I wasn’t discussing efficiency. And your hypo takes into account real world realities of life, etc.

Im talking Pure speed. I’m sorry but I just don’t believe that if you had two athletes who were both properly coached but one was able to train 20 hours a week and one could train 10, all else being equal, I will bet every time that the one who trained 20 will end up being faster.

If you’re discussing training/racing in endurance sports, you are discussing efficiency. It’s at the center of what’s being measured.

I tend to only deal in real world realities - I’m a coach.

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com

Ok, but to DFW's point. If you were my coach and I told you that I don't have any real time constraints and can train upwards of 20 hours a week if needed. Assuming, I have the athletic and endurance background to handle that workload (ie not just starting out), are you suggesting you would prescribe me significantly less than 20 hours a week of training?

ETA: I don't mean this to come across as me attacking your position. I'm generally interested in this view and the possible reasons behind it.

Label it whatever you want.... you will never convince me that a 10 hour/week coached athlete will be faster than a 20 hour/week coached athlete all else being equal. If that’s true, then the coach is doing something wrong in my opinion.

As I mentioned previously, triathlon coaching looks a lot like swim coaching in the 1980s/90s.

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com

The argument he’s making is a bit fantasyland - all things being equal, athlete doesn’t get injured, doesn’t get sick, athlete is genetically predisposed to endurance training and the training prescribed by the coach, coach is competent, athlete recovers properly and on and on and on - yes, if we eliminate all of those variables with all these different sports (swim/bike/run) there is a dose relationship between improvement and time spent on the given activity.

With that being said, the approach by triathlon coaches that I have repeatedly encountered tends to overtrain athletes. They don’t know where the maximums and minimums are for training and racing. One of the biggest of the many variables that prevent triathletes improving in the swim is overtraining the bike and run. There is a view you have to be smashed all the time to make improvements. You don’t. Pro triathletes, in my experience, overtrain and over-race. There are exceptions, but again, in my experience, they are rare. I’ve got some great experience now with pro triathletes that indicate that the body recovers a lot quicker than the brain after a race. The brain takes around 3-4 weeks to recovery for a 70.3. For some of them this is informing their training and racing schedules for the better.

I’ve coached triathletes in the swim for the last decade, based on what I’ve come to know about how the triathlon community approaches swim training (it is changing with some coaches), I can get an athlete as good or better on about 30-40% less training. The experience I’ve had coaching triathletes in s/b/r for the last 5 years is you can train an athlete to be as good or better on 30-40% less training than is generally prescribed.

Hope this helps and if you have any other questions, please let me know.

Tim

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com

Thanks for the response, to some extent that seems very much in line with Dixon's philosophy, or at least that what I've gathered through his books.

The bike/run training effecting the swim training is something that's resonating with me right now, as I've started increasing my volume quite significantly. I bike/run in the morning and swim in the afternoon (generally speaking) and I've noticed the last couple weeks being more tired than usual during my swims. I was thinking it could be from the increased volume, though my bike and run workouts have been going welll. It could also be that I swim in an outdoor pool and we've been over 100 degrees the last couple weeks.

  
Curious what your last thee YEARS look like in terms of volume. I personally believe that doing well at an IM is all about consistency over many years, vs any one build, any one week, or any one workout.


THIS

That is key. People get worked up about weekly numbers and totals, specific workouts and training sessions.

Week after week, month after month, and year after year of training is what it's all about.

FWIW - back in the day, I came very close to breaking 9 hours for IM a few times in the early 1990's on about a 10 hr/week avg. training regime over the course of a year. Now some weeks in the year were 20+ hours and some only 4 or 5. But the real important metric is that I came close to these 9 hour times, after 10 years of consistent steady training!

It's the CUMULATIVE total of all of the training that is key!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Time constraints imo aren't what should be the limiting factor for what a athlete's load should be. It's what they actual can handle, and what you can handle is going to be different than what I can handle vs what DFW can handle. So just because you can do 20 hours, doesn't mean you should do 20 hours. Maybe you find that at 20 you just aren't recovering enough and that 16 is a more realistic and better number to get the most bang for your buck. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


But if we are comparing drastically different numbers of 10 vs 20; absolutely go with the 20hr a week athlete. But if we are comparing 16 vs 20, that is going to be more likely realistic type of number. But again like the OP, I kinda think you have to take the whole "number" with a grain of salt. I also don't really think the OP is saying much different than what I see in some other coach's philosophy. To me this wasn't an "10 hr" approach. This to me was a well managed plan with some ramped up training plan that hit key volume numbers for the specifics of your race (eta: which were well past 10 hours of training; last 6 of 9 weeks the big weeks avg 14.5 hrs of training).

---

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

With that being said, the approach by triathlon coaches that I have repeatedly encountered tends to overtrain athletes.

Right and this is bad coaching. It shows the coach doesn’t know how to properly train an athlete that may have 20 hours available. I have no doubt that problem is rampant. But are you and any coach really going admit in the forum that you can make an average athlete faster on 10 hours than 20???

Don’t get me wrong, I’m never gonna be a 20-hour guy so I would need a coach that could maximize efficiency. But I have little doubt that I would be leaving a decent chunk of speed on the table because of those limitations no matter how good the coach is because that same coach *should* be able To maximize the 20 hour athlete too.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m never gonna be a 20-hour guy so I would need a coach that could maximize efficiency. But I have little doubt that I would be leaving a decent chunk of speed on the table because of those limitations no matter how good the coach is because that same coach *should* be able To maximize the 20 hour athlete too.

------

I actually dont think you would be leaving a decent chunk of speed if you were training to the right hours for YOU. That doesn't mean you would beat the guy training more hours and at proper hours, etc. but for yourself, you are trained and listening to your body for the maximum efficiency; I dont think your leaving much on the table.

I think it's when you dont think 16 is good enough and then do 20 because your best competitor is doing 20 that you leave more on the table than if you actually were training to the right hours for your own body.

---

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

So finding that number, 16 or 20 etc, is where I'm at right now. This is my third year doing tri, and I've consistently and gradually increased my weekly volume to where I trying to consistently let hit between 17-20 hours a week. For the first 4 months of the 2019 I averaged about 11.5 hours a week, with big weeks in the 13-14 hour range, but I'm starting my Augusta 70.3 block and have started putting in 15-17 hour weeks, with the idea to increase that. I feel like I'm pretty good at listening to my body, and I've never really been injury prone. But as I mentioned before, I have noticed fatigue in my swim sessions. That could be from the increased volume, it could be from the heat, or it could that I've never really swam that much, as it's my least favorite discipline, so the fatigue just manifests itself there more.

I have 2 kids, family, job etc. but I'm pretty good at managing my time, and my job is pretty flexible, so I think I definitely can fit 20 hours (or at least close to that) in a week if I want to, it's just a matter of making sure it's appropriate.

I'd just say use the swim as a barometer. For triathlon, the swim is the first to be impacted by fatigue and show when you aren't recovering from your overall training. It's the "canary in the coal mine."

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com

Congrats Kevin! Way to crush it!

Thanks for taking the time to share your insights. Lots of solid advice in these articles no matter what training paradigm one follows!

Keep up the awesome racing and awesome coaching!

---

Jan Vobecky

Thanks, Jan!

And thanks for the time splits out on the course-- that was super helpful-- it was great seeing you out there.

---

Coach of TriForce Triathlon Team