I constantly amaze myself with how fast I think I am (will run in a race). But for me it is usually a folly of too fast too early. And thinking I will be able to do something on race day I wasn't able to do during training.
Yes I am delusional most days. :)
Mark

TEST: The formula (180-your age +5).


Excuse my slowness, but you are referring to heart rate, yes?

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

YES

---

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

The concept of a predictor for IM run pacing is great and would be very useful information. I have a hard time looking past the incredibly generic "180-Age+5" formula, though. It may work for many, but with any formula based on a fixed number rather than a personal benchmark, there are going to be a large number of people that are going to be way off.

Max HR forumlas are a perfect example. The "best" HR formula according to a 2002 study of 43 of them is 205.8 - (0.685 x Age). That would come out to a max of 178.4 for me. Hell, that's a couple of beats below my average HR for a well-paced 10k race. Likewise, I can't imagine that following the given test protocol and running at a HR of 139 is going to give an accurate prediction of my IM run pace.

Where did the 180 number come from?

OK, I'm intrigued....

What kind of run courses were the athletes participating on? Was the terrain flat/hilly? Did the terrain of the course contribute to the varying results?

---

__________________________
Paul
AmateurEndurance.com

I totally agree. I hate formula for predictors but they are great for controlling benchmarks. I found this interesting finding as I use this formula as a benchmark for Aerobic Threshold on the recovery week each cycle. I do the test as described above. It is a great test for seeing aerobic fitness improvement and is by no means stressful. For me I've seen a massive improvement by using this test. (in November 08 I was running at a 4:40/km pace using this formula and last week I ran at 4:05/km pace). It is not important whether the formula is exact but that it forces you to be running below your balance point and that it controls you to keep testing consistent. Now for how I made that improvement that is whole other post.

---

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

Rich,

Have you been able to track someone over a number of years using just pace instead of HR?
Mark

Most important when testing on the run is to keep the testing course the SAME. You also have to take into consideration temperature and wind. I think for consistency that flatter is better as it is the Avg pace you are looking. I use a track.

---

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

Thanks, I only ask b/c my primary races this year are Wildflower 1/2 and Silverman Full. Curious as to how good of a predictor it will be with such hilly courses on the schedule.

---

__________________________
Paul
AmateurEndurance.com

How is different than a MAF test done after a long bike? Doesn't seem very different other than the bike and then applying the pace to IM versus say a 5K

---

http://www.fexycoaching.com

A couple thoughts:

HR formulas are bunk.

"Fitness" is specific.

Nobody blames their swim for a poor IM run.

1. Missing the point - the formula is just a control not the predictor
2. Yes and your point is....? All the formula is saying is that this is the UPPER end.
   
3. I blame poor IM's on peoples swim all the time. People don't respect the fatigue a 2.4mile swim creates. If you over do the swim then you pay for it on the bike and it shows up on the run.
   

---

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

Hopefully this won't spawn too much OT from a potentially interesting thread, but: I always find running tougher the day after a big swim, not to mention in the context of a triathlon of any length; and I'm sure I'm not unique in this.
More on the topic: while I think that heart rate prediction formulae are rarely apt for habitual endurance athletes, the OP's suggestion of of 180-age+5, borne out by it's use in a decent-sized sample, seems reasonable for most, since many people so often overestimate their capabilities anyway. j

---

"I'm going to stick to my sardines" - Cassidy
"Others took their lemons and stood up and walked." - Kestrelkerri
"I will never know quite why I set out on the run. I guess because it was next." - Nachocheese
"No, just to people on the Forum. My athletes are the control group." - Paulo Sousa
" Actually, I am naturally an Asshole....not unlike the way you are naturally an idiot." IRONLOBO

I think for most your formula would work - at least its close for me.....might fall off if you are 20 or 50+. HR's do vary a lot also - wouldn't work at all for a frined of mine whose HR's run very low.

I use:

Daniel's E-pace = ideal/max pace. I think very few ever can average E pace for an IM. You need to use a half marathon or marathon to get your v-dot. People who run minimal miles and hammer 5K/10K's well will over-estimate their long distance v-dot.

Martinez's tables (do a search) based on Daniels work very well to - they end up being slower than E-pace and were right on for my last half IM and IM where I ran well but not great.

