What should the bike pace be for the 4 hour ride before the 5K run? Won't this affect the run pace?

or we could just use the adjusted jack daniels formula and estimate between 75-80% of your running ftp.

I thought I could run a 3:10, and actually ran a 3:11 so my forecast was not off by too much, eh?

---

---

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Elliot | Cycle2Tri.com
Sponsors: SciCon | | Every Man Jack

Inside Endurance Nation we use pace as well, as it's the metric that folks have been testing and training to all year. We use Daniel's E pace, and encourage people to go 30 seconds per mile SLOWER than E-pace for the first 6 miles....a whopping 3 minutes...before starting to run. Mile 18 comes and then it's time to get down to work.

We shy away from heart rate as the initial indicator of race day pacing b/c it's so arbitrary. On a hot and windy test day, I might be running 8:00s; but on an ideal day I might be running 7:30s based on the same heart rate. That's a very big difference. We have more on overall Ironman race execution on our blog here.

Patrick

---

+++++++++
Patrick McCrann
Endurance Nation Camps

not sure if I read wrong, but I dont think he is refering to using this HR as a target HR for the IM run but using the pace you get from doing his test

While I am aware that thresholds change and pacing does as well, currently this formula gives me a bpm that is right in the sweet spot of my Zone 1 from the actual lactate theshold testing I did last week - i.e. It is 2 bpm slower than my aerobic threshold.

Interesting to see the change, if any, when I retake the test in a few months after consistent training.

When you think about the nature of your aerobic threshold (this formula for determining it aside) wouldn't it make sense that if you maintain the rate in your IM that it would be an adequate pace predictor, all other variables held constant (comparable terrain, weather, maintained same pacing on bike on race day...)given that with regards to our aerobic threshold it is the rate at which we should be able to maintain our pace over immense time periods assuming adequate fueling?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Hey Rich,
I think the formula would put most of us in the upper Zone 1/Lower Zone 2. I'd also hazard a guess the vast majority of us, in an IM, should not go into Zone 2 for an extended period of time. (elites excluded).
How about heart rate decoupling? Depending on the number of years in the sport (very important for IM), you could start out at 5min/k at 140HR (or whatever your target is) and by half way through the run still have a 140HR but be run/shuffling at 8min/k.
2 cents deposited,
Darren

Interesting thread. I trained using that formula (MAO) for my last race. Looking back at my log, I did 30 minutes runs after a swim and long bike for about 2 months up until the race at a 8:00 pace. I trained to something similar to the formula in the past, but it wasn't until I started racing in Zone 3 that I got anywhere in a IM. I use a PM on the bike and ride at my prescribed wattage (.71-.73 ) and it puts me in the middle of zone 3 in hr terms. Same with the run, I actually ran right at my training pace 8:00 but I had to run in zone 3 to do it. Racing in zone 3 has worked for me in my last 4 IM's and I don't consider myself elite by any means. Just my 2 cents as well.

I don't think HR is arbritrary. The OP has a formula that will work for most people as a cutoff point. Just like most people could use 0.68 of FTP as a cutoff for the bike.

You need to be careful using pace as much as using HR. HR may vary between individuals. But, it is actually pace that varies between days. You have to slow down on hot and windy days and it is likely you will have the same HR or small range to play in on different days. Perhaps you meant this also. But, your post does not read this way.

We do agree that pace is a better predictor to use for individuals. I am just saying you need to account for heat, wind and hills when talking about pace.

For athletes that are running the marathon, we use time trials or race performances to predict an open marathon time with McMillans Running Calculator. Then knowing their background we will predict an Ironman time based on that. But, even then, the more data the better. We also like to know their aerobic threshold and what they are capable of doing in workouts throughout the year.

---

------
Scott McMillan, M.Sc
Twitter@Factor9Coaching | Factor9Coaching.com | Facebook

I guess I could have been more explicit with my initial post.


I say "initial" because pace is a more important factor than HR out of T2. People don't blow up b/c they have high heart rates on race day, people blow up b/c they ran too hard (which gave them a higher heart rate). That said, on hot days, or windy days, etc., even proper pace selection will lead to an elevated heart rate. So I might run 8:00/miles in training and have an HR of 150bpm, for example. But on race day I am running 8:00/s and seeing 160bpm...if that HR number doesn't change as I settle into my run, then I need to consider backing off my pace.

We use pace inside Endurace Nation because it's a function of the work our muscles are doing...the work we have been doing for months in training. Heart Rate is a response to that work (as well as myriad other influencing factors), and as such isn't a true indicator of the actual work being performed by your muscles. For the veteran athlete, HR is a useful variable when used in concert with pace on race day.

I'll have to check out that running calculator...thanks.

Patrick

---

+++++++++
Patrick McCrann
Endurance Nation Camps

This is not a new formula, but one I've been using for 10 years now as a coach. I believe I learned it from Mark Allen. It started as just a great bench mark test of AeT (normally the formula comes up with a number below AeT especially in females).

Predictor for IM:
But as we know in IM you are a superstar if you can run at or above your AeT for the marathon. I'd really like to know if anyone has run faster? So if you're reading this and have not tried it go out on a track or road and do the test (treadmill is ok). Then look back at your IM and maybe even your 70.3 run splits to see if you beat that pace. No formula can "Predict" the time you will do but this formula can help you know the upper end of your ability on race day so you get your pacing right at mile 1. We know going out of T2 we can run much faster then this pace but we also know IM is all about the closing 10 miles.

Factors to watch:
1. Your conditioning right now if you are in a base phase will be slower than the summer.
2. Temperature is a major factor you have to control if you want to retest in the future.
3. Wind is obviously another factor to watch
4. You should repeat this in the same phase of training each month (late in your recovery week is ideal)

Cheers

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

"Then look back at your IM and maybe even your 70.3 run splits to see if you beat that pace."

