Your body doesn't know distance. It only knows duration and intensity.

It really is that simple.

You almost answered your own question. How far do you plan on riding on your trainer? The answer is zero since the trainer doesn't move. It's only a matter of how long and how hard.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Actually, before the advent of power meters, top pros and AGers always described their training plans in terms of mi/wk on the B and R and yd or m/wk on the S. Further, your statement that the "trainer does not move" is true but somewhat irrelevant b/c you can easily obtain an estimated mph from your bike computer on rear wheel. Thus you can ride for both time and estimated equivalent distance on the trainer.

I think the best answer to the OP's question is that a person must train properly to meet both time and distance requirements necessary to have a "good" race.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

A significant issue for triathletes is balancing the time spent training for each sport, and analyzing your performance to try to determine if you have significant weakness that would benefit from a shift in training time spent in each sport. Talking about how to rebalance training is most natural when discussing it in terms of time spent training for each sport.

Also, the TT bike (and associated race helmet, clothing, tires) is a confounding issue, further complicated by the fact that most race courses are quite flat. I.E. the bike portion of a HIM takes me under 2h20m. I often train on gravel, and that same time, at the same effort, may only get me 40 miles. If I said "my long ride is 40 miles, and I'm training for HIM" it would appear I was undertrained; but that is not the case.

Long course triathletes are also generally time constrained; they could use more training time, but just do not have it. It is not uncommon for long course triathletes to train 20 hours/week. Yet few runners break 10 hours/week.

So time is more relevant for several reasons.

---

2015 USAT Long Course National Champion (M50-54)

It's easiest for pre-canned plans to use time because that makes it more applicable to people across all ability levels.

Indoors= train by time
Outdoors= train by distance

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

A big thing for me is that distance as a metric disregards variables like terrain and elevation. Thus if you're measuring the success or a workout based on distance covered, you'll naturally gravitate towards "easy" courses: flat and fast. IMO this misses a great opportunity to develop strength from tougher courses.

I personally do most of my running and riding on very hilly courses. A 60 min endurance run in the hills might "only" be 6 miles, whereas in the same time I could do 9-10 miles on the flats. It would be silly to compare these efforts by distance alone.

What's nice about time is that it implicitly factors in variables such as terrain, elevation, heat, etc. Not to mention that it makes scheduling MUCH easier. If you run before work and need to know what time to leave, you must ask yourself "how long will this 10 mile run take?". If you schedule with time instead, you can completely skip this step.

If I was a single-sport athlete I would still be scheduling by time for the same reasons above. IMO this isn't a triathlon vs single-sport distinction. It's just representative of the specific plans you've looked at.

I do swimming by distance (generally by metres covered in 1 to 1.25 hour session) and running and cycling by time generally.

I've never understood why people always talk about run training in terms of distance when people's differing abilities is going to have a huge impact on how far you can run in a given time, and it is time at a given intensity which gives you the training effect.

It's going to take a kenyan elite much less time to cover 100kms in a week than an age group triathlete.

I've never understood why people always talk about run training in terms of distance
---

Because you race a distance

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Neither is right or wrong. Especially in relation to cycling. All distance is not equal. There is not a simple set of numbers that tells you what works best. These plans are a general outline. It's not precise, and it doesn't matter a whole lot how you measure it. Especially for long distance events.

If I have a plan telling me to ride 150km this Sunday because I have a 180km bike leg in my IM in 8 weeks time, that may seem reasonable and you might think that's the best distance to do and the guy who wrote the plan clearly has all of this thought out....
But consider that some IM bike legs are over mountains in hot, humid but windy weather. And plenty training is on flat roafs in moderate temperatures in flat calm conditions. Lots of trainjng is also now on a trainer which is even further removed from race day road riding. Is the exact disance what matters most?

Time and intensity are perfectly adequate measures. Distance and intensity works too. Mass prescription training plans are big guesses at what should woek alright for the majority given a bunch of assumptions. That's fine. But reading more precision into it than that would be foolish IMO.

I use yards and miles.

As a triathlete, this line of thinking surely can't get you very far. Running a marathon off the bike is certainly different than a standalone marathon, even though they are the same distance. So why would you treat them the same?

Because I'm not suggesting that you run THE distance during training. IME- triathletes prefer distances when training, especially outdoors because it puts their training into perspective in terms of the race. Running 40 miles per week just mentally feels differently than running 5.5 hours per week.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

If you are implying that most run specific race plans on the internet are not in units of distance instead of time, then you must be using a different google then I have.

This is probably the best argument I've read for why triathletes prefer to use time compared to someone who just runs or just bikes.

I still think its a little weird, since the object is to cover a certain distance not race for a certain time period. Perhaps your explanation is why triathlon plans are different. Regardless interesting discussion - thanks all who chimed in!

I still think its a little weird, since the object is to cover a certain distance not race for a certain time period.

_______

I think your only half correct. Or should I say, you nail it when you can take the specific time to equal the specific distance, and for me I gain that with my athletes much more when I deal in time for training. (And I do that with my run only athletes as well). Like for my marathon runners I hardly ever train them by distance, especially on their long runs. It's strictly time based because I know what the time they need to run, and I know what the specificity of training will do for them, so that their long runs don't need to be distance based but actual time based....because on race day that time on feet (instead of mileage) will be about what they need to do.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose (or shall we say, 'steps' ) of training.

The most effective form of training is to train at x intensity for y time as required for that given session. If a session is measured by distance you can't do 'x intensity for y time' as the time is unknown.

Put lots of those 'x intensity for y time' sessions together in the right way and you will be ready for your marathon/10km/cycle sportive/ironman/whatever.

The object is to cover a distance but, before or after completing other disciplines and under different conditions than those you may be training in.
Last year I did a lot of my training at low speed, climbing in the mountains. My triathlons were on rather flat courses. My time and intensity spent training on the bike was perfectly adequate, but if you just looked at distance covered you might think I was under-prepared. Distance alone is overly simplistic. The argument that the race requirement is defined as a distance misses the point. No one figure will tell the whole story. If you know approximately what your race leg times will be, then time is arguably more applicable.

Let me give another argument, again bike focused since it's the one where distance is least relevant.
If you tell someone they need to ride 200km per week, most people will have it in their head that that's the box they need to tick. If they're pushed for time, they'll find easier, quicker ways to cover the distance. Like sticking to flat roads and drafting in bunch rides. Whether conciously or subconciously, they'll avoid situations that provide less progress towards their tick box. Distance in training is not the most relevant measure of preparedness so obsessing over it is misguided.

Not speaking from a triathlon perspective, but from bike racing and a little ski racing: I've always used hours. It makes it easier to compare efforts over different conditions and even training modes. And I haven't always had equipment to measure distance, whereas I almost always have a watch.

This is over the course of 30 years.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

When you're already juggling training for 3 individual sports and hopefully adding in plenty of recovery and a bit of strength it can be very dangerous to go chasing after specific mileage. That's a good way to get an overuse injury...ask me how I know.

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.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

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.

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.


I'll take a stab at this. Key word there is "novice" A beginning runner does not have the background to know what it will take to finish, plus the peanut butter spread of these types of plans dictate that preparing is going to be vastly different for different people. By prescribing distance, in increasing amounts over the course of the plan, the individual will have accumulated enough "time on feet" to complete the desired race distance. As most of these plans are simply base building distance adaptations and lack any real speed work, this gets the job done and runner X crosses the finish line.

Triathlon plans, as stated in several replies, tend to be more time constrained. As such, need to be done at specific intervals. The reality of these plans is they are designed for a specific paced athlete, most likely MOP. They'll work for FOP athletes because they can probably handle the increased training volume, and BOP athletes because they need to build the base without over training, but the volume will be enough to get them through the finish after all 3 disciplines.

