login
Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM
-
No new posts
 2016-07-10 12:30 PM |
Regular  673    SF Bay area |  Subject: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IMI've been training with power on the bike for the first time this year as opposed to using HR. I'll be doing the same race again, and I am fortunate to be able to ride the race course during training so can directly compare current results from training to that of the previous training and race itself. What I've found is that I likely pushed the bike too hard during that last IM with a run that was abysmal. Of course everything is not apples to apples (in 2014 it was 95 degrees on the run, could be much cooler this year - who knows, and they've changed the run course and it appears to be less challenging but it is not safe to run without road closure), but I've got enough data points that I feel I've got to back off the bike effort to get a better run. Here's what I'm thinking: The bike course is almost all rolling hills and small hills 2014 2016 Bike 6:12 6:27 Run 5:22 sub 4:45 (really I want a sub 4:30, but will start out pacing a 4:45ish) Last marathon time was a 3:37 but was on a more friendly course, so I'd like to think that a 4:45 is doable. I think I can get the 6:27 bike time at a power that is 67-69% of FTP which in training has me actually do 100 miles of the course at a HR that is still comfortably in zone 1 as opposed to 2014 where I was up in the mid-zone 2 area. I've also had a significantly more aggressive running plan this go around, so that should help as well. Current runs off the bike have been really good, and this week I've got some aggressive bike/run combos that will give me more info to work with. That all being said, I'm sure many of you have had to face this, or have had buddies who have done so, and I'm interested in your thoughts on this and your experiences to help me a) feel more confident in the approach and b)fine tune the plan. Second question is negative splits on the run. They are for me a good plan for marathon-only races, but don't know if this applies to IM marathon runs with the bike preceding it. Thoughts?
Edited by TTom 2016-07-10 12:45 PM |
| 2016-07-10 2:06 PM in reply to: TTom |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM I'm not sure there was a question in there other than the subject line. I've completed 11 IMs, 7 IMs, 10 marathons, 15 half marathons, so I know a bit about running after the bike leg. And still, the difficulty in balancing the bike and run is one of the things that makes IM challenging and interesting. Too hard on the bike, you're walking on the run. Too easy on the bike, you'll never make it up on the run. Or you might have an easy bike course followed by a hard run course, or vice-versa. Or you might be like me and a better runner than a cyclist, so pushing hard on the bike takes more out of you than pushing hard on the run. This all seems obvious but you still see so many people hammer the bike then walk the run talking about how great their bike leg was but too bad their legs are cooked. My first IM was Arizona in 2006. I went so easy on the bike that I negative split each of the three loops on the run. On the other hand, last month at the half-IM in Hawaii I intentionally hammered the bike chasing a bike PR (which I achieved), and my run suffered at least 20 minutes. If the PR wasn't so tempting, I could have added 10 minutes to the bike and surely gained 20 minutes on the run (net 10 minute improvement). It's good that you're racing with power on the bike and even better you're training on the course. The PM makes a huge difference because it zeros course differences and wind and the like, and you have repeatability on your side. If you have the discipline to race to power instead of chasing a time, then you're way ahead. Really the bike is about pacing yourself right up to the point where your run suffers, then back off. To find that point, I'm a fan of 50 mile bike / one hour race pace run bricks. What I'm looking for is how I feel during the run. I don't plan to negative split the run, but I pride myself on running every mile of the 26.2 in an IM, with zero walking except aid stations. And I mean running at least an 11 min pace, not the Ironman shuffle. Walking is such a clock killer, you have to do everything you can to avoid the 17 min/mile walk. Follow me on Strava if you want to see my data. I notice you live in Fremont; I lived their from 1989 to 1994. What race are you doing such that you can train on the course? |
| 2016-07-10 3:24 PM in reply to: TTom |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM take a look at this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-cheat-by-using-a-... You probably want to got a bit easier if you believe this article |
| 2016-07-10 4:39 PM in reply to: marcag |
Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by marcag take a look at this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-cheat-by-using-a-... You probably want to got a bit easier if you believe this article That's a great chart and article by Joe Friel. The gray to yellow zone is exactly the balance I was talking about, without tipping into the orange or red. My first IM I definitely left some on the table. I should go re-read Friel's books. I also have his new book "Fast After 50: How to Race Strong for the Rest of Your Life" which I haven't started yet. https://www.amazon.ca/Fast-After-50-Race-Strong/dp/1937715264
|
| 2016-07-10 5:00 PM in reply to: 0 |
