Seriously? Maybe 5 hours during the week, sure, but you are not going to build that kind of speed on only 5 hours including weekends unless you are already incredibly talented, have a giant engine, and maybe supplement with things you shouldn't supplement with.

It sounds like you’re doing it wrong...

Sub 5 doesn’t require any real speed. For a male in his thirties (which I suppose applies to the OP) ~5 hours/week as a yearly average of hard, proper training should be enough if you have normal talent and are not overweight.

It sounds like you’re doing it wrong...

Sub 5 doesn’t require any real speed. For a male in his thirties (which I suppose applies to the OP) ~5 hours/week as a yearly average of hard, proper training should be enough if you have normal talent and are not overweight.

Wife works 80h weeks. Husband works 50+ tri training, so comes in around 80 as well, lets assume. 80/5= 16h per day...max daycare hours per day=12... leaves 20h for the weekend...

I think the math just doesn't work.... I am always amazed by this forum where people work 60+ hours, train 15+ hours, sleep min 8h per day AND have a great family life.....

My first wife ...

I've been there, lived it. Ruined a couple marriages.

You mention that ironman training broke up a previous 4-year relationship; be very careful, don't let this become a pattern. Not worth it.

If you could pull this off as a coach, and get all of your M30-40 age-athletes (NOT hand-selected talents or ones with deep endurance sport background!) to go sub 5 on <5hrs/wk training over the course of a year averaged, you would be the best coach in triathlon by far. Even the top coaches in the sport can't pull this off.

If you somehow manage to accomplish this with the results to prove, not only will I give you kudos in public, but I will sign up for your services at $400/month. (I'm not holding my breath...)

pretty much this.

When your kids are grown, do you really think that they are really going to give a shit what your ultraman PR was? Or any of the other people who you care about? They might look at it and say "oh that's cool", but only if it means that you were their FATHER first and foremost.

I am not saying everyone will do it, though anyone could do it (I admit it may be difficult during your first triathlon year if you’ve never done any endurance sports before). If you have your mind set and are willing to work five hard hours and race through some pain.

My experience is that most people are not willing (at least not when it comes down to actually executing) to do either of the two. In my opinion this is the main reason why most people don’t succeed in reaching their goals, not because of their coaches.

That was a not-so-subtle hint, my friend. She's unhappy. You'd better re-examine your priorities. When you're 70, will it matter more to you that you ran a 3 hour marathon and completed RAAM, or that you and your wife had a mutually fulfilling relationship?

StaffanS wrote:

I am well aware that people have different abilities and not everyone is able to do a 15 min 5 k despite hard and dedicated training. Likewise, hitting a low 4 hrs 70.3 would not be for everyone as it requires a lot of speed.

Sub 5 hrs doesn’t require a lot of speed and is accessible for most everyone. This is my firm belief.

Also, I don’t say it is the best way to do it. But if you, as myself and the OP, are in a position where you have other things in life such as a wife and children that matter more than triathlon or any other sport for that sake, you have to work with what you have. And in such case I stand by that 5 hrs should do it if you do 5 good hrs.

Again, you should become a coach and just coach a stable of dedicated long-time MOPers to sub-5 on <5hrs /wk. You would literally be the most successful AG triathlon coach on the planet.

People believe all sorts of stuff based on what they see as a young man, and then change it drastically once they see a wider variety of athletes and effects of training on them.

First of all, wow! I just want to express my gratitude for everyone who has weighed in here and shared their personal stories. I must have hit on a topic that many have wrestled with, as I've never started a thread on any forum that's generated so many responses.

To summarize what I've taken away so far:
0) Heed the warning shot. I don't want to end up divorced. I love my wife. She's an incredible person, and honestly I probably don't deserve her.
1) Figure out if my wife's complaint about triathlon is really the tip of an iceberg (which it is, more below)
2) Have an candid discussion about is a "reasonable" amount of training, and potentially focus on shorter distance races (or single sport races) depending on time permitted by wife
3) Try to do that training at more convenient times for the family, and talk about training/racing A LOT less
4) Make it clear I'm putting my family (and work) ahead of triathlon (or any of my other self pursuits for that matter)

There were lots of questions asked of me, which I'll try to answer.
-- Could this be the tip of the iceberg? -- YES, it is. Whoever asked this should be a psychologist! I spoke to her last night, and she said the triathlon obsession is just a symptom of a more troubling disease. When we got married, we promised we'd be "equal partners" in domestic duties since we're both career driven, and she doesn't feel like I'm pulling my weight, especially since our son was born. She's a fast-rising jr partner at a top management consulting firm (works 65-80 hrs/wk with a ton of travel). I also have a demanding high pressure job but her hours are worse. Apparently, she feels like she has "three jobs: work, domestic chores, and now a baby" but I only have two jobs: "Work, and triathlon, which isn't a job because it's fun." So good to know where all this is coming from because now we can address the underlying issue, and I'm going to sign up for more chores around the house. This was all news to me, so if nothing else good comes out of this, at least we'll solve for that

-- Did my wife know about triathlon before we got married? Not really. She knew I was an athlete as a kid through college (and that Ironman broke up my post-college relationship of 4 years), but I was injured when I met my spouse. Except for the last 18 months, I wasn't training/racing. So she might say, "I didn't sign up for this." Shortly after we started dating, I was sidelined by two surgeries from overuse injuries, and didn't train for anything for most of the decade we've known each other. Since I couldn't do triathlons, I started racing cars at a high level (which was also very selfish, time consuming and WAY more expensive), but after a crash that could have killed me around when we started trying to get her pregnant, wife asked me to stop, which seemed reasonable. Needing a competitive outlet, I figured I'd give running a shot again, started with a 10K and worked my way back up to Ironman over about a year.

