Training for distance or time ?? confused

Most triathlon plans go by time and not distance. 

I came from a running background so it was a bit of an adjustment.   But the reality is that the time will usually prepare your body for the rigours of the tri.  I say usually because everyone is different but as you progress through the training plan you should be measuring distance to see how you are doing relative to the distances you are training for and if are you much faster or slower at one of the disciplines you may want to make some adjustment to the plan to make sure you are ready. 

Some of the more scientific folk with the better explanantions for the why - because I won't very articulately or accurately get at it. But in triathlon with three sports to balance - rest and recovery from workouts is essential so often the idea is about overall training load as opposed to covering, say, 3-5 miles specifically.  Time based training will prepare for the duration of activity along with the miles covered. Sometimes it will be more or less depending on the purpose of the workout. 

Welcome!

I'm no expert, I'm about to do my first HIM next weekend at Augusta 70.3 ...but I know most training plans use some method by which they figure the workouts based off of MOP athletes or average finish times for that distance. Seems like that explanation is on this site somewhere, maybe someone else can help find that. Meanwhile take a look at this HIM plan.

This is the conclusion that I came up with and it sounds good TO ME.

When you are creating a generic plan without the knowledge of the individuals you are preparing the plan for, time is a safer bet and easier to plan for.

For example, if you say "run 7 miles", that could be 90 minutes for one person, or 50 minutes for the next.  That may be over training or undertraining.  But if you say 60 minutes, the fitter person is able to get in 7 miles and the less fit person can only do 5, but they both get in an hour.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seems easier to ME to manage time while writing a generic plan than trying to guess at what someone's potential milliage is.  And a time based plan probably works for a larger group of people.

when training for either a half or full distance race I use one based on time. However being slow I  add time to the run to make sure I had enough miles. I think how far would some who does 10 min. miles go and do that many miles.

 I am never as concerned with the bike as I knew I could do the miles without a problem. But still add some time only because I love riding.

I have trained by using both time and distance and have come to the conclusion that time training has greatly reduced my injuries from over training or overuse.  If you train by time you need have a way to rate your effort by either heart rate, power meter, or RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion).  This allows you to have consistent training on both good days and bad days no matter how you feel.  

If the "time" workout requires you to run in your Zone 2 HR for 1 hour then you do just that.  Some days it might be 6 miles some days it might be 6.3 - whatever it is you are not over stressing your body.  If the "distance" plan calls for you to run 6 miles at a certain pace, there is a good chance that you might be over exerting yourself to maintain that pace and reach that distance which lead to injury or over training.

Coming from a running background all my workout were distance/pace based.  After 3 years of time based training I will never go back.  Over all though it is mostly personal choice.  Try both and see what you like better.

Hopefully my rambling makes sense... good luck!

IMO, which probably isn't worth much, training by time was championed by those that sell training plans.  "You will average 10.25 hrs per week with a high of 13 hrs".  They are one-size-fits-all plans.  Example: If "A" does an average training run at 12 min mile, a 90 minute workout will give them 7.5 miles while "B", who does an 8 min mile will run 11.25 miles.  I'm sorry, but "A" will not be as prepared to run a fixed distance as "B" if they follow a time based schedule. 

This is not to say that you can't finish a Oly or HIM using the time method, but you will not be as prepared as you would be if you are training by distance.

But if the 12 minute mile person is doing the same distances throughout the program that the 8 minute mile person does then they are going to spend way more time training just to reach those distances - most likely leading to injury for the slower person.  

Example - the distance program calls for a total of 350 total running miles.  The "8 minute miler" will spend 46.6 hours while the "12 minute miler" will spend 70 hours reaching the same distance.  

Endurance/distance training is more about making your body into an efficient fuel burning machine.  Does that mean the slower runner is more efficient or a better "distance" athlete since they are out there longer?  No - most likely it means they are gonna end up with some injury from over use trying to reach some distance goals.

This is true.  However, the question is whether the 12 min miler is prepared to do 2:15 runs.  If they started the plan running the same mileage as the 7.5 min miler (and, therefore, longer durations), then they should run longer durations (same mileage) throughout the plan.  But if they started the plan running less mileage (even if the same duration), then they should probably hold back and go into the race 'less prepared' than the other runner.  In their quest to be more prepared, they'll run a much greater risk of being more injured and less recovered.

To say either time or distance is a superior/inferior way to train is silly (without also making other assumptions/constraints).

But if the 12 minute mile person is doing the same distances throughout the program that the 8 minute mile person does then they are going to spend way more time training just to reach those distances - most likely leading to injury for the slower person.  

I'm not saying that the 12mm runner should do the same total distance, just that they may not get adequate miles doing it strictly by time.  Yes, overall, they will need to put in more time but not necessarily equal miles.  Read KSH's reply.  She outlined what I was attempting to say.

Actually, most 'stock' training plans offer guidelines for the type of training an athlete should be doing before beginning the plan.  That should be enough for someone to figure out if the plan might be reasonably appropriate for them, too advanced or not challenging enough.  Of course, many athletes ignore that part of the plan...

+1