It worked! 9:26, 1st AG (KQ) at IMSR on 10 hour per week training plan

Triathlon Forum
1

This year I decided to do an experiment to avoid burnout and to help me learn to be a better coach for my busy athletes. Back in 2011, I wrote an article with the title “A sub 10 Ironman on 10 hours per week” (since then I’ve seen some imitation articles by other coaches) and I decided to revisit the approach applying everything I’ve learned in the last 8 years and see if I could qualify for Kona on a minimalist training plan. The goal was to see if I could be almost as fast as I would be on a “regular” plan, but with much less volume.

It worked! I went 9:26 at IMSR last weekend (1st place 40-44) and qualified on an average of 9:50 / week over the course of my build! The decreased training volume (10 hrs average this year vs. 14+ last year) allowed me to keep the average quality of my sessions much higher, so it balanced things out reasonably well. I might not have maximized my potential 100%, but I didn’t leave too much speed on the table and I enjoyed my training and life and extra free time.

If you are curious to read about how I did it here’s a 4 part series I wrote on it (the training and the race report). The first article is about one way to structure a minimalist training plan (big emphasis on focused rides + bricks) and the last article is the race report. In between I have a couple training updates. If you are a busy athlete looking to train for an Ironman, I hope you’ll get a some useful ideas and some motivation from the articles.

I was actually planning on doing more training than I did. I planned for up to 10:59 / week in the first half (being a slight cheater by defining “10 hours” as 10:59 or below), followed a few bigger weeks before the taper. So, it was supposed to average out to over 10 hours / week, but all but a few weeks would be under 11 hours. But due to ongoing run injuries and the fact that the training was challenging to the point I needed some extra recovery days mixed into the build, it ended up averaging out to only 9:50 / week across the build + taper.

I hope someone gets some useful ideas from the articles. Please feel free to ask any questions.

(Disclaimer: remember, this isn’t about how to qualify for Kona. It’s about some ideas on how to be *almost *as fast as you’d be on a “regular” plan, but with significantly less training.)

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 10.49.35 AM.png

2

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.

I looked back at my <9:30 IM from last year and doing a similar analysis it looks like I averaged around 11:15/week for the 16 weeks (so not really that much more than your 9:50). But that was also my 9th IM over the past 5 years, and I had been consistently training and racing for the entirety of those 5 years.

That is certainly an impressive performance, but I think focusing on the “low volume” of this build is missing a bigger picture of years of consistent training. I would be hesitant to have someone new to IM, who has only been in the sport a couple of years, train at that low volume and expect much in the way of a decent result.

Edit to add: I took a look back at my records going back to 2014. Looks like it stayed right at 11:15 average for the past 5 years. Although if I bump that to 2015 the average is more like 11:40. Regardless, years upon years of training consistently. Some low-volume weeks balancing high volume weeks obviously. But my overall average isn’t that “impressive” looking

3

Congrats on your fast performance on the lower volume! You’re a great example and I totally agree that consistency is what it’s all about. I should really have emphasized that more. In fact, I tell my athletes that consistency is TriForce Rule #1. My 3 year average is 11 hours, but I basically never take a week off of training (except maybe after my last “a race” of the year) and I have been doing Ironman for a decade now, so that backs up what you are saying.

Agreed that this plan will work better for an experienced athlete looking to cut back but still come close to previous performances vs. someone trying to finish their first one. And for people I coach, the preference is always to do a conventional plan with more volume (especially run-wise) if they are able. On the other hand, some of these concepts are based on the training I did when I first started doing Ironman (I was going to school + working) and back then I managed to go in the mid 9s as well on a mostly minimal plan without the benefit of a huge base (but I still had some years of consistent training). I do think this style of training is pretty effective for getting ready to race Ironman if you don’t have the option to do a “regular” plan. The concepts of the plan-- more focused training (3 hours with reps pegging at IM to HIM effort vs. 5 hours slower), transition runs, with no junk training can really help people of all abilities get prepared to do a “good” (not necessarily their best) Ironman.

And in the end, it’s not about “the plan” or 10 hours-- that was just a fun challenge for myself and a learning experience For me it’s about some tools, tricks and concepts to give options to people who are busy. If someone’s passion is Ironman, I hate to see them quit because they can’t do the same big plan they’ve done in previous years.

