How old are you

32

I can see off the bat the mileage/time on the bike is way low and 187 a week says with it being so low, intensity is not high enough to compensate.

Some guys your age even get to Kona (and more importantly, race well in Kona) on training in the low-to-mid teens per week. Just the way it is.

If you are enjoying your training as an amateur, then that is literally the most important thing. And I will say that should be the most important factor for the majority of pros too....

Impressive! I also believe in low mileage and it has done me well. It's great that you fought the urge to overtrain and start hating the sport. The fact that you even WANTED to ride 2 days later means you won. Keep building base on those low miles and watch your times drop....Nicely done!

Well done on your finish.

Not to start a pissing contest - I agree with you but managed even less training for my 13'37" finish at Ironman Gurye in Korea (first IM).

I'm 45 and have been doing one annual 70.3 and one annual Marathon for the past 5-6 years. I work long hours and manage two kids, so had just one hour on weekday mornings, with longer on my one/two days off.

I put in a solid and consistent 24 weeks training but averaged at 6 hours 40 mins per week. Biggest week was 9 hours 30 mins. Biggest ride was 102km in 4 hours. I threw in (Vietnam) 70.3 in May and (San Francisco) Marathon in July (PB).

I knew my swim needed work, so made sure I got 3 swims in a week, average around 1.5 - 2km but got above 3km twice. I'm a decent runner so really just maintained throughout with 2 runs a week average around 12km. I needed some long bike sessions so managed one per week - usually 2-3 hours but got up to the 4 hour mark twice.

I was nervous going into the race - I felt I hadn't done enough - but held it together on the day for a 1'32/6'47/5'00 performance. Not great - top 35% - but perfectly adequate for me in my first IM. On to the next one!

---

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

This is awesome! Fantastic effort on that amount of training.

I just think sometimes people end up overtraining because they think they have to be training themselves into the ground. For people wanting to accomplish something big and enjoy the experience they should feel empowered to train smart and not just destroy themselves.

I'm not mentally built for heavy training. I prefer to spend time with my family and do stuff around the house. I love 6-8 hours a week but when it gets more than that it's no longer fun and becomes a second job. I know we're not all the same but I want others to feel it's ok and they can still accomplish big goals.

I agree! Family first, training after that. I hate getting up early, but stuck to my routine - up at 6, drop kids at school by 7 and training from 7-8. I'm lucky that I can train at work though (pool, spinning bike or head out for a run) - that made a big difference.

I'm tall and skinny (194cm and 82kg) which helps too - if I had weight to lose, maybe I would have needed to do more. I also got lucky with sickness, just had one bought of flu in the middle. My 3-week vacation to California set me back a little I think, but I got some good running in and I think the break from the bike and swim helped me.

I did 3-4 bricks, but longest was an 8km run off a 2.5 hour bike. I train in the heat and humidity of HK though, maybe that helped a lot? Race day was warm, but nowhere near as uncomfortable as HK.

I can maybe take up to one hour off my time - 30mins off the bike, 15-30 off the run and maybe 5-10 off the swim. I'll never be Kona-bound, but nice to have a goal.

---

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

wow thanks for the thread OP

I'm just a casual try-er and am even slower/older/put up less time commitment than you but I thought one factor might bear consideration you aren't looking at [or aren't, because it doesnt apply to you]

namely the run. Anyone really can do the swim/bike. What matters is the run. I barely can put the work in to complete a marathon standalone and as is I can baarely sneak under 4H anyways. I figure I'd be pushing 6 in an ironman if not worse.

Anyways I'm around 5:30 in a 70.3 so that should translate to a 12-13 hour finish except for that one teeny little detail. I'm undertrained on the run. A marathon is hard for me, and I tend to get injured when I ramp up running [I barely scratch 30 mpw in any event so this isnt significant and still counts as undertrained I'm fairly certain]

so the extent of my rambling is to say as much as I want to wholeheartedly agree with you and just jump out there and nab a 1st timer 12-13 hr full based on my supposed current fitness I don't think its in the cards for me. The run would have to be some kind of gallowalking compromise I guess and then if I re-oriented my thinking around accepting that I suppose I could go around 13-14. But I'm not interested in gallowalking the run so I'm not going to sign up until I'm in such condition that a marathon is something I can do more regularly.

Just my theory anyways. Open to other opinions. I completed the SF marathon last year, and am signed up for CIM this year but will have to cancel because [you guessed it] I was injured for much of the year with a foot/achilles thing and missed training block after training block and simply havent put in the work to permit finishing a marathon un-injured. [My recovery from the SF marathon last year on a different injury almost took me out of running completely I had thought].

I'm not super obese or anything [6'1, 187#, bf is 14.n%], but sure could lose a couple but man it seems like marathons just arent my thing so for that reason I think a full will be forever out of my reach unless I get to the point where I'm marathon-capable I guess. You know, a nice 12-18 week block of 35-55 mpw and long runs out to 18 or so and remaining un-injured throughout. I've just never been able to do that. Something miraculous will have to change for that to happen because every time I try I get injured and have to back off. I'm 44 so probably age is part of it, also being an adult onset runner [40+] is working against me. Anyways sorry to rant on your thread. Kudos for your success I just wanted to offer a different perspective. On paper it feels like I could perform similarly but I know I just can't and its because the run will injure me either in the event itself or in the training prior

---

//Noob triathlete//bike commuter//ex-swimmer//slower than you

First off, congrats on an amazing time with minimal training. However, you do realize that you had 4 years of pretty good conditioning building into 2017? =)

At the end of the day, everyone's experience and everyone's body handles training differently (and consequently race differently).

