Anyone can now that the genetically gifted will boycott due to the swim start change

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

Maybe you have to be patient enough to listen for an hour if you want to KQ.

Anyone got a transcript? :)

I listened. IMO, the whole thing is just a somewhat subtle pitch for the dude's coaching service. Lots of anecdata presented.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Anything actually useful in there? I'll skip it if not.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

How much do we owe you for that hour? :)

A lot of my experience (in the lab and coaching) parallels AC's, not a lot of bull or anything out of the ordinary in there. The differences between most people at their max performance, in the right training environment, quite often isn't much less than the best of the best (genetically "gifted").

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

He presented some evidence that VO2 max is more trainable than traditionally advocated, a n=1 case study in which a trainee improved by 40% over 3 years, and said the overall average VO2 max improvement of his trainees is 24%. (No number or data given on number of trainees, length of time of the training, age, etc.) That about 800 or more hours per year are required to KQ and the bulk of training should be endurance.

But I heard no evidence to support the leap from saying that VO2 max is very trainable (which I have no problem believing) to saying that pretty much anyone can KQ (which to me falls in the realm of clickbait hyperbole).

Who's coaching service, Alan's or Mikael's? because Alan does not need any self promotion to get clients, he is one of the best and highest regarded coaches in the tri world. I don't know Mikael as a coach, but his podcast is fantastic with tons of relevant information.

I like https://www.alancouzens.com/ blog - very informative, and with a ton of details - like this post http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/...at-all-athletes.html
The podcast somehow fell short in terms of representing his vast knowledge. He might be a better writer than a public speaker.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Anyone can qualify for Kona, that's what the Legacy program is for.

---

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.

Alan does read the forum so he might show up here to explain..


When he was part of Endurance Corner there was a similar article which I saved, had a more realistic estimate. "Anyone" is pretty bold.

For people who like to read, video is way too slow (Brent Simmons). Podcasts have the same problem.
So here's some plain text.


Although the date in the URL shows 2016 I believe the article is from 2011 or so.


https://alancouzens.com/...lan-for-the-realist/


"The vast majority of folks respond to training load quite similarly and most of us have the potential to reach a very high level of fitness. As I suggested in the previous article on athletic types, for 70% of folks, if they do the work, Kona is within reach but setting up your life to do the work is another matter and for many it is far easier to attribute the limiter to genetics than to make the required change.


Merely setting up your life to have the space to fit in five months’ worth of 18-20 hour weeks of training in your Kona build isn’t enough. The realist knows that even with the life space to fit the training and sufficient attention given to recovery, you can’t just get up off the couch and throw down one 18-20 hour training week after another. You also need a fitness “base” to pull this off. So you’ll want to factor in a period of preparatory “training to train” weeks, progressively building up the fitness to tolerate the back to back big weeks that will comprise your Kona build.

Based on my experience, most folks coming in from normal active fitness levels are going to need to both be generally fresh and healthy (that is, come into the hard training unloaded), and have a base fitness of five to six months of preparatory training in the 12-15 hour range to tolerate those 18-20 hour weeks of your “get to Kona” push. If you’re coming from below normal fitness (less than 45 VO2) you’ll probably need another five to six months of preparatory “get in shape” work before even beginning the “train to train” period.

Additionally, we both know that your chances of putting together 20 or more back to back weeks in the 18-20 hour range without recovery isn’t good. You’re going to get tired and need some recovery weeks sprinkled in to your Kona build. In fact, if you manage a ratio of 3:1 loading to recovery weeks in the context of a 9-5 job and family life without getting sick or injured you’ll be doing very well! So that five months of specific training, more realistically becomes six or seven months.

Adding it all up, the realist should be planning for:
Six to 12 months of uninterrupted, consistent “basic training” to get ready to train for the event.
Six to seven months of focused “specific training” directed specifically towards your Kona push.

You need both the fitness and a good day on an appropriate course to pull it off. In other words, you may need to put together more than one of these builds before high fitness and a good day coincide! "


All of this made it clear to me I'd never have time to qualify for Kona ;-)

The general point is the same though - commit to the training and you can do more than you'd think..

I have never heard that phrase before - I love it! Going to have to get it into my next report at work somehow. Thanks!

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Sorry, may be I've misread. This coach is talking about <2 year plan from a non-athlete to KQ?

His plan is based on nearly 20 hour weeks on average. Also “anyone can get KQ fitness, but genetics are needed for pro level fitness”? In the competitive AG’s at least, most KQer’s could qualify for their elite license as well. It’s a warm and fuzzy theory but sometimes it doesn’t matter how much you bust your butt, you just don’t make it (myself so far)

That was my first thought as well :)

I do, being one of his coached athletes and can recommend him 100% - loads of super individual and helpful feedback. Very data-based approach of course although he is really chasing individual subjective feedback too. In addition he currently hast to turn away clients so probably no need to pitch coaching services. It is a pretty provocative subject for the show, though but we are living in the age of click-bait...

Agreed- in all my dealings with AC I have been super impressed -he is one of (too few) coaches I think who would genuinely add value to you

And he certainly does not need the publicity - I have been trying to be coached him him for 3-4 years now but he has no slots
And he’s that good (IMO) that I would rather be self coached in the meantime....
Maybe next year is my year!

Haven't listened to the podcast; but I plan to. Parsing an hour out of my day though its going to be awhile.

I'll say this in his defense; out of the hundreds of people I train with, stalk on strava, etc. I can count on one hand the people that actually train optimally. Most of us have some big flaws mentally, be it diet, sleep, burnout, rest weeks, training plans, etc. So if you take an average athlete and he goes all in, they'll probably get close at least.

The above though is a tall ask; if you're a masters athlete that probably also means gym work, some form of stretching, extra sleep, and a lot of other time occupied outside of training specifically for training.

Sorry, should've been a bit more specific: I was talking about Mikael Eriksson, not Alan Cozens.

Yes, anyone can qualify...IF many conditions are met.

Think it's more the case that most people don't get anywhere near their genetic limiters in terms of fitness. Life and personality get in the way. Before you get somewhere close to your optimal fitness you need :
1) The commitment/selfishness to want to do it in the first place. Not many people are prepared to commit to being as good as they can be at something, or to make all the sacrifices necessary to achieve that goal.
2) The resources (time and money) to make it happen. 15+ hours/week to train, plus the time needed to recover properly. Then the money for decent equipment, pool membership, race and travel costs, maybe coaching. And of course for many of us there is a direct or opportunity cost associated with the career decisions involved in freeing up the time needed to train and recover properly
3) Smart decision making - choosing the right coach, equipment, training plan. Knowing when to change the plan.
4) The discipline needed to eat right, execute the training plan, do your stretching, go to bed early, etc day in, day out for months or years.

People under estimate these because theoretically they're all life choices not physical limitations. But changing who you are and how you live isn't that much easier than changing the genes you were born with. If it was there would be a lot less obesity, credit card debt, alcoholism, etc. A coach can help with 3 and 4, but even then you need the money and self-awareness to hire a coach in the first place, you need the smarts or luck to get the right coach, and you need the discipline to actually listen to what they're telling you and do it.

Heck, I've been training and racing in various sports for 25+ years and I don't think I've ever even met the first criteria! Have never gone all in on being the best I can at sport, it's always been balanced along other priorities, whether that's family, career or just enjoying life and going on holiday, staying up late and having a few too many drinks with friends, etc. I'm pretty sure I have the physical potential to KQ if I really wanted to, but I'm 100% sure that I'm not prepared to do all the things required to find out.

Excellent points. Spot on.

---

Inside The Big Ring: Podcast & Coaching

Agree with all of those. I think for many, include myself, there’s only so much I will do to disrupt my life for a hobby. I’m aware of how much work it would be to improve enough to KQ and it’s just not something I’m willing to do.

Well said. I'm an outsider/beginner to the sport, but that much is clear.

Have y'all watched those "Quest for Kona" videos? I've watched a few and so far no one has KQed. And these are people who are profiled because they pretty much do the above.

Very few of us get close to our potential, but even if we did, we'd need very few others to get close to their potential (we're competing against others after all).

And I still think you need natural talent. I've been around track and field and endurance sports for 40+ years and have observed that talent is kinda a big deal. Less so in endurance sports and less so as you get older and fewer of the talented folks are competing, but it's still a big factor.

I've been around top level D1 T&F - I was a D1 conference champ and my son was a D1 All-American - and have been around D3 - my son is a coach at the D3 school I work at - and the differences in talent are visually obvious.

One of my students was on the track team and loves running more than anyone has loved running. He worked so hard. He came closer to his potential than just about anyone. He just had no talent. He never did qualify for the conference meet (again, it's D3). Now I see him at local ultra races and he places fairly high up in the field. A below average D3 runner is a very good recreational runner. But he's never going to qualify for top level races. And if he did triathlon, I doubt he could ever KQ. Or maybe his short muscular legs would be good for cycling.

I was over 200 lbs as a scrawny six-packed college high jumper. I have many years of hard training in front of me if I want to reach my potential in triathlon, but do I ever have the potential to KQ? Maybe Marcel Kittel could KQ, but I kinda doubt that my big body could be transformed into a top-level triathlete, even in the over 60 division.

I'm trying to get better, but "anyone can KQ" seems like "you can achieve anything". Nice thought, but not really true.

From what I've seen in the quest for kona videos, most of the athletes there haven't been training nearly long enough. Many of them discovered triathlon mid-life then maybe have been training consistently for 2-3 years with the last year focusing on kona doing 15-20hrs a week. Then get disappointed that they don't make it even though they've given their best the last 6 month. Next year they'll either give up the goal since they weren't even close during their attempt or dial back on their effort significantly.

Unfortunately, that's not enough time for most people with average talent, they would likely need 3-6 years of that kind of training volume and consistency. Those athletes (with mediocre genetics) that don't give up and maintain the consistency, who truly loves the training and lifestyle even if they get no recognition, have no regards to the compliments and fame of making to kona, are the ones that tend to actually qualify.

Don't really disagree strongly with what you say but I have to say when they're not even close after giving it a decent effort one has to wonder if a few more years of training would be enough, unless the reasons for not being close are execution rather than actual performance level. And good results tend to be a big motivating factor and it's hard to motivate yourself to continue to do very high level training when you fall very far short. I don't think it's necessary to have elite genetics to KQ but I'm dubious it can be done by just anyone.

Of the people I know that have done IM distance events, I've known quite a few that train consistently year to year but pretty much no one that does IM level training year after year. About half to two thirds of the people gave it a pretty good effort, the rest were clearly substandard in their efforts. I know two people that KQed but both of them got consistently good results even when they weren't training at an IM level, regular AG podium finishes in local races, etc. I don't know anyone else that came close, even though they did the whole 15-20 hour per week training bit. When they fall 2-4 hours short, how likely is it that a couple years more training would get them there?

In my one IM race I was about an hour and a quarter from qualifying, which is closer than most other people I know other than the two that KQed. About half an hour of that was execution that could be fixable without any change in fitness, the rest would have to come from better fitness. A very big ask, but perhaps not totally out of the question, so I'm probably an edge case. I tend to think of myself as having average genetics, but certainly not below average genetics, (I suspect others would think I'm slightly above average though I'm not sure they're right), and I do well in local races with regular AG podiums. But I'm just not seeing the path to KQ for a lot of the other people that I know that have tried. I'd love to be proven wrong and I'd like to see more case studies of those with consistently MOP results over time that have then made the leap with changes in their training.

I'm in the 55-60 age group. Rough numbers that means 150 racing for 2-3 spots. What if 3 other people are using the same program? That age group is made up of former college swimmers and runners, experienced bike racers, retired and semi-retired athletes and I'm sure a fair number of HGH/Testosterone users. To suggest that I can beat all but a couple of them by following the right plan is ridiculous.

Qualifying for Kona takes work but it almost solely comes down to natural ability.

Let's just break down a KQ time for your hypothetical under-40 tri guy. This guy will need to go at least 9:30 or better on your "average" IM course. So, if Average Guy really works hard on his swim, he could potentially swim 1:00 (1:25/100 yd with no walls to push off) for his 2.4 mi swim. Allowing 5 min total for both T1 and T2, that leaves 8:25 for the B and R total. If he can ride 23 mph for the 112 mi, that's 4:52 for the bike, which leaves 3:33 (8:08/mi) for the run. Or, he could bike 22 mph for 5:05 and run 3:20 (7:38/mi), or ride 21 mph for 5:20 and run 3:05 (7:04/mi). Obv there are a large number of combinations but you get the idea. I will leave to each STer to decide whether "anyone" who completely dedicates their life to triathlon can achieve those numbers. IMO, you need a little bit of "talent" to achieve any of these combinations. I don't think just "anyone" can achieve those numbers even if they don't work at any job other than triathlon and dedicate their entire life to KQing.

---

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

Wow, I never really broke the numbers down like this before... but you are right, it's really hard!

As others wrote: very well stated!

I started in 2006 at 45 years old with no background in swimming, no background in biking other than holidays with panniers and some background in running (local runs, some half and two full marathons).

I comply with criteria 1), 2) and 4).

With criterium 3) I had my problems, some coaches which caused more stagnation than progress. Especially the bike was the limiter.

Not before 2014 I had it sorted all out, aerodynamics and the know how to train.

This know how to train is very personal: At first, there are general rules you can follow: look only at the numerous training plans which exist and which should apply to everyone. BUT: at the top of the AG the air gets thin and progress is differently achieved for different persons.

So I complied also with criterium 3) since 2014, such that I was able to KQ finally in 2016.
That's 10 years! Could I have done it faster? Sure if I would have known what to do beforehand. But that is different with every person as I wrote before so with some trial and error indeed 10 years is not so bad.

Now I am in the position that I know what to do and then the 2nd KQ is not so difficult anymore, such that I can do my little back door brag now: I did my 2nd KQ a couple of weeks ago and reserved already my room in Kona for October.

I've been doing triathlons for 6 years now. I honestly don't know how people put in those 15-20 hour weeks on any consistent basis for IM. It's more than I want to do for sure. I do okay at local races and the bigger IM/HIM events I always shoot for top 1/3 in my age group and if I can get in the top 1/4 of my age group I'm thrilled. My training has been pretty consistent and I've improved over the years. I've done one IM and am doing another this year. I probably had a peak week of 15 hours during training. The rest were a lot of 8-12 hour weeks which was fine with me. Obviously I know that's not getting me to Kona. I really don't know if I could come close to KQ if I just fully dedicated to that task.

Well said an great points.

If you're not willing to drop weight, that's your business. Just don't use it as an argument against the "anyone can KQ" hypothesis.

Those numbers are pretty much exactly right, and it only seems to be getting faster, especially under 45. You can see how strong swimmers can have some extra wiggle room with regards to bike/run times. 55-60 min swim is a great target, 4:50-4:58 bike on an average course, and sub 3:30 run gets you in the ballpark, but its not assured and comes down to who all shows up on the day and the course conditions. You can train for a 9:30 and still miss out.

2014 IMTX M35-39 places second through fifth for all the KQ spots were within 6 minutes from 9:18 to 9:24. Dan Stubleski was 1st with 8:54. 6th place in 9:26 missed out.

I think this kind of analysis is where a lot of people just dont do their homework and tailor their training accordingly. Just doing 15-20 hours of training a week wont get you there. In my experience at 2014 IMTX you also need to know who your competition is and how to race them 8 hours in. For most KQing is a process and takes a few tries.

I don't know. I would think that the range of genetic potential is more like 7:50 - 9:00, for healthy 20 something men. I suspect that most KQers (9:30) are at 80-90% of their potential, and everyone else is like 50-60%.

Some of those KQers might not be able to go any faster than 9:00, but some would start sniffing 8:00 as pros.

2 years might be a best case scenario to get someone from 50% to 80-90% and KQ, but that would be more down to motivation, work ethic, and the ability/willingness to make the changes/sacrifices to their life.

There is a bit of a catch 22 in that being (naturally) good at it might make it easier to do all the work vs. doing all the work makes you good.

Purely hypothetical of course, but if the givens are: Under 40, No illness, not biggest looser obese, not a smoker, drinker or any drug issues, without a job, the means to put say 10 years into it and willing to do anything for Kona (not doping or otherwise cheating), anyone could qualify. We are talking:

1. Optimal diet. No, people know Jack about what they should eat. As soon as Joe Athlete accepts this, KQ becomes far simpler. He needs help and education. That is step one.

2. Optimal training. A bad coach is worse than being self coached, but there are great resources online for people with more than 2 iq points. Again, it is a learning process, so smart people take 2 steps while the dumb ones move backwards.

3. Optimal sleep and an interest in sleeping as much as possible, even though it is boring. Good sleeping hygiene can be learned, even at 40.

4. Rest properly between sessions, e.g calming music in a dark room. Focus on how you will execute next session.

5. Swim coach. Working continuously every day on improving swim form. Video camera, tools, the works.

6. Willing to lose weight or body composition if that is needed.

7. Willing to not socialize.

The list goes on.

I really hate it when people who aren't willing to do all the above use themselves as an argument for why anyone can't KQ. Running is a question of P/W unless you're running form is ridiculous. Both can be fixed. Cycling: P/CdA on most IM courses. You don't need no 400w to go 4.55. Find a fitter, get slick and you will ride in less than 5 hours on a lot less watts than you think. The swim is really the only tough part here, so find someone who's both good at swimming, educated in swimming and has the ability to teach.

And last, but not least, stay away from Europe. 9.30 wouldn't hold for a top 10 most places (Italy, Germany, Sweden) and not even a top 20 in Denmark.

How big of a part did picking the right races have in you KQ? Or did that not matter much?

You have got to be joking. I agree that 2 yrs is best case as I think 6-7 yrs is more likely required to reach your "potential", but i really doubt your ""average guy" has the potential to go 7:50, or even 9:00. Average Guy is 10:59 at his very best is my thought. I hate to use myself as an example but hey, i know myself better than anyone else. I swam in HS, college ( small school, 3rd string), and actually fastest in Masters in my mid to late 20s. I was swimming 40,000 yd/wk for 4 yrs pre-tri, so I had a great fitness base. When I took up the B and R at age 30, I trained 20 hr/wk for 10 yrs and the best I could do, on my very, very best day, was 2:10 for an Oly dist and 4:42 for a half. I never had any desire to go further but best case I might could have gone say 10:24 using 2 times 4:42 + 1:00. Obv 10:24 is not going to KQ me. I slept 8-10 hr/night (avg 63 hr/wk), ate very healthily, weighed 160 at 6'2", got as aero as possible, etc. I can not think of anything else that I could have done to be faster. My best stand-lone times were 20:06 for 1500 scm, 18:55 (6:05/mi) for 5K run, and 1:04 (23.2 mph) for 40K bike. Obv I don't think I was KQ material, at least not in my 30s; perhaps in my 70s enough competition will have died off and I can do it then. Perhaps the "anyone can KQ" should be footnoted to say as long as he is willing to train for 50 yrs or more. :)

---

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

Doesn’t this theory also assume the genetically gifted are failing to maximize their training potential thus allowing the less gifted to be possibly our perform them is they maximize their potential??

