I would say it depends on your reason for doing the sport, you used the term dragging it out over 6 years before doing an Ironman this to me says that you dont love the sport you just want to tick it off a bucket list. Given your weight loss data I would guess your not a lifelong athlete and you would be a prime candidate to "drag it out" over a longer period before doing an ironman to build up proper foundation, rather then slog through a 14 hour Ironman. But what do I know my 2nd race was a 1/2 and 3rd race a full IM but I had 17 years of daily work out and finished in the 4:30/10:00 range

I would say that the answer depends a long on the specific individual and their goals.

If the end goal is simply to complete an ironman, then I reckon most people can progress to accomplish that within a year or so.

If you are young and the end goal is to ultimately race longer distances as fast as possible (within reason), then I think a few years of focusing on Olympic's and then progressing to half ironman's will do a lot of good. Most people that I know on the younger side of things that jumped right up to ironman have found it tough to develop more speed later on, despite having a ton of endurance. It isn't to say that they haven't done well at longer distances, as most have, but I think some speed got left on the table.

Just my $0.02.

You made too many assumptions in this post. I raced mountain biking for over 10 years, and took part in some tri/road riding at a casual level for another 5. The quick weight loss is likely owed to the fact that my weight gain was over 2 years, where I ate crappy while working full time and building my family an acreage home, and my body is not used to being that heavy and with hard work is returning to pre house build weight.

I used the term "drag" for no real reason.

So all your assumptions aside the last sentence was helpful, however at 36, I would like to move to IM distance a little quicker the 17 years.

doing a sprint before a half, and a half before a full is a good plan.
Gives you great context on what to expect at the next step.

You could do the them 3 days in a row if you want, doesn't matter. You will know after each one if you need more time to prepare for the next.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

So I would think setting time goals etc. for each distance would be a good idea, and then moving up with each accomplishment.
So sub 3hour local race, sub 5 hour Half, then move to IM... or something similar. LOL, on the lofty goals.

I agree, however the thread is within the context that many on this site complain they progressed in distance too quick. So hearing from people who feel they did just that would be good. What would they do different in retrospect?

I think that is likely a reasonable progression.

Some people just want to do an ironman to tick an item off the bucket list and are one and done, however, if you want to stay in the sport for the long haul, I think your suggested approach might work well. Set a time goal for the Olympic distance, crush it, then move up to the half and so forth, giving yourself time to improve, unless you want to simply slug it out through a 14 hour ironman.

I talked to a guy at Mels last weekend who plans to do IMLT 70.3 as his first tri. I asked why was he not doing the full instead. 17 hours is not that hard.
.

---

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

FWIW, I went through a steady progression:
Year 1: Sprints only
Year 2: Oly
Year 3: Half
Year 4: Half
Year 5: Ironman
This progression led to Year 6: Kona (This year). Your results may vary (take into consideration that I have been a competitive runner since grade school).

---

Proud Member of Chris McDonald's 2018 Big Sexy Race Team "That which doesn't kill me, will only make me stronger"
Blog-Twitter-Instagram-Race Reports - 2018 Races: IM Florida 70.3, IM Raleigh 70.3, IM 70.3 World Championships - South Africa, IM North Carolina 70.3

One who is fit and has a reasonable training base could get an IM training plan and do an IM as their first race. Its been done lots of times I imagine. Whether that would work for you I couldn't say. Most people work their way up the distance ladder, some faster than others.

Nice.
Kona is likely never in the cards for me. Just not a runner. I have broke 50min for a 10km once in my life. That was when training for MTB racing.

Some more thoughts for you...

Why does there have to be a progression to longer distances? Why not progress to the distance (or distances) that you like best (that could be sprint, olympic, or half) and that are sustainable over the rest of your lifetime, and then do lots of races in your preferred distance? Why does the end goal have to be the IM distance?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

My thought is that unless you are seriously genetically disadvantaged or horribly out of shape (or can't swim well enough to get the merit badge) you could probably complete a half and full off a several weeks of 6 hrs/wk of training. It would not be pretty but could be done. Ultimately it is up to you what you will find more rewarding/interesting or motivating. For many a "full" distance athlete, being able to wear the IM visor (and the vest, and shorts, and socks, and watch) is a big deal. Bigger than say, breaking 2:00 for an Olympic distance (which is orders of magnitude harder than just finishing an Iron Man). But Roger in accounting does not understand a 32 min 10K split, but he is mighty impressed by an Iron Man. One option you might consider is to identify a reasonable IM target performance, and attempt to hit equivalent performances at the shorter (and cheaper and less overhead) distances. I use this method with the runners I coach and it works well such that by the time they have longer distance goals (like BQ or OTQ), it is not as much as a roll of the dice because you have developed the energy systems and racing skills at the more forgiving distances.

To just see if one could do it, just like Dans article on the front page. But after that, your sustainable comments hits the mark for me. I love shorter stuff. I can race them about everyone weekend.

---

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

I'd also add that weight control and a sustainable lifestyle looks a whole hell more like training for a sprint of Olympic distance event that IM. Beyond 15 hours/wk, it becomes really hard not to mistake fatigue for hunger and turn into a human garbage disposal, justifying it because "I'm training for and IM". With the 8-10 hrs a week (with some intensity), you are doing enough to burn calories but not so much that you are always either eating, sleeping or training. Visit any IM event and look at the back of the pack (sorta like staring at the sun) - it take more than just endless miles of "base" to get fit....