IM is a long day for every one relatively. With that said, there are that many more variables that come into play than just how much time and how effective the training is.

Though there may be some common guidelines, I don't think there's really a set rule or advice anyone can give that is a one size fits all for this distance.

That's why some times doing a race is in fact training as well.

In short, I completely agree with you in that IM training can be done without an insane amount of time invested. However, that will vary from person to person and depend on their goals.

The history was part of my point. Consistently get out there and put miles in. It doesn't have to be big miles but get something in every week and it really adds up. I don't think I've taken more than a couple days off in the last 5 years but the days on aren't crazy training days that wear me out they are "just being active".

Agreed that everyone is different. I think I have OK genetics. Nothing great but enough to put up MOP times with minimal commitment.

Just curious why? Is it a pride thing? I used a gallowalking strategy during IM and it allowed me to maintain a similar pace all day off 17mpw. 4:24 is certainly not a fast time but I was passing people in droves at the end and I ran the last 1.5 miles.

Peeing lower ;-) , my 2017 stats:
30 swims: 57km / 25hrs
40 bike rides: 2.150km in 82hrs
76 runs; 800km / 79hrs
My apologies for not providing imperial values ;-) .

That includes 2 IM distance races in 13:16 and 13:27.

Races excluded that’s a total of 160hrs, makes a lill’ bit less than 4.5hrs per week.

49 / 6’2’’ / 175lbs. My work involves lots of travel, compromising sleep is not an option for me to stay healthy.

Everything is possible. Just do it :-) !

abpou
Metric is fine for me in Germany (same for you if I go by your first name) ;-)

Well, my punch line here: Pretty high running volume ratio compared to swim and bike. This is probably the key as stated by Freddo before. Swim is relatively short and typically won't hurt yourself, bike easily/steadily and then you need to survive the run. It basically all starts after you racked your bike in T2. Or even later ;-)

This all reminds me that I wanted to write a "sub10/sub10" thread with my such experience made this year. Train sub10, finish sub10...

I just don't get it.

Yes, clearly it's possible to muddle thru 1 or several IM's on very low volume, but why??

What's the point?

If you don't have a ton of time to train, why not just do HIM's?
Or Oly's?
Or (GASP!) - Sprints?

---

float , hammer , and jog

ditto!

Tell me why you feel it's a requirement to train 20+ hours a week?

What's the point of that much training if you're missing out on your family and feeling fatigued all the time?

If they're happy with there results then awesome. Not all people are looking to crush every training session, or every race. If you're not a pro then you're out to have fun so good for this person. I'm impressed! Good for you!! Keep it up!

his point then do shorter stuff. makes total sense.

How and why does it make sense? You're telling me that if you only have 10 hours a week to train you're excluded from an Ironman?

for me yes, I am at a point where I want to be competetive not a "finisher" if life is busy I will adjust goals around how much time I have, training 10 hrs a week for a 10-15 hr race doesnt make much sense but some can, that is "some" but these "some" usually have lots of sucess prior to this lower volume so they have a solid foundation of fitness to work with. Not a fan of the everyone is a winner thing, its a race, if I cant race I will pick something I Can.

MattQ wrote:

for me yes, I am at a point where I want to be competetive not a "finisher" if life is busy I will adjust goals around how much time I have, training 10 hrs a week for a 10-15 hr race doesnt make much sense but some can, that is "some" but these "some" usually have lots of sucess prior to this lower volume so they have a solid foundation of fitness to work with. Not a fan of the everyone is a winner thing, its a race, if I cant race I will pick something I Can.

That's great. Good! For you your goal is to be competitive. However, if you go back and reread the post, the person is simply stating that he or she is simply stating don't be discouraged if your goal is to only finish. Completing an Ironman can be done and you don't have to train crazy hours.


Or, said another way. We're not all built the same. Our goals and lives are different. You do you and I will do me. We all had different paths to the starting line. But, we showed up and we're all here to do our personal best.

Whats the point of paying $750+ to go have a long slow training day?

Point is that everyone's goals and lives are different.

You completely missed my point.

It's why IM??

If you're time limited for training, why participate in events that generally require a lot of time for proper training?
It makes no sense.

Would you do Ultra running if you could only run 20-30 mpw?
No, that would be moronic.
How is IM any different?

Also - I have never trained 20+ hours in a week in my entire lifetime, in spite of doing quite a bit of LC racing from '05-'12.
And actually *competing*, not just *completing*

I'm probably one of the poster children for AG'ers racing LC well on limited training, so I totally get the concept.

But even I also had to know when to say when, and given my even further reduced training the past 5-ish years, I've stuck with mostly only doing shorter events -
that better correspond to the training inputs I am able to muster.

---

float , hammer , and jog

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.