properly executing” longer workouts?  Effectively, the longer the workout, the easier the effort needs to be.  On the shorter end of the spectrum, it could make sense to insert some L3 intervals in the middle or toward the end of the workout.  But, in general, you want to cap your effort at the top end of L2 (up to 78% of Max HR or about 75% FTP on the bike if you track power).  The top of L2 is the cap, this is not where you should try to hold the entire workout.  Doing so will feel fairly easy at firs but will ultimately become impossible due to things like fatigue from the duration of the workout, cardiac drift, dehydration and more. 

Thinking about this metabolically, when you’re sitting on the couch at home, you are producing lactate, about 0.8-1.2Mmls in the blood.  At L1 recovery effort, blood lactate can rise to about 1.5Mmls and during steady aerobic work within the L2 zone, blood lactate peaks at around 2.0Mmls.  Even in L3, blood lactate stays pretty well in check, typically rising to about 2.5Mmls.  However, in L3 you are also starting to recruit a good amount more of anaerobic muscle fibers, which is why despite the relatively small uptick in blood lactate you can only hold your L3 zone for a maximum of 75-120 minutes.  When you start to focus on TT-specific work in the SST/L4 zones, blood lactate jumps dramatically to around 4.0Mmls.  So, a big increase from L3.  At SST/L4, you’re OK for a 10k running race or a 20-40k time trial on the bike or a 1.5k swim.
 
Compare how long it takes you to complete these time trial efforts vs how long your typical long workouts are and you start to see why you need to put a cap on your effort during long workouts, right?  The purpose of the long workout is to make the body more aerobically efficient.  To push your long workouts as hard as you can and to finish them completely spent does a disservice to your preparation.  Your goal should be to settle in for the long haul, let your HR or power rise and fall naturally between L1 and L2 as the workout and terrain dictate, and focus on finishing the workout stronger than you started it.  Break the workout up into quarters and focus on building your effort as the workout progresses.  The key is to always feel like you’re settling in rather than like you’re always pressing.  Long workouts like long races are about settling in, about finding efficiency through movement, about not burning matches for the sake of lighting them.

Hand-in-hand with this strategy around pacing is the fueling and hydrating aspect.  There is only so much glycogen the muscles can store, enough for about 60-120 minutes of working out depending on how hard you are pushing the effort.  So, to go long effectively, both fueling and hydrating become critical.  We all know this but how well do we all practice it?  The more you can spare muscle glycogen, the better and longer you will be able to perform.  Case in point.  Last weekend I rode 5 hours.  I was hydrating just fine but under-fueling.  At 4 hours, I could tell my body was starting to go into overdrive to find the fuel it needed.  I wasn’t carrying enough and had to ration what I had left.  At 4:30, my body was scraping the bottom of the barrel, I bonked and that last 30 minutes was sheer agony.  Today, I did the same 5-hour ride but fueled more consistently and more often.  My final hour was stellar and I finished feeling like I could have tacked on yet another hour.  A completely different experience that final hour. 

Endurance athletes have to get away from the mentality of flogging ourselves every time we step out the door.  Not only is it unhealthy to do so, it’s counterproductive.  After bonking last weekend, I really didn’t feel that great in my workouts until today’s long ride.  A whole week went by where I performed well but could feel the lasting effects of the bonk.  Too many athletes are perpetually in this sort of state and, thus, believe that the deep-rooted fatigue is natural; it’s part of the game.  Well, it’s not.  I know for a fact that this upcoming week of training will both feel and go much better than this past week because I avoided dipping too deeply into my reserves today.

If you’re self-coached, take a step back, look at your program and how you approach your workouts.  Assess where you can better ease off the throttle.  Trust me, easing off is essential to improving performance.  Not in every workout, but certainly anything that is not focused on high-intensity (L5+).  If you work with a coach and that person is having you throttle yourself in longer workouts, ask him/her why.  Why are you taking a workout that is specifically meant to tax the aerobic system and introducing aspects that counteract this?  It’s a valid and crucial question to ask. 

At the end of the day, the biggest limiter for endurance athletes is not speed; it is endurance.  Yes, speed work is essential, but it is the endurance work that will carry you to the finish line faster than ever before.
​
Happy Training,
Coach Nate

As endurance athletes, we are conditioned to believe that the only way to really progress is to flog ourselves in every key workout, certainly with every interval of every hard workout.  The premise being that if we do not aggressively push our limits then we will never achieve as great of success as we could.  What we tend to forget -- or maybe we do not realize this in the first place -- is that creating adaptation is not tied to a specific, pin point HR or pace or power value.  Nor is it intelligent to strive for the top of a particular training zone during interval training.  Especially for Masters athletes for whom it is even more critical to find the right balance between load and recovery.  Lastly, it is important to discern what the true goal of a given key workout is and to have the discipline to adhere to that goal.

