login
The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice (Page 2)
-
No new posts
| General Discussion | Triathlon Talk » The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice | Rss Feed  |
|
 2009-06-18 1:03 PM in reply to: #2226970 |
Master  1651     Breckenridge, CO |  Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novicetkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 11:26 AM So, if I was giving running advice, and all you saw was my 1/2 mary PR (A woeful 2:3x:xx), you'd immediately discount it? Hrm. Good to know. John No offense but yes I would. In terms of running advice, why should I listen to someone who I don't know and has proved nothing to me as opposed to my buddy Dick Dime who went from the couch to 1:25 in the recent Kansas 70.3 1/2 mary leg? |
| 2009-06-18 1:05 PM in reply to: #2227075 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice JohnnyKay - 2009-06-18 1:58 PM cusetri - 2009-06-18 1:45 PM I think what Breckview is saying that in a world of unknowns, you need something to backup what you are saying. I don't know who Bryan is. but if I look at his logs/RRs, I'm gonna follow his advice. If gordo makes a post, I'm not gonna check his logs, I know who he is. There are other, better ways to decide how heavily to discount advice being provided is my point. Bryan was fast when he first arrived at BT. I'm more likely to consider some of what he has to offer today than I was then. And it has nothing to do with his results. The OP's post has plenty of validity regardless of how good a triathlete he is or isn't. Oh, and training IS simple. In fact, so is racing. But perhaps I'm not fast enough to be listened to.  so your saying year 1 you kept things as smiple as you do know? didnt realize training was an instinct some are born with. breathing is simple. training becomes simples after months or years of realizing you dont have to make it so complicated--this takes time for 99% of the population. and your times are plenty fast for me to listen to your advice. If you knew how much I looked at your logs, you'd gt a restraining order on me....  point is, I dont know you, so you have to be able to back up what you are saying. and you dont even have to be "fast" If you went from 2:00/100 to 1:40/100 in 6 months, i'm gonna listen to how you improved. but if I cannt see this is a detailed log or something (not some spew in a post), its gonna be tough for me to follow what you are saying. |
| 2009-06-18 1:08 PM in reply to: #2227091 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice breckview - 2009-06-18 2:03 PM tkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 11:26 AM So, if I was giving running advice, and all you saw was my 1/2 mary PR (A woeful 2:3x:xx), you'd immediately discount it? Hrm. Good to know. No offense but yes I would. In terms of running advice, why should I listen to someone who I don't know and has proved nothing to me as opposed to my buddy Dick Dime who went from the couch to 1:25 in the recent Kansas 70.3 1/2 mary leg? John Whom you KNOW and have EXPERIENCE with. It's not his speed that makes his advice potentially valuable. |
| 2009-06-18 1:09 PM in reply to: #2227065 |
Elite 4048 Gilbert, Az. | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice cusetri - 2009-06-18 10:54 AM
Here's what I don't get. People spend time out on the net searching through old race results to drag someone down over a pretty small point, and thereby "invalidate" their entire worth? WTF does "outing" someone's time prove? Here, let me help you. My 1/2 mary PR is 2:29:59, as you can see in my profile pic. (Clock doesn't reflect 1/2 hour adjustment for the "wave" I was in.) What does that say about me and my training advice? Anything? Now what if you only knew my 4 mile race PR time was 20:59? Does that time suddenly mean my advice is "worthy" again? I thought the OP had some very valid points, and it was a well written post. John |
| 2009-06-18 1:12 PM in reply to: #2227075 |
Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice JohnnyKay - 2009-06-18 11:58 AM There are other, better ways to decide how heavily to discount advice being provided is my point. Funny. In my original post I said, "I know that one's ability isn't always the best measure of their ability to advise but it's at least something that has some validity." My point is that there are no "better ways to decide" in the one second that it takes to move your eyes to underneath an avatar in a forum post. If you want to argue that there's no statistical correlation between triathlon ability and training knowledge then argue that with someone else because IMO that is ridiculous. But perhaps I'm not fast enough to be listened to. That would obviously be up to the listener to decide. |
| 2009-06-18 1:13 PM in reply to: #2227091 |
Elite 4048 Gilbert, Az. | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice breckview - 2009-06-18 11:03 AM tkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 11:26 AM So, if I was giving running advice, and all you saw was my 1/2 mary PR (A woeful 2:3x:xx), you'd immediately discount it? Hrm. Good to know. No offense but yes I would. In terms of running advice, why should I listen to someone who I don't know and has proved nothing to me as opposed to my buddy Dick Dime who went from the couch to 1:25 in the recent Kansas 70.3 1/2 mary leg? John Hrm. Ok, 5k pr in the low 17's. 5 mile pr 30:12. 4 mile PR 20:59. 10k PR 37:??. 1/2 Mary PR 2:29:59 (Only ever done one). Does that change the perception of what I might offer as far as training advice? Because I went into a race woefully underprepared, that automatically means anything I might say isn't worth listening to? John |