All due respect to the tagline Anyone can be...

Nature - i.e., genetics (or, choose your parents) is everything. I say that because I submit that the "work ethic" has a genetic component. Obviously you don't make it past anything considered "endurance" with-out work. But, it's genetics beyond that. I remember when I took up running (my first sport). After a year or so of running at 21 or 22 I remember standing at the start of 5k's and 10k's (really popular and competitive in the early 80's) and being intimidated by so many skinny and lean guys, I was only somewhat lean and skinny, but had broad swimmers shoulders (even though I didn't swim). It would shock me how many of those guys I thought would be so fast, would finish minutes behind me. And, I wasn't "that" fast (~34 +/- min). Then I transitioned to triathlon - why suck at one sport when you can suck at 3? when I was 29 (a million years ago) I got VO2 max tested @72 - apparently set the lab record in time on treadmill (sorry BDB). Kind of explains why my RHR was 29-30. But, I wasn't terribly efficient - because I wasn't particularly lean. Fast forward to today. I'm old and have slowed down. But, I appreciate a KQ is a gift of hard work; for sure, but so many other variables. Mostly though the gift of endurance. For me I need a decent block of training w/o injury, performing well on race day, and, perhaps some of the regular studs that can beat me to NOT show up on the day. I feel for the guys who out train me and sacrifice time and treasure who will never finish ahead of me. Hard work isn't the variable. I also work hard (but ride a 10 year old bike). I know the above sounds egotistical. But, I don't have the genetics to play any musical instrument, or, hit a golf ball with any consistency, etc., etc. Just how it is; I can deny it, fight it or, accept it and make the most of it.
Most important, Enjoy the journey

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

You forgot:
Optimal job
Optimal wife
Optimal kids
Optimal ability to not get injuries
Optimal ability to not overtrain
Optimal apathy to getting a divorce

It’s like saying anyone can run a 2:30 open marathon. Some of you all are delusional when it comes to knowing what average is.

Really interesting perspective ManOfTheWoods.

Without a job > optimal job? That was covered in the premise. A good coach covers 5 and 6. Without a job you should be able to get in a fair amount of training while your kids and wife are away for job/school. With a job it gets more difficult :)

Do you think an open 2.30 marathon and a 9.30 Ironman are equally good performance wise?

1.02-5.00- 3.25 strikes me as a lot easier than 2.30 for an open, but I'm chubby so I could be biased.

But then we are FAR away from "anyone". I dont think "not socializing" leads to better performance, on the contrary. The "anyone" person has obligations AND a job! But yes sure if mr "anyone" won the lottery, ulimited funds etc. yes it would not be the genetics that would not allow him/her to KQ.

My response was to Eric Mulks response on genetic limiters. Sure, work, kids, wife etc are limiters in their own right. But in any hypothetical discussion regarding genetic limitation, you're not interested in what Average Joe is achieving today, but rather what he could achieve given the right circumstances.

Thinking about Alan and Mikaels pod in the context of limiters seems to be the right way:

If you eliminate all limiters except genetics you will qualify for Kona. Appears reasonable albeit a bit arbitrary unless you are trust fund supported and living in Boulder. Framing it differently: Worry about everything else before you complain about your short legs / tiny handy / weak glutes etc...

I can see why people obsess about Kona. It's so damn hard to qualify for that it makes it a real and genuine age group World Champs, unlike, for example the ITU age group worlds.

There are no short cuts though (unless like some you are prepared to cheat). It takes month after month after month of smart training. I doubt that any sedentary person could qualify from scratch in two years no matter who coaches them. I hope people don't take this the wrong way but most of the people I know who want to go and haven't qualified are not committed enough. They miss sessions, drink far too much beer, eat rubbish, weigh too much & use any excuse not to train etc. etc. The ones who have qualified are single minded in their approach, employ good coaches, can afford the best kit, have family 'buy in' and are prepared to set aside a chunk of their lives to the task.

You also still need a big slice of luck, a friend of mine came third in Wales in his age group, he was in excellent shape. Only two slots and they were taken by athletes from mainland Europe who were totally off his radar. My friend even went faster than the 3rd Kona qualifier in the age group below!

Good luck to anyone giving it a go this year.

In 2016 picking the right race was important. You also need luck. After missing Lanzarote in 2016 because of a broken collar bone and not KQ in Austria in 2016 (5th in the AG) I decided I wanted to have another try in the autumn of 2016.

There were two options: Mallorca or Weymouth.

Advantage of Mallorca was the somewhat flatter course, as I always train in the flat and I weigh 84 kg. Disadvantage of Mallorca was first of all I expected a strong field since it is a popular place also for training camps. Another disadvantage is that you would have an advantage if you are an unscrupulous drafter, which I'm not.

Disadvantage of Weymouth were the hills: there is hardly a single flat piece. And although I'm a strong runner I did not know how that hilly bikeride would influence my run. Advantage of Weymouth was I did not expect much drafting and I expected a weaker field because it is kind off awkward to reach and it is not the ideal vacation destiny for most people.

So I chose Weymouth, which turned out to be the right choice. Of course there's always luck: I won as a "young" M55 the AG, but in the M50 I would only have been 5th.

Not even close to what I said. My point was that even when I was super skinny and lean and you could see the veins in my abs, which I'm not close to now, I was over 200 lbs. That doesn't lend itself to endurance sports. Maybe I could transform myself into a KQ body, I don't know, and I don't really care to find out, it's not that important to me, but I think it's unlikely. My point is that some bodies, maybe mine maybe not, are just not going to get to KQ level no matter what you're willing to do.

My son was 230 absolutely ripped pounds when he ran a 4:28 1500m at the end of a decathlon without doing any distance training. He was decent in the 800m in high school at over 200 lbs. He has natural talent in mid-distance, which I never did btw. I wonder if he could be an over 200 lb Kona Qualifier if he worked at it. He has no interest in doing that, but I wonder how many over 200 lb KQers are out there.

btw, I listened to the podcast yesterday and I'm pretty sure he said "most" and not "anyone" each time he talked about it.

I agree with you for the most part(especially ITU Duathlon/Aquathon/Long Course/Aquabike/etc aren't hard to get onto)... there are some that do get in that I've seen fail to get ITU (Olympic/Sprint) slots though... specifically at Lousiville last year. So you could get lucky at a race when Kona qualifiers are tapering or recovering from Kona itself.

For the most part Kona is super hard to get into and with a stacked field I think you have to be both genetically gifted and put in the training required to qualify vs. 50+ other competitors doing the same.

I think that's the real takeaway here. It isn't that literally anyone can qualify. It's more that if you look at the bell curve of "genetic potential" (whatever that means) then it isn't just the upper 2% or 5% that are capable of getting there. Most people have the "potential", maybe 70% or 80% of us, but it's obviously going to be a lot easier for some than for others. But most of us won't, because it's frackin hard, or we choose to do other things that are more important to us rather than spend every minute of the day watching our diet, training, sleeping, testing, etc etc that it would take to get there.

The message is that you probably can KQ if you really want it. It's not like making the Olympic team, where you have to have a perfect storm of genetics, opportunity, youth, desire and luck just to make it there.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

Yes approximately. Consider that a top pro runs sub 8 IM and top pro runs a sub 2:05 marathon, a 9:30 feels about a 2:30-2:40 marathoning.

1) Podcasts are REALLY hard to monetize - in other words, make money as a standalone venture. Unless you are a Tony Robbins level of "celebrity", they really are best utilized by others as a promo for other services that you offer. Content Marketing is the term that best applies. Triathlon is such a niche market, that really it's ONLY people like a Bob Babbitt or to a lesser degree a Taren Gasell, that is having a reasonable go at this. And even here - you need to have this content VERY professionally done, and that takes a HUGE amount of time out of your day/week.

2) As to the OP's post about KQ for under 40 men. I'd say that it's not that far off. You would need to look at something under 9:30 as having a good shot. I say this from, experience as an athlete in that range myself, coaching and advising a number of others, and observing and watching many IM races.

Many here will scoff at the idea that sub-9:30, is doable by many - but the very fact that it has become SO competitive, is a testament to the fact that it is doable by more than you think. If you break it down and look at the balanced time slit goals it's a 1:00 swim/ 5:00 - 5:15 bike/3:00 - 3:15 run. Many here will think this crazy "fast" but it really is not. For athletes who have been in triathlon for many years, this is actually the average training paces for them - in other words over the course of a training year, on average - this is the pace they are holding for much of their training.

I know crazy! But, another key detail, that rarely get's looked at, is the number of years it's taken these athletes to reach this level. My guess is that if you looked at ALL KQ athletes who have gone under 9:30, is that they have been training at a high level for between 5 - 10 years. Sure there are the exceptions, and forums and social media are always quick to point out the extreme exceptions - "My friend trained for 2 years and KQ'd". In fact, I work with an athlete that did it in 1 year!! But if you take a deep dive into those exceptions, there is always details that but them in the Extreme Exception category - forget about them! ALL others are working hard, putting in the time, and keep doing it year after year, after year.

The problem with many who are trying to KG that I see - an unwillingness to look/think and look long term (5 - 10 years) and to adopt some "unorthodox" training strategies. ( I say unorthodox - but they really are just training - 101, but that's why they are "unorthodox - they are just really simple).

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I am a low-9s IM guy... and I can guarantee you I will never run a 2:30 marathon. I've gone sub-3 for a marathon, and MAYBE if I really put my mind to it I could get myself under 2:50 (probably by quitting tri for running only), but 2:30 feels entirely out of reach for me.

Those don't seem at all equivalent.

Because you’re not a runner.
A 2:30-2:40 marathoner will say he will never be able to run a low 9’s IM.

I have no data to back it up, but I'm not sure that's true. There was a ST thread a few years ago for qualifiers and their path to qualification. Many(by my sketchy memory, the majority) qualified in their first or second attempt.

a 9:30 feels about a 2:30-2:40 marathoning.


For me anyway - that was about right

I came close to breaking 9 hours a few times and ran 3:00 flat marathon splits in those IM races. While being a full-on triathlete, I did run a few standalone marathons, and my best time was 2:35.

I never really dedicated myself to have a really good and long total focus on a marathon ( I would say a full year) - my previous PB's when I was only a runner, indicated that I may have been able to get under 2:30.

What I learned from the above is the ONLY thing that IM Marathon running and standalone Marathon running share is that they are the same distance. They are VERY different entities after that in terms of training and execution.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

If you're a 2.30 marathoner, I don't think it would take you many years to develop a 4.45-3.00 combo. Getting under 9.30 then shouldn't be the toughest ask :)


And to the 100kg guy:

Getting the right body composition isn't just a question of getting lean. You have to get rid of muscles on you're upper body if you want to become the best triathlete you can possible be.

Thank you @dgutstadt for the very kind words. Truly appreciated.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Thank you, bespoke. Truly appreciated. You have moved a couple of spots up the wait list with comments like that See you in 2020!

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

It’s a lot harder than you think. If you’re at your potential at 2:30 that means you’re a scrawny dude that runs ~80-100 mpw.

You have to learn to swim and get that down to where you can swim 1:30/100m for 4K which is a big ask. It takes years.

You have to bike at minimum a 5:10-4:50, and that takes years if you are starting off.

By the time you’ve done the above 2, you are only running 40-50 mpw and you’re 10-15lbs heavier and you’re lucky if you run a 2:50-3:00

The best pros are only able to run a 2:40is on their best day. If you can do that in an IM, you have genetics on your side. Suffice it to say, not everyone can.

Thanks Doug!

You're right, I think I said something along the lines of...

"Most athletes, physiologically, have the ability to get to Kona qualifying fitness."

"All" may be a stretch. That said, to date, after working with Ironman athletes for more than 15 years now, I have not had one athlete put in 1000 hours over a year and not qualify for Kona within that year. Not one. Maybe my sample is skewed and I've just never come across the athletes at the absolute shallow end of the genetic pool as yet. But I doubt that, as I'm nearing 200 athletes that I've had the good fortune to work with over that time period.

Irrespective, you nailed it on the head with "commit to the training and you can do more than you'd think." I'm 100% confident in that truth.

Best regards,

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

I'm going with skewed sample ;-)
by the time an athlete gets to be coached by you, they have already invested a lot of time and effort into optimizing their training and life.. and they have decent base fitness..

Possibly. Though, many are further from life and training 'optimization' at the start than you might expect. In the meantime, I'll wait for the hordes of genetically limited athletes who have developed themselves & their lives to the point of being able to put in a true 1000 hour year and not achieve their Kona qualification goal to chime in.....

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

I don't think it needs to be said that 1000 hours is a pretty big number. Even if simple day-to-day scheduling wasn't an issue, don't you think there's a genetic component to being able to average 20 training hours a week for an entire year without getting sick, injured, or burned out? (Seriously asking, not challenging your assertion.)

This guy has obviously never visited a Six Flags (or equivalent) amusement park.

It is a big number, but I think it is doable. According to training peaks I have 962 hours over the last 365 days. Not all the way to a 1000, but close enough to say that if I didn't have job and studies during the year I would have been able to hit it :)

BTW: I am the guy who lost the genetic lottery, so I am by no means special.

I don't think it needs to be said that 1000 hours is a pretty big number. Even if simple day-to-day scheduling wasn't an issue, don't you think there's a genetic component to being able to average 20 training hours a week for an entire year without getting sick, injured, or burned out? (Seriously asking, not challenging your assertion.)


Beyond a certain volume of training, durability starts to become REALLY important.

Success at IM is really about sustained volume of training over a long period of time.

Durability IS very individualized - in other words, some can handle that volume with minimal to know issues, others can't, even with all kinds of maintenance work.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It's absurd to think that you HAVE to put in close to 1000 or whatever max hours to ballpark ability and potential. For the less gifted (most) you can do it.on less than a third of that easily just by looking at their rate of improvement and projected asymptote of performance ceiling due to diminishing returns.

The reason us non kq talent don't put in 1000 hrs is often because it's obvious even to us that its.never gonna happen. You don't need to be a coach to realize that when you train 12 hrs a week and can't even make the AG podium at the small local ag tri despite 3+ yrs.of training, that kq is a pipe dream.

Yes there are some for whom it's unclear. I MIGHT be able to kq if I had unlimited time and money but i.still wouldn't bet on it. And I score Usat 85 which is better than the large majority of triathletes .

I'm sure these coaches would look at most ag results with training and say differently. And for sure, these guys are getting the most motivated ag groupers - I can't even commit even enough time to hire them so they are likely dealing with usat90 all Americans or close.

As many others had already pointed out, a 3:00 - 3:15 IM run generally points to an open marathon in the 2:30-2:40 range. Wanna guess how many PURE runners in the M40-45 group can actually bang it out? Not a whole lot, and those who do are for most part NOT going to apply themselves to triathlon.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

As many others had already pointed out, a 3:00 - 3:15 IM run generally points to an open marathon in the 2:30-2:40 range. Wanna guess how many PURE runners in the M40-45 group can actually bang it out? Not a whole lot, and those who do are for most part NOT going to apply themselves to triathlon.


2:30 - 3:00 hrs in many big marathons is like no-mans land.

The elites all come in the winners and then those who have blown up and struggled home in 2:20+, but then their is almost NO ONE coming in until you get close to 3:00 hrs. It's an interesting phenomenon.

If you run one of the really big city marathons, and you run, say 2:35 - 2:40, you may run the bulk of the race, a race with 20,000+ runners, all on your own!!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Hey Jeff,

I wouldn't argue that there isn't a genetic component to durability but my experience has been that the athletes who need to do more are also the athletes who are able to tolerate more, i.e. 'talented' athletes have a tendency to be fragile, while athletes who lose the genetic lottery on the former tend to be more hardy. I see this as a 'thoroughbred v workhorse' classification.

Still, the above is theoretical for most as it's not genetics but lifestyle that limits most athletes from a durability perspective..
* Excessive intensity/inadequate base
* Poor nutrition
* Inadequate sleep
* Taking on too many life stressors.

When athletes are unable to hit relatively high annual training loads, 9 times out of 10, one or more of the above factors are at play.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Aren't you the one who claimed he had done everything imaginable to break 19 in a 5k without succeeding? Maybe If you tried putting in the hours you would have succeeded :)

I've agreed with you every time you've commented on subjects like this. Some coaches get to select their charges (athletes). Olympic coaches are an extreme example. Kinda fun to think about. Like asking who's the slowest swimmer on the US Olympic team. Or, the "worst" musician in the San Francisco Orchestra, or "skinniest" one at the fat farm (sorry, not PC). Just wanting to do triathlons is a degree of self selection - but, WANTING something and piling on the most perfect work in the world are sometimes not enough when you look at 200ish slots for Kona (world wide, my AG M55), less really when you subtract out legacy, sponsorship deals, etc. My diet is OK, but I have a couple of beers most nights - sleep less than I should, etc. I make up for that with disgusting workouts and winning the genetic lottery. It's not fair. However, I didn't (yet) with the lottery (the one with millions of $'s) Oh well.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

I am curious about the last bullet point - too many life stressors. What would be some of the examples? Having kids? A demanding job? Financial struggles?

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Tried to break 18. Yup that was me. Really rude awakening after I dropped nearly 2 mins on a 5k plateau after ramping from 35 mow to 70mpw on pfitz marathoning. Unfortunately that seems to have captured 98% of my performance. Sure maybe I'd get sub 18 with coach and.years more of big training, but I'd say that still farrr from what a typical kq guy could run even on tri training.

Exactly. Take on all 3 of the above stressors at the same time (esp. young kids without additional support) and most athletes' stress bucket is entirely full! IOW, their tolerance for also throwing a bunch of training stress into the mix is essentially non-existent.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Totally agree with you. I'm one age group older and you've summed it up pretty well. While "attrition" might help us, a setback could also take us out without much time/hope to get back to where we were.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

These stressors are true limiters but there are plenty of under 33 yr old men with no kids who train 10-12 hrs per week for years and def aren't close to kq let alone local tri age group podium.

That's a genetics limiter. They are not going to become kw rock stars by doubling training hours unless they were slacking off to start with.

Yep I was in that group for running before tri. Not even as fast as the worst d3 runner.

You can believe whatever you want but that exact profile sums up a good portion of athletes that I've worked with towards their KQ - MOP results while training 10-12 hrs/wk, doubled their volume over the course of a few years, achieved an Ironman podium and a KQ. Bottom line: Work works.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

I believe you but again your group is almost certainly highly biased with those clearly with enough results and promise to seek out a high level coach AND commit 18 hrs a week to training. That is vastly different field from the typical m35, and certainly are not the ones who are self selecting out because of poor improvement rates despite trying really hard.

You do it with total randos and then it's.legit.

Where I would push back is that imo them doing 10-12 hrs and not getting podiums, etc isn't a genetic limiter. To me it's simply they aren't doing what they could be doing to even come close to their full potential. But of course this is only a hobby to most people, so some are ok with "only" training 10 hours a week and the results of that "limited" training will be what they will be. They maybe like chasing woman, or boozing every Friday with the boys, or are on the work focused grind. The issue becomes when they are training to those limited hours and bitching that they aren't winning races- they aren't winning races cus they likely aren't training up to the demands of competition.

So whatever you do and whatever goal you set- you just have to match what your going to put into it to achieve the goal. And the actual goal imo isn't even the end game really. You could have the PR of your life time but maybe 2 other guys simply beat you and take those KQ spots. In that event, your work and outcome basically matched, you just missed the actual outcome goal. But the process of training and putting together a race that rocks- you nailed it. You just got "unlucky" and you shake their hand and go get them next time.

---

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

The mental fortitude to put in the time is in and of itself a genetic limiter. There is a large portion of athletes (already a self selected group) that just don't have the genetic make up to put in the required time. Cross that with those that are genetically predisposed to handle the volume of work required leaves a small subset of athletes that can have the ability to KQ. It is nowhere near "most" can KQ, there is still a huge genetic component, it may be he/she is fast/efficient or can just handle big training loads.

So how about we look at the other end of the field.If "most" people can get into the qualifying range then surely everyone could finish in under 15hrs..
.
One of the most insightful things I have ever read here in ST is many years ago when Jonnyo said that if you look at the times required of each sport to go under 10hrs,it isn't really that "fast". I did it once and I'm a lazy beer drinking slug so I agree.
.
I will now put my flameproof suit on. :-)

The hard part is stringing them together!

I was sort of goading Alan into this very conclusion. I don't doubt - based on his written work - that he is a stellar sports scientist - but I do believe that the athletes he succeeds with are largely self selected with a massive skew towards the genetic predisposition to not be broken by the massive workloads.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

.
That is one of the mystic secrets of doing well in Ironman with the other one being getting your nutrition right on race day.I believe that so many people have put the challenge of Ironman on such a high pedestal that they have talked themselves out of achieving what they are perfectly capable of even before they sign up and then train accordingly.

Nah I actually think for most people they get what they deserve with the end result. If your a "finisher" and your putting in finisher type of bare min workouts, your going to get a bare min type of result. And I think there are a ton of people out there who do that....not because they think it's this mythic hard race- just that with their life/work/balance they simply can't do enough to actually race it well.

---

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

This was me in my early 30's. Averaged about 8-9 hours a week usually, and around 10-12 hours a week in a 16-20 week build for a race. On that type of volume I managed a 4:43 Half IM. In addition, my training was all over the place. Missing sessions, sometimes even whole weeks.

I didn't know how lucky I was. I had a job that let me run or swim at lunch, and supportive family that gave me flexibility to train on weekends.

Now I'm in my late 30's with injuries and a new job with limited flexibility and lots of travel, am out of shape, and that type of fitness seems like a distant memory I'll never get back.

I look back and think damn, if I had of had the discipline to even just build volume to 15 hours a week for a year, and hold consistency every week and every session I could've done so much more. Nothing special, just doing the work as required. Oh well, hopefully life circumstances change in the near future and I can do things properly this time around

Spot on.

My body really struggles with volume, mainly swimming & running. Throughout my 40's, and even with regular 'maintenance', I struggle to put together more than 12km swim weeks consistently. Shoulders, elbows, whatever...something tends to come up. I did two Ironmans on approx 6km per week average.

And running...? Even worse. From memory, I maxed out at about 40kms in a single week, because both my achilles just couldn't take it.

OK, let me be the first then: I swam Masters in my 20s and was swimming 40,000 yd/wk for 4 yrs pre-tri, so I had a pretty good fitness base before tri. When I took up the B and R at age 30, I trained 20 hr/wk, 50 weeks/yr, for 10 yrs. I focused mainly on Oly dist (5-6 races/yr) and half irons (2/yr). Despite training more than anyone else I know, the best I could do, on my very best days, was 2:10 for an Oly dist and 4:42 for a half. This was back in the mid to late 90s when you could KQ in Oly dist races and half irons. The KQ guys were going 1:58-59 in the Oly and 4:15-ish in the half, in the 30-34 and 35-39 AGs. I've always been able to swim with the KQ guys but, no matter how much I rode and ran, I just never could hold their pace on the B and R. I think the only reason I could swim with them is b/c I had really maximized my swim ability in my pre-tri days, whereas they just did enough swim training to get by, or else they just did not have any swim ability. I mean it's not like I was some hotshot AAAA distance swimmer but rather I was just a Grade B distance swimmer, acc to USA Swimming standards. :)

---

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

Putting in the right # of hours isn't enough. How did your training look like? Give an example with a typical week or training block. But if it was back in the 90`s it could be different. Apparently pretty much everyone were better bikers back then.

I think global warming is the reason.

Typical week was 20,000 m swim, 200 mi (320 km) bike, and 40 mi (64 km) run. I'd do 5 weeks of this, then one week easy of about 1/2 of these distances. I simply never got past averaging around 18-19 mph (29-30 km/hr) as a daily average speed. On really good days I might average 21 mph (33.6 km/hr) but only if flat, little wind, and feeling really good. On the run, I was slightly better I think but still at 40 mi/wk I generally averaged 7:30-8:00/mi (4.7-5.0 min/km). However, on the swim I could routinely swim 3600 m under 1 hr (under 1:40/100 scm) every day, and go 21 min (1:24/100 m) typically for the 1500 m OW swim in races.

---

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

I was thinking more in terms of intensity. Were you going really easy on the easy days and at the right intensity on the hard days? From what you write I get the impression that you were trying to hit a certain speed at every session.

I don't mind going 8min/mile, or even more, on my easy days. But for tempo runs I typically go 6.20 and on the track I am in the 5.45 - 6.00 range for threshold intervals. And I leave the ego (most days at least) at the door step regardless of session.

Same on the bike, but more in terms of a combination of power/RPE/HR than speed.

(1.30/100 in the pool is a different matter. That is more like all out for me after 2-3 reps on X x 100 than threshold )

Well, 10 hours is on the low side. I don't doubt that most folks doing 10-12 hours per week have the potential to reach another level if they increase their volume to 18-20 hours per week, I don't think anyone disputes that. But I think when you get into training 12-14 hours per week consistently, year after year, you do start get a pretty reasonable idea of your ceiling. No, it's not enough to reach your potential by any means, but increasing your training another 6-8 hours per week isn't going to take someone from the USAT 50th AG percentile to the 95th or higher. I know about three dozen people that have done IM distance events, and 2 that have KQed. The two that KQed are not BOP even when they're training moderate hours, even on 10-12 hours per week they get on the podium in local events. The additional volume in the years they've focused on IM events gets them winning local AG categories and in shape to KQ. One of them, a mid-40s male, has an FTP of 310-320 and W/KG of around 4.1-4.2 when he's training hard. But even when he's slacking he's at least in the high 200s and it seems even on minimal training he hits 300 very quickly. Those are not necessarily elite genetics but they aren't average either. Your average mid 40s male of average build who trains pretty consistently is likely to start hitting the wall in the mid 200s, not over 300. And at 3.3-3.4 W/KG instead of 4.2, the road to KQ is going to be pretty tough.

But I'd love to see actual case studies and actual data showing truly MOP folks (not folks that can already podium in local races) transforming themselves into KQers. I'd like to be convinced! So far all I've seen is anecdotal evidence.

Thank you for the kind words.

So, just so I understand your central thesis, you're saying that a disproportionate number of athletes who approach me to coach them, even though not high volume at the time, have some latent genetic predisposition to handle high work loads that is not present in the population at large?

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

That's my gut feel, although I am sure that you also filter some applicants that are not coachable, etc.
Of course, I don't know how many of the athletes you coach never overachieve despite the hard work/high volume.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Thanks. Very interesting. Seems like a bit of an odd assertion but I guess it's impossible for me to confirm or reject how genetically 'normal' my sample is other than to see the same patterns show as it gets larger.