Regular 673 SF Bay area | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Bruce, Ha!, I'm not even sure there was anything but an implied question in the subject line. I'm really liking the power meter as the metric on the ride for the reasons you mention, and my goal is to do exactly what you said - to ride to a target power and let the time come out to what it does. So the challenge is to decide on that number. As I said, I've got two solid bricks this week, one that is a 1.5 hour ride at an IF of between .70 and .72 followed by a run of 1 hour at 20 bpm below threshold, the second being a the same ride, but followed by an run of 2.5 hours at the same bpm. Not quite the same as your favorite, but definitely will give me a better feeling for how the run will hold up at what is definitely a stronger pace than I'd ever try to run in the race. By this time next week, I'll be in a better position to start formulating the plan. And I fully agree with you on the effect of the walk - that's what ended up killing my run last time. It was HOT and I was unfortunate enough to see the race leader, with only two miles to go (he was on his 3rd run lap, me on my first) pass me verrrrrry slowly and then a couple of miles later, pull himself from the race (and get taken to the hospital if I'm not mistaken). I admit to letting that get into my head and telling me to not overdo it, and I think I took that to an extreme. The race is the IM Vineman out of Sonoma, and I can recommend it very highly as it is a great course. It is a between a 1.5 and 3 hour drive depending on Bay Area traffic, but definitely worth the effort. I see you are in Bellevue which is another coincidence as my training partner for Vineman 2014 had just moved down here from Bellevue. Small world, no? I should get that book too. Does he have a "Keeping moving forward after 60" title as well? :-) That's just over the horizon. Edited by TTom 2016-07-10 5:02 PM |
| 2016-07-10 6:31 PM in reply to: marcag |
Regular 673 SF Bay area | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by marcag take a look at this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-cheat-by-using-a-... You probably want to got a bit easier if you believe this article That is a good article and I've seen it before, but not really figured out how to use it to plan - partially because it cuts off at an IF of .67 and my days of learning algebra were (no kidding) before calculators existed, so extending it to lower levels was intimidating! But I believe in Friel (I'm training with one of his plans) so after your post dusted off the memory cells and to my surprise was able to actually do the algebra. At least I think so. Then, had to delve into the scattered Excel brain matter to put together a table that takes it down into the aging age group or beginning beginner realms. Here's what the outcome was:
So from this, it looks like I should target the 65-66% to make a good run more probable. I've got an FTP of 221 as of 3 weeks ago, so at this level I would target 143.7W-145.9W. Looking at my data for course rides, I do see one I did at 144W for 102m that took 6 hours, so 112m would put me at a 6:35 on this course @144W. Adding 23 minutes to the bike from my last race there is a bitter pill to swallow, especially when I was targeting a only 37 minute improvement on the run. This is a really interesting exercise that has me thinking about a lot of factors. The next two weeks of training will help in the decision process for sure. |
| 2016-07-10 6:49 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by TTom Originally posted by marcag take a look at this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-cheat-by-using-a-... You probably want to got a bit easier if you believe this article That is a good article and I've seen it before, but not really figured out how to use it to plan - partially because it cuts off at an IF of .67 and my days of learning algebra were (no kidding) before calculators existed, so extending it to lower levels was intimidating! But I believe in Friel (I'm training with one of his plans) so after your post dusted off the memory cells and to my surprise was able to actually do the algebra. At least I think so. Then, had to delve into the scattered Excel brain matter to put together a table that takes it down into the aging age group or beginning beginner realms. Here's what the outcome was:
So from this, it looks like I should target the 65-66% to make a good run more probable. I've got an FTP of 221 as of 3 weeks ago, so at this level I would target 143.7W-145.9W. Looking at my data for course rides, I do see one I did at 144W for 102m that took 6 hours, so 112m would put me at a 6:35 on this course @144W. Adding 23 minutes to the bike from my last race there is a bitter pill to swallow, especially when I was targeting a only 37 minute improvement on the run. This is a really interesting exercise that has me thinking about a lot of factors. The next two weeks of training will help in the decision process for sure. 144 would be 65.16% of that 221 FTP. For 6h35 that would give a TSS of 280, just at the upper edge of the dark grey You can plug the 144 into best bike split and see what it gives. On 144w you should do better than 6h36. You should be closer to 6h. Edited by marcag 2016-07-10 6:51 PM |