Dav

1. It's not much of a control. Since the HR target gives a vastly different effort level among athletes.

2. A 5k run at an poorly conceived (see point 1) and arbritrary HR is a weak indicator of ability to run 42km at that pace. If one of your subjects was a highly trained 5k runner (let's say 15:30), but failed to do the "specific" run training for IM... he'd be knocking out 3:30/km's with ease... even after a 4 hour bike.

3. I just threw this out there because I know a lot of trash-talking dudes who train like mad on the bike/run, yet tell me "swim is just the warmup" and barely know what it's like to get wet. If you're not fit to swim 2.4km.. it's going to come back to bite you later.

Any recommendations for someone like me? I'm 38 with a max HR of about 195. I know it sounds crazy,but my comfort zone is between 165-175 bpm. I have been told that I just have a higher than average HR even though resting is somewhere around 50 bpm. Anyway, how should I plug that in the formula, just use my max instead of 180?

---

Remember, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

If you throw out that ridiculous HR formula, and replace it with something more 21st century(like some % or their real max, Anaerobic threshold, Lactate threshold, ect), then you would have some interesting stats. The fact that you used it, and seem to argue with others about its validity, just shows most of us that you need to tighten up your study a bit. But after that, please come back and give us the results, it is an interesting study, and even better that you have a nice large sampling.....

OK, so the test course was always a flat track. What were the courses the athletes raced on? How did the flat testing translate to hilly races?

---

__________________________
Paul
AmateurEndurance.com

1. Most of Rich's athletes race either Lake Placid or Canada, you know, the flat races:)

2. Many of you complaining about the HR formula are missing Rich's point that it's an arbitrary benchmark and he knows that. It's being used as a setpoint for testing fitness when done every cycle(block) of training and likely the reason that it's a fairly good predictor is that by the time an athlete is 3 weeks out from an IM, they've done this test at least 4 times already even if not necessarily off the bike. The athlete learns how to run the test and probably learns a bit about pacing too.

This is an interesting way of writing 185 - your age ;)

1. So as I said at the beginning it is not important that the formula is the same for everyone but rather the formula was the same each time for the athlete. This test was not designed to predict IM pace I just started noticing that peoples times where very close when they had a great race. Before more of you get all jump all over me why not try it.

2. I idea to some degree except if you do the test your pace for the test will be slower more then likely then your Long run pace. What I like about the formula is it opens peoples eyes to what will more then likely happen and then is that they will run slower then they wish. But to your point Jasper was running 15:20 for km / 1:13:0 for 1/2M and he ran 2:48:00 (4:00/km)pace to win IMC in 07.

Again it is the finding that I thought was interesting

---

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

What were the courses the athletes raced on?

IMLP
IMC

---

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

I have done 4 IM. At age 69 my goal max HR is 120. Glad to hear there is some support for that number

Becoming more and more interested in this. Gonna talk to my coach about adding it and get her thoughts.

---

__________________________
Paul
AmateurEndurance.com

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

I've just always used my half IM run split X 2, and add an hour as a predictor. Works pretty good.

If your athletes have done a Half it might be a good starting point. Just keepin' it simple.

This is getting really old and totally of what the point of the thread was to start with. I had a simple formula that I started to see very interesting findings. I don't go around preaching it. It was just interesting and I think I posted it almost a year a go. Yes I am little old school since I've been in the sport since 1989 but as many of the readers know who read my articles I last have the knowledge of all the latest research in all areas of our sport. I never said this formula is the be all and end all. If you read the first thread I wrote I just showed a very interesting finding. That's it! Don't like that's ok. If you want to try it you would die either from it. In fact it will not even hurt your training. Not going to say anymore and we can end this conversation.

---

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

This would be a great cross reference with the data from that old study.

---

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

Get your true Aerobic Threshold tested and then use that HR as your bench mark

---

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

That seems slow (2xHalf IM run+1 hour). Take Craig Alexander.....1:15x2+1 hour = 3:30.

I think for most people 2xhalf IM run + 30 minutes should be closer to reality. Those who overachieve, might be 2xhalf+20 minutes (ex Pro athlete).