So, what does all this mean?  When we look at the impact of an interval workout, we need to think of that impact multi-dimensionally.  First of all, how does the way you approach the first interval impact each subsequent interval?  Are you recovering easy enough between each interval? Secondly, how does the overall effort you put into a hard workout impact the next couple days of training?  Thirdly, are you recovered enough heading into your next key workout so that you're getting out of it what you need to get out of it?

Training zones are zones for a reason -- because there is no pinpoint value that is "the best" in order to create load and force adaptation.  For example, the default L4 zone is 90-105% of FTP (functional threshold power).  If you do not train with power on the bike or you simply base your training off HR zones, then the L4 HR zone would be 84-92% of Max HR.  If you were looking at an L4 workout on the bike of 2x20min, a common mistake would be to shoot for 100%+.  After all, if 100% FTP is what you can conceivably hold for a 40k TT on the bike, then why wouldn't you push harder than that for 2x20min?  The simple answer is that it's really frickin hard and you will be creating too much load for the workout.  If you can hold 100%+ FTP for a 2x20 workout -- especially on the indoor trainer -- then you've miscalculated your FTP; it's too low.  But, this aside, aiming for 90-95% is a perfectly acceptable range that creates plenty of load for this workout. Think about it this way.  The point of L4 intervals is about teaching your body and mind to settle in, to cope with discomfort during the long haul.  This is the goal of the workout.  So, if instead you are pressing your limits and start the first 20min interval at 100%+ FTP, guess what's going to happen?  Over the course if the first interval, your watts will drop slowly but surely.  By the end of 20min, you'll be seeing stars and your legs will be torched.  So, your second 20min interval will not even be close to that and you will probably be hard pressed to even hit 90% FTP.  You will have short-circuited your motherboard and your body won't take kindly to more cracking of the whip. Instead, shoot for 90-93% FTP on the first interval.  Think of it as the first third of a 40k TT and settle in.  Finish the 20 minutes feeling like you challenged yourself but that you could have held that effort for another 5-10 minutes.  Spin easy for 15 minutes (yes, 15 minutes; not 5 or 10), allowing your HR to drop well below 120bpm and holding your watts well below 55% FTP. Athletes press too hard during recovery periods when that recovery is meant to be very light.  By pressing too hard, you negatively impact the subsequent interval(s).  Now, for the second 20min interval in this example, start just below your average watts for the first interval.  Give yourself a few minutes to settle in because the fatigue that is still in the legs will come back quickly.  Let the body adjust, see how your HR is responding, before asking more of yourself.  If you have played out your effort correctly, your second 20min interval will be anywhere from a few watts lower to a few watts higher than your first interval.  If it is way higher, then you didn't press enough on the first interval; if it is way lower then you pressed to hard to begin with.

With this type of approach, come the next 1-2 days, you will feel better and less fatigued than if you pressed for the top of the training zone and cratered.  Consequently, the workouts on those days will be of better quality (and by 'quality' I do not mean higher intensity; they will just be better and you will feel better).  And you will have a better set-up heading in to your next key workout.

On the flip side of interval workouts are our long workouts, typically saved for the weekends.  The challenge here is that athletes tend to press these as if they need to squeeze every bit of energy out of themselves in order for the long workouts to hold merit.  We are so conditioned with the "no pain, no gain" mentality that if we settle in to a moderately aerobic effort for a long workout -- something that feels so easy compared to our interval workouts -- that we are indeed wasting our time.  The purpose of the long workout is to teach the body to become more aerobically efficient. If we press the effort and squeeze everything we can out of the long workout, then the adaptation runs counter to the goal of the workout.  If you are completing a 90min to 3hr run, for example, and the top of your L2 zone is, say, 145bpm, then it is critical to keep your HR below 145.  Start the run in the 130-135 range and gradually increase your effort so in the final third your HR is 140+. There will be some natural cardiac drift, causing your HR to rise as you get fatigued and dehydration starts to occur, so if you start the long run at 140-145, then you will force yourself to either allow the HR to jack up into the 150s to hold the same pace, or you will slow down more and more in order to keep your HR below the 145bpm ceiling (in this example).  Better to start the long run more relaxed, settle in, and pick things up toward the end -- which is how we want to race anyway, right?

Load and adaptation occurs over time, not just during the course of a singular workout or a singular interval within a given workout.  My suggestion to all endurance athletes but to Masters athletes in particular is to practice restraint during your key workouts.  Finish them thinking you could have done just a little more rather than wishing you had done less.  By taking this approach, your day-to-day training will improve, you will get more out of all your key workouts and, over time, your progression will be greater than if you try to flog yourself every time you hit the bricks. The upshot is that you will feel better more consistently, you will gain confidence and, ultimately, you will race better as well.

Happy Training,
Coach Nate

There are few topics as polarizing and emotionally-charged as diet.  And by “diet”, I do not mean eating to lose weight.  What I mean is the basis of the foundation by which you determine and decide what to put in your mouth.  While I’m no nutritionist nor doctor, I did study anthropology and primatology for 5 years and received my B.A. in Anthropology.  Effectively, I studied humans and our closest relatives (monkeys and apes) – past and present.  I was fascinated by the commonalities as much as I was by the divergences which occurred over millions of years.