Additionally, triathlons are more often attempted by people who have at least run a bit, so are aware of their training and abilities. The athlete will self select a plan that aligns with their pace and distance norms in prior training (beginner, Intermediate, Advanced tags etc.). Or have a coach who prescribes time to meet a specific goal of the workout. A coach has background on the athlete's speed and pacing and takes that into consideration when establishing and optimizing the time parameters.


Sound about right?

The race is over a distance as you say.....it will also take an amount of time. If you have any idea of the route and your ability you can make a reasonable guess at the time for each leg and the race overall (+/-10% isn't asking much). So really, you have figures for both distance AND time to a close enough precision. If it were vital to make a close association between race time/distance and the corresponding training figures you could still use either. However, I don't think it is that critical, especially for beginners and especially for long distances.

Also, as previously mentioned. The race is over a distance, but not all distance is equal....
I've done swims with strong currents and cycles over big climbs. The distance is not what matters most. I think for beginners, covering the distance or a big proportion of it, is more about instilling confidence that you'll finish than anything more concrete like physiological adaptation.

If the argument is that the race is over a distance and the training should therefore follow this logic, then it would similarly have to take into account the profile of the bike and run course, and whether the swim is sea water or fresh, wetsuit or not, calm or choppy, and whether there is a significant current to take into account. This is simply not feasible. So there's no correct answer that's not already full of assumptions!
So worrying which is correct is missing the point.
Time and intensity tells you quite a lot about training load and expected physiological adaptations. Distance alone tells you a lot less. If you simply say "ride 40km" it's much less useful than saying "ride 70mins at 90% threshold power". I can ride 40km at an easy pace over hills and get just a mild benefit, I can ride hard for 40km on the flat and get a huge benefit. Or you could switch those around. A further benefit of using time is that an athlete's ability to maintain an effort intensity is linked to time rather than distance.
I can do 2x20mins at 95%FTP on the bike and, if I wish I can still go for a run afterwards. It's a very effective training session. If that was defined as a distance, it would take dramatically different times for different athletes and some would be unable to maintain intensity for the duration or would end up destroyed and in need of a recovery day(s), while others wouldn't get long enough intervals to maximise the benefit. In this context, time works, distance doesn't. These workouts are about maximising physiological gains, not simulating race conditions.

It's a similar situation for running, it's just harder to measure independent of pace.
Consider that an elite marathon runner may operate at 90%HRmax for just over 2hrs to complete marathon. A much slower runner cannot maintain 90%HRmax for 4hrs to cover the same distance. BECAUSE the race is defined in distance, the intensity the athlete can hope to maintain for the race varies with their speed.
I prefer using distance for running and for some outdoor cycles. After all, I need to figure out where I'm going to run or cycle or I'll find myself 20km from home with when I "finish" my session! But my actual plan is based on time and then converted to distance. If I head out for a cycle and I'm fighting a headwind for the first hour, and it's possible to do so, I'll consider knocking a few km off my route. Why do more work just because it happened to be a windy day?

If your target is to finish a 70.3 then this is certainly not something you NEED to worry about. If you've a bit of endurance sport experience, and you put in 6hrs+/wk with a balance of the disciplines for around 6 months you'll do fine. Do more and you'll be faster and more confident. Do less and you might struggle but you're still in with a chance. Obviously most people here will prescribe more volume than that, and it will help, but it's probably not essential.

A lot of good explanations above. Simply, I would say that most people looking for training guides online are novice to the sport. When training for endurance sports, the best way to improve is to strengthen the aerobic system, at least in the beginning. The aerobic system is improved by the amount of time you spend training aerobically, not the amount of miles you accumulate.

I won't discount the importance of mileage, but for generic training plans across multiple disciplines, I think it a plan based on time is easier to create and simpler to follow for most people.