Regarding those who fail to 'overachieve' despite the hard work, obviously there is a range of response but, at the numbers that I am talking about, i.e. 1000+ hours, all who have done that (to date) have achieved KQ. I would be hesitant to say that they 'over-achieved' given that other, more genetically 'talented', athletes have also achieved a KQ on almost half that volume

Of course, you could be right. Perhaps I just haven't come across all of the guys like Eric - the 1000hr a year for 10 years (!) guys who still fail to KQ. Based on my experience to date, I doubt it but I am open to that possibility.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

How many IM races did you do during that time period? I know there weren't many in the mid to late '90s, because that's when I was trying to KQ. I think the quantity of training you were doing would probably have led you to more AG success in an IM than a HIM or Oly. The "1000 hours" guarantee that AC appears to be making is for qualifying at an IM for Kona.

I qualified at IM Canada in '99 and '00 at ages 40 and 41, both rolldown spots, with finish times of 10:58 and 10:53. Those were the only IM races I did those years (other than Kona). I qualified at Blackwater HIM in '97 with a 4:34 (third in AG, first rolldown spot) but that was only the first or second year it had Kona spots and there were 500 to 700 total participants in the race. I did multiple Kona qualifying events around the country from '95 through '00.

I certainly didn't train 1000 hours those years, more in the 650 to 700 range. I wasn't married or in a serious relationship, didn't have kids and had a paper-pushing desk job where I rarely worked more than 42 hours per week. Triathlon was my social life. I had been competing regularly in running and multisport events for more than 20 years. My fastest open marathon was a 3:08. I may have been able to compete at a D3 level as a cyclist if there was such a thing.

I'm only bringing up my KQ history because Eric discussed trying to qualify in the same time period. The competition for KQ spots is obviously much deeper now than 20 years ago.

This is interesting to me. I never thought of any relationships between durability/hardiness and talent/genetics. The idea that "talented athletes have a tendency to be fragile" is something I've never heard

I haven't thought of myself as genetically gifted, but I've gone sub-4:30 in 70.3 off 7-8 hours/week. I'm trying to push up my volume in order to do well at the IM distance, but have been feeling under recovered. I've taken it as a sign that my body might not be ready to handle 15-20 hrs/week for months on end (yet), but given your comment above it would also be some combination of excessive intensity/inadequate base and/or Taking on too many life stressors (three kids between 4-10 ain't a cake walk); I've focused on getting more sleep and my nutrition is pretty solid.

I'm in it for the long haul though, not simply a "one and done" IM athlete. So with patience I hope I'll be able to get at least within the ballpark of my potential.

Schnell - The "easy/hard" approach never seemed to work for me. I've found that I'll often feel good and can go had 2 or even 3 days in a row before I need a few easy days. So, I mainly train acc to how I feel on the day, e.g. I go hard when I feel good and not hard otherwise. I did that back in the 90s and I do it today. I'm not a believer in "key workouts" or "every workout must have a goal" but rather my best results have come off of the aggregate work over several months.

I read an interview in Runners World mag about 8-10 yrs ago where they interviewed the fastest Amer half mary guy. Can't recall his name but he went like 1:01. His training consisted of running 13-15 miles every day, 7 days/wk, for a total of 100 mi/wk. About 2 or 3 days per week, he would run the last 3 miles as hard as he could. He did no "tempo runs" or intervals or anything "fancy" like that. This is the way I have always trained, both in swimming as well as the B and R. In swimming, most coaches are big on descending sets, e.g. go faster throughout the set, so I'm very used to this type of training.

---

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

Mark - I wish that I could say that my 1000 hr/yr made me more comp at the IM dist but sadly that is simply not the case. What I have found is that I am at my peak position-wise at the end of the swim, e.g. in my 30s/40s I could be 5th or 6th OA out of the water, and then the fast bikers start to pass me, then the runners. In sum, I do better the less time the bike and run take, which is typically the Oly dist. In an Oly, I'd typically be say 5th OA out of the water and then maybe 20th OA at end of race. In my last half iron, I was 6th OA OOTW and then 66th OA at the finish. And then in a full iron, it just gets worse. :)

---

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

I guess you tried everything, but let me ask you 2 questions:
1) did you do in training bike-sessions like 5*5 minutes all out?
2) did you eat in the IM during the bike and the marathon at least 80g carbohydrates per hour?

I think he addressed this in his response to me. He didn't to specific sessions, but rather went by daily feel.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink :)

In one post he complained that he wasn't seeing the results from 1k hours, but then in another admits it had almost no focus or purpose. So most of us would say you get out of something what you put in.

No, i did not do any 5*5 min all out as this type of training was never discussed back in the 90s. The focus then was on doing as many miles as possible. Eddy Merckx said "ride lots", and I don't recall Greg Lemond or Lance ever talking about 5*5. Doing lots of miles seemed to work pretty well for Mark Allen and Dave Scott.

While I never did the 5*5, I did routinely ride the last 30 min of a trainer ride, or outdoor ride, as hard as I could. Did this type of workout many many times on the bike as well as on the run and swim.

And yes, I did take in at least 80 g carbs per hr. That is 320 cal if using an all-carb mix and I was doing 350-400 cal of all carbs, or about 90-100 g carb/hr.

---

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

I think from memory Eric spent a lot of those “1000 hours” via bike commute.

To be clear even if it was actually 1k hours per year, that is exorcise not training. Still awesome and would lead to some great low end benefits that you could actually start training from but if you’ve never done that who knows?

Also he never signed up and raced an IM.

Also a mid 10’s in the 90’s would have gotten you in to Kona....pretty much in most age groups if you banged on the door a bit.

Maurice

Now it starts to make a lot more sense. I was really amazed by 10 years of 1000hours/year and falling short of KQ. Like, is this the counter example we have all been waiting for?

Then it turns out that he didn't do Vo2-max work, not even threshold sessions. He didn't have a plan, but rather strolled around in the gray zone like a blind man searching in unfamiliar terrain.

And now you add the "free wheeling down to the local pool on his commuter" logged as training.

"I kinda reached my genetic potential, you know. Did 10k training hours of focused training and everything. Still didn't KQ"

To be clear even if it was actually 1k hours per year, that is exorcise not training. Still awesome and would lead to some great low end benefits that you could actually start training from but if you’ve never done that who knows?

——

I think “commuting” hours really are interesting. I have one athlete who commutes 30 mins total per day and I don’t even take it into account. But then I know of some who have an hour of riding and thus actually use that time “wisely” (they have work showers etc).

6 miles Of riding per day isn’t imo going to change or fatigue an person like 20-30 mile daily commute. And then of course if it’s a commute where you can’t shower etc after then you’ll ride it much differently than if you could etc.

So if your telling me your doing 1k a year and a lot if that is commuting you probaly better be smart with it or else it’s kinda a “waste”. A waste in that riding 30 total miles easy/slow while has a benefit obviously but what does it do to your other training? Are you wasting time you could be better training? Are you using that as the bulk of your biking?

---

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

On the one hand, you have a pretty well respected coach saying that if you put in 1000 hrs per year, yiu are overwhelmingly likely to KQ.

On the other hand, you have 2 guys who were basically self coached and winging it, did a lot of volume, but didn’t get to that point.

I know who I’d put my money on. There’s nothing wrong with self coaching and winging it, and there’s a lot you can achieved with that approach. But that only takes you so far. I’m basically self coached (ish) at the moment, but I know that if I wanted to take a serious run at a national record or beyond I’d need to be properly coached by someone smarter and more experienced than me.

The genetics excuse kinda just seems like an excuse to me, rather than admit that maybe there’s lots that you don’t know that’s a convenient scapegoat that takes the agency out of your hands. “Well, I did everything I could do...”

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

Nope, zero commuting. Typical day would be starting at about 5 PM: ride 30 miles, run 6 mi, then swim 4000 yds, shower, get home around 9.30 pm, take dog for 1 hr walk, eat, go to be around midnight, sleep 'til 7 am. Weekends Sat would be 5000 yd sw/60 mi bk/14 mi run. Sunday would be 3000/20/4. 3 to 4 days per week I would try to go as hard as I could during last part of each workout.

---

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

Eric,

If you did IMs during that time period (still not sure) and your in-race nutrition was good I'd guess you didn't race as well as expected because your taper was inadequate and that you carried too much fatigue into the IM events. From your description of your training in the post right above this post, I'm also not seeing any long rides or runs (100+B, 20R) or recovery days, which were certainly emphasized back in the day.

To those that write that commuting is not training, I disagree. I commuted to work on my bike during all my IM training years and still do and I think it definitely contributes to my fitness. I qualified for Kona three times in four years without a coach. As I wrote in my earlier post, there was a lot less competition to KQ 20 years ago, but I think most AGers who qualified during that time period were self coached except maybe for coaching they received in group swim training. We raced at a variety of distances and trained as much as we could without breaking down or getting slower in races. As Fleck as written many times here, it isn't really that complicated.

Hi Alan, quick question.

You had mentioned that there are some similarities in your prescriptions to what Dr. Seiler advocates. I was wondering if you could explain a bit more. It appears that Seiler advocates for us to train mostly below LT1 and you sound like you advocate training mostly right at LT1. Is this just a semantics issue or is there a clear difference? As an example, when I try to stay below 75% max HR, I usually average around 70-72%, while it sounds like you're advocating averaging closer to 75%. While it may sound like splitting hairs, that extra training load adds up over 1 year without a huge metabolic cost since you have said that is right around fat max.

I also listened to the first interview with Mikael so I might be blending the two.

Thanks for your responses.

I am of the opinion that most people could do much better results on the hourly amount of training they do (or on even less hours) if they trained better. However, I have started to believe more that there is a quite significant genetic component as well.

