I've often wondered this. Is average a good measure - is it the time that is really focused on IM, or just the average hours per year?
Heres my average leading up to my first ironman. Prior to this have always ridden, hadn't ran consistently for over 16 years, hadn't really ever swum for more than 3 months a year.
In 11 months its about 650 hours, or ~ 13 hours a week. But 13, or average, is a poor indicator I think as threre is periods of low volue (0 hours and build up is from an injury after I had a coach for the first few months - after that I coached myself) and high volume (28 hours). This gave me a 10:14 finish for my first IM.
I personally don't think average tells the story as it ignores base and bears no relation around the IM push (for me anyway).
Ive just hit 660 hours this year, ~ 15 hours a week. Thats seen me improve my 70.3 time from 4:50 (so I went 2 * 70.3 pace + 25 mins for first IM) to 4:24.
Last year: The last week shown is the week before IM week.
I work full time, no kids, wrong side of 40.
Heres my average leading up to my first ironman. Prior to this have always ridden, hadn't ran consistently for over 16 years, hadn't really ever swum for more than 3 months a year.
In 11 months its about 650 hours, or ~ 13 hours a week. But 13, or average, is a poor indicator I think as threre is periods of low volue (0 hours and build up is from an injury after I had a coach for the first few months - after that I coached myself) and high volume (28 hours). This gave me a 10:14 finish for my first IM.
I personally don't think average tells the story as it ignores base and bears no relation around the IM push (for me anyway).
Ive just hit 660 hours this year, ~ 15 hours a week. Thats seen me improve my 70.3 time from 4:50 (so I went 2 * 70.3 pace + 25 mins for first IM) to 4:24.
Last year: The last week shown is the week before IM week.
I work full time, no kids, wrong side of 40.