| 2009-06-18 1:14 PM in reply to: #2227085 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice newleaf - 2009-06-18 2:01 PM cusetri - 2009-06-18 1:45 PM I think what Breckview is saying that in a world of unknowns, you need something to backup what you are saying. I don't know who Bryan is. but if I look at his logs/RRs, I'm gonna follow his advice. If gordo makes a post, I'm not gonna check his logs, I know who he is. to the OP. fill out your logs or show me a RR. you spewing out that you avg 23 MPH for 56 miles means nothing to me, and I look at that and dont beleive it for 1 second. and you bonked because your body couldnt handle the pace you were trying to push for 70.2 miles. your nutrition had little to do with it. too all those who say, "Training should be simple." Shame on you. training is not simple. Training becomes simple. If someone is saying something valid, it doesn't really matter what pace they can keep for 56 miles... I thought the OP had plenty of valid points... not sure why such a harsh tone here, then combined with the attempt at profoundness with the whole "shame on you" thing... just a weird post. then why write it? the intent of his post was new people over complicate things. He had some great points. problem is, he comes off as saying new people, like me, over complicate things and shouldnt. SORRY DUDE. If I didnt over complicate things, I wouldn't be where I am today. If all I did was swim, bike and run, I wouldnt be where I am. now, 2-3 years from now, I'll be able to say, its easy. all ya gotta do is run. lots. Sorry, but it takes time, months or years, to learn a lot of stuff out there is hogwash, and to suggest newbies should just swim lots, bike lots and run lots, without asking about intervals, or doing intervals is just plain insulting. A lot of what I've learend in life came from making a mistake first. |
| 2009-06-18 1:16 PM in reply to: #2227099 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice |
| 2009-06-18 1:17 PM in reply to: #2227099 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice cusetri - 2009-06-18 2:05 PM training becomes simples after months or years of realizing you dont have to make it so complicated--this takes time for 99% of the population. Just because it may take time to learn a fact, doesn't change the fact. point is, I dont know you, so you have to be able to back up what you are saying. And the only way you get to "know" somebody is to listen to what they say and/or watch what they do (this is different than "checking their times"). I agree the logs here make it possible to "watch" what people do. But the forums are also a place where you can listen to what people say. I participate in other forums where the "watch" is not so readily available. You can still develop a sense of who to pay closer attention to on various subjects. And I will tell you, it is not always 'fast'=good advice/'slow'=poor. Of course, the subject matter they are advising on is important too.
Now, about that restraining order... |
| 2009-06-18 1:17 PM in reply to: #2227086 |
Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice danambro8 - 2009-06-18 12:01 PM Good advice is good advice. Until you waste a year following it and then decide otherwise. |
| 2009-06-18 1:18 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Elite 3235 San Diego | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice |
| 2009-06-18 1:21 PM in reply to: #2227125 |
Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice tkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 12:13 PM Ok, 5k pr in the low 17's. 5 mile pr 30:12. 4 mile PR 20:59. 10k PR 37:??. 1/2 Mary PR 2:29:59 (Only ever done one). Does that change the perception of what I might offer as far as training advice? I don't know. Don't really like living in the past but my 10k PR is 35:33 and it was by far my worst tri leg. Does that change *your* perception of what I know after four decades of training? |
| 2009-06-18 1:22 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
| Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice When I first started looking around and posting here, I don't recall looking up anyone's "stats" to see how impressive they were (or thought they were, as the case often is) before I decided to read what they said. I didn't know anyone on this board, and I was still learning what was considered fast or slow, good or bad. If the fact was reiterated by more than one person, I generally thought that it might be something worth considering. But I'm glad to know that now Tri Talk advice must have "qualifying times" to back it up...therefore I'll refrain from answering any more newb questions, since I'm simply not fast enough, even though I don't believe I've ever given anyone advice beyond my "ability"... FWIW, in my slow opinion, I thought the OP's post was a good one, ESP. in regard to Novices, which is what I think his original intent was. To be honest, it was a breath of fresh air from the usual TT fare - which I think may have ruffled some feathers. Esp. when you consider that this is "BEGINNERTRIATHLETE" and the average person coming in here probably knows very little about the sport and doesn't know where to begin. I bet a lot of the threads in here are intimidating to newbies. That's why I only post in the ones asking the same old newb questions, and stay out of the other threads. Edited by wurkit_gurl 2009-06-18 1:24 PM |
| 2009-06-18 1:24 PM in reply to: #2227129 |
Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice cusetri - 2009-06-18 12:14 PM If all I did was swim, bike and run, I wouldnt be where I am That's impossible to know with significant confidence. |
