Just Tri?
841
Member
264 days
ChunkyB posted 22 weeks ago.
I just finished a book called "Breakthrough Triathlon Training" by Brad Kearns, and it proposes a more free approach to triathlon training. He does talk about heart rate training, in the sense that you need much more aerobic training than otherwise, but you can usually tell when you go anaerobic without a HRM. I'm now reading the traithlete's training bible, so it's kind of the two ends of the spectrum. I think there is real value to training by how you feel, especially when it comes to injury prevention. I'm really new to triathlon, though, so I haven't tried the two approaches personally.
"The melting point of wax means nothing to me": Thrice
2231
Member
2277 days
Tribro posted 22 weeks ago.
I think a more scientific (or even specific) approach to training will absolutely yield better results. If you look at those on the podium or in the pro ranks, for the most part it isn't because they are training longer, or have better genes, but rather they have a specific and detailed approach to their training. That includes, recovery, nutrition, and a general all around approach.
I do think however that it takes a certain type of person to follow and stick to a scientific approach if you plan on figuring it out on your own, it can be daunting to keep up with the data and apply it correctly. in my opinion, the best solution is to get a coach that can do the heavy lifting for you. one that will apply the science and specifics to your goals and schedule so you will see better results.
582
Member
735 days
tsilcyc posted 22 weeks ago.
I think a structured, consistent approach will get you far. I think science will get you a little farther. I think without the former, the latter will do you know good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my Log: http://www.felog.net/users/teamsln/query_log.aspx
Check out my Blog: http://www.felog.net/feblog/
819
Member
1339 days
catwood posted 22 weeks ago.
I do a mix. I rigidly plan my season structure and workouts each week, but I don't use a HRM or anything. I used to train pretty rigidly by the numbers (HR and Power), but I found that a bit more mentally taxing than just going by RPE. I'll probably go back to power eventually when I start to plateau, but for now I've been sticking to RPE. I plan my workouts using training zones as if I used a HRM, but I know what they feel like.
This approach has gotten me pretty far and I know I still have room for improvement training this way.
166
Member
1010 days
Ultrarunner posted 22 weeks ago.
I think it really comes down to what you want your race to be. Are you going to have a good time and race yourself? Or are you going to see how many people you can pass and stand on the podium? Training like that can become very consuming. I have a degree in Kinesiology and many years experience of personal training and quite frankly I would put more effort into my client's programs than my own. I do stick to my training plans very closely but I also listen to my body very closely. If I am scheduled for a hard tempo day but I have a nagging knee pain, I know that I am not fully recovered and "pushing through the pain" will set me back, not help my progress so I change it up for that day and I don't need a HR monitor telling me that my RHR is elevated by10% to tell me that. I believe using HR monitors, and such devices will yield better results if the user knows what they are doing, but I choose not to get that serious. I also believe though that for something like the IM you need to at least write out your program as a form of motivation and tracking. That is just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
The race is just the finale to all of your training. Enjoy the celebration.
3975
Member
1578 days
beads1985 posted 22 weeks ago.
I agree with Ultrarunner, it depends on what you want to achieve.
12:45 is not too shabby using your 'flexible approach'
As others have posted, a more scientific approach will probably yield better(faster) results.
However, it will require more work, more time and maybe more stress.
Good luck either way!!
I have been "serious" about my tri training for several years. I started out mainly running the first year, then intensified my biking the second, and finally put it all together last year...finished my first full ironman in 12:45. Here's the question though; How much more beneficial, really, would a more "scientific" approach be? I did all this using a very flexible approach. During the week, in the prime training season, I engaged in, on average, 8 training sessions of high intensity lasting about 30-40 minutes each. I rotated each session from swim, bike and run, in varying order, depending on how I felt. Saturdays were long runs and sundays were long rides, building in distance as typical. Also, I never wore a heart rate monitor. I've also been a stickler (sp) about going by perceived exertion. Are others out there this way, and who thinks following a regiment training plan and using a heart rate monitor will be much more beneficial?