-- Can I compete at the highest level if I can't run a sub-3hr marathon "yet"? Well, the truth is, that's not what matters to me. My goal is not to be the fastest man in the world, but to discover how fast I can be and how far can I go. I don't yet know my potential, because just when I was getting into things hardcore in college and making progress, I blew out my knee running. My genes are good. My dad held track and field records that were only recently broken. I had my VO2 max tested in college as part of an academic study, I forget the VO2 max number but it was in 99% percentile so I know I have a big aerobic engine. Will I be an IM AG World Champ, probably not. Could I KQ? Maybe. But again, all I really want to know is.... how far can this sack of flesh carry me.

There reason I'm here, asking these questions, is because I know that in the end (having volunteered in hospice when I was younger) is almost everyone treasures most the time the spent with the people they love, not the their selfish achievements. The happiest ones were the once who find balance between feeling like they lived up to their potential while putting their loved ones first.

There is some good advice here about how to do it.

The plan that's resonated with me most so far is -- using shorter events (maybe Olympic distance or a mix of half-marathon + shorter/fun crits or gravel riding) to stay in shape for the next 10-15 years, then retire early and use all the free time to train for Ultraman etc. But key to that plan is keeping the body healthy, especially given my history of overuse injuries which historically have been my main limiter.

Again, you should become a coach and just coach a stable of dedicated long-time MOPers to sub-5 on <5hrs /wk. You would literally be the most successful AG triathlon coach on the planet.

People believe all sorts of stuff based on what they see as a young man, and then change it drastically once they see a wider variety of athletes and effects of training on them.

I'm actually curious if Slowman himself has changed his views from this old-school post from 2004 that comes up from time to time. (Slowman was a pretty fast runner back in the day, I think he was sub 4:20 mile if I vaguely recall?)

And I'll definitely disagree 100% with the bolded section below about 1 out of every 5 men at age 45 having the capacity to run a 38min 10k. I've always placed in local running races in the top 15%, from ages M20-40+, so I'm probably already above Mr. Joe average genetics for running, and I ran a 10k 2 years ago while maintaining 75mpw for a marathon over 5 months (which is def 99%-maximal training for me.) I went 39:01 on a totally flat, fast course, and I was barely over age 40. There's no way 1 out of 5 males at age 45 can pull that off, even with maximal training.

https://www.slowtwitch.com/...Your_10k_PR_258.html


What do I mean by “run fast.” How fast? I’ll be blunt. I believe just about every reasonably fit male the age of 45 has the theoretical physiological capacity to run his age for a 10k, that is, a 10k in 45 minutes. Subtract 20 seconds for every year under 45, down to the age of 25, and add 20 seconds for every year over 45. Do the math, and you’ll see that according to my formula a 27 year old ought to be able to run a 39 minute 10k, and I mean almost ANY 27 year old. Likewise, the significant majority of 54 year old men ought to be able to run a 48 minute 10k. Women add 4 minutes.

“You’re grossly generalizing,” you might say. Yes, I am. “You have no independent, peer reviewed, published data on which you rely.” No, I don’t. Furthermore, it gets worse. Assuming you have no anatomical problems that keep you from training and running regularly, my contention is that 60 percent of those reading this are able to achieve what I describe above. Twenty percent cannot, that is, you have other things you’re good at. Running is not among your skills. However, that leaves another 20 percent, and you are capable of much, much more than the modest 10k speeds I published above. One out of every five men reading this can run 38 minutes for a 10k at age-45.

I still seriously doubt you or anyone could take 100 random M30-35 guys in decent health, and get even half of them to sub5 on <5hrs training per week if that's all they did. That has nothing to do with the athlete's unwillingness to suffer, and has everything to do with the unrealisticness of that expectation for the average person.

Now you take D1-D3 collegiate runners or swimmers - I suspect you'd be able to train them for 3-4 hrs a week and get a large majority of them sub5 pretty readily. Obviously that's a hugely different cohort than Mr Joe average.

You sound like I did when I was ages 18-30, and assume that the reason I could run an 18:xx 5k and that Joe Avg over there could only run 24:xx was my awesome training, awesome commitment, awesome effort. Turns out the reality is that sure, I trained hard, but genetics are far and away the reason I go that speed. I could train 2x as much and go slighter faster, or 2x as little and go slightly slower. Similarly, Joe Avg 24:xx runner could train as much as me, possibly get down to 21:xx if lucky, but he's never getting down to 18:xx. That's not training, that's just genetics. People with ability constantly lowball the contribution of genetics to their performance, and hugely overestimate their personal hard work and system, when it's actually reverse. Just look at how many sibilings race at the similar level, even if they're living totally in different countries under different coaches.

I had my VO2 max tested in college as part of an academic study, I forget the VO2 max number but it was in 99% percentile so I know I have a big aerobic engine.