| 2009-06-18 1:26 PM in reply to: #2227120 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice breckview - 2009-06-18 2:12 PM JohnnyKay - 2009-06-18 But perhaps I'm not fast enough to be listened to. That would obviously be up to the listener to decide.Good point. But that's why I think it's a poor filter. Too easy to ignore good advice and too quick to accept bad advice. Some people with good relevant training advice don't do triathlons at all. FWIW, I don't think I've ever checked someone's race results in deciding whether to listen to them or not (unless, perhaps, they were profering their results as evidence of something). |
| 2009-06-18 1:27 PM in reply to: #2227112 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice tkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 2:09 PM cusetri - 2009-06-18 10:54 AM
Here's what I don't get. People spend time out on the net searching through old race results to drag someone down over a pretty small point, and thereby "invalidate" their entire worth? WTF does "outing" someone's time prove? Here, let me help you. My 1/2 mary PR is 2:29:59, as you can see in my profile pic. (Clock doesn't reflect 1/2 hour adjustment for the "wave" I was in.) What does that say about me and my training advice? Anything? Now what if you only knew my 4 mile race PR time was 20:59? Does that time suddenly mean my advice is "worthy" again? I thought the OP had some very valid points, and it was a well written post. John he tried to validate his post by posting his times, than tries to be modest by saying they're not fast. sorry, 7:12 vs 6:52 over 26.2 miles is huge. if your gonna post results to validate your post, be honest. your 2nd point. sorry, john, you need some backup if I'm gonna take advice. I dont care if its on finance, a house, bulding a deck or whatever, I need something to varify your advice is worthy. I NEVER ONCE said times had to be fast. Never. But I need to see something. the reverse is also true. Good results does not equal good advice. When someone comes on here and makes a big post, basically telling me the fact that I have spent countless hours researching, and reading and asking about intervals and running intervals, and doing hill repeats and PMing people questions and all the work I have poured into this over the past year was waisted, i'm gonna be honest. than, he tries to justify that post by posting a false time. |
| 2009-06-18 1:30 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice Hypothetical, but shows my thoughts on it ........ |
| 2009-06-18 1:31 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice The OP took great pains, I thought, to not generalize... saying things like "*Most* people don't need to worry about interval training for the first 3-6 months..." If he had said "All people..." yeah, rip into him. But, he didn't. |
| 2009-06-18 1:33 PM in reply to: #2227175 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice cusetri - 2009-06-18 2:27 PM When someone comes on here and makes a big post, basically telling me the fact that I have spent countless hours researching, and reading and asking about intervals and running intervals, and doing hill repeats and PMing people questions and all the work I have poured into this over the past year was waisted, i'm gonna be honest. It wasn't wasted if you learned that it mostly doesn't matter.  And the OP clearly stated he has been at this for only 18 months and was sharing his opinions. He provided more "background" on his opinion than most people provide when they give training advice. Perhaps he was "bragging" a bit in his post, I don't know. He's not the first around here to do that--lots of people are proud of their accomplishments (rightfully so in most cases) and like to share them with others. |
| 2009-06-18 1:35 PM in reply to: #2227189 |
| Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice newleaf - 2009-06-18 2:31 PM The OP took great pains, I thought, to not generalize... saying things like "*Most* people don't need to worry about interval training for the first 3-6 months..." If he had said "All people..." yeah, rip into him. But, he didn't. x2. That's what I appreciated the most about his post. |
| 2009-06-18 1:36 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice Yikes, this can't be that tough. To the OP, great observations, thanks for sharing. To the point that athletes without superior results aren't worthy of being listened to, that's rediculous. Do they have to have background and knowledge, yes. Usually that equates to an ex-athelete of some kind. And to assume because someone's got great results that they're the right person to listen to is equally rediculous. Cases in point: - Good athletes that couldn't coach: Ryan Leaf. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan. I'll even throw in Danilo DiLuca, 2nd at the giro, who didn't even run an aero setup on the TT. - Mediocre athletes, with familiarity in the sport, excellent coaches. Ken Whisenhunt, George Karl, Bill Belicek, and closer to home, Brett Sutton. Seems to me that coaches provide a lot more service, and a lot more perspective, than just the workout plan. They get to know the person, get to know the athlete, and can communicate well to keep the relationship and athlete healthy. |
| 2009-06-18 1:38 PM in reply to: #2227155 |