Dev

Agreed, Dev, that's really high. +30min works better. I still go by the old open Marathon time + 20-30min. works great as a predictor. I can run a 1:27 Half split, which x2 +30min is around 3:25. I can run a 2:50 something Marathon, less 20-30min is also around 3:20ish. I ran a 3:21 at IMAZ.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

That seems slow (2xHalf IM run+1 hour). Take Craig Alexander.....1:15x2+1 hour = 3:30. //

not only is it too low, I think Crowie would have an argument about that 1;15. Pretty sure he has done at least a 1;12, maybe even a 1;11+ somewhere. (-; I think your doubling and adding 20 minutes is pretty standard for most pros. Just about the same thing as adding 20 minutes to your theoretical all out marathon under similar conditions. The over achievers will get close to 15 minutes..If you use Crowie's 1;12, then you have 2;24+20 for a 2;44. That's just about what he does in Hawaii, and I'm sure a bit faster everywhere else. An hour for mere mortals is too much of a handicap, that is if we are talking about a well paced race by a well trained athlete.

The HIM+60 minutes is actually used as a predictor for an entire full IM race - not the run portion. That formula has been around a long time, and it can be fairly accurate if the courses are similar and other variables are similar. This formula is pretty close with the pro's in a lot of cases as well. Im my case for my first IM, it was within 10 minutes.

Inside Endurance Nation we use pace as well, as it's the metric that folks have been testing and training to all year.

I have always felt pace is the best thing to use off the bike. Problem is mile markers can be off. That's why you need to know the pace. That's why T-Runs off long IM simulation bike rides are a good prep. Pace works because it does not lie. HR is going to be all wonky and PE will also not be good as you are either going to feel like crap or you will be pumped up by all the fan support for those first few miles and run way to fast( a very common problem)

I always found when I had a good IM run going that it felt like I was running with the brake on for the first 5 miles or so even though I was right on my goal run pace. It felt like I had to hold myself back.

What is that pace though? Good question. IM run pace is that default pace that you can keep going at for a very long time on trashed and tire legs. No matter what, you will be able to keep that pace up. As I said in the first paragraph it helps to really know what this pace is - know it so well you can just hit it no matter what. To test this , during my final IM prep a common training sesion would be a hard 4 - 5 hour ride at or below IM bike race pace, then right into a one hour run doing the first few miles on a 400m running track trying to hit my goal IM race pace without always checking the watch.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Definitely get a Garmin. Even knowing good 1/2 mile marks at IMFL I went out too hard and had to wait 1/2 mile increments to get my next check so it took me close to 2 miles before I finally got things under control...it just felt sooooo easy. At IMCdA this year I had a Garmin and KNEW what pace to limit myself to and had continuous feedback. It was really hard to hold back that much but I knew it was the right thing to do. I ended up with a nice negative split and 3:16 marathon.

It was really hard to hold back that much but I knew it was the right thing to do. I ended up with a nice negative split and 3:16 marathon.

Well done. Anectdotally looking at times, any IM marathon run under 3:30 very often yields relatively speaking very impressive place performances. My point with this is simple - run well in an IM and you will almost certainly do well.

Rich has taken some flak here for this formula, but people are missing the key point and I just said it above. If you are serious about IM performance, you need to nail the run. Do that and all of a sudden performance goals like bagging an IM qualifying spots can go from impossible to a reality.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

If you have the data you can probably use some individual benchmark such as average HR for a max 10km and fit the data you have to find what factor you need to multiply the benchmark HR by.Of course you need to check how well the model fits the data to find the best benchmark. You still make your point about pacing and get rid of the arbitrary HR threshold.

---

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

your control is bunk, it's not controlled. HR fluctuates +/- 10% in an individual throughout the day, week, what have you.

If you're really a coach why are you using HR?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Monty you make a great point. All running is based on your max at some level.... like a 5k PB for example.

I remember a thread a while back where Jordan Rapp was referring to his IM run pace as a percentage of his open 5k pace. No mention of HR anywhere.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

HR is an *input* shouldn't your goal be an output, like pace or time?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

you ran right at your training pace... that's an obvious indictment of your training methods. Why didn't you run faster in training?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Fleck you make good points but I disagree with what you think the main point of the thread is... yes, nailing the IM run is key, but the main point to me is

a) that so-called coaches continue to peddle crap like the ridiculous formula in the first post and...

b) that predictor workouts and training based on those predictions are how you nail the run.