IM, no. Half-IM, yes. Would you not agree that most people who pace the swim/bike appropriately would do so?

Dan

For a half yes for sure but a full I have yet to see even close friends that are 2:50 runs in a IM. It is just the nature of the beast. Will there be excepts...of course but for 99% of the people who read this forum no. Don't think of it as a hard and fast prediction but rather a guide on reality for race day. Most of the hard core IM guys I've coached over the last 12 years need a good check on reality once and a while. I think if more athletes new what their REAL goal pace should be for the run they would not get so discouraged. Just a though.

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

This is not a new formula, but one I've been using for 10 years now as a coach. I believe I learned it from Mark Allen.//

No kidding it is not new. You may have heard it from Mark, but he got it from Phil Maffetone, probably over 20 years ago. It is as old and outdated as 220 minus your age is, and I believe even Phil has updated this, you should also. It is comon knowledge among coaches and athletes in the know that you cannot use a static mathmatical formula for all athletes. You have to find out at which end of the spectrum your athlete is on before you tailor any plan for them. It is true that any formula will work for a lot of folks, this one actually worked for Mark back in the day. He fell into the heart of it, but a lot of people will not, and you will be hurting them, not helpong them. Just keep in mind that HR's for individuals can vary +/- 50+ beats, or over 30%. That is a huge gap to try and piegon hole a static formula into. If it was just 5 or 10 beats, then it would have been ok, but it is not....

Way does everyone feel the need to attack on this site. I don't care if it's old or new I'm sharing findings. If you disagree with the finding that is cool. A forum is a place to share. I agree that every athlete is different and you can't fit them into a formula to predict an outcome. In every bench mark, or lab test you must have some degree of leeway for interpretation as there will always be exceptions to the rule. I was just sharing my finding. The key point to take from the formula is it MIGHT helps to set the upper end pace for most IM athletes. I have yet to see anyone say different. So regardless of old or new formulas or differences in genetics, the findings are interesting.

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

The answer is simple. You have to adjust for that. You and your coach would have to adjust for every race course what you hope to hold.

Cheers

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

Thanks for sharing, not everybody has access to so many data point. Not perfect maybe, but at least it's a benchmark.

---

Francois-Xavier Li @FrancoisLi
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.swimrunfrance.fr
http://www.worldofswimrun.com

For sure it's not prefect. But is anything in our sport?? A coach I really respect once said "Coaching (or just training) is taking science and applying it to an ever changing environment." We will away be adapting. There will never be one way that is right for all.

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this - BUT as an older athlete that formula would give me a heartrate WAY below that which I can sustain for the Ironmna run (or doing a test run off the bike) Perhaps you should apply an upper age limit to your formula? Or maybe age does not factor quite so much as you think?

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this - BUT as an older athlete that formula would give me a heartrate WAY below that which I can sustain for the Ironmna run \\

I just posted it a few posts up. Static formulas do not work unless you just happen to fit that model..Older athletes in general will have lowering HR's, but even that all depends on where you started. IF in your prime your max rate was 230, then at 60 years old 200 could seem normal. IF your prime max was 165, then the same 60 year old would be looking at low 150's. As you can see the formula does not work in either of those cases when in their primes, and certainly does not work when they are older. The first scenario will come close as a 60 year old, but eventually anyone that starts with a high max will finally fall into this formula. THose with low maxes will never hit it....

How about a concrete example for those on this thread who don’t get it. In college I had a max hr of 210, my teammate had a max of 160. Our training zones were completely different when comparing hr numbers. Please explain to me why an arbitrary number like 185 - age would be a good idea for the two of us. He would certainly be running way too fast.


.

I know, it seems like it is very simple, yet there are those out there that for some reason want/need to cling to these outdated training principals. And I have seen your exapmple over and over in 100's of athletes over the years, so it is just not some small % of outliesr we are talking about..2+2=4 people not 5 or 3. IF you use one math formula for a variable human condition, without any sense of where that person fits into the grand scheme of HR numbers, it is just plain wrong...

Thanks for your example, sometimes I feel like no one really gets this simple concept.

So you are saying you don't use bench marks?
Take out the factor that a SIMPLE formula came up with the Interesting finding. This formula is simple and easy to use for people of all levels to test there Aerobic Fitness. Is it their True Aerobic Threshold....No but who cares it's not what the test is about. I think we would all agree that the simple formula gives a HR that is clearly Aerobic. So it is a control factor for Aerobic Fitness and pace can be the valuable. Are there other factors that will affect the results? Of course, but slow me one test that doesn't. Instead of people getting so bent out of shape whether its too simple or doesn't fit everyone (which I do agree with), why doesn't a hand full of athletes do the test and then report back. Also for those that can't except the findings of yes a small sample why don't you suggest something different or a better control.

---

Richard Pady
http://www.healthyresults.ca - http://www.race4kids.ca
Indoor Rider (weekly indoor riding videos)

You really want to hold onto these dinasour bones, don't you??? Ok, plug in the guy with a max HR of 155 to your formula.. WHat is he doing? Plug the girl I once coached with a 250 max HR, what is she doing?? What did these two learn???

Of course I use benchmarks for my training, and the others that I help. But those benchmarks are unique to each of them, as mine is to me. And it does not require anything out of the ordinary to find this. At least a 1/2 dozen easy ways to see where you stand. Even if you get this concept, as I assume you do, those that you are coaching, or reading your posts may not. Most people are not informed like you and I, so they trust us to do the right thing by them. I just feel that by you clinging to this formula, you will confuse many out there that will not understand why this test is too hard, or too easy, and blame it on themselves, and not their physiology. That's all...

I didn't read past step 1

The HR formula (180-your age +5) = FAIL