logging training

"rookie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quick question on how people record their training time. I know it shouldn't make any difference
as long as you are consistent but I was just interested in whether people just purely log the time
spent actually exercising or the time taken out of your life to do the session.

Quoted message said:

At the moment I just record the time spent exercising, and find that I am really struggling to hit
my volume goals (based on guidance in the Triathletes Bible), obviously this doesn't really matter
as changing the way I record my time isn't going to allow me to get any extra sessions in but it
would at least let me feel comfortable that I am hitting the minimum suggested volume for the race
I am training for (half ironman).

Personally I keep track of time spent exercising. For the bike that means the time on the bike - not
necessarily computed riding time. For running it's from the time I start my stopwatch to the time I
stop it. For swimming it's the time in the pool. I don't calculate travel time (to-from workout
area) but I don't stop my watch while waiting for traffic once I've started - same with the bike.

Two things:
1. If it makes you feel comfortable and it's going to keep your spirits up while training - IMO - do
it. Training is hard enough - you don't need to beat yourself up mentally as well.

2. But have to be careful with this - If you're cheating yourself - YOU will know - and you won't
feel good about that either.

Good luck! -CF

(rookie) said:

Quick question on how people record their training time. I know it shouldn't make any difference as
long as you are consistent but I was just interested in whether people just purely log the time
spent actually exercising or the time taken out of your life to do the session.

e.g. if you do a bike ride, do you record in your diary just the trip time showing on your
computer, or do you record the whole time the ride took including stretching, warming down,
stopping at traffic lights, etc. From experience this could make up to half an hour or more
difference in time.

I'm sure that it's total excercising time. What good would it do to mark down the time of
10 hrs if 3 hrs of that was showering, 2 hrs driving, 1 hr stretching etc. You could
manipulate this in so many ways that you end up doing no activity but "look" like you're
read to do an IM.

Quoted message said:

At the moment I just record the time spent exercising, and find that I am really struggling to hit
my volume goals (based on guidance in the Triathletes Bible), obviously this doesn't really matter
as changing the way I record my time isn't going to allow me to get any extra sessions in but it
would at least let me feel comfortable that I am hitting the minimum suggested volume for the race
I am training for (half ironman).

I would suggest one of three things.

1) Maybe the time constraints you are placed under don't allow you to "properly" train for
a half IM.

2) You can probably do considerablly less training than the "recommended" amount and still
complete a 1/2 IM

3) If your feeling pressure under the "guidelines" you may be overdoing it and need to cut
back anyway.

Being fairly familar with the book, I don't remember that the book "recommends" a certain volume. I
do know they gave average amounts of training for each event but I don't remember them being
recommendations. Could be wrong often am.

I also vaguely remember Friel saying you should set the "volume"/time on what you did last year. I
suspect it would be a mistake to go from 260 hrs a year to 1500hrs a year. It could be you are
trying to make to big of a jump in to short of a time. I find that making smaller jumps is much
easy. Carving out an additional 15 minutes a day or adding on 15 mins to a workout is much easier
than trying to add an entire new workout or add an additional hour.

Off course the above is entirely speculation as ususal.

~Matt

In article said:

2) You can probably do considerablly less training than the "recommended" amount and still
complete a 1/2 IM

THAT'S certainly true! If your goal is completing the race, you don't have to kill yourself. You
need to get your long run and long bike in every week and then get "some other workouts" in.
YMMV with the swim; I'm a decent swimmer, so I only swam probably twice a week on average for my
IM training.

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6 months.
I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck said:

In article said:

2) You can probably do considerablly less training than the "recommended" amount and still
complete a 1/2 IM

THAT'S certainly true! If your goal is completing the race, you don't have to kill yourself. You
need to get your long run and long bike in every week and then get "some other workouts" in. YMMV
with the swim; I'm a decent swimmer, so I only swam probably twice a week on average for my IM
training.

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6 months.
I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

I often wondered how they come up with this "Average". Most people I know are certainly on a
periodize schedule. Although they may eclipse that 18 hr a week average for several weeks
prior to an IM they certainly don't hold 18 hrs a week all year. Friel list 600-1200 hrs as
a "suggested" training volume for an IM, BTW its 500-700 for a half. This breaks down to 11
to 23 and 9-13 hrs a week respectively. As I said earlier these are "Suggested" not
required. Many have done more on less and less on more. Right above the chart there is this
in italic "This is not a required volume" To the original poster Friel also says this "To
determine your annual hours, start by adding up the hours you trained in the previous twelve
months. For the coming season a small increase in volume, in the range of 10-15%, may be
necessary if you are training for a longer distance race..." Adding more hours or a larger
percent may lead to overtraining. Seems to me that if you are adding only 10% to the low end
of the recommended 500hrs last year you should have been around 450 hrs thats only adding an
additional hour a week or 10 minutes a piece to 6 workouts. I suspect that last year you
were not near 450 hrs if reaching the "suggested" low end is proving to be difficult. Try
doing as Friel says and figure out last years totals and go from there. Better to be
undertrained than overtrained.

