General Discussion Triathlon Talk » times vs miles Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2010-12-24 4:10 PM


3

Subject: times vs miles
I am new to tri and started training.  It seems that everyting is based on time exercised or is it more important to put in the miles?


2010-12-24 4:17 PM
in reply to: #3260807

User image

Subject: RE: times vs miles
When you're just starting it's most important to follow your training plan. After a season or two you'll figure out what works best for you but if you never follow a plan how will you know what does work?

2010-12-24 5:27 PM
in reply to: #3260807

User image

Expert
1168
10001002525
Vancouver (not Canada) Washington (not D.C.)
Subject: RE: times vs miles
^^Agree - do your research, find a reputable plan and then trust it. Training by time helps make a plan more generic and easier to apply to people of different speed. I think it also takes us away from focusing too much on distance and not enough on drills and quality of the work.

For example, a 30 - 45 minute swim could be a fairly easy mile or could be a killer workout of intervals.

You do need to be able to go the distance to complete a race but traiing for time and measuring your progress in distance should tell you wether the plan is working.

Welcome to BT!
2010-12-24 5:35 PM
in reply to: #3260807

User image

Master
3888
20001000500100100100252525
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: times vs miles
In my first two seasons of sprints I was what many call a "random" trainer.  I didn't follow a plan but I made sure I put in time and miles.

I made sure I swam, biked and ran twice a week (each discipline).  Swimming I would do approx. 3,000 yards each time, running was usually 3 miles or more and biking was 14-20 miles.

You can be successful without a plan, probably more so in the sprint distance but when you work out, you do it solid.  When I rode, I rode hard, when I ran, I ran steady mostly, sometimes hard.  Swimming at first was just steady, I would do sets of 500 or 1000 yards with 2 min. break in between.

If you consider the sprint distance, it's only on average 500m swim, 12 mile bike, and 3 mile run.  For beginners, on average, that's 1.25 to 1.5 hours of pure cardio with 2 small segments of active recovery (transition time).

But, I must agree following a plan will get you there in great shape and it's much easier to lose focus when you have no plan.
2010-12-24 6:55 PM
in reply to: #3260807

User image

Expert
1066
10002525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: times vs miles
Go by time or miles. Consistency is the key! S,B,R regularly.
2010-12-24 7:01 PM
in reply to: #3260807

User image

Champion
10668
500050005001002525
Tacoma, Washington
Subject: RE: times vs miles
Tracking time rather than miles helps take the emphasis on making X distance, or trying to think about speed. Both are especially important factors when just starting out.


2010-12-25 6:25 AM
in reply to: #3260899

User image

New Haven, CT
Subject: RE: times vs miles
technically it does not matter as both are just measures of amount of training.  generally I almost alway prefer to train by time, since I can plan my days (which are very full) and the clock uses minutes and hours. 
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » times vs miles Rss Feed