Interesting Question.

When I was racing seriously I looked at the seaon as a 6 month process to get ready for an Ironman race. Typically for me that was trying to be in peak form for in late August for Ironman Canada. From March through to the end of August my average weekly training over the course of 10 years was about 10 hours.The main goal was to be in sub 9:30 IM shape by late August. I was reasonably successful in this reagrd as I was under 9:30 at IMC 5 out of the 6 times I did the race with a best time of 9:04 in 1992.

The key word above is "average", because in reality if you are doing things right there is no such thing as an average week. I was a big believer in really pouring on the training when time would permit and the body felt good. So there where weeks of 15 - 20 hours of hard training. There were also weeks of only 5 hours of training and a number of weeks with some number of hours in beween. Looking back, there was typically, one over-the-the-top week each month and one week of very light training each month and then two weeks of something in between.

I would start off in March in decent shape after a good winter of cross-country skiing and a modest amount of running. The focus of the training from march onwards would be to concentrate on getting ready to do the goal split times I was shooting for - roughly 1:00/5:00/3:00 for the swim/bike/run. Integral to that was a lot of work at those paces and faster.

Your mileage may vary!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

seem to hit a hot spot, huh.

90 reviews but just one reply. Probably everybody is scared of giving away their secrets. Training 30h a week, have no life, no friends and still do 16h IM?

Just kidding.

Fleck,

thanks for yout reply because it gives me some support on my attitude of training. People say a lot that I don't train enough for the goals I have, well I always tell them that I'm never injured and I'm very happy at almost every workout I do.

I have a similar training periodization as you do. A lot one week and very little the next. In addition I change focus. One week I do a lot of cycling the next I focus on running. but about 10-12h a week sounds reasonable for an average and I went under 9:30 but would like to get close to 9. I totally changed my run training over the last 2 years and I feel much better, so maybe.

Believe me, I am giving away no secrets.

It's just very basic, common sense training, that cuts out a lot of the surplus volume and concetrates on what the pace/time goals are for Ironman.

The periodization, both planned and unplanned is huge. Many people just don't get this and keep grinding away week after week semi over-trained and wonder why they don't improve. There is always a big panic, when training is missed. Relax, and come back well rested for the next bit of training. I was coached by one of the best distance running coachs in Canada when I was a teenager. His words to me were make the hard days really hard and make the easy days really easy!

Best wishes.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Well, you're certainly not going to get a huge response now. People will be scared to post their training hours and race times after seeing you guys talk about your sub-9:30 times. Damn, you guys are fast! That said, I did my first IM last year and finished around 11:15. I would like to shave an hour off of that this year. I train on average about 15 hours a week.

same result here...first IM (USA) 11:20. Ave. hr's per week: 10-12. I would like to be able to take off 20-30 min off my time each year that I do am IM, I should be able to qualify in 2006...who knows though...I don't know if I can get faster??...what if I get slower :-(
I better go run or something.

My first ironman was 9:58:21 at ironman Canada. I probably averaged 14-16 hours a week from January until the end of May and then around 20 through June and July with my biggest week reaching 25 hours. I went 9:51 in my second ironman with no weeks over 19 and an average closer to 15 but I figure that all the bulk training over the years makes it possible to go faster with less. That said, I plan to be consistently over 20 in preparation for my next one to see if I can take a big chunk of time off.

I beg to differ agret! If, by performing yoga you improve your flexibility you HAVE done important training that may indeed mean the difference between last year's ho-hum race and this year's PB! It doesn't have to hurt to be good training!

 
[/quote]
It doesn't have to hurt to be good training![/reply]

I agree with that completely, but it's just very hard to take that into an average count of hours/week. I saw a lot of people hang out for hours a day at the local swimming pool, playing pros for a year but then they where asking why they where so slow in the race. Yoga was probably a poor example, because I think it actually does help your performance. So let me take that back.

Let me say a little something to the rest of the replies. I know this is a very difficult question to answer, because it strips down a very complicated thing, like training for Ironman to a bulk number. This is something that can't be done otherwise training would be easy, by definition. But I do think, that it gives important information. If you are training 20h/week since 5years and your PB is 11h, you probably do something wrong. That's a exagerated example again, I know.

And about now nobody posting because we where talking 9:30 and 12h/week. That's why I didn't post the numbers in the first place but then nobody gave their numbers.
I have to add to this that I will compete in IM #12 and #13 this year, so you can't expect to do 9:30 with 12h/week in your first couple years.
I didn't finish my first IM, went way too fast. My second and third where around 11h and I do have a couple DNF's on my account too, so it's not that everybody should be able to do sub 9:30 with no more than 12/week, not at all!!!
And again, that's average, that number includes training-camp with 30h/week and then a week or two with almost no training.

