% of FTP for a Sprint (Page 2)

Every race is done "as fast as you can" be it sprint, Ironman, or whatever. The actual pace/speed/effort changes with the length of the race, but is still done to the best of one's ability within the context of that race. A number of people in this thread can go over 1,000 watts if they truyly sprinted for a few seconds, however, this is 3,4,5 times as high as what they could sustain for a sprint triathlon. This is a very substantial difference in effort.

Since you used yourself as an example......here's another example (and some more "perspective").  Under my roof at home is a kid who will do that race in about 53 minutes +/- depending on transitions......he's not "all-out"....he couldn't do that.  And he's a top 3-5 at AG Sprint Nationals overall.

It's funny, because you actually agreed with that on the swim thread when you said nobody can do a 500 at their 100 pace, and you were exactly right.  My kid can't run those three miles at his mile pace...not even close.  What your pace should be to keep yourself from blowing up is whatever it is individually.....but your not going all out without blowing up....and if you don't blow up, you weren't going all out, because you can't.  A sprint triathlon is an endurance event....it's not a 100M dash.

Originally posted by nc452010 Well......no. I'm not going as fast as I can for the distance of the individual leg. I'm going as fast as I can for the distance of the individual leg..........considering there are two other legs. I'm not writing this to argue with you. We can certainly disagree, and like I said....you're the coach.

Truly going "all out" is only for a few seconds. Anything else is within the context of the race. That involves pacing, or holding something back from previously stated "all out" in order to have a more even output through the race so that one will get one to the finish line faster.

Isn't this what we do in any race we're "racing" (and not just training through or the like)?

My effort level is much higher in a sprint, of course, but when I finish a HIM (or at least the few I've done) there is nothing left in the tank - at least if I paced it right.

Seems we just miiiiiight have a semantic argument here.  All out/sprint meaning either as fast as your arms/legs will turn over or alternately meaning as hard as you can go and still finish something that takes an hour (different from as fast as you go at any given moment) that is called a "Sprint".

As for percent effort, I'm going to go back and look at my logs (been so long since I've raced that I can't remember percentages... ugh!).

Matt

ETA the italicized part for clarity... even if it's all redundant to the above!

M

Argh!  In the time it took me to ramble-type my post, y'all beat me to pretty much all my points.  BT rocks!

Matt

It's actually nowhere close to semantics.  In fact, for someone like 3Mar, it's entirely possible to completely blow yourself up in a Sprint Triathlon.  I've spent the last 5 years watching VERY FAST sprint tri racers.....I've seen quite a few complete meltdowns because of pacing issues.   A sprint triathlon, raced correctly, is a very tough thing to master.

I've run the first mile of sprint tri too fast and melted down embarrassing number of times. Pacing is key. Yes you can hide it in the sprint a bit better, but to run your fastest race requires a lot more than just "going all out"

The semantic part is the definition of "sprint."  As fast as you can go (sprint), or a length of race (sprint... triathlon).  Both use the same word.  Meanings are waaaay different, as suggested.  Hence, a semantic difference (which is about where we're heading with these posts). 

All in violent agreement. 

Matt

Ugh.......Monday.

Originally posted by nc452010

Originally posted by brigby1

Originally posted by nc452010 Well......no. I'm not going as fast as I can for the distance of the individual leg. I'm going as fast as I can for the distance of the individual leg..........considering there are two other legs. I'm not writing this to argue with you. We can certainly disagree, and like I said....you're the coach.

Truly going "all out" is only for a few seconds. Anything else is within the context of the race. That involves pacing, or holding something back from previously stated "all out" in order to have a more even output through the race so that one will get one to the finish line faster.

Given that definition (above), I think we're at least thinking the same thing. Using that definition, no one goes "all-out" in a 1 mi. race. If that's THE definition, I sure won't argue with it.

I think people tend to shorten "all out for the distance" down to "all out", but do you see how that involves pacing and holding something back in the earlier going? At this point this isn't saying anything about a negative split or flat, you're just not going to run your 100m dash speed out the gate. This was also noted earlier by acknowledging the paces being different in the sprint tri vs doing the legs individually. The "all-out" changed.

When you think about this a little more, do you see how that type of answer is really just repeating back in statement form? I know they are trying to help, but the original question was essentially how to go as fast as one can for a stated distance (eg. all out for the distance). But some of the answers were to go all out for that distance. The OP is trying to find some other marker to work off of that he'll have a better idea of going in.

If you don't lose your mind on the bike you are going to have a hell of a race.....watch and see.

Something to think about:  There's no such thing as screwing up.  There's only learning.  

No matter what happens, you'll come away a more skilled triathlete.

To Ben's point of trying to give some numbers or such, I went back through last year's couple races.  One was a HIM, so not super useful.  Other was an Oly, so only kinda...  (will try to look at previous year's races tonight).

Oly was interesting.  Some background data points:

Swim was canceled. 
My FTP tested at about 240W not too long prior to the race.
Day before I raced (hard) an 8k.  Pace was 6:58 per mile, kinda hilly.

Given the swim was canceled, I decided to experiment and treat the bike as an FTP test, and then see what happened on the run.  When I got off, it was the cloudiest I have EVER been in transition.  So, not quite as hard as "shouldn't be able to stand" at the end of the test, but felt close.

I biked at 251W over the course, or 104% of what a 20 minute test predicted was my FTP (obviously was wrong, but 20' on the trainer vs. the adrenaline soaked environment of a race are, well, different for me - was my best Oly ride ever, winning my AG, which was a surprise).  Off that, I ran the 10k at 7:06 m/m per Garmin, 6:50 pace official.  First 5k were rough, then my legs came back under me and I negative split the race, IIRC.

So, that doesn't apply exactly to a sprint, but it's what I have at the moment.  From a recommendation standpoint, what stands out to me is that tests can be wrong and fitness can be better than you think.  Sometimes trying to blow up teaches you how to dig deeper and go faster.  Other times (and I've had this race, too), it teaches you not to overbike!  On this one, who knew....

I've found that the hard thing for me, as someone who is decidedly NOT a pro, is that every season is different.  My age is going up and the effects from that are occurring more rapidly (bigger delta each year) than ever.  Same time, my base has grown over the past few seasons (the current one excepted), building fitness.  So, what might work for one athlete this year, might not work next year (I've found that I can hold a higher level of suffering for a given distance each year - not pace, relative suffering).  Makes it even harder to know exactly what to recommend without really good knowledge of where that athlete is in their development.

ALL THAT said, I like the 95%-97% guideline, as I think it would work for me most of the time!

Good luck, and I'll try to look at some former sprints...
Matt

I honestly can't tell which one of us you mean there.

Anyway, much of what you're saying about pushing and trying to have the breakthroughs or learning new things about your limits. However, do remember that the recommendations being given tend to go along with having accurate information to work with. What you end up doing will likely be in some of the ranges given based off your actual best as opposed to what you thought it was. And over time you'll likely fall more into these ranges as you get better at what you're saying.

Originally posted by AdventureBear

Originally posted by davejustdave

Originally posted by AdventureBear 105%, 105%, 105%

this one goes to 11 Most people I know don't really think about FTP for sprints. All out is all out. FTP is good, but day to day you can have variances. Would be a shame to finish that race and feel like you left something on the table because you didn't want to go over a certain percentage.

Yep pretty much. The OP is already fast, and a fit athlete based on his numbers he's shared. Race day many people have so much more than they did in training. My guess is that if you races at 97% of his tested FTP for the bike, he'll have no trouble running a fast 3 miles...then he'll wonder how much faster he should have gone. There will always be a next race though, so pick a strategy and try it out then make adjustments the next time.

There is a WORLD of difference between 97% and 105%.

Per a Joe Friel online article: "For the sprint distance, that’s about 95–100 percent of functional threshold power. For the Olympic distance it will fall someplace in the range of 85–95 percent. Half-Ironman is 75–85 percent, and Ironman is typically 65–75 percent. The faster one is, the higher in the range he or she will race."

I've never raced with a PM, I only use VP on a trainer and RPE/HRM when outdoors.  For 15 mile sprints here locally I've ridden between 96% and 99% of bike LTHR.  The better runs for me were with staying on the lower end of that HR range.

We be interesting on what you end up with.