P.U.T.U said:

---

It's a half, your body had enough fuel to do one with with no additional calories. The issue with the OP is fitness and pace. I did a half that was so cold I couldn't use my hands until the later part of the bike so I may have gotten 300 calories total the entire race.

---

I agree with your conclusion...and thus endeth the derail...but you said exactly that in your first sentence.

Since i posted this, i have decided to do my Monday runs at a fast pace, add more runs and keep everything else slower. I have definitely seen my HR lower and more manageable. Slowing down has helped and i think i can keep this going. There are a ton of things that affect it. Thanks for everyone's comments! They have helped me out!

txags92 said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

It's a half, your body had enough fuel to do one with with no additional calories. The issue with the OP is fitness and pace. I did a half that was so cold I couldn't use my hands until the later part of the bike so I may have gotten 300 calories total the entire race.

---

I agree with your conclusion...and thus endeth the derail...but you said exactly that in your first sentence.

---

It was proving a point, not a suggestion.

Honest question, just because you can complete a half with no calories does that mean everyone can? I mean everyone's different. People have different weights, which impacts calorie burn rates. People sweat at different rates. Not everyone burns the same ratio of fat:glucose/carbs:protein when working out. Hell there are professional marathoners who don't even drink a sip of water during a marathon. I drank 40 oz on a 17 mile run last night.

The basic guidelines of burning 100 calories per mile run, having 2,000 calories of glycogen stored in your body, etc all are just that, guidelines. They aren't steadfast rules

You guys are missing the point, I was saying the OPs issue was not nutrition but pace and fitness. A few people said nutrition could be an issue and I was proving it was not.

See this post that I did years ago on race nutrition, former pro Justin Daerr threw in some tips as well. Not much has changed since then

Crazy Ag 97 said:

---

agcivengineer said:

---

That is a good point. I am 42, almost 43. A few years back i got my HR to 200 in a soccer game, so ive always used that # as my peak and then assumed each zone was a range of 20 bpm down from that.

In reality, i can run / bike forever at a HR of up to 160 ish. So ive always thought of 160 to 165 as my top of zone 3. My goal has been to complete a triathlon below that #. When doing medium and long runs, ive always tried to hold it flat right there.

However, when combining with a long bike ride beforehand, even running a pace of even to even + 1 min / mi, the HR wants to climb up to 180. I could do 165 - 170 for a half marathon, but not much more than that. Right now when i get over 180 ill stop and walk, but it doesnt take long to get right back there.

---

Max HR isn't the highest you can get it, max HR is the highest you can theoretically get ypur HR before you start causing heart damage. That's why it's typically based on age.

Also, I didn't read the entire thread, but based on your OP: 1) Quit the spin classes, they do very little to improve your real world biking, you need to be riding outside or on the trainer on your actual bike 3 times a week. 2) you aren't running enough. You should have a min of 3 dedicated run days. Interval, tempo, long. And that doesn't include your OTB mileage.

I won't comment on the swimming since you're right in the window most triathletes train in and most triathletes don't agree with my opinion on swim volume. Personally, when doing a build, I'm at a minimum of 10,000m per week for a 70.3 and closer to 16,000m per week for an Ironman build; but I'm a swimmer, and personally believe the overall fitness you gain from the extra water time does a lot more than just make you faster in the water.

---

16000M for an IM build? ******* man. For me that's 4.5-5 hours of swimming per week. It's a 3800M swim not crossing the English channel

agcivengineer said:

---

Since i posted this, i have decided to do my Monday runs at a fast pace, add more runs and keep everything else slower. I have definitely seen my HR lower and more manageable. Slowing down has helped and i think i can keep this going. There are a ton of things that affect it. Thanks for everyone's comments! They have helped me out!

---

The #1 way to fix a problem in long distance triathlons is to slow down.

I've only been swimming for a couple years and I'm at 15,000 yd per week (when I make all my workouts). Before covid gym shutdowns and having a kid my training was really solid (didn't skip any workouts) and I was swimming 5-6,000 yds a day, 3 times a week. Yeah, it's a lot of time in the pool, and can get boring. But way less time than on the bike or running

htxag09 said:

---

I've only been swimming for a couple years and I'm at 15,000 yd per week (when I make all my workouts). Before covid gym shutdowns and having a kid my training was really solid (didn't skip any workouts) and I was swimming 5-6,000 yds a day, 3 times a week. Yeah, it's a lot of time in the pool, and can get boring. But way less time than on the bike or running

---

Damn! That would be a 3 hour pool session for me. What is your weekly volume for a full? I am usually putting in 12-17 hours per week.

It's down pretty substantial. As I mentioned, covid gym closures got me a little out of my groove, then i started a new job and I had a kid (now 3 months old). Right now I'm putting in about the same as you, generally 13-14ish hours.

A year plus ago I was putting in 20+ hour weeks pretty regularly.