Distance Based Training Plans

If you know your pace ranges for each sport you can just convert them.

I also prefer distance.  But in the end they are the same thing and just personal preference.

Figure out roughly how many miles you'd cover in the time frames and use that.

But the reason why time works is that people train in various types of conditions.  Biking 2 hours through the mountains may yield very different mileage than 2 hours through flat farmland.  But the work done (which is what you should care about) may be very similar.

The triathlongeek plan sounds great, I do understand that there are times when you should work out by time and not distance like recovery so I would be ok with a mixed plan.

I can do a conversion but that still disturbs me. If some one is running 9min miles verse someone running 8min miles sounds like a big a difference of distance over say 2 hours. I guess there is no perfect way, in running though there is a piece of mind with a mary training plan...run 20 miles 3 times before race and you are ready to go. Time based leaves room for doubt, if on you really important BT long distance if you had a bad day your mileage could be 30% lower.

Thanks for all the quick replies!

But your body really knows TIME not distance.  Plus if the BT plans told someone to go out and run 15 miles you'd have some people going out there hurting themselves by doing a four hour run before their IM because a four hour run takes too long to recover from.  But if you cap them at running 2-2.5 hours before their IM they will stay injury free while still being prepared.

I was a "distance" girl for years but now I understand the benefits of going by time and do that nearly exclusively.  That doesn't mean that I don't sit there and figure out how far I went on every workout...and will occasionally run a few extra minutes to get to a "round number".  But if the plan say to run for an hour...I run for an hour.  If it's a track workout to run 8x400, I run 8x400.

Unless it's swimming...like doing a track workout, swimming is inherently distance based.

But my bike run...time-based plans all the way.

Try it...I bet you end up liking it.

15 miles is 15 miles is 15 miles.  Everyone burns the same range of calories in a mile (100 - 150 or so).  And that goes for a 5 minute miler or a 10 minute one.  Just the 5 minute one does it faster.

Your body does NOT know time.  Your body knows effort exerted.

Again, neither is better, neither is worse.  Pick one that you are comfortable with and go with it.

(But there does seem to be a reason almost every cycling and running plan I ever see is based on mileage, not time.  Time seems to be more of a tri geek thing).

Then don't use them. Find another source of training plan that suits you better.

what rick said, for the most part.

i do think if you are in some crazy areas you need to know when to adjust.

i went for a 3:30 ride here the other day, was at tempo or threshold pace for a goodportion of it, but i only made it a litle over 30 miles because of the climbing.

that same ride back at home would put me in the 70 mile range.

both work well, but you need to know when to either adjust, or if you are sticking with one or the other, hwen a shorter distance will be the same workout.

Not on a bike.  And hills matter too when running.  I can easily show you two 15 mile courses that are not "equal".

You are more correct with your second & third statement.  Not sure about your parenthetical.  I think its just convention, not necessarily reason.

Hey Rick,
Maybe you or someone here can help me to understand this (the highlighted part above) better.  I remember reading recently that there is a more metabolically efficient speed in running and that a runner spends more energy at fast and slow speeds vs. an intermediate speed.  I can't find the article or I would reference it.  What are your thoughts?

Based on your size/body composition/efficiency you burn a certain amount per mile.  The more effort, obviously the more you will burn.  I get the concept that there is probably a "sweet spot" for everyone as far as pace goes and energy expenditure, but I am not sure if I understand how that energy use would not be at a slower speed.  If you had the article it would be interesting to read.

If you want a simple distance based plan, check out the trinewbies plans....

I suspect that Gritty is referring to this.  And there is semi-popular a summary of it here.  It's worth bearing in mind that the differences that they are measuring aren't huge -- around 15cal/mile difference (between LEAST optimal and MOST optimal pace) for an average male, and less for the average female.  Even if they are 100% correct (and their results do contravene earlier results), I really don't think that it impinges in any significant way on your main point, but the study is interesting.

Oh man - I knew you'd want that. 

That's the one, Michael. Thanks for clarifying.