+1 to this. What I see on here, time and again, that a lot of folk consider Kona WTC the pinnacle and everything else is just a stepping stone, in terms of race distances (it's not "real" unless it's Ironman distance), event affiliation (it's not real unless it's Ironman branded), and even equipment choices (it's not "real" unless you have a TT superbike). Everyone and everything else gets pooh-poohed to some extent. I find it funny that this, combined with the OCD A-type's inexplicable attraction to (WTC, Ironman) triathlon, causes endless handwringing about "how to do it right" and the concern that if one is not continuously moving along the path to Kona, then it's somehow a waste of time.

Go run, ride your bike and swim, as you feel like it. If you get egotistical about it, upload your latest effort to Strava or put on numbers and race, and get a reality check. Enjoy it, rather than making this just another thing you have to hit the numbers on.

---

Less is more.

Since you quoted "drag it out" I will also quote your mention of "slogging it out over 14 hours" not necessarily being statement of fact either. My first IM took me 14:18 and I loved every minute of it. Just because one is slow, doesn't meant they're miserable and slogging it out. I deliberally took it slower than I thought I could because my goal was to finish and enjoy it. Not every cares about finishing as fast as you did. Some want to finish. That was 4 years ago and I still love the sport, and am working on increasing my speed slowly. Not everyone can be or cares to be as awesome as "my 2nd race was a 1/2 and 3rd race a full IM but I had 17 years of daily work out and finished in the 4:30/10:00 range"

I think people who complain about others rushing to longer distances can go pound sand.

The only question is, what do you want to do? Couch to ironman distance in two years gives you time. But if someone wants to do it in one, they can do that too.

With your background, you can do an IM and have fun with it any time you have 6 - 8 months to train for it. (and find one still open to sign up for)

My first season I did a couple sprints and I think an Oly in amazingly slow times, I had to improve to even see the BOP. The next year I did another handful of sprints and I think 2 Olys. The next year I did an early half and at the end of the next year I did an IM.

This will be my 16th season. Triathlon amuses me. So I do triathlon. IM seems to amuse me even more. So I do that. I'm actually trying to put up a decent time this year and really shooting for an IM PR. I think that might amuse me even more. We'll find out.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I'd suggest you set out 3 goals per distance. Your "I want to finish and not be DFL" time, your "I think this is reasonable based upon my training" pace and your "I feel GREAT, I'm killing it" pace. Then, see how you do at Sprints and Olys to start.

There is some difference between Sprints and Olys but the difference between and Oly and a HIM is much larger as is the difference between a HIM and a full. For the shorter distances you are training for speed and endurance isn't as big a deal nor is nutrition during the event. But, as you move to longer distances, pacing becomes a much larger issue along with endurance and nutrition.

But, go by your training. If you can swim 4Km now, then ride for 180 Km and still feel OK to run a Marathon then you can do a Full.

Oh, and the other thing is that you need more time for training for the longer distances as you have to get your long days in. That means 6+ hours of biking and 3+ hours of running. even traing for a half will require 3+ hours of biking (your pace will be slower in a HIM than your "best" stand alone bike pace) and 2+ hours of running.

---

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.

I'd argue that at least 50% of each IM field, with Kona being the exception, probably would enjoy the sport more and stay in the sport longer if they didn't do an IM.

The #1 event to turn triathletes into non triathletes? Ironman.
The real question is does IM chase more people out of the sport than it brings in?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I did a HIM and IM in my second year and another IM in my 5th year.

I've often thought that I should have waited but since I got the IM bug off my back I was free to chase any distance I wanted to. For the last several years I've chased the HIM distance and am now going after sprint races mainly cuz I have the durability to handle the faster training. I don't know if I could have done that effectively in my first few years.

jaretj

The people that leave after an IM might have had that as the plan all along (I have one friend who was very open about how he was only ever doing one IM). But if their plan is always to do the IM and then move on with their lives, it'll look like the IM chased them out of the sport. They never wanted to be a "triathlete", they want to be able to say "I did an ironman", just like they probably earlier in their lives said "I want to be a marathon finisher".

HIMs and IMs can be pretty miserable (my sole HIM was the most miserable, painful, unpleasant athletic endeavour I've ever done), but I doubt they're chasing people out of the sport that were likely to stay in the sport long term.

---

STAC Zero Trainer - Zero noise, zero tire contact, zero moving parts. Suffer in Silence starting fall 2016

Too fast is when the goal overshadows the process, and that varies for each person. I have a buddy who registered for an IM before he even bought a bike, but he is already a great runner (BQ), a very talented athlete and is mostly self employed, one child and a wife that doesn't work so he has some flexibility.

The timeline for someone else who has three kids, works 65 hours a week, runs 10 miles a week and doesn't know the difference between a flip turn and a dolphin kick may have a more natural transition.

I signed up for Louisville for my second year of Tri, and was hell bent on scratching that IM itch. After I did my first half during that year I took a second look at what I was trying to accomplish. Did I want to cross the line feeling disappointed about my performance? Would it be worth the time I sacrifice with my family and friends?
In the end my answer was no and I ended up bagging it and just doing sprints and half's for the next couple of years.
This year is all sprints and olys :) Going fast is very fun!

---

Ready or not here I come!
Coaching NY's Southern Tier
Swift^3