~Matt

~Matt

"To determie

Actual exercise time. Idle time does not count.

Ken

"rookie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quick question on how people record their training time. I know it shouldn't make any difference
as long as you are consistent but I was just interested in whether people just purely log the time
spent actually exercising or the time taken out of your life to do the session.

e.g. if you do a bike ride, do you record in your diary just the trip time showing on your
computer, or do you record the whole time the ride took including stretching, warming down,
stopping at traffic lights, etc. From experience this could make up to half an hour or more
difference in time.

At the moment I just record the time spent exercising, and find that I am really struggling to hit
my volume goals (based on guidance in the Triathletes Bible), obviously this doesn't really matter
as changing the way I record my time isn't going to allow me to get any extra sessions in but it
would at least let me feel comfortable that I am hitting the minimum suggested volume for the race
I am training for (half ironman).

one more thing. when doing all those long hours I found that the adaptation process allowed me to do
weekly 140 mile long rides and still feel good when finished. It took a while but 100 mile rides at
above race pace came to feel like a short day. In order to accumulate those hours I found it
necessary to do frequent 5 mile swims followed by 16 mile or longer runs or an 80 to 100 mile bike..
I often started my day at 4 am so that I could indulge in other activities, like work. My log shows
400 mile bike weeks, 15 mile swim and 55 mile running. Was it smart training, I don;t really know
but it took me to an AG course record in NZ, Keauhou-Kona record, Powerman Hawaii record, Tinman
record, first at Panama City in AG and others.

It was simply a matter of out training the competition, no special tricks or physical enhancements,
only the desire to do my best in my 60th year. It's a matter of "Wanting To".

Ken

"IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actual exercise time. Idle time does not count.

Ken

"rookie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quick question on how people record their training time. I know it shouldn't make any difference
as long as you are consistent but I was just interested in whether people just purely log the
time spent actually exercising or the time taken out of your life to do the session.

e.g. if you do a bike ride, do you record in your diary just the trip time showing on your
computer, or do you record the whole time the ride took including stretching, warming down,
stopping at traffic lights, etc. From experience this could make up to half an hour or more
difference in time.

At the moment I just record the time spent exercising, and find that I am really struggling to
hit my volume goals (based on guidance in the Triathletes Bible), obviously this doesn't really
matter as changing the way I record my time isn't going to allow me to get any extra sessions in
but it would at least let me feel comfortable that I am hitting the minimum suggested volume for
the race I am training for (half ironman).

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6
months. I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

In 1997 I went out to win my age group at my qualifier, IMNZ and then again IMH after winning at NZ.
My training log which is only the real on the road or in the pool stuff, shows peak weeks of 33
hours. My average for the preceding 6 months was 24 hours per week. It's the real truth and an
awesome amount of hard work. In 1998 I dropped that to an average of 18 hours per week and only
placed third. It does make a difference if you can dredge up the time and motivation. I do not know
what the MIP's do for training but I would guess far less. Other's that I know who have won their
respective age groups at IMH have done similar hours. To win, you must out train and out smart your
competition. Forget about "Genes". It's just a lot of hard work and guts.

ken @ Kauai

IMKen said:

one more thing. when doing all those long hours I found that the adaptation process allowed me to
do weekly 140 mile long rides and still feel good when finished. It took a while but 100 mile rides
at above race pace came to feel like a short day. In order to accumulate those hours I found it
necessary to do frequent 5 mile swims followed by 16 mile or longer runs or an 80 to 100 mile
bike.. I often started my day at 4 am so that I could indulge in other activities, like work. My
log shows 400 mile bike weeks, 15 mile swim and 55 mile running. Was it smart training, I don;t
really know but it took me to an AG course record in NZ, Keauhou-Kona record, Powerman Hawaii
record, Tinman record, first at Panama City in AG and others.

It was simply a matter of out training the competition, no special tricks or physical enhancements,
only the desire to do my best in my 60th year. It's a matter of "Wanting To".

