you are allowed to wear IM merchandise and get an mdot tattoo afterwards

---

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.

Hey, I get it. I'm not here to fight about who should be doing what race. I wanted to try an Ironman. I did it. It's not for me and i'm moving back to shorter distances. I'm truly a one and doner. I didn't enjoy the training and didn't really enjoy the race. Let me be VERY clear. I didn't enjoy the race because I didn't enjoy the experience. Not because it hurt. I was back to being active 2 days later. I finished and realized I felt no sense of accomplishment. No glory. Just happy to be done and go back to training and racing distances I enjoy. Ironman is not for everyone. I know that now.

However, that was not the point of my post. The point was that people shouldn't feel like they have to train long hours to finish an IM. They can do 7-8 hours a week and finish in a reasonable time. The gross generalizations I see around here and in coaching circles is hurting the sport and leading to burnout and injury. Everyone is different but you don't have to kill yourself to be an Ironman.

I think it is always important to remind oneself that this is slowtwitch and the expectations/commitment level here is not necessarily representative of the broader tri community. I did IMWI this year too and even being in the top ~15% with training hours below what I wish I could do and what others here may scoff at (which I find strangely motivating/glad there is such passion), I feel completely happy with the result and know it was the best I could do with what I could put into it this year. So long as people can say that same thing I think they should be happy regardless of how anyone else feels about their results or training hours. Congrats on your finish.

For me it was the natural step after 5/6 years of annual 70.3s/Marathons. The whole experience was also a step up from 70.3 - I loved the whole 4-5 days and definitely want to do it again.

As for the race, I suppose you could say I gallow-walked the run, but thanks to some well timed Pepsi in the last 10km, I finished strongly and achieved all of my pre-race time goals. I managed that on 6-7 hours per week and with a little more quality in my training next time, I think I can go sub 13.

Ironman has a 17-hour cut off time for a reason, and that limit was set from day 1, I believe. If someone needs all 17 hours, they should be applauded the same as an AG who takes 9-12.

---

My race site: https://racesandplaces.wixsite.com/racesandplaces

I think there can be a number of reasons for this:
1) For some it is simply just the challenges of being able to complete this monster of an challenge, it is not about competing. THey probably have already done a Half/sprint, and with the hours they put in they would not be able to compete there either, and have no intention thereoff either, so why not go for the full IM experience.
2) Some might wanted to train more but were limited due to injuries. And when the injuries were fixed they could not ramp up training hours without getting fatigued/ill.
3) They just have a "make the most of what you have"-mindset. If i stay injury free, i guess i could put in 15 hours a week, but i simply don't want to use that much time on the sport. So my challenge is more like: How can i optimize my training, recovery, nutrition, gear in a way so i get the absolute best performance possible on a 10h/week schedule. That for me is a fun challenge.

So, how competitive will someone be in a Oly race with just 5~8 hours training? You won't win anything with that, neither really race, unless clocking a 45 min. run for 10k means racing in AG40 or so (not talking about AG 60 and older)...

I know we're on slowtwitch so the competitive edge is there, but Ironman is surely more about the taking part than being competitive. 1600 participants and 30 Kona slots? How many of the 1600 are going close? Up to 100, 150 max? The other 1450 are there for the challenge, the experience and the fun of the whole thing.

---

My race site: https://racesandplaces.wixsite.com/racesandplaces

Glad you posted this, I think training hours are way overblown.

This applies to most triathlon books as well, recommending crazy hours, and you end up destroying yourself.

I just looked back a few years ago to my first ever IM, which was 11:18, four months after buying a bike. I also did a marathon in 3:28 three months before the IM. I was playing it by ear, not really knowing what I was doing. Two weeks before the IM, I did a HIM.

I averaged 7.2 hours training per week from 1st May to 1st September, the race was 2nd September.

I'm not fast either, never been under 19min for 5k, swim is always 1:05 - 1:10, Bike FTP is 260W

It's more about training consistency and quality sessions IMHO.

Just because putting in big volume isn't for you that doesn't mean it doesn't work or "you end up destroying yourself". It really comes down to what you want to achieve. If you just want to finish to say you finished great put in the minimum hours. If you want to race your best then put the hard work in.

Seriously awesome results on limited training! Well done.

I think, for many, consistency is hard with grueling training schedules. It is much easier to burn out and need to "take time away" or be forced into time off due to injury. It is kind of the tortoise and the hare story. Honestly, this all comes down to what makes you happy. If people are happy training long hours...great! I'm not. To each his own.

I agree 100%, I didn't mean to give the impression that I did wanted to 'say you finished great put in the minimum hours' - not at all, sorry if it came across like that.

I just think there is too much focus on volume rather than quality of the sessions - I see a lot of people writing massive hours in, and then not seeing the performance.

The year after the 11:18, I trained a lot more, from the January until July averaging over 11 hours per week in the end (so a big jump) - and ended up slower. A lot of my 'extra' hours were long weekend rides with friends or at an easy pace, and I realized after the race that although I had 'done more volume' I was actually worse off in terms of fitness.

Again, I didn't mean to make the post about aiming for times with minimum training. I'd love to have the time to put 20hrs per week in, I just don't have it.

I do think a lot can be achieved on around 10hrs a week, if done in the right way (I think there were some articles on the ST front page about this a while ago)

Thanks, and yes, you put it much better than I did. :)

Consistency over a long period... a big factor.

I live and do most of my racing in Germany - my 11:18 put me in the bottom half of the field. I then did IM Frankfurt, 11:35, again bottom half of the field (and AG).

For me bottom half of the field is not fast, and certainly not KQ, which I'll never attain for sure.

No, I don't think that he/she missed your point, completely or even partially. He simply made a cogent argument that was not in agreement with your view...Perhaps you completely missed his point ... :)

The point "why IM" only the OP knows, maybe he enjoys the experience of the big day out which can be fun and he can get a reasonable time without having to sacrifice huge amounts of time.

That was the OP point. He answered the why IM in his opening post. 7-8 hours is not really going to get many people to the pointy end of any triathlon field regardless of the distance, sprint, OD or 70.3

For riding, running or swimming single discipline, could go okay.

Being at the front end of things and KQ is not the end all and be all for lots of people and some people just enjoy the one day challenge and experience of an IM.

 

 

Key principle no 1 "consistency" what a lot of people forget but is also difficult to stick to. Nothing beats 52 weeks @ 10 hours per week for example. Add two or 3 high volume weeks of 15+ hours and thats it. No need to do 20 hours regime.

Obviously, not the everyone has the time or the ability to be "great" at triathlon.

And of course "good" and "great" are highly subjective to the individual involved.

But "good" IS what everyone should aspire to be.


I wouldn't take up a musical instrument with the intent of being bad at it.
Who wants to listen to intentionally bad music?

I wouldn't set out to write bad poetry.

I wouldn't make some bad art, take it to an arts expo....... and expect everyone to cheer for me.

The thing that makes triathlon fun is that we are aspiring to be good at it.
We won't all be good at it.
But at least we gave it a shot.

I say to hell with doing stuff badly.
I have my job and other obligations ..... I can always be sub mediocre at those things.

I've seen a number of people be obsessed with tris and trade off work performance and their careers to be mediocre at triathlon.

Seems like an odd decision to me.

Forums like this don't help people find the middle ground. When people post about anything the inevitable response is run more swim more bike more.

Run threads usually end up with the advice being run 60 MPW, swim, there will be a reference to what some body did in college then the 20,000 yards will be advised.

10 hours is great though

This is making me feel better! I am a slow cyclist so a 5 1/2 hour bike only got me to 140km and that looks like it's going to be my longest ride before IMFL. Longest run 16miles. Swim will be 4K so that's fine. I had lots of 1-2 hour bike intervals, 10k runs and 2 70.3 but I feel like how in the heck am I going to cycle 180 and then run a marathon. I have a running background but that was in my 20's. I am in my 40's and have 2 kids now.