Run By Time, not by distance (Page 2)

Steve, how can you say such things? You mean people should actually be able to perform at a certain level in order to race IM's? What a novel concept... This is blasphemy and you should be taken out back and flogged. After all, what's wrong with a six or seven hour marathon (or a 15 hour IM for that matter)? bahahahaha

Well, I barely make the 50-80% in 3 hours. Does that mean I should quit? I don't understand why just because I am slow, that I am not capable of doing this race.

And Chucky don't even start with this 15 hour BS. Finish your Half IM before you start.

Edited by madcow 2005-02-15 3:07 PM

Hey, that's Chucky's opinion, not mine

Seriously, I think it means that you have to choose what you are going to risk.  You can either risk recovery time (and possibly injury) by running extra long in training, or you can risk doing the race without meeting some requisite training mileage goals.

BTW, how long is your longest run gonna be, anyways?

I was being facetious...er...jocular.

If you want to race an IM with your longest run being 11 miles and your longest bike being 50 miles...more power to ya.

(he he he he he)

Edited by Steve- 2005-02-15 4:21 PM

bahahahaha, you know I got nothing but love for you MadCow If I can't push your buttons, whose buttons can I push?

<< BTW, how long is your longest run gonna be, anyways?

I can answer that for Tom, his longest run is going to be in the 18 - 20 mile range. Tom just did his first 18 mile run and did very well with it. More than likely it will be 18 miles for his next and final long, long run. The exact distance will depend on the discussion between him and I as to whether he feels the need psychologically to go a bit past 18 miles. Personally I don't think he needs too but the psycholgical need needs to be met as well as the physical need. Physcially I don't think he is going to gain anything more doing 20 then he will doing 18 at this point, but the physical is only part of the equation.

Ah-HA! 

Stupid mental part of the equation.  X#@X@!$%@#!!

That's 68.7% of the race distance.  So, Tom, you are officially cleared by BT members to race IMAZ.

I'm sure you are relieved to hear that....

Edited by Steve- 2005-02-15 5:06 PM

Yeah, I'm glad I got the OK

Sorry if I was bitter earlier.

You should be especially glad that you got the OK from the BT site and not some coach with oodles of knowledge and experience....gggeeeezzzzzz....

One arguement from Be Ironfit is it is easier to schedule a 'X' minute workout session then an 'Y' mile run (ride, swim..). 45 minutes will always be 45 minutes

I think I do this .... but maybe not.

It's easy to "train by time" in the pool. Swim for 45 minutes, when it's been 45 minutes ... get out and go home.

When running/biking, I say "I'm going to run for an hour". In my mind I have a 6-mile course in mind (I'm slow). So, I run out 3 miles, turn around, and come home. Now, if for some reason I am off, and after an hour, I've only ran 5 miles, what do I do? Call my wife and ask her to come pick me up? =)

I would have to say that most times, training for time and distance will be indecipherable if the person has the experience to select a distance appropriate for the time they need to train. For me I know I can hold 10min/mile, 15-16mph, and 2:15/100y for long duration for most days. So, I select my distances based on that. If someone thing goes wrong (like 20mph winds), foot painb, cramps, etc ... I don't sweat it, I adjust. maybe I go slower, or cut the distance short.

I don't see a huge descrepency between training for distance or training by time ... unless someone is selecting distances that are not appropriate for them. i.e., a newbie saying they'll run 10 miles in an hour run, or ride 40 miles in 2 hours, etc.