Ken

By no means take this as knocking your success, but there seem to be limits to the
improvements by volume methods. Knoakes in the Lore of Running goes through the training of
several record setting marathoners. Seems that many of them found a limit at which training
at higher volumes caused worse times for them. Of course for most of the "Elite" guys this
was on the order of 120+ miles a week of running. Some were shown to have tried running 200+
even higher in some very unusual cases. (Can't quite remember but one ungodly number was 280
or 380) For the vast majority of us mere mortals however volume increases are key to higher
performance. But then again we are all different and most of us respond differently to
training so that "volume" will probably be different for all of us. The thing I found most
intriguing about your numbers above kinda verifies what I've been thinking. The least
"harsh" discipline, swimming you did over 6x the race distance weekly, next harsh, bike a
little under 4x, then the most abusive running only slightly over 2x. This has been similar
to the ratio I've been bending my training towards. The time spent in the pool and on the
bike seems to increase the volume of training much easier and with less recovery. Have you
done any experimenting with how much volume of each is necessary? IOW what if you did
another 100mi's on the bike could you cut the running to 45-35? Have you hit any "limits" as
far "I must do at least "X" distance(Or maintain a ratio of) of each discipline"? If you
don't do that volume do you see serious performance drop offs reguardless of increases in
other disciplines?

~Matt (Inquiring minds want to know)

Quoted message said:

"IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actual exercise time. Idle time does not count.

Ken

"rookie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quick question on how people record their training time. I know it shouldn't make any
difference as long as you are consistent but I was just interested in whether people just
purely log the time spent actually exercising or the time taken out of your life to do the
session.

e.g. if you do a bike ride, do you record in your diary just the trip time showing on your
computer, or do you record the whole time the ride took including stretching, warming
down, stopping at traffic lights, etc. From experience this could make up to half an hour
or more difference in time.

At the moment I just record the time spent exercising, and find that I am really struggling to
hit my volume goals (based on guidance in the Triathletes Bible), obviously this doesn't really
matter as changing the way I record my time isn't going to allow me to get any extra sessions
in but it would at least let me feel comfortable that I am hitting the minimum suggested volume
for the race I am training for (half ironman).

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

It was simply a matter of out training the competition, no special tricks or physical
enhancements, only the desire to do my best in my 60th year. It's a matter of "Wanting To".

Well, you need to either train smart to log those kind of miles, or be orthopaedically gifted (=
genes), or get lucky to not get injured with that kind of mileage. You can't always expect to just
do more miles than the competition; most people who try this end up overtrained and injured or sick.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6
months. I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

In 1997 I went out to win my age group at my qualifier, IMNZ and then again IMH after winning at
NZ. My training log which is only the real on the road or in the pool stuff, shows peak weeks of
33 hours. My average for the preceding 6 months was 24 hours per week. It's the real truth and an
awesome amount of hard work. In 1998 I dropped that to an average of 18 hours per week and only
placed third. It does make a difference if you can dredge up the time and motivation. I do not
know what the MIP's do for training but I would guess far less. Other's that I know who have won
their respective age groups at IMH have done similar hours. To win, you must out train and out
smart your competition. Forget about "Genes". It's just a lot of hard work and guts.

Oh, I never doubted that the *top* finishers work that hard. But there's no freakin' way that the
*average* competitors log 18 hours per week for seven months (I thought it had said 6, but I just
saw it again and it says 7). If they said "the average age-group champion does 18 hours per week for
seven months" I'd have no trouble believing it.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

[email hidden] (MJuric) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Harold Buck said:

In article said:

2) You can probably do considerablly less training than the "recommended" amount and still
complete a 1/2 IM

THAT'S certainly true! If your goal is completing the race, you don't have to kill yourself. You
need to get your long run and long bike in every week and then get "some other workouts" in. YMMV
with the swim; I'm a decent swimmer, so I only swam probably twice a week on average for my IM
training.

