Training Intensity and Endurance Nation

I'm signed up for my second IM this year and was looking for a different training plan than I used last year (BT IM plan).  I had heard Rich Strauss and Patrick McCann talk at IMLP last year, so I checked out their site, Endurance Nation.  I liked their ideas and signed up for their membership which includes access to all their training plans.  They've recently been working on a Wiki for IM training.  Here's a link to what they've posted so far:

http://www.enationblog.us/2008/01/27/wiki-endurance-nation-five-keys-of-long-course-training/

To me the big differences in what they propose versus others:

1.  More of an emphasis on intensity.  They still schedule a lot of base training but add in more intensity than other plans especially during the early parts of the training.  I know its not a great term but almost "Reverse Periodization".  Doing more intense works out at the beginning and then transferring to more race specific training as you get closer to the race.

2.  Recovery weeks.  As they say, "The “need” to take a recovery week is a result of poor scheduling. When you do it right, when Monday fits with Tuesday fits with Wednesday, you don’t “need” a recovery week. Instead, 2-3 easy days at the start of that 4th week (or at any time, frankly) and you’re back at it. More importantly, you don’t lose 25% of your key workouts to the need to take a recovery week every month."

A definite departure from standard Joel Friel based training.

3. Their emphasis on adapting your training to your available time.  If you can't realistically train 25 hours a week, how do you best use the 12-15 hours available.

Anyway, I was interested in what others thought.  Currently Endurance Nation gives free access to their forums and articles but this will soon change to members only.  So, I thought others might want to see the info while it was still available.

Ernie

Back when BT was brand new and needed a lot of help I volunteer to write articles. Here's an interesting article that I thought relevant. It's about a study that concluded that those who did well at Ironman events did two things:

Biked a freakin' lot.

Had the biggest volumes just two months prior to the race.

So "reverse periodization..." seems to have worked for them.

Here's the article with a link to the study: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=532

PS. And yes there is no such a thing as reverse periodization

Jorge, I knew the reverse periodization would get a few comments.   I agree with you that it doesn't exist but seems to strike a chord with some people.  I also agree that Rich isn't proposing something revolutionary but you don't hear about it much on BT.  There seems to be a "fear" to add any intensity to training for fear of over training or causing injury.  I'm not sure that "intensity" means that much more than the word "base".  It can mean different things to different people.  For me, it's more training at high z2 with some z3 or finishing a training session more tired than I would for "base" training.  It's all being able to work in the recovery time.  I don't think it means having to do frequent z5 workouts.  I would be interested in other points of view.  

Ernie 

enjoy

Jorge - Great blog on Base Prep, thanks. with regard to a training plan you're saying the amount of intensity vs load is a factor of fitness level correct?

What is the best method to establish a fitness identifier baseline? is it VO2 max compared to AeT? Lactate Threshold?