4

Congrats Kevin on such an impressive result! It sounds like it was an interesting experiment.

I don’t see that this 10 hour/week plan is inconsistent with consistency (pun intended), and I don’t think it is being advertised as a “couch to KQ” plan either. I don’t see where the plan says that 10 hours/week for one season is sufficient to get you there. It looks to me like it was an experiment to see if Kevin could get 80% of the results from 60% of the normal training load he might have typically put in (yes, when layered on top of having been consistent for many years). In other words, can you still reach a relatively high performance level without putting in 16-20 hours/week, week after week?

High performance level is of course relative. Only a gifted few will be able to KQ, go sub-10 on an IM or sub-5 on a HIM, etc. on this plan, but this datapoint might suggest that a time-starved athlete could still achieve 80% of his/her success by chipping away 10 hours/week over a long period of time (i.e., being consistent at this moderate level of training). If anything, your experience adds validation to Kevin’s theory. With consistency, you were able perform at a high level with relatively low training load (11.5 hours/week).

5

Congrats Kevin on such an impressive result! It sounds like it was an interesting experiment.

I don’t see that this 10 hour/week plan is inconsistent with consistency (pun intended), and I don’t think it is being advertised as a “couch to KQ” plan either. I don’t see where the plan says that 10 hours/week for one season is sufficient to get you there. It looks to me like it was an experiment to see if Kevin could get 80% of the results from 60% of the normal training load he might have typically put in (yes, when layered on top of having been consistent for many years). In other words, can you still reach a relatively high performance level without putting in 16-20 hours/week, week after week?

High performance level is of course relative. Only a gifted few will be able to KQ, go sub-10 on an IM or sub-5 on a HIM, etc. on this plan, but this datapoint might suggest that a time-starved athlete could still achieve 80% of his/her success by chipping away 10 hours/week over a long period of time (i.e., being consistent at this moderate level of training). If anything, your experience adds validation to Kevin’s theory. With consistency, you were able perform at a high level with relatively low training load (11.5 hours/week).

Yep - I have no disagreement with what Kevin showed with this experiment. I am just pointing out that it requires a highly experienced athlete to pull it off. In fact it shows that, to me, you might be better off working at this for years on a “slow burn” plan like this, vs training your ass off for 16-20hrs/week for a couple of years and then burning out, only to quit the sport entirely. It shows that if you work at this slowly, consistently, year after year, you will get that result you want (KQ or whatever) and still enjoy the process enough to want to keep doing it.

I see too many people rush from couch to IM (say over 2 years), train themselves into the ground, finish their IM in , burn out, and quit (after getting a tattoo). That is sad to me. This experiment shows what I think is a better approach to training and racing as a lifestyle that still yields impressive results.

6

I get what you did and it’s a great accomplishment.

But saying you KQ on a 10 hour week training plan is misleading.

7

It’s common knowledge: everybody’s who’s slower than me is a loser and didn’t train enough. Everybody who’s faster than me is no-lifer and trains too much. I don’t know where to put you!!!

Seriously, congrats! Good planning, good execution and excellent result!

8

It’s common knowledge: everybody’s who’s slower than me is a loser and didn’t train enough. Everybody who’s faster than me is no-lifer and trains too much. I don’t know where to put you!!!

I think you accidentally put this in pink…

9

I like hacks
.

10

I like hacks

What you are missing is that the race is over a fixed distance, not how far you go in a given time. And at the moment then it woudl take you well over 40 hours to travel the distances that Kevin did in his weekly trainings.

Now go and ride a bike.

11

Congrats, but I could have told you that 18 years ago. Few would’ve believed me.Triathletes just train too much, which is partly why they can’t figure out how to get faster.

12

LOL, thanks!

13

It looks to me like it was an experiment to see if Kevin could get 80% of the results from 60% of the normal training load he might have typically put in (yes, when layered on top of having been consistent for many years)…

He was actually closer to about 95% of the results (assuming 9hr IM threshold) on 60% of the training. That’s remarkable.

14

Congrats! Well done!

Don’t have quite the depth of your experience, but my n = 1 was coming in within seconds of my last year’s finish time with improved swim and run on less swimming and running (I was around 11.5hr average total training this year vs 13.5-14 last year).

Good luck getting healthy and coming back stronger!

