IM Training Distance vs Time
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2013-10-12 11:26 PM |
26 | Subject: IM Training Distance vs Time I have been doing a lot of reading on different IM training plans. It seems that some emphasize distance or time when it comes the bike and run. Some talk about running only for time building up to 2.5-3 hours and 6-7 on the bike. Others simply talk about running/biking more frequently with shorter distances but putting in more distance overall. I recently finished another marathon training cycle and PR'd in my marathon. I changed my training for this one and put in much more distance overall. I also did put in more long runs being that I was only training for a marathon. I never felt so good on the run or after. I feel it was due to the volume and not necessarily the long runs. My capabilities/Desires: 1. I am not fast but I have done some long distance training and events. (Marathons, Bike Century, Trail Runs Ultra Distances and other long runs as well as some shorter Tris and shorter runs). 2. I feel I have the mental capacity to finish an IM based on previous events and mental requirements to finish. 3. I want to finish an IM without suffering through it or being in a lot of pain and discomfort. I know some of that depends on the day but I want to train to give the best chance. 4. I would like to be a sub 14 hour IM. (I am in the 40-44 age group) Volume vs Time Training: 1. Is there really a difference when race day arrives between the two plans? Bottom Line: Does it really matter which plan? 2. Any recommendations of one or the other? 3. Pros vs Cons? Any recommended plans? I am looking for about a 20 week plan. Any other recommendations? I am sure this will drive other questions. Thanks for the input and help. I plan on being an IM finisher one of these days. Edited by rcwso 2013-10-12 11:34 PM |
|
2013-10-13 1:25 AM in reply to: rcwso |
643 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time You're going to get different responses from different people on how they train. First of all: timing in hours vs training in distance is mainly a schedule thing. When you work 40+ hours a week and have other things going on, most training plans go to training in hours just because it's easier to plan your day around. You may be having a horrible day and need a recovery workout (less intensive workout but still able to workout). In those days, you just to run run, for example, 2 hours instead of going on for 3 hours trying to get your mileage in and possibly causing an injury since you really need to keep it easy. I went with the Be Iron Fit competitive plan (starts at 6 and peaks at 20). It worked well for me since I'm single and could put in those hours into training but don't see a married person or someone in a serious relationship making it work without some awesome time management skills. This plan had me working out 6 days a week. It's main focus was lots of work outs at first but after the base and 1/2 into the base phase, things kicked up a notched and the weekend workouts duration started increasing a lot. My longest ride was 6 hours and longest run was 3 hours. I'd take these times with a gain of salt. If you're able to knock out 24 miles in 3 hours, well maybe you should either stop or 20 miles or run slower for the long days. On the other hand, if you're only able to get 15 miles in a 3 hour run (with no injuries), it may be worth putting in extra miles since you need to know how it feels to be pushing yourself more than that. Everyone will have a different experience though. As far plans. As I said, Be Iron Fit worked for me but it's a 30 weeks program. It does have a "Just Finish" and a in-between plan, with varying time commitments. There are plenty of plans on this site too and it looks like some are at around 20 weeks. |
2013-10-13 6:15 AM in reply to: rcwso |
1660 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time |
2013-10-13 6:16 AM in reply to: rcwso |
1660 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time |
2013-10-13 6:18 AM in reply to: rcwso |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time Both are factors, because on race day you have to go a certain distance, but time is the more valuable metric. Like most coaches, I usually give my clients training sessions by time and intensity rather than distance. This is because our bodies only know time and intensity, and by referencing those, I can more accurately predict the amount of training stress that will result from the training session. Distance of individual sessions is irrelevant. Whether you spend two hours on your bike outside riding 40 miles at a given intensity, or you spend those same two hours on your bike on the trainer at the same intensity, but going nowhere, the total training stress was similar. Of course, I'm designing sessions with distances in mind based on the athlete's goal events, but that's still the less valuable number. There are also particular types of sessions where I use a combination of time and distance. For example, track pace intervals. The session may have a warm up based on time, main set based on distance, and cool down based on time. But, the distances of the main set were determined based on the paces that I knew the athlete was going to run, and how long I wanted them to work during each interval and rest between. You're on the right track by feeling that your recent marathon success was because of volume and not the long runs. Total volume over time is more important than the long runs. For marathon and IM training I usually cap the long runs at about 3 hours, regardless of how fast the person runs. The time to recover becomes too long, and it can impact their training in the days after. Instead, by focusing on consistency and total training volume, we build the durability and endurance necessary to race well. Too many people tend to worry about individual training sessions, thinking in terms of what they did on a given day, when a better indicator of fitness and progress is what they do in a week or a month. Using distance only can result in over stressing and inadequate recovery for slower runners, and under stressing faster runners, leaving them short of their potential. Obviously, I'm not a fan of distance based generic training plans for slow or fast runners. They can work fine for the middle of the bell curve, but often come up short for the people on both sides. My suggestion is to avoid any plans that give only distance or only time. Instead, choose one that uses time plus a well-defined method for managing intensity. This can be heart rate or even RPE as long as the RPE levels have good definitions that help you train at the correct level. |