Allan,

That is the one thing that many of the training programs and other who talk about it seem to neglect. Indeed, it is something that is really hard to measure: That is the cumaltive effect of years and years of training. Before I did my first IM in 1989, I had 5 years of elite level running and almost 10 years of multisport training in me. Making the jump up to doing an IM did not seem that big a deal. I was a little intimidated going in, reading and hearing how much people where training, but the race went really well. I was conservetive and went to finish.

In some/many cases, it's not a question of doing more, it's an issue of getting more out of what you are doing. Particularly, as for just about all of us, we don't have all day to train. For what it's worth over the course of a 10 year period when I did 9 Ironman races, the actual volume of my training decreased, while the time performance in each IM race stayed relativly the same. But again, keeping in mind that nearing the end of that time frame, I now had over 20 years of modestly hard training in me. Key Example: In 1997 I did my last IM race. Looking at the training going into that race, on paper there is no way that I should have gone 9:30, but I did and I atribute that to the years and years of training that I had done prior to that year/race.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Good points and I do agree 100%.
But that raises another important question.
Let's say I've done IM racing over a period of 10years and I've improved little by little or cut back volume but can still do similar finishing times.
But now I'd like to have the year of my life and cut a big chunk out of my time. Obviously just increasing the volume again is not the smartest way to go, allthough you might improve but is there a smarter way?
What I'm doing right now is kind of gambling but we'll see, it might work:
I keep my weekly average or total amount of training roughly the same. But I picked my weakest sport, running in my case, and I focused all winter on that and I will keep doing that. I have a big shift from biking hours to running hours. I will sertainly improve my running, I can feel that big times but what I hope, is that I can keep my swim and bike close to what I've done before, with less hours.

seems reasonable or stupid?

   Here's my deal. I've done three IMs so far, but haven't been able to train and do one for about five years. When I did the three previous ones, I was coming into the game with about 9 years multisport background. I had read and digested all the appropriate training theory up to that point. But what it came down to was train hard, long and often. I did the Egad-thousand meter swim, Egad-hundred mile bike and Egad mile run weeks, most ever being 30,000 swim, 380 bike, 80 run. I did some focused intensity, but by and large my training amounted to just putting in time in the three disciplines. Accordingly, my PB is 10:48. I know I can do better than that. My PB marathon time alone is 2:54. I'm not slow in any of the disciplines.

So this year I've got the time to train and do another one. I'm smarter and have better gear now, but the best thing I've done is hire a coach. Specifically I've hired one with significant Ironman coaching experience. My work so far is different from what I used to do. Except for a 2 week "Epic" block in August, we won't be doing the crazy distances as a matter of regular training. My efforts are very focused toward building specific components of IM fitness. I'm feeling better trained at this point and have no doubt that I will arrive at the start line in October in much better position to seriously lower my PB, maybe even to sub 10:00, like I know that I'm capable of.

I think it comes down to this: if you have years of good base, you need to add focus to your training. Work the different areas of IM fitness. If you are still young, you need to add a lot of volume to build the support your body (and mind!) needs to endure a hard IM effort. At sub 9:30, I'm fairly sure that you are now getting into the area where you have to implement some "risk" training on the lines of Molina's Epic weeks in order to find new levels of performance. No pre-packaged training program is going to cover your needs. My rec is to hire a coach. I find it leaves me free to simply focus on doing the workouts instead of worrying about what workouts to do and how to put a program together.

Agret,

Well you are wise to focus on the run, because like it or not it's going to come down to the run and if you blow on the run it's game over.

But having said that it's really about balancing the bike/run fitness - getting to the point that you can ( if your goal is close 9:00) riding a 5:00 bike split or faster and it not kill you, because you are going to have to get off that bike and then run close to a 3:00 marathon or faster.

At this point, the swim becomes somewhat of a throw-away item. Get to the point that you can swim close to 1:00 and it not beat you up too bad. The race really starts when you head out on the bike.

How do you accomplish this - a big jump up in volume helps, but the better approach would be a modest increase in volume but more focus on what it takes to ride 5:00 and run 3:00, which means more time at or under the paces required to achieve those times.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I won't be able to do a 3h run! I know that and that means no 9h IM either, I know that too but what I'm looking for is improvement but not from 9:30 to 9:00 because that is a huge step which needs more focus than I can put in. I can easily do 55min swim without spending too much time in the pool usually I swim once a week and then in the month leading up to the race when I cut down the bike and run hours I swim more and that's always been enough for me, so you're right I don't care about the swim.
I'm alway around 5h on the bike at moderate IM's not talking Lanzarote and stuff like that. So the trick is to come off the bike and have enough left for a good run and have the run-training to keep a high pace troughout the marathon. Now that's what's been hard for me so far, just holding back on the bike doesn't cut the corner, just running more doesn't do it either, the best so far was doing bricks but that takes a lot out of me. I'm doing lots of hills now and some weightlifting (which I hate).

thanks for the tips and hope to see you all at the races

I honestly think that if you have any sort of natural ability in triathlon you training volume can be very little and you will still do well. I did 3 years of short course racing before my first ironman canada and had good fairly good success with the short course racing.....................ironman 10:12.................then I decided to take 3 years away from ironman and do short course again.............next ironman was 9:55......................then 3 years off of short course racing and next ironman was 9:45.............then I decided to concentrate on ironman and I found my pb's decreased to the point now after 5 ironman my pb is at 9:29 at im canada.

this was all done on around 13-15 hours training

I think for me and others in the same situation the only way now for me to drop this anymore significantly I would have to train way more ie. around 20-25 hours with some big mileage sections.

Now for people who maybe don't naturally pick up Ironman training, more miles and structure may allow them to reach a higher level..................I've seen it many times where a pro who admits to the world that he isn't the best athlete, but is a very hard worker does well.

I think to have success at ironman with little training there has to be a huge base you are coming from (ie. another sport) or you have some natural ability.

quite agree on this. natural ability is an important factor.
I do rather well with minimal training on the bike.
but if I don't swim 5 times a week and run quite a bit, I lose a lot and fast.

btw, I'd be interested in knowing what Fleck thinks of double runs as an ex-elite runner? I have started this year, and noticed big improvements doing so.
I know, it is a fairly common strategy in elite running.

I had my fiancee do double runs for a period.................I think the key is to do it for time periods and not for a long time especially in triathlon where you don't have the time or energy to do double runs all the time.................I know Peter Reid has done this as well..............you just have to watch how long the period is..............we've also done this with swimming.

double runs?? What's that all about? 2 times a day? morning and evening? How far/long.. intensity?

thanks,
mike

yes twice a day. generally, it works well if you have an easy run in the morning (I mean really easy...
I think Friel once qualified them as embarassly slow)
and in the afternoon or evening, an intensity run,
like some tempo or track.
usually, I keep the morning run no longer than 40',
so about around 5-6mi depending on the days, then
the intensity run in the arvo.

how often? twice a week? 3 times? In addition to a weekly long run?

mike

earlier in the season (hear until january) twice a week to have two days around 1h30 to 1h40' of running.

currently once a week.

3 times a week is probably too much unless you live in an area where you can't ride in the winter and hate the trainer. I live in El Paso and can train year round, so never tried 3 times twice a day.

in addition to a weekly long run: yes! this is definitely not to replace the long...

if I calculate right, that means you do your 'embarassly slow' run at a roughly 6min40sec / mile pace?

Wow, I want to see that tempo run in the afternoon, you're not Paul Targat by any chance?

Just kidding, I just want to point out that double runs do help but only if you keep it under control. So for most of us sub7min/ mile pace is not slow enough to really get a good fast one in in the afternoon.

For myself I don't do double on the run, the stress is too big. But I do that on the bike because putting in the miles on the bike is very time-consuming. So I ride to work in the morning (2h easy) and then ride back in the afternoon, both easy just to eat miles. I go hard at days where I go short, once but then I go really hard.

slow runs are usually around 7' to 7'15''/mi
I said no longer than 40', usually, a bit less. I never run 6'40'' for easy runs...

Rob de Castella did his long runs at 7' to 6' and had a marathon pb under 2h08'...mine is 17' slower so 7' is fine.

a friend of mine was here 2 weeks ago and was 10th in kona this year. he has a pb of 29'20'' on track and has his slow runs around 7'/mi.

currently the reason I do double runs is switch from a triathlete running style to a runner's running style,
leaning forward more, push off further back. so it's more to make it easier to change.

OK, that's what I figured. If you have a sub 3:30 PB on the marathon or a sub 30min 10k, then running twice a day might be good for you to improve. But for sub3h or sub 35min people, this is probably too much or not very efficient for Triathletes.
If you have to put in the miles on the bike and swim, then I think that there are better methods for most uf us than putting on the running gear twice and go take that shower one more time.
But for elites, yes it's a good idea, for all others, probably not. Unless, that exception you mentioned, if you can't bike for some reason and want to improve your run over a few month, go ahead and try running twice.

I guess it was 2.30

I agree in most cases, two runs a day is too much.
ultimately, you need a balance in your training.

I don't think that even for elite it would be wise to have double runs on a regular basis throughout the year. running takes strength out of the legs that you need for riding.

only exception would be sub-30' 10km runners, racing ITU.