| 2016-07-11 9:47 AM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by marcag take a look at this http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-cheat-by-using-a-... You probably want to got a bit easier if you believe this article So the chart is really just saying; the longer you *think* you're going to be on the course, the lower your IF should be, then gives you a guideline to how much that is. The problem is that it doesn't take into account an individual's ability to hit that time. So it almost has to be iterative, with the reader having a REALLY GOOD idea on what their watts/mph will be on the race day. That's a big gap in my opinion. Let's take an example. Say I want to use this for IMFL and I assume that the course conditions will be similar to my training conditions (they should be pretty close, if not a bit easier). So first thing I have to do is guess a finish time. After all, this chart assumes that I don't know my IM watts (that's why I'm looking at it) so I just throw out a number. I'll say 4:30 (nobody get your chamois pads in a twist...I'm throwing out a purposefully wrong number for the sake of the exercise). I look at the chart and since I'm only going to be going at it for 4.5 hrs, it says I can have an IF of 77%. "Sweet" I say and take my FTP of 250 and that puts my goal power at 192.5. And therein lies the problem. I'm not going 4:30 on 192.5 watts. That's where this chart sort of loses it for me. I have to then go into something like best bike split, or, in my case, look at my collected data and see that 192 will put me at about a 5:05. Well, that then changes the IF. So back to the chart and at 5:05, it says IF of 74. Take that back to FTP and it puts my goal watts at 185....well crap, that changes my finish time. At 185 I'm looking at 5:10. Back to the chart....at 5:10 the IF is 73. 250*.73=183. So now I'm iterating down to something close to where I should be and I can see that at my current FTP, I should be around 183, for a 5:10-5:15 finish. But the biggest thing is knowing what watts will produce what speed. I've got a lot of data on that and my training is similar to the race. If someone doesn't have a REALLY GOOD grasp on that, this chart could be dangerous. They should at least note that in the article. But instead it's just "go ahead and guess your time and throw it in...good luck" but doesn't even say that. It just assumes you'll know your time. |
| 2016-07-11 10:39 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Regular 673 SF Bay area | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM So the chart is really just saying; the longer you *think* you're going to be on the course, the lower your IF should be, then gives you a guideline to how much that is. The problem is that it doesn't take into account an individual's ability to hit that time. So it almost has to be iterative, with the reader having a REALLY GOOD idea on what their watts/mph will be on the race day. That's a big gap in my opinion. Let's take an example. Say I want to use this for IMFL and I assume that the course conditions will be similar to my training conditions (they should be pretty close, if not a bit easier). So first thing I have to do is guess a finish time. After all, this chart assumes that I don't know my IM watts (that's why I'm looking at it) so I just throw out a number. I'll say 4:30 (nobody get your chamois pads in a twist...I'm throwing out a purposefully wrong number for the sake of the exercise). I look at the chart and since I'm only going to be going at it for 4.5 hrs, it says I can have an IF of 77%. "Sweet" I say and take my FTP of 250 and that puts my goal power at 192.5. And therein lies the problem. I'm not going 4:30 on 192.5 watts. That's where this chart sort of loses it for me. I have to then go into something like best bike split, or, in my case, look at my collected data and see that 192 will put me at about a 5:05. Well, that then changes the IF. So back to the chart and at 5:05, it says IF of 74. Take that back to FTP and it puts my goal watts at 185....well crap, that changes my finish time. At 185 I'm looking at 5:10. Back to the chart....at 5:10 the IF is 73. 250*.73=183. So now I'm iterating down to something close to where I should be and I can see that at my current FTP, I should be around 183, for a 5:10-5:15 finish. But the biggest thing is knowing what watts will produce what speed. I've got a lot of data on that and my training is similar to the race. If someone doesn't have a REALLY GOOD grasp on that, this chart could be dangerous. They should at least note that in the article. But instead it's just "go ahead and guess your time and throw it in...good luck" but doesn't even say that. It just assumes you'll know your time. You clearly articulated the reason I struggled with using this chart, and your iterative illustration is very useful. I wondered what the course assumption was for this chart (flat, no wind, etc.) and how it would actually apply to my course which has 4200 feet of elevation gain (that last big hill looks like it actually curves back on itself!):
I'm really loving training with power, but there is a learning curve to be sure. Now that curve is shifting from understanding the power concept and how to use it in training to applying it to race conditions. Would have been nice if this race was a flat course, but apparently flat does not exist on this course. The good news is that I've been fortunate to have been able to ride it a lot and have good data to use in my decision making. What I really need is a chart that shows time given up on the bike vs. time gained on the run - but talk about variables. |
| 2016-07-11 10:58 AM in reply to: TTom |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Yes, it's a bit of a snake eating its own tail. It is a guide to how many watts you should target, which will then dictate your finish time, but you have to have your finish time to get your watts. But you need your watts to get your finish time. The worst part for me was that it doesn't say any of that. It just breezes over the finish-time part in the example, like it's just a known (when it's the farthest from a known unless you know your watts, but you're trying to get your watts from the chart...aaaaand we're spiraling again). It also doesn't explain what the chart is or how it works (on a fundamental level...it just spews out the formulas). It took me staring at it for 10 minutes to figure out what it was graphing*...which was just a linear relationship between time on the course vs IF....which doesn't tell you very much if you don't know watts/mph on race day and a good FTP. Not a fan. *the reason it took 10 minutes is because I sat there going "it HAS to be more than that"...it wasn't |
| 2016-07-11 11:35 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by 3mar there are other tools for watts/mph and establishing your FTP. the above chart is very useful. More useful that saying "go at X% of FTP" for an IM. It takes account time on the course. It says "if you FTP is X, and you plan to be on this course for Y long, then your pace should be Z". If you need to figure out X and Y, use the other tools to do that Edited by marcag 2016-07-11 11:49 AM |
| 2016-07-11 11:49 AM in reply to: marcag |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM Originally posted by marcag More useful that saying "go at X% of FTP" for an IM I'll give it that...but it's useless if not explained properly. Which it wasn't in the article. If you want to use it, you need to do an iterative process, as this and the watt/mph tool (whatever it is you use) need to bounce back and forth to get to your final number. That wasn't explained anywhere in the article. |
| 2016-07-11 11:56 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Veteran 945 South Windsor, CT | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM I think it is a useful chart as it has hammered out real data in elite athletes showing that for them, hitting a goal IF/TSS (based on power) will keep them from bonking on the run. Overcooking the bike is a very common AG athlete occurrence. The problem, as you nicely pointed out, is that we all need to figure out what our own, accurate FTP is and at what IF we race best at, not pick what time we want. This happens in training. Lots of medium long and long rides holding race pace, which for HIM and IM is in the 'sweet spot' range for the most part. Practice running off these long rides and see how the body feels. The table opens the discussion about what we each should be doing for races in terms of IF and more specifically power during the race, which we can get directly from the power meter. It flattens the course that has hills because you KNOW what effort you must hold. It will keep you from burning matches. I also personally learned in my last HIM that my eyes go crazy looking at 3sec and 30sec NP screens on my Garmin, but it really forced me to keep a much more steady power and I was happy with the race outcome.( I also learned that I burned a few too many matches that day as I couldn't hold my goal power in the second half, but fortunately it really didn't affect my run. The heat did, however.) I have been changing my Garmin screens during the bike all year to figure out what I want to look at during the race. Anyway, the better discussion is how do you best apply the data you have and what should be done in training to know what to do on race day. The range of IF's goals are a good starting point but it's best to use you own, known, accurate FTP for specific race distances and pracice .There is too much course variability to use tables like this and make generalized statements. 300 TSS at IMLP and at IMTX are totally different animals. Learning efficiency and keeping VI as low as possible and picking the optimal power for the race distance IS the key. Endurance Nation talks about efficiency and holding back on the bike all the time, in order to avoid the run/walk marathon. I think the chart is useful as a guide and real time data is useful also on race day. And adjustments always have to be made for weather, nutrition, mechanical issues anyway. People who have done HIIM races or IM races before have data they can use too. Practice, practice, practice...and of course, know thyself. |
| 2016-07-11 12:48 PM in reply to: dtoce |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Sacrificing bike time for a better run in IM I also personally learned in my last HIM that my eyes go crazy looking at 3sec and 30sec NP screens on my Garmin, but it really forced me to keep a much more steady power and I was happy with the race outcome.( I also learned that I burned a few too many matches that day as I couldn't hold my goal power in the second half, but fortunately it really didn't affect my run. The heat did, however.) I have been changing my Garmin screens during the bike all year to figure out what I want to look at during the race. Yeah I used to have NP as one of my display values but I eventually got rid of it. Now I just use the current power display w/ 3 sec smoothing. I find NP interesting to look at after the race but during the race, you can't really make up for an NP that's too high. Once you've burned those matches, the mistake is made. NP display can be a little more interesting if you're using your lap counter to section off certain parts of the course, but I don't normally do that in a race. And two comments to the OP: One is that FTP, as a metric for long course, is only useful if you are trained for the distance, and even then it is still an estimate. Do your long rides in training, record them, and do a ~6 mile run off those rides. Evaluate how your legs feel and review your power file on the bike. Those long rides will give you a much better insight into your target power for the race. And my last comment: work on your aero position with a lot of attention to detail. The power meter is a great tool to help with that, and there are folks here who can help show you how. I think marcag is correct that you should be *at least* close to 6 hours at your power. |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK