or, have strong cycling and/or running background and/or have been at the IM thing for a long time. years of experience/base seem to count.
Agreed. I wasn’t trying to say the only reason they get to Kona is because they train so much, just that they do. What they did prior to to that point is a different matter, but certainly is a big factor in why they are good enough to qualify.
Like many triathletes, I have a demanding job, a wife and kids, other interests beyond S/B/R. Speaking for me, I try to see how fast I can race with as little training as possible. I love to train, but as a Masters athlete, my body craves proper recovery. My focus is way more on quality work, than quantity work.
I had a fairly respectable first Ironman last month in Florida on 10 hours training per week.
Lar dog
“I had a fairly respectable first Ironman last month in Florida on 10 hours training per week.”
keep in mind the people about whom i’m writing are those who’re racing kona. if it’s taking 20/hr per week, on average, to get ready for kona, it probably took close to that much weekly training to get ready for the race that got them to kona.
i’m not writing about 10,000 or 50,000 people. i’m writing about 1500 age groupers. and i think it’s a better idea for them not to have to do two IMs each year in order to do the one they really want to do.
I think this is where too many athletes go wrong. The swim is not necessarily about your time, it’s about the energy expended. If 2 guys swim an hour for an IM swim and one guy has put the time in the pool and comes out feeling decent while the other had to hammer, then it’s obvious as to who has an advantage. That’s not to say that swimmer #1 will automatically win, but he has put himself in a better position.
I started swimming 7 years ago and can now swim under an hour at any IM. In 2004 I did the IMH swim in a few seconds over an hour, but felt depleted when I hit land. This past season I put in 15-20k a week, swimming 3-4.5k 4-5 times a week,to help with that. In 2005 I hit the beach in under an hour, and I felt great coming out. While my time was less than a minute faster, coming out feeling good was a HUGE difference. I went on to post an overall time over an hour faster than last year. I came damn near close to running a sub 3 marathon, and set an IM PR by over 20 minutes. Your swim sets the tone for the rest of the day and if you come out feeling like death warmed over, it’s not a good way to start.
If you do have the time, it’s worth the effort. I will concede that not everyone has the time, and that is why they should really focus on each session and get everything they can out of it.
Point well taken. I did not realize that the focus was on volume for Kona qualifiers. The idea of staying fresh will give me motivation to stay in the pool this winter, as my goal is to improve on my last IM attempt and try to get into Kona before I am too old to enjoy it! (yes, I know talking about this goal is bad luck)
Why is it bad luck? I think it is good to have it out there- no need to hide your motivations! Good luck with your next Ironman.
i had the same response. that looks like a good target for my peak month.
I probably had just one week with that much training.
I’d say that’s pretty accurate for people finishing under 12 hours, and especially at Hawaii. 14+ hours? - well, it’s taking that long for a reason.
No, I did 5 IMs. All under 10:30 including Hawaii two month ago
You can see my training log here http://www.qbike.com/cgi-bin/log/calendar.cgi?login=felix__w
This spring/summer my number per month were:
swim 18 -33 km, 5-10h
bike 800- 1340km, 24-43h
run 175-286km, 14-23h
That is much less than the average from IMNA.
Felix
Agreed. I wasn’t trying to say the only reason they get to Kona is because they train so much, just that they do. What they did prior to to that point is a different matter, but certainly is a big factor in why they are good enough to qualify.
Or perhaps they’re absolute phenoms. 
“No, I did 5 IMs. All under 10:30 including Hawaii two month ago”
Do you feel like you race at potential on less than 20 hours a week? You might turn in some fast times without a lot of training, but all I think that shows is that you have good genetics.
Skid can sit around and drink beer and still beat me, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good training strategy.
Maybe they are. Just like most guys who make it into the NBA are pretty tall or guys who make it onto any college 4 x 100 relay on the track are pretty quick to begin with or any model who gets a fat contract is pretty good looking. I’m sure there is a natural selection process involved here just as there is to get to the top of any group of people, but one of the things I like best about endurance sports is usually the person who trains the most/best/works hardest does better. There are exceptions to every rule of course but the thread began by talking about the average training time to get to Kona and even if people who qualify for Kona were fudging a little when talking about how much they train its clearly evident that on average they train more than most.
Cheers, Scott
“Dude, thats not fair. I trained my #$(^ off to own a 14:30 time. I am darn proud of it as well”
This must be the only place in the universe where training for 12-16 hours a week for six months, which delivered me a 14:45 Ironman, could be considered slacking. It sure didn’t feel that way. Hats off to anyone who wants to train for average 22.8 hours a week for seven months. I am sure if I did that I could knock a few hours off my time. However, I have other things to do.
That is my peak as well (22-24 hrs/week). For the several months prior, I do about 17 hrs/week.
I’ve cut back due to commitments. I could not sustain that volume for long and still maintain family and career.
I would love too as I think the training aspect is the best part of the “tri life”, but no, I sure don’t train 23 hours/week for my IM prep. I peaked at about 15 with 1 20 hour week (wife lots of permission), but usually around 12 due to kids, wife, job, life, etc…
“Dude, thats not fair. I trained my #$(^ off to own a 14:30 time. I am darn proud of it as well”
This must be the only place in the universe where training for 12-16 hours a week for six months, which delivered me a 14:45 Ironman, could be considered slacking. It sure didn’t feel that way. Hats off to anyone who wants to train for average 22.8 hours a week for seven months. I am sure if I did that I could knock a few hours off my time. However, I have other things to do."
There is a very real danger in talking about build periods: It gives the false impression that all IM training is is a build. Stats about months lead us to forget that training takes years and even decades. When we talk about training we need to talk about duration as well as quantity.
I think, very generally, that a guy averaging 10 hours per week for 10 years is more prepared for an IM than a guy who has averaged 20 hours a week for one year. There is no easy way, and the hard way isn’t quick.
I totally agree with Caleb. Bodies change slowly, technique is fermented over time, and injury is always right around the corner. It takes time to get fast with few exceptions.
I only got close to that kind of training suring my build period in the 8 weeks leading up to IMWA. Aside from that I was around 6-10hr/week for prep and an extended base 1 (Jan thru til June), maybe up to 15hr/week for base 2 & 3 (July til mid-aug).
I cannot imagine doing that level of training for 7 months. It’s just not required. I suppose if I had no spouse and no toddler and no friends and no life, I’d have no better way to spend my time… 
I train about half that much. I probably train with a lot more intensity than most to make up for the decreased hours. Fortunately you can get good results on less hours if you keep intensity high.
Actually those figures have moderated a bit since the late 80’s. I recall the average numbers bering even bigger back then. I remember getting the athletes handbook a month or so out from doing my first IM at IMH in 1989 and thinking I was screwed because I was on average, doing about 1/2 of what was “reccomended” back then. Anyway, I went 9:40 that first time out so I figured that the BIG miles were a bit overrated and I must have been doing something right with what I was doing.
Fleck
Yes they do.
However, they lie and say that they train less,
but they actually train more…
…and then they show up at the race and kick your ass.
There’s a word for people like these:
Sandbaggers