Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Ironman training...distance vs. time
Quote | Reply
I know this has probably been discussed in the past but I am curious. When i comes to Ironman training are most people doing time based workouts or distance based. Or is it a mixture of both. If it is time based what amount of time are you devoting towards each discipline on a weekly basis? and if it is distance based what does your weekly mileage look like? Thanks in advance!
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Time and distance are the same.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That doesn't make sense. For instance is your plan to ride 100 miles or 5 hours. Run for 10 miles or 2 hours? They might match up some of the time but most of the time they will be different.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Train based on time. You have to fit the sport in your life so it’s easier from a time management perspective.

USAT Level II- Ironman U Certified Coach
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It depends.
If I am doing a HIIT workout, the total miles is less important.
I do look at mileage on a long brick (obviously looking at time/speed also).
I think your best answer is both.

Team Zoot So Cal
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You should know your goal pace for each workout. Therefore, time is distance.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My bike and run workouts are all based off of time. My swims are all distance.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [Once-a-miler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
^This is such a sensible way to put it - way easier to manage your day with time based workouts.

Also, it often doesn't make sense to go based on distance - for example, a hill-climbing bike workout can be half the distance of a flat bike workout, but the same amount of time (and same amount of effort/energy expended).
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond wrote:
You should know your goal pace for each workout. Therefore, time is distance.

I don't think that is correct. You should know your target range. Moreover, if you are training with power...or on hills...or on a flat...etc...that has a major impact on distance and time should you choose to use one of those.

Moral of the story...train for time.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your body does not know distance. It only registers time and intensity.
So training should be done according to time and intensity, provided you know which values of time and intensity are best to improve.

Disclaimer: As to swimming, that I also do acc. to distance.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [longtrousers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks everyone for the responses. That is kinds what i figured bike and run for time, swim for distance.
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [stupac2722] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's just units of measure.

But, I'd say there's two camps. Are you looking to finish an event within a cutoff or are you trying to improve a time/finishing position?

I do bikes, but just because I know I can easily ride the distance of the event doesn't dictate that's the end point of the training. There's either intensity or duration required that may take you well beyond the "distances" prescribed to "finish" an event.

Imagine training to distance on a really flat/fast area but your event is really hilly. Training to distance wouldn't work out so well!
Quote Reply
Re: Ironman training...distance vs. time [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond wrote:
Time and distance are the same.

NOPE.
Quote Reply