15

Pretty categorical statement. Care to elaborate or take it down a notch?

“Every triathlete would get faster by training less” seems wrong to me. But I could be wrong.

16

I know there are “time crunched” plans but I really would be curious to see who can train on 10 hours MAX and excel. Not this “average” but max hours so then the “average” would likely be closer to 8.2-8.5 over a time period. Or atleast show how doing only 10 hours actually does then limit your ability.

Of course I wouldn’t advise it because that’s not imo properly training for your race event demands, but as you note this is an average that to get ~10 hours will mean you get multi weeks over that “10 hour” threshold.

17

Pretty categorical statement. Care to elaborate or take it down a notch?

“Every triathlete would get faster by training less” seems wrong to me. But I could be wrong.

I think what he is eluding to is that too many people focus on high volume and not quality workouts. They spend all of their time in zone 1 or zone 2 hours on end. They could do less volume and more intensity and have more success.

18

they could also do more volume and more intensity and have more success…

Pretty categorical statement. Care to elaborate or take it down a notch?

“Every triathlete would get faster by training less” seems wrong to me. But I could be wrong.

I think what he is eluding to is that too many people focus on high volume and not quality workouts. They spend all of their time in zone 1 or zone 2 hours on end. They could do less volume and more intensity and have more success.

19

they could also do more volume and more intensity and have more success…

Pretty categorical statement. Care to elaborate or take it down a notch?

“Every triathlete would get faster by training less” seems wrong to me. But I could be wrong.

I think what he is eluding to is that too many people focus on high volume and not quality workouts. They spend all of their time in zone 1 or zone 2 hours on end. They could do less volume and more intensity and have more success.

Agreed but its about building to that point. I would’t take someone training 17 hours a week on no intensity and have them start immediately doing 17 hours with intensity built in. That’s how injuries happen. I would lower it to 12-14 hours with intensity. Once you can hit all the high intensity workouts for weeks on end, you start to raise volume.

20

This year I decided to do an experiment to avoid burnout and to help me learn to be a better coach for my busy athletes. Back in 2011, I wrote an article with the title “A sub 10 Ironman on 10 hours per week” (since then I’ve seen some imitation articles by other coaches) and I decided to revisit the approach applying everything I’ve learned in the last 8 years and see if I could qualify for Kona on a minimalist training plan. The goal was to see if I could be almost as fast as I would be on a “regular” plan, but with much less volume.

It worked! I went 9:26 at IMSR last weekend (1st place 40-44) and qualified on an average of 9:50 / week over the course of my build! The decreased training volume (10 hrs average this year vs. 14+ last year) allowed me to keep the average quality of my sessions much higher, so it balanced things out reasonably well. I might not have maximized my potential 100%, but I didn’t leave too much speed on the table and I enjoyed my training and life and extra free time.

If you are curious to read about how I did it here’s a 4 part series I wrote on it (the training and the race report). The first article is about one way to structure a minimalist training plan (big emphasis on focused rides + bricks) and the last article is the race report. In between I have a couple training updates. If you are a busy athlete looking to train for an Ironman, I hope you’ll get a some useful ideas and some motivation from the articles.

I was actually planning on doing more training than I did. I planned for up to 10:59 / week in the first half (being a slight cheater by defining “10 hours” as 10:59 or below), followed a few bigger weeks before the taper. So, it was supposed to average out to over 10 hours / week, but all but a few weeks would be under 11 hours. But due to ongoing run injuries and the fact that the training was challenging to the point I needed some extra recovery days mixed into the build, it ended up averaging out to only 9:50 / week across the build + taper.

I hope someone gets some useful ideas from the articles. Please feel free to ask any questions.

(Disclaimer: remember, this isn’t about how to qualify for Kona. It’s about some ideas on how to be *almost *as fast as you’d be on a “regular” plan, but with significantly less training.)

Fleck did this type of thing way back in 1997 and went something like 9:08 at Ironman Canada Penticton.

What you are conveniently leaving out:

Years of baseGenetic abilityYears of techincal ability in the sport (learned from your errors)Already entering with excellent body composition
The rest, makes a ton of sense. I am sure Lebron James can excel at NBA on sub 10 hrs per week combined games, training and video work too, but that’s roughly what you are implying here, and what Fleck was implying in 1997.