Let me start by saying that I don’t care what type of diet an athlete follows.  If an athlete eats in a particular way and feels healthy while displaying health, then great.  What I do care about is basing choices on misinformation and propaganda.  So, let’s start by defining exactly what type of eaters humans are meant to be. 

There is little ability to refute that humans are omnivores.  This is stated clearly and up front on some vegetarian websites as well.  Here’s one example: “Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.” 
Omnivores are opportunistic feeders.  We adapted to the strategy to eat what we could find in order to survive.  Another example of an opportunistic eater is the bear.  They will eat whatever they can find – from meat to fish to fresh berries and so on.  And they do so without shame.  The underpinning here is that, as humans in civilized societies we have infinite food options in front of us, we have the ability to choose how and what we eat.  Animals purpose-built as carnivores or as herbivores lack this ability to choose. 

One area of confusion is when people start beating a particular type of diet drum without really understanding the distinction between taxonomy (classifying organisms in certain categories) and diet (dietary characteristics).  Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.),  folivores  (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), and more.  It is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one-to-one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.  In other words, there do not appear to be many hard-and-fast rules. 

One lens into the irresponsibility of how some people justify certain dietary decisions is those who beat the frugivore and vegetarian drums while pointing to our closest relatives and say, “See, primates and great apes don’t eat meat.  Look how powerful they are just subsisting on plants.  Humans should turn their noses up at meat, too.”  Well, what a lot of people seem to either not know or forget is that we are most genetically similar to chimpanzees.  And, guess what?  Chimps are omnivores.  They hunt, kill and eat any animals they can.  In other words, they are opportunistic when the chance to eat meat presents itself. 

With growing interest, I’ve loosely followed the careers of some athletes in various sports who openly discuss changes to their dietary choices.  One notable example is Arian Foster, a stellar NFL running back for the Houston Texans.  Foster is arguably the most talented runner in the game, someone who can do it all.  A couple years back, in an interview before the 2014 season, he stated he was a newly-converted vegan.  While not fat or overweight, he said he had slimmed down a little bit, and felt both faster and quicker on the football field.  And it showed as the 2014 football season began.  He lit up the field.  However, in the latter half of the season, his body started breaking down.  But, football players get injured; it’s part of the game.  As the 2015 season loomed, Foster tore his groin and required surgery, consequently missing the first few games of the season.  Then, after a handful of games, Foster ruptured his Achilles tendon in a non-contact capacity.  When the ball was hiked, he took one step, then another and his heel visibly popped and dropped to the turf.  Foster collapsed to the ground, first looking like he had simply slipped on the grass.  After all, no one had even come close to touching him.  When he stayed down, the gravity of the situation started dawning on everyone.  He immediately went on IR (injured reserve) for the rest of this season.  It is widely wondered if his pro career is indeed over. 

This is just one example and, certainly, is not meant to intone that if you don’t eat meat that your body will unequivocally fall apart.  However, it does raise this question.  If we in fact restrict the types of foods we eat (food allergies aside and, of course, ignoring highly processed junk), are we then robbing the body of important nutrients that it is hard-wired to need in order to function optimally?  Protein is not protein, so while plant-based protein is wonderful and does the body good, it’s made of different stuff than meat-based protein.  And visa versa.  The Paleo diet seems to rely too heavily on proteins and other types of dietary restrictions, thinking of humans more as carnivores than true omnivores. 

I’ll admit, we are sentient beings with morals and consciences which can make it more ethically challenging to make certain food choices.  Videos of slaughterhouse cruelty tug at our heart strings (mine included) and we wonder “at what cost?”  But, how many of us have it in us to hunt what we kill?  I know I do not.  At the end of the day, I choose to eat various types of meat because I know I feel better when I do and my body is meant to consume and process meat.  The operative word is “choose” and it brings us full circle.  We humans are omnivores.  We are purpose-built to eat anything and everything because from our nomadic roots we had to adapt to nature’s smorgasbord in order to survive.  Despite settling down and becoming sedentary civilizations, our hard-wired dietary necessities have not changed. 

Please, choose the diet that you feel does your body the most good and that allows you to best sleep at night.  But, at the same time, please do not beat your drum loudly as if yours is the only viable option.  It’s not.  But, if you find yourself breaking down or getting sick or injured, and you are restricting your diet in certain ways, it may make sense to re-think your choices.  At the end of the day, food is nothing more than fuel.  And, if the body is not receiving the right mix of fuel or enough of it, then like any machine it will break down.  If your food choices allow you to sleep at night but your well-being is suffering for it, then you have another type of choice to make, right?

What I’m advocating here is thoughtful choice that leads to fueling your body in the way it needs in order to perform optimally – not just in races, but also day in and day out. 
​
Happy Training, 
Coach Nate 
 ​