Distance debate

Nov 24, 14 9:57

Post #1 of 22 (5368 views)

Hi all. Looking to sponge off the wiser or more experienced ones on the forum.

I started triathlon this season and bravely/stupidly chose to do an IM in my first year. Why? Because it's what attracted me to start triathlon and the area of the sport I fell in love with first. As I had no endurance background (this time last year I couldn't swim and had never owned a road bike) but I'd played team sports such as soccer and basketball at quite a high level I chose to sign up as it was something I thought I could complete. I did the training and clocked 11 hours, something I was very happy with.

My question is what to do next? I'll be 23 by next season and am wondering whether to focus on sprint or olympic distance to build top end? Or stay in the long distance field and reduce my time over years of work. There's 70.3s to consider too.

My long term aim is to succeed in the longer distances, looking at the top end of IM over recent years there are examples of those who have come from short course (Macca, Alexander, Carfrae, Frodeno, Van Lierde etc) and those who have always competed in the longer events (Jacobs, Cunnama, Wellington, Daerr, Joyce, Buckingham etc) who seem to have come to the sport later in life also and starting at levels as high as 13 hours. Anyone have any advice as to what to do for the foreseeable future or any experiences similar to mine and what they did and the effect on success, development, injuries, burn out, regrets....

Another thing confusing me is, say, an AGer who has 16 hours a week to train, surely they would train pretty similar for either short or long stuff as they can't do professional volume for long course so ramp up the intensity. I suppose that's a whole other discussion but knowing how to train is a difficult one!

Anyones $0.02 is appreciated.

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 24, 14 12:39

Post #2 of 22 (5243 views)

I have the same issue with a athlete I'm coaching. He did a IM after only a few years in the sport. His take, and I agree, is "OK, now I've finished one...check... time to get faster". Therefore this year, no IM, focusing on 70.3 and sprints and just building more fitness/speed and see how far that takes him.

You will get better results doing Olympic or 70.3 on 16 hours than full IM distance. You can crush sprints on that volume. For sprints, it will be a matter of how frequently you can race more than anything. A bigger base means faster recovery... or rather the stress of a race distance becomes comparatively less.

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 24, 14 13:34

Post #3 of 22 (5151 views)

deepsouth44 wrote:

My long term aim is to succeed in the longer distances, looking at the top end of IM over recent years there are examples of those who have come from short course (Macca, Alexander, Carfrae, Frodeno, Van Lierde etc) and those who have always competed in the longer events (Jacobs, Cunnama, Wellington, Daerr, Joyce, Buckingham etc) who seem to have come to the sport later in life also and starting at levels as high as 13 hours.

I know this is partially just a matter of who you selected for those examples, but tell me which of those two groups has had more success?

Edit: Format.

Last edited by: Staz: Nov 24, 14 13:35

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 24, 14 13:57

Post #4 of 22 (5104 views)

Focus on family, IMO, and just do the short stuff for fun. (Unless you are an elite)

,

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Re: Distance debate [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

ratherbeswimmin

Nov 24, 14 14:02

Post #5 of 22 (5089 views)

h2ofun wrote:

Focus on family, IMO, and just do the short stuff for fun. (Unless you are an elite)

,

He's 23 and makes no mention of family in his post...

I've found that I like the speed of shorter races (Olympic distance) and I feel like it's manageable throughout a season. And with ~16 hours a week, you can really get in the volume and quality for 70.3 racing. I'd prefer to be able to carve out 20ish for IM.

Last edited by: ratherbeswimmin: Nov 24, 14 14:39

Re: Distance debate [ratherbeswimmin] [ In reply to ]

Nov 24, 14 14:44

Post #6 of 22 (5038 views)

ratherbeswimmin wrote:

h2ofun wrote:

Focus on family, IMO, and just do the short stuff for fun. (Unless you are an elite)

,

He's 23 and makes no mention of family in his post...

He's obviously lost his family focus. Say no to Ironman!

Re: Distance debate [Staz] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 9:20

Post #7 of 22 (4855 views)

Sorry maybe my first post was a bit misleading and people have the wrong idea. To clarify, I have no family ties and the 16 hours a week I put down was an example to put across a point I was trying to make. I'll be able to choose my own training amount as long as my body can absorb it - not sure if this changes anything.

Staz wrote:

deepsouth44 wrote:

My long term aim is to succeed in the longer distances, looking at the top end of IM over recent years there are examples of those who have come from short course (Macca, Alexander, Carfrae, Frodeno, Van Lierde etc) and those who have always competed in the longer events (Jacobs, Cunnama, Wellington, Daerr, Joyce, Buckingham etc) who seem to have come to the sport later in life also and starting at levels as high as 13 hours.