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6
months. I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

I often wondered how they come up with this "Average". Most people I know are certainly on a
periodize schedule. Although they may eclipse that 18 hr a week average for several weeks
prior to an IM they certainly don't hold 18 hrs a week all year. Friel list 600-1200 hrs as
a "suggested" training volume for an IM, BTW its 500-700 for a half. This breaks down to 11
to 23 and 9-13 hrs a week respectively. As I said earlier these are "Suggested" not
required. Many have done more on less and less on more. Right above the chart there is this
in italic "This is not a required volume" To the original poster Friel also says this "To
determine your annual hours, start by adding up the hours you trained in the previous twelve
months. For the coming season a small increase in volume, in the range of 10-15%, may be
necessary if you are training for a longer distance race..." Adding more hours or a larger
percent may lead to overtraining. Seems to me that if you are adding only 10% to the low end
of the recommended 500hrs last year you should have been around 450 hrs thats only adding an
additional hour a week or 10 minutes a piece to 6 workouts. I suspect that last year you
were not near 450 hrs if reaching the "suggested" low end is proving to be difficult. Try
doing as Friel says and figure out last years totals and go from there. Better to be
undertrained than overtrained.

~Matt

Thanks for the advice guys - I could complete the half IM now, was hoping to be reasonably
competitive though, hence the desire to get some sense of comparison in my training volumes. I have
done very high volumes of training for the last 10 years or so but in rowing. Have never really
bothered to log my time as we followed a crew schedule set by the coach - when there's a couple of
coaches and 30 or more athletes it's pretty much a case of do it their way or go and buy yourself a
single scull! We used to do 10 sessions a week, normally of at least 45 minutes to 2 hours in the
winter (summer volumes a lot less as you're training for 6 minute races so lots of speed and power
work) so volumes were probably in the right kind of ballpark for doing a 500 hour year now. Haven't
had any physical problems doing the training, just that work is a lot busier this year than last -
hence the decision to quit rowing where these is no flexibility over training times. Certainly
wasn't planning to start recording time in the shower or the car, but it sounds like if I leave the
house, run for 5 minutes to get warm, then stretch for 5 minutes, do a 60 minute endurance run, and
then warm down and stretch for another 5-10 minutes at the end I should be recording 75-80 minutes
in the log not 60. Similarly I guess I should record drills in the pool and not just the actual
work? Having had a few injuries over the years and not being a great swimmer I tend to be quite
conscientious about warming up, stretching and doing technical drills so all of this probably makes
a few hours difference per week depending on whether I record it or not.

Anyway, thanks again, sounds like however much I do there are going to be guys who have done twice
my volume! Maybe I should quit that job...

~Matt (Inquiring minds want to know)

Quoted message said:

By no means take this as knocking your success, but there seem to be limits to the improvements by
volume methods.

Have not applied any science but the returns in improvement drop off as volume increases beyond a
point. That seems to happen to me about 45 miles/wk of running and 250 miles/wk on the bike .
Swimming, humm, I just never improve speed no matter the distance but I gain confidence that I wont
drown and will come out of the water feeling ready to ride. With a goal of finishing well I could go
with those numbers. To get on the podium I have to add another 30% or more. The extra 30%
distance/time will decrease my finishing time only minutes or possibly seconds. Is it worth it?
Depends on your personal goal and time.

My training ratio has evolved over the years from experimenting and getting to know what I can
tolerate. I believe that by putting most time into building the swim endurance along with bike
speed/endurance I am able to get through those two segments with reserves left over for my run. I've
never been a good runner and my marathon time in an IM distant event averages about 25 minutes less
that when I do a Marathon only. My fastest ever 10K time over a certified course was done during an
Olympic distance tri, for what ever that is worth.

What works for me is an individual thing. Might be the absolute worst plan for someone else. I have
had my share of overuse injuries from too much too soon and possibly just too much. To do your best
you need to discover your limits. How do we find our limits without pushing to the point of
failure? It's called "Destructive Test", increase stress until failure occurs. Once that point is
reached or felt immanent, back off just a little. You need to get very familiar with the feeling of
immanent failure, work to near those points but allow the slighest margin for good health. Sounds
simple, right.

Quoted message said:

For the vast majority of us mere mortals however volume increases are key to higher performance.
But then again we are all different and most of us respond differently to training so that
"volume" will probably be different for all of us. The thing I found most intriguing about your
numbers above kinda verifies what I've been thinking. The least "harsh" discipline, swimming you
did over 6x the race distance weekly, next harsh, bike a little under 4x, then the most abusive
running only slightly over 2x. This has been similar to the ratio I've been bending my training
towards. The time spent in the pool and on the bike seems to increase the volume of training much
easier and with less recovery. Have you done any experimenting with how much volume of each is
necessary? IOW what if you did another 100mi's on the bike could you cut the running to 45-35?
Have you hit any "limits" as far "I must do at least "X" distance(Or maintain a ratio of) of each
discipline"? If you don't do that volume do you see serious performance drop offs reguardless of
increases in other disciplines?

~Matt (Inquiring minds want to know)

I do need a given distance/time at each specific discipline. Swimming and cycling will enhance
cardio/ pulmonary function for all. Specific muscle groups need adaptation to avoid injury and
aquire speed/endurance. You need to balance.

ken

On 11 Dec 2003 08:39:34 -0800, [email hidden] (rookie)

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (MJuric) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Harold Buck said:

In article <[email hidden]>, MJuric wrote:

>
> 2) You can probably do considerablly less training than the "recommended" amount and still
> complete a 1/2 IM
>

THAT'S certainly true! If your goal is completing the race, you don't have to kill yourself. You
need to get your long run and long bike in every week and then get "some other workouts" in.
YMMV with the swim; I'm a decent swimmer, so I only swam probably twice a week on average for my
IM training.

I think it's laughable when they say the average IM competitor trains 18 hours a week for 6
months. I'm not even sure I trained that much if you throw in time spent driving my car.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

I often wondered how they come up with this "Average". Most people I know are certainly on a
periodize schedule. Although they may eclipse that 18 hr a week average for several weeks
prior to an IM they certainly don't hold 18 hrs a week all year. Friel list 600-1200 hrs as
a "suggested" training volume for an IM, BTW its 500-700 for a half. This breaks down to 11
to 23 and 9-13 hrs a week respectively. As I said earlier these are "Suggested" not
required. Many have done more on less and less on more. Right above the chart there is this
in italic "This is not a required volume" To the original poster Friel also says this "To
determine your annual hours, start by adding up the hours you trained in the previous twelve
months. For the coming season a small increase in volume, in the range of 10-15%, may be
necessary if you are training for a longer distance race..." Adding more hours or a larger
percent may lead to overtraining. Seems to me that if you are adding only 10% to the low end
of the recommended 500hrs last year you should have been around 450 hrs thats only adding an
additional hour a week or 10 minutes a piece to 6 workouts. I suspect that last year you
were not near 450 hrs if reaching the "suggested" low end is proving to be difficult. Try
doing as Friel says and figure out last years totals and go from there. Better to be
undertrained than overtrained.

~Matt

Thanks for the advice guys - I could complete the half IM now, was hoping to be reasonably
competitive though, hence the desire to get some sense of comparison in my training volumes. I have
done very high volumes of training for the last 10 years or so but in rowing. Have never really
bothered to log my time as we followed a crew schedule set by the coach - when there's a couple of
coaches and 30 or more athletes it's pretty much a case of do it their way or go and buy yourself a
single scull! We used to do 10 sessions a week, normally of at least 45 minutes to 2 hours in the
winter (summer volumes a lot less as you're training for 6 minute races so lots of speed and power
work) so volumes were probably in the right kind of ballpark for doing a 500 hour year now. Haven't
had any physical problems doing the training, just that work is a lot busier this year than last -
hence the decision to quit rowing where these is no flexibility over training times. Certainly
wasn't planning to start recording time in the shower or the car, but it sounds like if I leave the
house, run for 5 minutes to get warm, then stretch for 5 minutes, do a 60 minute endurance run, and
then warm down and stretch for another 5-10 minutes at the end I should be recording 75-80 minutes
in the log not 60.

Personally I do not include "stretching" as training, even though I do a fair amount of it.
As far as warm up and cool down runs, yes I do include them.

Quoted message said:

Similarly I guess I should record drills in the pool and not just the actual work?

I include drilling also. Using Friels methods, Drills, easy workouts (Active recoveries may
even inlcude walking depending on your level) and possibly other actives depending on period
of training. As Ken mentioned, idle time does not count. Driving, showering refueling
afterwards etc.

Quoted message said:

Having had a few injuries over the years and not being a great swimmer I tend to be quite
conscientious about warming up, stretching and doing technical drills so all of this probably
makes a few hours difference per week depending on whether I record it or not.

To me it matters little how many hours end up in the log. The log is meant as a "trail" to
follow and interpret to help with future training. If you can figure out how to do an 8 hour
IM on 20hrs a week do it. The information in the log is not to reach any certain "total
hours" but to guide you to better performances. IMO you far better served paying attention
to your body and stopping when it says stop then to push yourself "just to fill the log"

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Anyway, thanks again, sounds like however much I do there are going to be guys who have done twice
my volume! Maybe I should quit that job...

Good luck with the race, and yes someone will almost always be doing more, faster, better, quicker.
And if they aren't some one else will lie and just say they are...

~Matt