It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I've recently started reading Ironfit by Don Fink and I have to say that for the most part, it all makes sense and I think it will have a big impact on the way I train. The one point I am unsure on though is his theory on time based training vs distance based training. I'm not saying I disagree (I don't know enough about it to argue one way or the other yet), rather I don't understand why he thinks that time is better than distance.
I find that if I was to start time based cycling rather than distance, it would make it very hard to plan a nice route for my long rides. Instead I feel I would just end up cyling for say an hour, turning around and then just coming back again. I know he says that it is a real benefit if time is a big constraint, but for me it isn't. Also, what if your ride outward is all uphill with wind against you, then coming back is the exact opposite. Surely you are going to have to work out where to turn around based on elevation and wind, not just time which just seems to complicate things further.
Running isnt so much of an issue as I can do an out and back route pretty accurately but again, I still don't understand why time is better than distance other than if you are just pushed for time? If you are training for a set distance, then why is distance training not better?
I have seen a fair few people use the Fink method on here so I though I would ask as the book doesn't really seem to explain it very well.
Like I say though, I am not disagreeing with his method, just wanting clarity on why it is considered better. I have started time based training in my running now but I haven't converted to time based on my rides yet for the reasons above. I really enjoy planning my route around the country side so swapping to time based will be tough, but if there is a good reason to do it then I am all in