2013-10-13 12:26 PM in reply to: TriMyBest |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time Originally posted by TriMyBest Both are factors, because on race day you have to go a certain distance, but time is the more valuable metric. Like most coaches, I usually give my clients training sessions by time and intensity rather than distance. This is because our bodies only know time and intensity, and by referencing those, I can more accurately predict the amount of training stress that will result from the training session. Distance of individual sessions is irrelevant. Whether you spend two hours on your bike outside riding 40 miles at a given intensity, or you spend those same two hours on your bike on the trainer at the same intensity, but going nowhere, the total training stress was similar. Of course, I'm designing sessions with distances in mind based on the athlete's goal events, but that's still the less valuable number. There are also particular types of sessions where I use a combination of time and distance. For example, track pace intervals. The session may have a warm up based on time, main set based on distance, and cool down based on time. But, the distances of the main set were determined based on the paces that I knew the athlete was going to run, and how long I wanted them to work during each interval and rest between. You're on the right track by feeling that your recent marathon success was because of volume and not the long runs. Total volume over time is more important than the long runs. For marathon and IM training I usually cap the long runs at about 3 hours, regardless of how fast the person runs. The time to recover becomes too long, and it can impact their training in the days after. Instead, by focusing on consistency and total training volume, we build the durability and endurance necessary to race well. Too many people tend to worry about individual training sessions, thinking in terms of what they did on a given day, when a better indicator of fitness and progress is what they do in a week or a month. Using distance only can result in over stressing and inadequate recovery for slower runners, and under stressing faster runners, leaving them short of their potential. Obviously, I'm not a fan of distance based generic training plans for slow or fast runners. They can work fine for the middle of the bell curve, but often come up short for the people on both sides. My suggestion is to avoid any plans that give only distance or only time. Instead, choose one that uses time plus a well-defined method for managing intensity. This can be heart rate or even RPE as long as the RPE levels have good definitions that help you train at the correct level. This is excellent advice and pretty much what I was going to post so I'll just X2 it. In particular, the last paragraph - choose a plan that is time based plus a mechanism to measure/manage intensity. Fink's IronFit programs may be a good choice; they are time based with intensity by heart rate / zones. For measuring intensity I do like HR on the run and powermeter on the bike. And field testing to set HR zones and the like. |
|
2013-10-16 11:17 PM in reply to: brucemorgan |
26 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time Thanks for the info. I do understand what is meant by the different methods. So a follow on question: I have also read in some training plans that running up to 3 hours can be detrimental to training due to the long recovery for some. The reason given for the long timed runs is to build "confidence" in being able to complete such a distance. I do not feel I have an issue with confidence for completing a long run seeing that I have run marathons and ultra distance in the past. I have done two events that lasted longer than 16 hours for each. So the question is this, is it necessary to do long timed runs for the training? Or would it be better to add total volume and total time by adding frequency? In other words, keep runs down to 2 hours or less but add a few extra runs at times and concentrating more on the bike. Or is my thought completely off track? I have thought that overall increased volume over longer times may give the same benefit and possibly better results. Thoughts? |
2013-10-17 4:58 AM in reply to: rcwso |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time Originally posted by rcwso Thanks for the info. I do understand what is meant by the different methods. So a follow on question: I have also read in some training plans that running up to 3 hours can be detrimental to training due to the long recovery for some. The reason given for the long timed runs is to build "confidence" in being able to complete such a distance. I do not feel I have an issue with confidence for completing a long run seeing that I have run marathons and ultra distance in the past. I have done two events that lasted longer than 16 hours for each. So the question is this, is it necessary to do long timed runs for the training? Or would it be better to add total volume and total time by adding frequency? In other words, keep runs down to 2 hours or less but add a few extra runs at times and concentrating more on the bike. Or is my thought completely off track? I have thought that overall increased volume over longer times may give the same benefit and possibly better results. Thoughts? From what you've posted about your experience, that's exactly what I'd do. Assuming your experience with ultra distance running is deep enough that your "regular" runs each week are in the 1-2 hour range and average 10+ miles, 3-5 runs per week at that distance puts you at 6-7 hours and 30-50 miles each week. For someone who already has that sort of running base, I'd focus on just maintaining run fitness and look at the best ways to improve swimming and cycling, so I wouldn't worry about 2.5-3 hour runs until the final build before tapering. Instead, make sure you can swim well enough to come out of the water fresh with minimal fatigue, and build that bike fitness. Running well during an IM is as much about bike fitness and bike pacing as it is about running fitness. Undertraining for the bike or over-riding bike fitness, will reduce even the best runner to a walk.
|
2013-10-17 5:33 AM in reply to: #4876069 |
Elite 3140 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time Not much to add because you have good advice above but just a couple thoughts. This may not pertain to you since you have done stand alone marathons and have built up the strength and endurance for.that but for me personally wish I would have gone over 3 hrs at least once in my training to get to 21-22 miles. Going into IMLP I had slowed my running pace down because though essentially healed from.a SI issue (if I went faster symptoms would slowly increase) so my 3 hr runs were only around 18 miles.....so I realize the arguments against this thinking but just how I felt. Also I realize it is all.relative but regarding not wanting pain and discomfort in.your IM, but I believe that is close to.impossible......even top athletes will.suffer to.some degree either trying to finish or meet a goal. Good luck |
2013-10-18 10:14 AM in reply to: FELTGood |
26 | Subject: RE: IM Training Distance vs Time All great insight and instruction. Thanks for the help. Now I need to sit down, write it down and then get out and make it happen. I think I am going to use a combination of plans that fit my style and time. I enjoy using distance when I train but want to try using time as well. I also enjoyed increasing volume by increasing frequency this last marathon training. I am not going to re-invent the wheel by any means. I just need to sit down and see what my life/schedule will allow. Fun times ahead. Bring it on. Thanks. |
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|