I have previously stated on this forum that anyone could do a sub 5-hours 70.3 off five hours training/week, and have been flogged for that statement. Reading many people's stories of how much training they put in I have started to agree with the view that the individual variations are real and substantial.

I have averaged just below five hours/week the last four years (and even less before) and have managed a personal best 4:45 70.3 during this period. My peak week has been approx. 17-20 hours each year (the yearly bike week at Mallorca with friends), but apart from that nearly no week with above ten hours of training.

This year I built really good bike fitness during the first four months of the year off 6,75 hours/week (almost exclusive biking). I can probably get to approx. 4 W/kg in four-six weeks from more or less any state of fitness (and will plateau thereabout). For me, with two small children and a demanding full-time work (both for me and my wife), seven hours/week is pretty much what I can max without building up too much fatigue from my combined life stressors. Luckily, this has proven to take me much longer than most people can do on twice the amount of hours put in. I am far from a genetic freak or superhuman, but I have realized and am thankful for that I have a lot better genetic predisposition for endurance sports than many others.

From memory so perhaps I am confusing you with another poster.

Currently, if you’ll entertain me:

What AG are you in?

Kids or no kids?

Is your work 40 hours/week clock in/clock out or management etc at 50-60 hours

In my experience, the "smarter and more experienced" part is important, but even more important is the ability to stay objective. I can't do that with my own training.

"No days off for you, mr" is pretty much the attitude I am giving myself, which is ridiculous. When friends and people I help with training ask me what to do, and they tell me they are tired etc, I'm always preaching caution. But when I'm hardly able to get out of bed, I still whip my ass six ways from Sunday if that is what my original planning says.

Yes, I am getting a coach now. Even though I am stupid, my GF is pretty bright.

Yes, I am getting a coach now. Even though I am stupid, my GF is pretty bright.


--------

That statement has many questions.....

Are you saying she has a coach and is smart or are you saying that the GF is going to be the coach (that can be very very hard on relationship)?

---

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

What was unclear?

What I wanted to get through was that my GF has made me realize that I need a coach. This would have been obvious for a smart person but I needed someone to explain it to me. She does not have a coach and is not a coach herself.

So I am not replying to anyone in particular here.

I am reading a lot about GENETICS. Like, what does that even mean. Is there a threshold here that someone with good genetics can get to, someone with average genetics, and someone with terrible endurance genetics? If we were to look at Sprint/Oly/Half/Full distances races. What would those items be for your age groupers. Clearly I am leaving the pros out of this conversation as they clearly have the work ethic and genetics...or perhaps are just genetic freaks and would be good with zero work ethic. (It happens, and we should all get over it)

I will take a stab at each one of these. Let's assume a medium difficulty course and normal temperatures of say 70 degrees F with modest humidity, and otherwise average weather. Also assuming average equipment. The athlete puts in on average amount of work in. All things equal here (with the exception of GENETICS)...I think we all get it.

Sprint:
Genetically Gifted - 55 mins
Genetically Average - 1:00
Genetically Unfortunate - 1:15

Oly:
G - 1:55
A - 2:05
U - 2:35

Half:
G - 3:55
A - 4:20
U - 5:15

Full:
G - 8:50
A - 9:35
U - 11:30

Once again, these are guesses. Just what I believe to be the achievable. Would love everyones thoughts.

@Lifetri -

Your posted times belies that you are almost certainly in the "I'm lucky to have pretty decent natural talent in tri but I totally take it for granted" camp.

Here is your criteria from your very post:

Let's assume a medium difficulty course and normal temperatures of say 70 degrees F with modest humidity, and otherwise average weather. Also assuming average equipment. The athlete puts in on average amount of work in. All things equal here (with the exception of GENETICS)...I think we all get it.

Oly:
G - 1:55
A - 2:05
U - 2:35


Seriously? 2:05 Oly for a 'medium difficulty' course on AVERAGE work = "average"???? Just look at almost any race results outside the national Oly championships, and a 2:05 puts you into the top 5%, and sometimes even wins the overall outright.

If you are the kind of guy that an achieve a 2:05 on 'average' training, meaning the same hours and relative intensity than a unlucky but hardworking guy (me), you are looking at this entire thread from the highly unbalanced rose-colored glasses of someone with significant talent.

Here's a better exercise - throw out ALL of your n=1 personal data, and look at the bulk of everyone else's results. Just go to any local, medium, and small race, and look how many people are finishing at the times you posted, and see if the reality is more likely that your n=1 results are skewed from someone who is probably a very good responder to tri training, compared to your hypothesized reality that the main reason why people aren't going 2:05 Oly (and the other times) is that they're so lazy and unmotivated that they can't even train enough for an AVERAGE plan. Yeah, right.

At least from this link, the AVERAGE finish time for an Oly tri in 2011 was 3hrs. Start from that reality and work backwards.

Mark - I didn't do any IMs due to my very limited success in half irons. Best half time was 4:42, on a flat course, no wind, 75-ish and cloudy, so pretty much perfect conditions. That was the only time I broke 5 hrs. So, given such limited success in the semi-long races, I chose to focus on Oly dist races. Was able to go 2:10-2:15 on regular basis which would put me 2nd to 4th in my AG in regional races. In bigger races like Memphis in May where you could actually KQ in the Oly dist race, I'd go 2:10-2:12 but the KQ guys in my AG 35-39 and 40-44) were going 1:58-59. As I know you know, it is a HUGE gap between a 2:10 and 1:59. :)

---

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

Maurice - I am 64 now, 65 in Jan 2020. Never had any kids. I'm retired now but when I worked I was an engineer and sometimes a manager/leader. I spent a lot of time in the USAF so you were a "leader" not just a "manager". Definitely not a clock in/clock out but generally most places I worked were fine with flex hours.

Also - please see my response to Mark Lemmon above about why I never bothered to try an IM.

---

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

LH - I feel much better about my Oly dist times now. Thanks for posting. :)

---

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

Ok new AG in 2020, a bit of spare time, likely the resources (time and financial), lifelong athlete with likely pretty good lifestyle “habits”

You see where I’m going with this right?

Maurice

Ya, I could possibly KQ in the next year or two if I set my mind to it now, espec since Kevin Moats is now "retired", at least in theory. Doping or not, that guy was just flat out fast. However, if I were to KQ next year, that would be after 35 years of trying, during which I've averaged about 700 hr/yr of training. :)

---

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

From this link, 3 hours would have you in the bottom 20%, so I guess it is a question of cherry picking the right race.

https://my2.raceresult.com/66718/?lang=en#1_97F9E7

But maybe it is like kg to lbs, that the conversion rate makes it into 3 hours American time?

I just googled it. That was the avg from a 75 race sample on that link.

I do agree 3 hrs seems slow for the avg, maybe it is too slow for m40.butnworks of all the women and older AG's are included.

Either way, 2:05 is 4th overall in your link or top 1-2 percent. Some would even call that elite performance so avg for that is only realistic for someone with elite to pro genetics on 'average' training.

A 2:05 will usually be competitive for an overall podium spot, assuming the bike isn't short. Now a national level event will be faster, but probably also flatter than some regional event. That is around 20:60:40 + transitions, maybe more like 22:60:38. But definitely not average results.

I did Memphis in May each year from '97 to '99. Best time there was 2:06:52 in '97. Your volume should have aided you competitively in an IM in a way it didn't in a HIM. Too bad you didn't discover whether that was true.

My apologize.

I meant everything was average with the exception of work.

I dont know what the optimal amount of hours are. But lets say its optimal to do 12 hours a week for a sprint, 15 for oly, 18 for half, and 25 for full.

Based on those numbers I think that is what is possible based on genetics.



I consider myself very average when it comes to sports. I averaged 5.4 hours of training a week last year and zero formal training the year before. I have started to train a lot more this year just recently hitting 10-17 hours a week consistently...but have not raced yet. As you can see, I am far from all american. This is my first year in the 35-39 age group.

My results:

Race Date Finish Time Score
IRONMAN 70.3 Atlantic City[ 9/22/2018 04:49:51.00 87.215
Steelman Olympic Triathlon 8/11/2018 02:23:16.00 89.228
Williamstown Badgers Autumn Lake Triathlon 8/4/2018 01:11:17.00 87.963
New Jersey State Triathlon - intermediate 7/21/2018 02:15:18.09 91.351
Escape Philadelphia Triathlon 6/23/2018 02:17:54.00 89.245
IRONMAN 70.3 Raleigh 6/2/2018 05:13:04.00 87.916
Ron Jon Cocoa Beach Triathlon 4/7/2018 01:01:21.00 86.439
Mighty Moraine Man Fall Sprint - Traithlon 9/16/2017 01:05:29.10 81.227
DQ Events - Pine Barrens Sprint Triathlon 9/8/2017 01:46:31.00 80.714
Williamstown Badgers Autumn Lake Triathlon 8/12/2017 01:12:24.00 78.432

I would be interested to know how many of your athletes are able to complete the 1000+ hours of annual training without becoming injured. Do you have a high rate of athlete drop-out or do they all seem to manage to do the training without injuries cropping up? I would suggest that many people would simply break if they tried to put in 1000+ hours of training in a year - either physically (especially from large amounts of running) or emotionally (repercussions to family life, career etc). Do you keep data for the percentage of athletes who are able to stick with the 1000+ hours per year plan?

I would be interested to know how many of your athletes are able to complete the 1000+ hours of annual training without becoming injured. Do you have a high rate of athlete drop-out or do they all seem to manage to do the training without injuries cropping up? I would suggest that many people would simply break if they tried to put in 1000+ hours of training in a year - either physically (especially from large amounts of running) or emotionally (repercussions to family life, career etc). Do you keep data for the percentage of athletes who are able to stick with the 1000+ hours per year plan?


1000 hrs/year to newbies or those with no back-ground in higher performance level endurance sports may seem like a lot and it is, but it's fairly common and doable.

That's about 20 hrs/week. A 4 - 5 hr bike ride, ounce per, week will get you a 1/4 of the way there. Throw in a 2 - 3 hour run somewhere else in the week, and at a minimum 4 hours of swimming for the week and now we are over the half way mark. Fill in with another 5 - 8 hrs of other shorter training sessions for running and cycling and you are up to your 20 hours! This is not uncommon for Pro level triathletes, and top AGers in the build portion of their year.

If you did not come from any sort of higher level endurance sports back ground then, it will probably take 3 - 5 years to build up to this level of volume.

You also need to have some luck with durability as I mentioned previously - some are lucky in this way and some are not (perhaps longer racing is NOT for you!)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I know your question wasn't directly directed to me, but here are my stats for the past 365 days:

Bike: 418 Hours, 42.6%

Swim: 264 Hours, 27%

Running: 216 Hours, 22%

Strength: 72 Hours, 7.4%

Other 10 hours 1% (This includes some XC skiing and ice skating)

Total: 980 Hours

Not injured more than the usual nagging you get from training. After I realised that you can train through most minor things, as long as you rehab correctly, I have been able to maintain a nice volume for a rookie.

For context I didn't work out October 2017 - April 2018, but I have probably done a bit more work than normal people in the past. 31 y/o.

I get that Fleck, but how many athletes are doing a weekly five hour ride for 50 weeks of the year? I can see how some people might train 20 hours a week for an eight to ten week block, but a 1000+ hour year would mean 50+ of these 20 hour weeks... Or it would mean that in their heavy training phase they are hitting 25 hours a week for six months and 15 hours a week for the other six months. Either way, my point is that if "anyone can KQ" excludes anyone who can't physically (or emotionally) manage 20 hours a week of training on average, for the whole year, then that's not really "anyone", rather it is a special sub-set of "anyone". I'm interested to know what percentage of the population would have the physiological abilities needed to train at that level, certainly not everyone, in my view. So really, the point is that not just anyone can KQ if what it takes to KQ is 1000+ hours per year...

Well that's if you ONLY take 2 weeks off from training per year;
And if you're NEVER ill.
And if you NEITHER have an off-season, NOR take it a couple of days easy after a race.
And if you NEVER have short term obligations which make you train less than you planned.

You will not find a person like this. It is not possible.

If you want to get to 1000 hrs/yr you will have to do a lot of 25 hour-weeks and some 30 hour-weeks. Otherwise you never get to the average of 20.

I just counted my hours from a year ago to now. It's 507. (And I just KQd again a couple of weeks ago).
1000 is NOT IMAGINEABLE to me. OK I could swim 150 hours more if I had the time. But I do not see how to add more to the B and R.
But maybe because I'm 57 years old. And I've got a family. And a fulltime job.

Give me Bernie Sanders blanket student loan forgiveness, medicare for all, and Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income (on steroids) and I will sure as hell try.

Dude, if you were doing USAT 86-89 after 1 year of training of 5 hrs per week, you are definitely wayyyy more talented than the 'average' triathlete. Your starting floor of USAT 78 is better than the ceiling for most AG triathletes.

I think USAT All-American is a USAT score of 90 - if true, I don't see how you could claim you are far from All-American; you are virtually there.

I think you're making the typical erroneous assumption from people with natural ability, that everyone else has they same ability. Extremely common for people who haven't been doing the sport/activity long enough to realize how limited everyone else is in comparison.

Happened to me in school academics & music - spent my childhood wondering why everyone was so terrible and 'slacking', but once I hit college and early adulthood, realized that the farrr more likely explanation is that I was intrinsically gifted at those two things, and I could accomplish far more with a measly 4-6 hrs of week of halfbaked practice/study compared to super motivated but average-ability folks who were spending 15+hrs/wk on just one of those activities.

Agreed 86-89 after 1 year of training is way above average. 89 would put him in top 15% of the M35-39 based on 2018 scores. 92.077 was the cutoff in the AG for USAT All-American status. For those that aren't familiar the AA status is top 10% of qualified racers (3 or more races). The score needed will go down as the AG gets older e.g. M40-44 was 89.929 last year and M50-54 was 87.864 etc..

It took me many years at way more than 5 hours per week to just to get to the mid 80s. A further few more years later with a much better winter plan and way more hours (10-12 per week overall average 600+ hours) to crack get into the 90s.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. I am one of those people that had to put in 10-20 hours of studying a week to make sure I could maintain a 3.1-3.3 GPA while in college/masters inside of my major (BS Economics and MS Finance). Outside my major was a different story...but I just like politics (4.0). High School I never studied and was a 2.4 student. I learned quickly that Community College or not...I had to study. Then I went to a state school and had to study harder. That got me into a reputable grad school. Even more hard work...

Thank you for the comparison. I never thought about it like that.

Edit: I don't think a USAT score of 90 means All American. I did hit 91 in one race and I wasn't even close.

I don’t know much about the rankings

Is aquabike easier to get into the 80s and 90s score?

I don't know how the aquabike numbers work, but for the 2 events I did which weren't a full tri (one was aquabike and one was duathlon format), I was scored 99 and 102, and my race results were barely FOMOP for the event (meaning I got beaten by so many guys I didn't even place in my age group), so it's probably different standard for those two, as if it were a triathlon 102, you'd probably be winning the overall in local races.

Final ranking is based on your best 3 race scores (need a minimum of 3 to be ranked in the final ranking). For your age group 91.351 isn't quite there, but i would guess you will have no problem hitting the (likely) 92.xxx (for M35-39) threshold this year going from 5.4 hours a week to 10-17. The point is that you are way above average, to be posting those scores so new to the sport.

Perhaps your "not good at sports" is helped by being pretty decent at 3 sports.

FYI:
https://www.teamusa.org/...gs/rankings-criteria

Anyone who averages 20 hours a week for 50 weeks of a year (just a 2 week break in the year! that's less than most pros have!), and is an age grouper, must have absolutely no life aside from triathlon outside of work commitments. Like, no time for anything else.

How many of these people averaging 20 hours a week for basically a year have families or a partner and work full time? From what I've read of kona age group winners, some of them top out at an average of 16 hours per week during their ironman builds!

Yep, I am about 12-15 hours a week for base and couple of 20 + hour weeks on the build... you need quality and with intensity at times but regular 20hrs + is BS, and you need rest too.

168 hours in a week

Sleep 8x7 = 56

Work 45

101

67 hours left over

Average screen time in USA - TV, smart phone and computer. = 35 hours/week

You must be a millennial and or single... my apologies if I am wrong. This is a very simplistic view.

Work 45 hours? No commute time? No meal time? No family time, no yard work... what about daylight hours? I don’t ride or run in the dark, maybe swim and will only jump on Zwift if rainy...but again I still call BS on the need for an AGer to put in regular 20+ hours a week of training.

If you listen to the podcast, Alan didn’t say that you had to put in 1000 hours per year in order to qualify. He said that he’s never coached an athlete who put in those hours who didn’t get to a KQ level of fitness. But he’s also coached athletes who were able to get there on less.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

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

If you don't want to train indoors, that's totally up to you. But that's not a limiter for getting in training hours. Many of us on here do most of our training before 7am.

Paradoxically, the "workhorse" type of athlete - the type of athlete that I prescribe high volume for, are the least likely to get injured. It's the "thoroughbred" athletes - those who are naturally fast even when doing low volume that I have to worry about.

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Anyone who doesn't average 20 hours a week must be lazy.

Of course I don't believe that. I'm just making the point that, between this thread and its lean cousin, we've thoroughly abused the words "anyone" and "must".

Still, I do believe that many (most?) triathletes can average 20 hours per week. Many of them choose not to (which is a fine and fair choice). Some of them then lament that they drew the short genetics straw and thus can't KQ.

I can pretty readily book 15 hours before the weekend. And I have school-age kids, stressful career, get enough sleep, etc. Get up early and knock out 1.5 hrs. Slip away during day for 30 min run if possible. Crank out 90 min on the trainer instead of 60 (all of those minutes I'm "present" and can help with kids' homework, etc.). Jump into another 30 min run to open up the hips after the trainer session. That's four planned hours per weekday (of course not every day goes as planned). On the weekends, I can be back from a 5 hr ride just as my kids are waking up. Of course my situation doesn't apply to everyone, but I believe that many people can train more if they want to (and no shame in not wanting to).

One more disclaimer: I admit this 20 hr week isn't a prescribed (nor Couzens approved) KQ 20 hr week. But I prefer simplicity/consistency over structure/variety.

I believe this table from A. Couzens is more insightful than the somewhat extreme 1000 hours per year
https://www.alancouzens.com/...kona_qualifiers.html

---

It doesn't get easier, you just get slower
https://mymsracesironman.home.blog/

Thanks for digging that one up!

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com