I know this is partially just a matter of who you selected for those examples, but tell me which of those two groups has had more success?

Edit: Format.

Very true, but most of them started when they were in their teens whereas the second group mostly started like myself in their 20s and arguably therefore may never be able to have the success that the others did, but have still got to a level that I can only dream of. The fact there are unlimited pathways to become so good is something that is fascinating but could be mainly genetic related.

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 10:33

Post #8 of 22 (4765 views)

I would say you are in a very advantageous position to choose whatever distance you like. I didn't get into the sport until I was 30, and I always wonder "what if" in regards to starting the sport in my early 20's. Based on what I have witnessed in the triathlon world, most of the Olympic distance racers (ITU) that are professional tend to be in their 20's, and then as they progress into middle age they become less competitive in shorter course racing and transition to 70.3 and IM. You can watch Frodo going through this transition now. Again, this is my own observation and is no way based on any scientific fact.

If I were you (or put another way if I was 23), then I would become very competitive in Olympic distances, with the occasional 70.3 just to mix it up. Then as you become a little older and more experienced you can decide if becoming competitive in IM's is something you want in your life. Remember also, that compared to other older age groups, qualifying for Kona (if its what you want) is easier to do in your 20's than it is once you hit 30 and get into some tough age groups. Just for the fact that not nearly as many racers are competing in the younger age groups. It sounds like you have a very bright future ahead of you.

Re: Distance debate [sapper.michael] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 13:59

Post #9 of 22 (4652 views)

Thanks for that, think the wise choice is to drop to the shorter stuff and be hitting at least sub 2 before I consider stepping up. It could be in about 5 years for 70.3 focus and then when I'm about 30 or just over for the full IM. I don't want to be spent by the time I'm 30 or so either by smashing ironman too early.

follow frodo....

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 14:02

Post #10 of 22 (4640 views)

deepsouth44 wrote:

Thanks for that, think the wise choice is to drop to the shorter stuff and be hitting at least sub 2 before I consider stepping up. It could be in about 5 years for 70.3 focus and then when I'm about 30 or just over for the full IM. I don't want to be spent by the time I'm 30 or so either by smashing ironman too early.

follow frodo....

Hrm. What are your splits now?

John

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Re: Distance debate [Devlin] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 14:21

Post #11 of 22 (4609 views)

Devlin wrote:

deepsouth44 wrote:

Thanks for that, think the wise choice is to drop to the shorter stuff and be hitting at least sub 2 before I consider stepping up. It could be in about 5 years for 70.3 focus and then when I'm about 30 or just over for the full IM. I don't want to be spent by the time I'm 30 or so either by smashing ironman too early.

follow frodo....

Hrm. What are your splits now?

John

Only done 2 so far, best being: 00:26-1:08-00:37
How come the worry at sub 2? You reckon that's unachievable??

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 14:28

Post #12 of 22 (4600 views)

Are you doing that 1:08 on a roadie with no aero bars?

Re: Distance debate [JayZ] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 14:34

Post #13 of 22 (4589 views)

JayZ wrote:

Are you doing that 1:08 on a roadie with no aero bars?

An entry level roadie with aero bars and had a bike fit to set it up as close to a TT position as the fitter could manage on a roadie as that's all I could afford. Hopefully get a tri bike in the next year or two but need to learn more about bikes and what's what and save up money

Last edited by: deepsouth44: Nov 25, 14 14:35

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 25, 14 14:40

Post #14 of 22 (4575 views)

I only bring it up because with the engine for a 37 minute 10k you probably have the engine to be sub 1 hr for an oly bike pretty easily. I think sub 2 hr total is within reach for you, but you'll need to dial in your bike and swim for it to happen. Right now it seems like improving your bike split is the lowest hanging fruit, I'd guess equipment is part of where you could improve.

In any case, it seems like you picked a pretty good set of parents. There arent many capable of a 37 minute 10k thier first year of endurance racing.

Last edited by: JayZ: Nov 25, 14 14:43

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 5:58

Post #15 of 22 (4383 views)

OK - now that you have the IM out of your system. Time to start back with a better approach.

Keep at the training, but focus in on sprints and Olympic distance races only for the next few years. Look to optimize your performance in the standalone, 1500m swim, the 40k bike TT, and the 10K run.

Work on form and in particular consistent training, day in day out, week in week out, month after month after month . . .

Consider a return to longer racing at the 70.3 distance in 2 - 3 years, and IM after 3 - 4.

I don't know a heck of a lot about you, but if your first IM was 11 flat after just a year of training, and you do the above right, and you are patient, and work hard, there is a good chance that by the time you are in your late 20's you could be down in the mid 9 hr range or better.

The trick is staying out of the IM rut as I call it for as long as possible!

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Re: Distance debate [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 8:16

Post #16 of 22 (4282 views)

I'd love to see yout training logs from the last couple seasons to see what you were doing. That's the only good way to know how much you can likely improve, is to see what you've been doing.

All of my progressions were from better consistency, more volume then the biggest came from more quality, specificity AND volume.

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Re: Distance debate [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 9:04

Post #17 of 22 (4235 views)

fleck wrote:

Keep at the training, but focus in on sprints and Olympic distance races only for the next few years. Look to optimize your performance in the standalone, 1500m swim, the 40k bike TT, and the 10K run.

Work on form and in particular consistent training, day in day out, week in week out, month after month after month . . .

Consider a return to longer racing at the 70.3 distance in 2 - 3 years, and IM after 3 - 4.

I don't know a heck of a lot about you, but if your first IM was 11 flat after just a year of training, and you do the above right, and you are patient, and work hard, there is a good chance that by the time you are in your late 20's you could be down in the mid 9 hr range or better.

The trick is staying out of the IM rut as I call it for as long as possible!

Sounds like the general consensus, thanks for the advice, definitely taking that on board and will crack on with the shorter stuff. Seems to be the way that provides most success long term. Would staying out of the IM rut not be better until about 30-34 or is that too late? And what exactly is the 'rut'?

motoguy128 wrote:

I'd love to see yout training logs from the last couple seasons to see what you were doing. That's the only good way to know how much you can likely improve, is to see what you've been doing.

All of my progressions were from better consistency, more volume then the biggest came from more quality, specificity AND volume.

I'd be happy to let you know anything about my season of training from my log. All in all though, it was nothing spectacular, and nothing too intense given the distances I knew I had to cover. If you want any specifics fire away.

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 12:34

Post #18 of 22 (4113 views)

My goal is to maximize fun. Fun has two competing and contradictory component: 1) competency- relative to personal abilities, and 2) variety of training and racing.

What this means in real terms is that my primary training focus is the 70.3 distance. This is what I am training for if there is "nothing specific" I want to do.

The 70.3 distance is like a base camp. From here I can launch a 6-12 week training block attack on whatever kind of race I would like to do next. Ironman, marathon, swim meet, stage bike race - can all be raced well with a 9-12 week training focus. Olympic, Sprint, 13.1, 40 k tt - can be raced well on shorter prep.

To the extent that I am focused on competency- these training attacks should be focused at weaknesses. (Bicycing is my least developed leg- training for a multistage bike race would be beneficial to my overall competency). To the extent that I am focused on variety these blocks should be focused at whimsy. (Swimming is NOT a weakness but last year I trained for and raced a 200m free).

Year to year ones 70.3 ability should improve along with whatever over challenges you attempt.

Re: Distance debate [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 12:53

Post #19 of 22 (4073 views)

h2ofun wrote:

Focus on family, IMO, and just do the short stuff for fun. (Unless you are an elite)

,

Someone's under the thumb ;)

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Re: Distance debate [deepsouth44] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 13:14

Post #20 of 22 (4047 views)

My perspective is a bit different than the others in that the major question I've asked myself is what do I like more:

1. Training
2. Competition

The fact is if you enjoy the thrills of competition then do the shorter races. You can get far more in each season and not thrash your body too badly like you will on a HIM/IM. They also cost substantially less even when doing several in a season than a single IM. Being able to do a race every 2-3 weeks from June - September averaging 6-7 in a season but it also depends where you live and how the racing scene is. To me there is nothing like the thrill of competition.

If you've answered #2 then perhaps you would be more motivated to train and then I'd be targeting sub-2 Oly goal while selecting a 70.3 A Race per year.

Which ever you decide on keep up the hard work and passion for the sport it appears you have. Like another poster in the thread I also have the nagging "what if" I had started earlier like 23 years old for example instead of 32.

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

Re: Distance debate [Jaymz] [ In reply to ]

Nov 26, 14 14:15

Post #21 of 22 (3986 views)

Jaymz wrote:

h2ofun wrote:

Focus on family, IMO, and just do the short stuff for fun. (Unless you are an elite)

,

Someone's under the thumb ;)

Nah, my wife kept bugging me to sign up for IMLT last year. I just knew it was the wrong thing to do for lots of reasons. But if I had, I would have had a lottery chance. :o(

For me, so much more fun racing the shorter stuff and just going full out. The long stuff for me is just a steady pacing long day, not really that much fun, just a lot of hurt.

.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Re: Distance debate [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]

Nov 27, 14 10:27

Post #22 of 22 (3799 views)

Looks like short distance then. Interesting how you consider my bike a weakness as I always assumed it was my swim but in terms of time lost to a top AGer then I definitely need to work on my bike... Thanks all

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.