Brett Sutton IM programme (normal people level) maxes out at a bit over 4 hours per week (might be 4 1/2 as a one off peak week.)
All done by time, not miles.

I've done solid run performances off that (and I am certainly not a runner and my genetics loaded gun is about as powerful as a water pistol.)

I always get injured going above ~30/35 miles/week anyways. I got a stress fracture about 3 weeks into IMCDA training in April... I've been replacing all runs with aquajogging and will start slowly introducing running this week. My plan (Level 7 Matt Fitzgerald's week-by-week training plan) tops out a little bit more than 5 hours, which would be about 30-35 miles for me. I won't get there because of the SF, but I'm not too concerned - I expect my run time will be around 4:45/5 hours. My cycling has gotten so much better, too, so I'll have plenty of time for the marathon.... training just depends on your race goals (e.g. PR, Kona slot, just survive).

Your running around 20 miles/week average and running a 4:45 is good to know for me, though, given my current situation. What was your cycling and swim training volume and intensity?

I ran 20mph consistently for about 6 months with a high week of 31 miles (18 mile long run). My swim and cyclying volume was high -- about 3.5 hours a week of swimming and 8 hours of cycling on average (peaks were 4.5 hrs swimming and 12 hours cycling.

I also paced my IM bike extremely conservative and walked ~1 min through every aid station during marathon. I probably left a little out on the course but my first IM was just to finish so happy with my 13 hour mark.

I did 4:45 for my first IM last summer. I did about the same mileage or a little less in the 4 or 5 months leading up to it. I peaked at about 40km (25miles). My cycling volume was a little lower and my swim volume was a LOT lower until the last few weeks when it may have come close.
I was going well until 27km into the run when I had some awful pain in my arms and sides that I couldn't account for and the pain forced me to walk intermittently. Over the next kilometer or two I ended up walking more than I was running. Then I realised I hadn't taken any salt since I finished the bike and it was a warm race. I took 2 salt capsules and within 15 minutes I was picking up speed again. I finished reasonably fast but had lost about 25mins. I reckon a 4:15-4:20 was on the cards if I hadn't run into that problem.

What is your height/weight? What is your standalone 5k, 10k, 1/2 marathon, or full marathon (any will do). How much do you bike a week? Swim?

30 miles/wk is plenty sufficient to running a sub 4 in an Ironman, but depending on your weight, and bike (and swimming fitness), and then of course, your race execution.

Depends totally on the athlete I would have thought. I ran 3:40 in my first IM in pretty sweltering heat off an average of probably 30 mpw. But I'm lucky to have (what I assume to be) decent run economy and a little bit of natural ability. I was about 18min for 5k then. My easy run pace was maybe 8 min/mile.

6'2" 190 -- 10k ~48 mins -- Bike 6-8 hours a week -- Swim 3.5 hours a week

I am not running 30 mpw -- I have been doing 20mpw and upping it to 25mpw -- not sure I can consistently get to 30+ with my bike/swim

Always nice to read a post from someone in my universe. I can never respond to the posts asking for advice on running a sub 3:15 IM marathon.
I was close to the time you are aiming for at WI last year.
My last ten weeks: 36,31,32,30,32,36,27,36,36,14
My coach is a bit sporadic, so there was no real pattern week to week. I did lots of two a day runs on the weekends. Sunday might be 9 mile run followed by 4k swim and then in the afternoon 5 mile run. Or two 9 mile runs on a Saturday separated by 5 hours. After each run I would do a 2k swim. My coach was big on swimming after running.
During the week on Wednesday anywhere from 7-10 miles. Thursday around 5 miles. He also had me do runs where I ran "Fast" and then stood for 2 minutes. I look at one that was 9 sets of run at 8:30 for 3 minutes and then stand/stretch for 2 minutes. I am not sure this helped my pace but, it did mix up the training. FWIW my longest single run was 15 miles 8 weeks out. I did a couple 14 mile runs in the last 3 weeks.
Obviously, a lot goes into a training plan (time in the sport, weight, time available to train, time to recover) but hopefully this gives you some idea. Happy Training.