Elite 4048 Gilbert, Az. | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice breckview - 2009-06-18 11:21 AM tkd.teacher - 2009-06-18 12:13 PM Ok, 5k pr in the low 17's. 5 mile pr 30:12. 4 mile PR 20:59. 10k PR 37:??. 1/2 Mary PR 2:29:59 (Only ever done one). I don't know. Don't really like living in the past but my 10k PR is 35:33 and it was by far my worst tri leg. Does that change *your* perception of what I know after four decades of training?Does that change the perception of what I might offer as far as training advice? Not at all. I've never looked at your logs or your results. I base my perceptions on a lifetime in athletics, a college degree in kinesiology/coaching, many years of teaching/coaching/competing, and compare what I know with what you say. If what you say conflicts with my knowledge or experience, I research it. If I'm wrong, I adjust my knowledge accordingly (Did that yesterday because of the creatine thread, I had erroneous times for the length of some of the energy cycles). My perception of you is based on how much of what you say is either wrong or forces me to think and adjust my thinking, or agrees with my knowledge/experience. This is a little bit of a hot button topic with me (can you tell? ) because I was never the fastest guy on the team, usually I was clawing my way along at the bottom of the varsity, but (most of the time) I know what I'm talking about, and I know I'm a good coach, and to watch people dismiss training advice from someone just because "they aren't fast" is imbecilic at best.John |
| 2009-06-18 1:41 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice I feel bad and I dont think I am clear on my point. when I first started running 3 years ago, all I did was run. that was it. Literally. took the advice you commonly hear from runners. Run. Lots. put on my $39.99 Dick's Sporting Good Specials and ran. around the block. done. 2 times tomorrow. done. run hard. run harder. harder is gooder. shine splints, run through the pain. do some sprints. you'll get faster. just run. run lots. after 5-6 months of that, I thought, there's gotta be an easier way. the research began. got a training plan. went to Fleet Feet instead of Dicks. joined BT. asked questions. got advice. did so so so much more than just run. lots. so when I say training is not simple, I mean from the standpoint of what is required for an absolute newbie to understand it is simple. It took me around 1.5 years, AFTER I starting getting serious. It doesnt change the fact that training is simple. But it does change the intent of the OP posts which is, Newbies complicate things. so, yes, Breck, I can say, with 100% confidence, if all I did 3 years ago, was run. lots. I would not be where I am today. I would still be 260 lbs, and I'd be walking around thinking, "runners have great genes....I tried running and got hurt after 6 months." so when someone says, newbies over complicate it, I think GOOD. complicate it. Seek out information. Learn intervals arent necessary. Because if a newbie just steps out their door and runs, they aint gonna make it. |
| 2009-06-18 1:43 PM in reply to: #2227197 |
Master 1853 syracuse | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice JohnnyKay - 2009-06-18 2:33 PM cusetri - 2009-06-18 2:27 PM When someone comes on here and makes a big post, basically telling me the fact that I have spent countless hours researching, and reading and asking about intervals and running intervals, and doing hill repeats and PMing people questions and all the work I have poured into this over the past year was waisted, i'm gonna be honest. It wasn't wasted if you learned that it mostly doesn't matter. And the OP clearly stated he has been at this for only 18 months and was sharing his opinions. He provided more "background" on his opinion than most people provide when they give training advice. Perhaps he was "bragging" a bit in his post, I don't know. He's not the first around here to do that--lots of people are proud of their accomplishments (rightfully so in most cases) and like to share them with others. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! thats my point. |
| 2009-06-18 1:48 PM in reply to: #2226417 |
Regular 223 | Subject: RE: The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice I posted to Bryan privately after he posted because I really wanted him to know that this thread isn't about me. I'll make my post to him public. (Not exact but pretty close as I edited a few sentences before I sent it to him.) "The thread on State of Triathlon Training isn’t about me so I don’t want to put too much energy into justify myself in this particular case given its relevance to the post. I’m pretty candid about my strengths and weaknesses! (all modesty aside they are pretty great). Marathon – Disney January 2009 3:09. I’m faster than that now. Bike – I usually do a 50+ steady state ride every other Friday – you are welcome to join me – Melbourne, Fl. I usually do this ride after a short swim or run (6 miles). Swim – I do 10 X 100 (30 sec rest) intervals every Tuesday in the pool. My OWS is horrible compared to my pool swimming. I am getting better every race but my technique just isn’t translating well in the OW yet. I am seeking coaching on this aspect of my training. I don’t keep logs online. I have an excel sheet with my training for the last year. I’ll be happy to send it to you if you would like – just to gander at. I don’t know what the correct term for poor nutrition given the conditions but that is what happened in my first HIM. After analyzing everything I believe it was a lack of salt. My back was in serious pain by mile 40 and I had to sit up and lay down quite a bit. This gradually worked itself to my stomach. I basically walked the run portion which took me close to 3 hours. Just a lack of experience. I’m hoping to correct those issues moving forward. " Again, I didn't give any real advice so not sure how this becomes about my times. But, if anyone is in my local area and want to come train with me and then they can post back what my training times are I'll be happy to oblige. On a serious note I really don't think my times are that great. My biggest fault is that I am a horrible OWS - so that really affects the rest of my race. I am working on it. |
| General Discussion | Triathlon Talk » The State of Triathlon Training - Special note to the Novice | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK