Minimalist IM Training (Page 2)

It's going to take you a long time to be able to build to those kind of days on a 2x per week plan.  I would say it's not really a good idea to try for most people.

I had an hour long bike ride this week that probably helped me more than my last 3 rides...

My last IM I didn't train very much and suffered for it.  I think my big weeks were only 10 hours and I had a ton of weeks where I did nothing.  I had an achilles injury and flopped between dns'ing and dnf'ing several times.  I'd tweak my achilles decide the IM is done and not train, then 3 weeks later I'd convince myself to do the IM again, and that didn't work out too well.

Right now I'm doing 10-14 hours a week and I don't think its enough, but its all my body will allow me.

I'm sure there are studs out there that can do 6 hours a week, but that's not the average. 

The thing about web forums is we take the best case scenarios and then those are the standards.   I could go on a basketball forum and ask 'How long does it take to learn to dunk?', and Micheal Jordan and Kobe Bryant respond a month, and suddenly we expect to do it in a month.  That's a bad analogy, but if you are a 'beginner triathlete' your training standards are much different than people in the sport for years.

All of my logs are complete as well and I did IMLP in July and am doing IMFL in two weeks.  I'm on the higher side volume wise.  During winter base I was in the 15-ish hour range and during build I got up to 20-22 hours of SBR plus another 4-5 hours of yoga.

I'm an age grouper, and an attorney who has during training this year billed in excess of 220 hours/month.  I consistently train over 20 hours per week (and have been training in this manner for over a year).  Its totally doable if its your priority. 

Your training is very strong and consistent with big volume for AGer.

If you had kids do you think you would be able to keep up similar training volume with how much you work?

I think the word that threw me was "average".  As a Ironman virgin, I've had to rethink my priorities to begin expanding my training volume.  Your responses have been very helpful.  Thanks everyone!

I don't have kids so I can't say.  If and when I do have kids, my goals and goal races will reflect the amount of time I can put into training.  If I can't do the volume (and more importantly the quality volume) I won't be racing at the IM distance.  I'd rather train and race well at a shorter distance than try to get by with less volume.  I respond well to high volume and I need high volume (for the distance) in order to race to the best of my potential. 

Do I believe you can get by (i.e. finish) on lower volume, of course (you can totally look at Shaun as an example).  I'm at a place though that I want to perform to the best of my ability at the distance and I need consistent 20+ hour weeks in order to get there. 

My training volume is up there.  I usually work 40 hrs a week, sometimes I'll get over 45, but no more than once a month.  I have a little wiggle room in hours for start time.  My commute is exceptionally short.  All workout facilities are pretty close by.  I do not have a wife or kids and I do not see how I could fit them in and really be there for them that much. I would be leaning HEAVILY on the significant other to make things go well if I did.

I was just at a clinic this past weekend where Shelly O'Brien spoke, and she has trained Ironman athletes on as little as an average of 8 hours per week, and that guy was a bigger AGer, but his only goal was to finish.  The structure and content of the program are just as important as the volume.

Great post!  Thanks for sharing.  I like the connection to the business world.  Working many hours often doesn't get you the desired results. 

Hopefully I'm thinking of the right article because work blocks most all blog sitses.

This was an interesting discussion on this topic over at ST.  On the bottom of the linked page (the last post on page 2) is what Sami's coach Matt Dixon had to say when queried by forum member Canadian.

With such a controversial and personal topic, I am shocked the BT haterz (so-called experts) are not out in full force. The answer is the classic "it depends". Some people can do a full IM cold in sub-12, so need 30 hours / week just to finish at 16.59.

Due to a slew of complexities, I trained anywhere from 2-12 hours / week for 13 weeks. Most weeks averaged 5 hours. I finished sub-12. I was not a D-1 swimmer, but thought it was easy (repeat, easy) to finish the swim in 1.05. I do not know why I can swim without training, but I felt swimming was a waste - I did 4 ~ 1 hour ows sessions and felt fine for the IMFL.This is personal. Another participant whom I knew well did not finish the swim and he trained 5 hours / week in the pool. It all depends on a combination of genetics, luck, will, and skill. Maybe more.

I never biked before the IMFL, and focused on this as much as I could. I used a trainer and spent 30 minutes on this for intense sessions 2x week and 1 "long" bike on Sunday. I did exactly one 100 mile session. No more.I finished the bike in 5.50.

I practiced with a HIM 3 months before IMFL, and ran 1 long run on Saturdays about 8 times - ranging from 8 - 12 miles.

If I were to do it all over again (which I do not anymore, focus on shorter stuff) I would brick, brick, brick. The "key" sessions or whatever euphemism you insert here is how intense you train combined with how much will you have. I wanted to go sub-12 and put my will on it. Many people are happy going under 17. I doubt people reading this thread are in the 8 or 9 range. If so, why are they on BT? This is the place for people in reality - kids, work, commute, unsponsored, family, house, spouse time, chores, etc. 

I think the better metric for you is, "If you finish, are you happy with your time and do you feel it equates to the effort you inputted?" I am happy with sub 12 and feel I could have been ~10 if I inputted more, but I trained as I trained - no more no less.

Good luck with your decision, and I hope you have the will power to finish in a time that makes you proud.

Great effort and very fast for what little time you did.  I'm not a coach, but I would not do well on that plan.  Out of curiosity, what kind of swimming background do you have?

Most people aren't happy with just under 17 hours, usually when people cross that something went bad in training (injury) or the race (GI issues).

I think my biggest weeks were 10-12 hours and my average was probably more like 8.

this got me through IM Cozumel last year in 12:37 and Great Floridian Ultra Distance this year in 12:32 (much harder course).

I agree with what the others have said, the training load, not the training time, is what will dictate your performance.

Good luck!

I follow these threads with great interest as an AG'er moving into the "old"category with kids, a wife, a job, other interests, etc.

I think most times you see someone notching a sub 11 or something IM on limited training (I know hours aren't the whole story so you decide what limited means), you find the person was a former runner/biker or some other form of endurance athlete at some point in their life.  I do believe that if you've been running or biking for years, or at some point in your life you were elite at some sport related to endurance, then you can be reasonably competitive in these events on very little training.

Here's another n=1 comment.  I have a friend who doesn't train at all, zero running, and decides to run a HM with me a week before.  He does 2-5mile runs, then lays down a 1:29.  So can I say you can train for a HM on 10 miles total volume and be competitive?  Uh, no.  Shleps like me are years of consistent training away, if ever, from even sniffing anything resembling that.

I like to race, but for me triathlon is more about the training.

I train a good bit, but I choose my races based on what, when, and where I want to race, not on how many hours per week I can train.  A reasonably healthy person who 'races to finish' will finish just about any distance up to IM on just about any reasonable amount of training.  As someone said, most reasonably trained people can float spin and walk their way to the finish line.

OTOH, if you want to race the best you can,  then (IMO) you are going to put in similar hours whether it's IM or sprint.  Some of those hours will look different (though many will not), but they'll be there.

Now, does that opinion make me a hater?  Just curious.