Your weight is too high. Drop minimum 20lbs, if not 30. Running 25 mpw is fine if you lose the weight. And if you lose the weight, you'll be running faster in training and your run training time will be the same as it is now running 20 mpw, not disrupting your life any differently. Don't run faster until you lose weight. Bike minimum 8 hrs. Swim is fine for your purposes.

Easier said than done. I am looking to lose 5 pounds in the next 2 months before IMLP. Maybe 175 goal for next year.

175 next year?! Your race is 10 weeks away. You can - and should - lose 15-16lbs over the next 8 weeks (which would bring you to 174) and then stabilize for the race. The amount of training you do, it is actually quite easy. How old are you?

I am 30

I dont think losing 1.5 pounds a week while under IM training load is possible. I am more a 1/2 pound a week type. I will take suggestions but I dont want to compromise training.

I ran a 4:51 at IM Cabo (my first) off of an average of 15 miles/week during the four months leading up. I peaked at 32, and my longest run was just under 14 miles (once I passed that during the race, every mile that ticked off i'd tell myself "good job! this is the furthest I have ever run!"). I did a lot of intensity on the run and held up ok. I also had a good amount of intensity and volume on the bike, at least ~8-10 hours/week. Swim prep was less than ideal, with probably only 1-2 sessions/week.

A couple of things i'd note about my time: (1) it was hot and humid in Cabo, and my run time was shockingly FOMOP, (2) this is probably because i'm a women and we are generally slower, and (3) I knew that I was way undertrained on the run and planned on walking aid stations to get in fluids/nutrition from the very beginning. This strategy worked well - I passed tons of people in the last 10k - but I probably left some time on the course (went 13:03).

I'm also doing IMLP. I have increased my run volume to closer to 25-30 mpw average, with the plan to peak at 40 mpw. My easy pace is about what yours is, and i'm doing a lot more easy running than before. I'm also doing more cycling and am very bike fit. I'm hoping to run 4-4:15, but this is probably a stretch.

Out of curiosity, what do others use as their measuring period for calculating their run average? The couple of months leading up? Four months? Six?

I averaged 25-28 mpw leading up to IMTX...my first full. Longest single run 13 miles..most miles in a day was 16. My easy pace is slow 930-1030. I ran often, but not always long. I did my long runs on Sunday, but they would be styled in a way such as after 20 min warm up, 20 min at 30 seconds below easy...5min recovery at e pace, repeat that twice then 15 min at min below e pace ..5min recovery, repeat twice ...then easy cool down...1:45 total run that packed a punch...would follow that up 5-6 hrs later with a 30-45 min easy run. The body only knows stress not miles. When I started double run days I was in some major pain, that same pain came back at the end of the ironman marathon, but I knew how to handle it by that point. Went 4:28 ...super happy with it being my first. This was mop for my AG.

Hmmmm, how badly do you want this? It is certainly possible.

So I already count calories pretty religiously. Just from what I read it's not good to cut that severely while building for an IM. I will happily take advice and I have the mentality to stick to it (I have dropped to current weight from 235).

Losing 1.5 pounds a week is netting about 1300 calories a day (BMR 2000 - 700 calorie deficit + food & exercise calories)

What are you using to calculate your ideal weight for racing? I'm just interested for my own assessment of where I need to be. I'm 6'0" and currently at 175lbs. I usually race 70.3 at 170lbs but based on your recommendation for the OP I'm thinking I might want to get quite a bit lighter. The lowest I've been is 165 and for me that feels quite skeletal.

Thanks,

Will

Lots of data. How old are you? To maximize your ironman run performance (assuming same training), you should get your weight no higher than 161. Target 147-161, lower is better assuming not losing s/b/r specific strength, losing lbs gradually.

Thanks. I'm 44 yrs old, where does that put me in that range?

Couple questions... statements really. I don't post much here but read a ton.

First, I am surprised at the lack of run volume being discussed here. I'm currently training for Madison 70.3 and my I'm running 35+ miles a week, every week, with at least one run at 13 miles. I wouldn't go all the way to 26 training for a full, but I'd definitely get up to a 20 mile run in, no different than a marathon training plan. That said, I am run-biased I suppose.

Second, I'm floored by the weight statement. I'm 5'11 and weigh 178, I have no intentions of being anywhere near what you're recommending for someone that's even taller than me. While the weight equation is a no-brainer, lighter = faster, I think this recommendation is excessive, especially without understanding body composition.

You are correct I thinking this. Don't sabotage your race by losing that weight. It's a project for another time.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com

why do people treat the run like a joke by aiming low.... shuffle jog and not work to a legit volume before going into an ironman? there is more fitness gained from running to help swim and bike. i remember a tim odonnel saying he only loves the run in triathlon, because that is how you finish! Frodo hit 100mpw on his builds...

Definitely dont see it as a joke. I am not trying to skate by -- but be realistic on how I can balance my training. If I have (on average) 15 hours a week to train -- I cant spend my time doing 50mpw running (which would take me nearly 9 hours at my 'easy' pace). That would leave 6 for swimming and biking. Even a "low" 35mpw would be 6 hours of my time. Does not seem as efficient plus the wear and tear vs spending the majority of the time biking. I felt I ran pretty strong during my first IM marathon for my abilities. I ran about 10min mile pace and walked 1 mins or so through each aid station.

Say I take an average week

3 swims - 3.5 hours (1 hr, 1 hr, 1.5 hr)
4 bikes - 8 hrs (1hr intensity, 2hr endurance, 1hr tempo, 4 hr endurance) I would build endurance ride some weeks

That leaves 3.5 hours on average for running. Which for me is right around 20mpw. To get to 25/30 miles I am sacrificing an hour of bike time. Which I plan to do but still puts me way under what I read on here as "reasonable" IM volume.

Frodo is a professional athlete who does not have to limit himself to say 15hrs a week.
He runs very considerably faster than the OP or myself.
So he has many more hours available to train, and can cover much more distance in each of them.

When people start threads, clearly stating their objectives and constraints, why do you come along saying "do more" and comparing them to professionals? It's absurd. If you think running should be a greater proportion of their training, say so. But you need to also indicate what should be sacrificed for the extra run volume.

I often look at my training plan and say "Gosh, I should swim way more". But fitting it in is a completely different story. If you're life is all about triathlon achieving results, good for you. I think it's fair to say most of us do what we can within time, cost and social constraints to achieve what we can. Everything is a compromise. Those who don't recognise this make their advice worthless (I'm not aiming this fully or specifically at you).

2lbs a week is excessive and unsustainable under most circumstances. More so while training hard.

I'm 5'10 (1.78m). I weigh about 82.5kg (182lbs) at present. I aim to reach 81kg (178.5lbs) in the next 6 weeks before my B event and 79.5kg (175lbs)within 12 weeks before my A event. That's an average of about 250g (8.8oz) a week. That's a modest weight loss and is definitely feasible, but not easy. I could of course aim to lose more, but based on experience this is a realistic and achievable target. If I do better, great.
Would I be faster at 75kg? Yes. But it's likely not currently feasible without misery and compromised training. Further reductions are an ongoing goal and 75kg is a potential goal for winter or next year. I have a race in 6 weeks and another in 10 weeks, that doesn't preclude long term planning.

You're probably a better runner by doing more volume, assuming you are also doing enough bike and swim volume. The OP stated that he is restricted to no more than 25 miles per week. Those are the constraints under which any advice you can give to him. You certainly can go sub 4 on 25 miles of run training, assuming you have swim and bike fitness, and are light.

Having said that, you are not maximizing your running potential based on your current fitness. Quite frankly, 178 is huge and a lot of weight to carry around in a marathon or ironman, particularly at 5'10. You are wasting your training. You should aim for max weight of 157.

You're joking. If you can't lose weight off ironman training 10 weeks out from the race, then you just don't want to maximize your potential based on your fitness level. The OP will only increase his chances of reaching his potential; not even close to sabotaging it.

What are your race times?

Relevance?.... or are you attempting to construct an appeal to authority?

No dude. You are flat out wrong. You want to lose .5 pounds per week, good. Any athlete should be okay with that.

You want to try to up it to lose 1.5 pounds per week? You are going to fuck your training, your mood, hormones, etc. don't be an idiot.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com

Ok, I guess it's settled then! Thanks for enlightening me.

When you weigh 170-190 lbs, something is wrong with your diet and you are not reaching your potential based off your training. Losing 1.5 pounds per week at that weight is pretty easy and will not screw at all with your training, mood, or hormones; to the contrary you'll eat better, eat the the right foods, and eat only what you need, and as a result, start training better, with more energy, and more effectively.

Lance Armstrong: “I was a swimmer and I was always stuck with a swimmer’s body,” says Armstrong, who started his competitive life as a triathlete and retained a heavily muscled upper body. It was a build well suited to winning one-day races, but which proved a liability in multi-week tours studded with long climbing stages. When Armstrong returned to cycling after his bout with cancer, he was 20 pounds lighter and worlds faster on the climbs.
“Being lean is all about the three or four months before the Tour and—let’s be honest here—this is just about starvation,” he says. “For me to get down to 163 pounds and still be four percent [body fat]? I’ll tell you, in those months leading up to the Tour, you’re just hungry, man.”
https://www.outsideonline.com/...france-riders-really

Meb Keflezighi: Famed marathoner Meb Keflezighi has already gained more than 12 pounds in the 10 days since he ran the 2015 Boston Marathon.

During training leading up to a race, Keflezighi said he runs 100 to 130 miles per week. He eats only two meals a day, skips sugary desserts and drinks 32 ounces of water before dinner to fill his stomach.
Afterward, he eats three meals a day and can treat himself to things like omelettes with bell peppers and cheese, ice cream and strawberry cheesecake.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/guess-weight-famous-boston-marathoner-gained-10-days/story?id=30707421

Chris Froome: In the years leading up to that remarkable performance, Froome had been carrying all kinds of extra weight — tipping the scales at up to 167 pounds. In a 2014 interview with Paul Kimmage for the Irish Independent, Froome said he had "always been aware of the weight issue" but took it for granted: "I don't think I necessarily thought that I could go much lower than [69 kilos/152 pounds] and apparently I have. I've gone a good three kilos lower [66 kilos/145 pounds] which is huge."

Michelle Cound, now Froome's wife, said in the same interview that he "starved himself" before his breakout performance:
MC: He starved himself before the Vuelta, and then he came back to South Africa and that's when we started dating. I've always had a bit of an interest in sports nutrition and my view was that he could still train on more protein and cutting back on the carbs at certain times. And also making sure he wasn't hungry, so having more meals, more often, things like that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-froome-weight-loss-tour-de-france-2016-7

Nope, just trying to help: I'm simply saying that you are doing yourself a disservice based on the amount of training you do by racing at that weight (and I assume you want to do well by having A races and the amount that you train).

As I think would be clear from my previous posts, I'm aware that I'm heavier than is ideal and aim to drop some weight. I have already reduced my weight significantly but have a bit further to go. My point was not about ideal racing weight but about your suggested rate of loss which I consider excessive.
I don't intend to try and get as light as you propose but I do intend to lose another 5-7.5kg (11-16.5lbs). Why? Because that will put me at a perfectly healthy weight and I don't feel the need to go any further. Amongst other things, excessive weight loss is liable to interfere with my stunning good looks. The gaunt face look doesn't work on me.

I reserve the right to change my mind at some later date.

Yes, I want to do well. But that is defined more by continuously improving rather than winning races. Everything is relative.

so perhaps its more intelligible to do shorter distance races. then again you can look at how lars did a 9hr IM with 9 hours of training.... more intense work. not much easy pace stuff.

Swimming/cycling responds well to hard work/volume. Running fast requires talent. Talent is rare, hard work ethic is a lot more common.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Do you mean more intelligent to do short races? If so, the answer is no. Both are still feasible so you do whichever takes your fancy. You can be probably place better in a shorter race for less volume. but that doesn't matter if it's not the event you enjoy most.
Low volume/high intensity does seem to work well for some to achieve fast times but I suspect this is due to strong base fitness built up over years. I seriously doubt this can be sustained over a career or produced by a newcomer. For most of us, lower volume means we'll need to accept slower times. I can live with that. I still intend to improve year on year.