somers515 wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
somers515 wrote:
If someone new to the sport wants to do a century bike ride the training plans found online are mostly ride this many miles per week. If someone new to the sport of running signs up for a half-marathon, the training plans are almost entirely described in miles. However if one is new to the sport of triathlon and looks up training plans they are almost all in time. I've read some "explanations" for this and haven't found them very convincing. On race day you have to cover a certain number of miles, if you are slow it will take you longer. Do triathletes just enjoy being a little bit different? It's ok to admit it! Anyway it's something I think about while I'm riding on bike trainer just curious for the thoughts of slowtwitch.a) time is easier to schedule, easier to plan. When I'm heading out for a run or a swim, I tell my wife I'll be gone for x hours. Not, "I'll be gone for 4500m..."
b) body doesn't know distance, just time
c) distance is impacted by wind, hills, surface.
d) the training plans on garmin connect are all described in time, not distance. even the running-only plans.
e) time lets you balance the 3 disciplines much easier than distance.
You did a nice job laying out succinctly the rationales here. And I defer to all of you guys who've been doing this a whole heck longer then me but my responses to your points are as follows:
a) This might be a reason why training in units of time is better then units of distance but doesn't explain why most novice plans for a just-running race are in units of distance vs triathlon plans which are mostly in time.
b) Again doesn't explain why triathlon is different and I actually don't really get this argument since the race is over a distance not an amount of time.
c) Again doesn't explain why triathlon is different and time can also be impacted in this way. A 1 hour easy cycle on flats is a lot different then a 1 hour all-out cycle on hills. So I'm not sure why so many people have brought this up.
d) You are attacking the premise here - I don't use garmin connect but just looking on google, most half-marathon race plans for example are in miles, same for century bike ride plans, but triathlon plans are mostly in units of time.
e) This is the best argument that I've read on why most triathlon beginner plans are in units of time and most single-sport beginner plans are in units of distance.
Now getting a little off topic, personally I prefer units of distance for my training plans but perhaps that's just because what I've used when I first started doing long runs and long bike rides and its worked for me in the past. My goal for this year is to complete a 70.3, not to KQ, not to be as fast as possible, just complete it and hopefully with a smile on my face at the end. Maybe that makes a difference in my perspective.
Anyway I hope I'm not offending anyone - was just curious about the difference that I observed and I've found all the comments very interesting.
I haven't looked at a running-only plan in years. I literally just looked at the first one I had access to, and it was expressed in units of time, not distance. Not intending to falsify your statement, just another data point.
I guess when I look at it, I don't really care whether it's in distance or time, because all of those plans are just generic starting points anyway. Really good plans will scale to the individual's ability anyway, either through customisation (via coach) or various options (beginner, intermediate, etc)
If the plan says to run 45 minutes, I'll never run exactly 45 minutes. that's just a guideline, I'll pick a route that I know will take approximately 45 minutes to complete, could be 40, could be 50, but either way it's in the ballpark.
Swimming Workout of the Day:
Favourite Swim Sets:
2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly