How much do amateur triathletes train? What the data show—and what they do not

Compare training hours is easy. Finding out if comparison helps requires more work. Two people may be enrolled in the same distance and going through very different moments of preparation. Still, a number heard in the group usually turns quickly into reference than it would be necessary to do.

A research published in 2026 allows you to improve this conversation. Its value is in offering context, without converting the behavior of other athletes into personal obligation.

The portrait built by the research

Wells and collaborators analyzed six months of records of 95 triathletes amateurs, including 18 women and 77 men, users of TrainingPeaks. They were 34731 sessions. Long competition athletes accumulated, on average, 615 weekly minutes; those of short competitions, 507. The specific phase presented a higher load than the general phase, while the entresafra had the lowest values.

Age and gender did not have statistically significant associations with the main load measurements in this sample. This does not demonstrate equal needs. The group was voluntary, predominantly male and composed of people with relatively consistent records. The study described training exposure, without testing which load would produce better performance or fewer injuries.

Why don't hours, kilometers and TSS tell the same story?

Hours inform the dedicated time. Kilometers describe displacement. TSS tries to gather duration and relative intensity in an index. Before comparing two numbers, we need to understand which of these dimensions is being discussed.

A week with more cycling time can overcome another in kilometers without presenting the same effort distribution. Adding distances of different modalities also hides that a kilometer swim, run or pedaled represents distinct tasks.

The TSS adds a reference, but depends on the data used in the calculation. If the registered threshold is inadequate, the comparison already begins distorted. And a measure of the session performed does not inform, alone, how the athlete responded to it.

Editorial example: the comparison that changes meaning

Imagine an athlete who trains eight hours in a reduction week and a colleague who trains eleven during a specific block. Say that she is training little ignores the function of the week. The first step would be to compare periods with similar purposes.

Then, it would be necessary to ask what has changed in each one’s capacity. Is the priority session being performed better? Does recovery allow for regularity? A load numerically close to the average does not answer these questions.

It is also possible to be above the group without getting the desired result. In this case, to increase exposure again only to maintain a position in comparison transforms the indicator into objective.

How to use the study without copying the average

Use the data as a starting point to review the coherence of the plan. Does the volume track competition demand? Is there a difference between the development phase and the recovery phase? Are thresholds and devices being consistently updated?

Another useful question is about the quality of the comparison: are we observing athletes with similar experience, availability and objectives? A sample of practitioners motivated to provide their records does not automatically represent everyone who starts in the sport.

The main teaching is methodological: an average describes a group; a training decision needs to consider a person and a purpose. Knowing what others do can enrich the conversation with the coach, as long as the desired result remains the criterion for evaluating the program.

Cada um no seu ritmo. Juntos no caminho.