Neither of these are true. You nail the run by first properly pacing the bike, and by doing a TON of training on the bike leading up to the race. You run based on your open 5k time, how you paced the bike, how you ate and drank, and how much bike and run volume you consistently put in from week to week. HR has nothing to do with it. Your body has a wattage it can sustain for 10 hours, and you need to bike and run at that wattage. Training to some artificially limiting HR will only lower the wattage you can sustain for the IM distance. The faster you train, the faster you will go on race day.

Anything else is a self fulfilling prophecy. Train at 9 minute miles in training and you run 9 minute miles on IM day. The training works! My coach is a genius!

No, the coach is an idiot.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

you ran right at your training pace... that's an obvious indictment of your training methods. Why didn't you run faster in training?

Part of the problem I see with a lot of this is people desperately want a formula. They want to see 2 + 2 = 4

Do these workouts and you will get this result.

swim/ride/run at these numbers and you will get this result.

If you have any experience at all with long distance endurance sport you know that this is not always the case. There are a host of variables that will influence what is going on. That is why to a certain degree the athlete who is more knowledgeable about how they perform and how they feel in a given situation( PE really) may be in a better situation that an athlet who is locked into some formula or numbers.

Of course this is really hard for people, as I said, they want the formula and then when things start to go awry on race day they are completely lost.

A dirty secret about IM racing is that races rarely go to plan - even for the big race winners. What makes the truly succesful, successful is that they know when to get off the A-plan and go to the B or even C-plan.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Nice!!!! Why do you have to be like that?

Again go back and read the first thread....just interesting. Not the bible. This thread has lost the whole point on why I shared the data.

---

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

I wrote this to you in a different post, but this gets down to my ultimate gripe about these threads....

the PURPOSE of your training is (should be) to produce physiological adaptations now that will, on a future race day, allow you to race faster.

the purpose of your training is NOT to rehearse, week in and week out, the (artifically coach-induced limited) pace that you are currently able to run, and hope that those rehearsals ad nauseum in training will allow you to run faster on race day.

You run faster on race day by running faster in training. The IM bike is the easiest long bike of my season and the IM run, while feeling painful, is the slowest long run of my season.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

the PURPOSE of your training is (should be) to produce physiological adaptations now that will, on a future race day, allow you to race faster.

That takes time, patience, planning, commitment, consistency and a bit of luck!! :)

What does Gordo say - "No easy way"

I have cleared out my in-box now for the avalanche of anti-Gordo notes. Bring-em.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Nice!!!! Why do you have to be like that?

Rich,

It's the Slowtwitch forum.

Heck even our host, the Publisher and the Godfather of triathlon equipment, Dan Empfield has been told on her that he knows nothing about the sport! :)

Everyone is an expert!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I'm like that because you're using scientific words like "control", which adds weight to your argument, but is a fallacy because your control is flawed. Read all the posts on the weakness of HR as a metric above.

If your "control" fluctuates wildly in each individual hour to hour, day to day, and week to week; and between individuals by upwards of 30%, then why are you using this?

Also, why are you using a measure of performance (or input) like HR when you should be using a measure of effectiveness (or output) like pace or power? You would be better to have your athletes run off the bike (at a controlled TSS score based on a controlled FTP measurement) at a certain % of their open 5k time, and THEN see what their HR did, what there PE was, how they felt. If the do well, they can handle the TSS of the bike they did, if not then they need work on the bike.

Further, why are you basing your erroneous measure of performance on an arbitrary physiological input marker rather than an objective output marker like FTP on bike or open 5k pace for the run?

The goal of racing is to go fast, not to go at the pace you predicted in training based on an arbitrary HR number. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and makes you "coaches" look good when your athletes run just as you would have predicted. Slow.

My tips to you...

1) realize that those who run the fastest long are also the ones who run the fastest short.
1a) realize tha those who run the fastest long are also the ones who train the hardest on the bike in training, and pace the bike the best on race day.
2) encourage your athletes to get faster at running short first.
3) find a prediction model that works, based on outputs like pace or power, and encourage your athletes to execute on race day based on that model. (Search Jordan Rapp Open 5k pace as a percentage of IM pace in the search function.) I like the McMillan run calculator. Enter a 5k time, get the predicted marathon time, add 20 minutes.

Anything less than this is a bike pacing FAIL.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

yes, all the old timers and professionals know exactly what they're talking about and never make sub-optimal equipment choices or racing decisions.

This is the fallacy of "authority" and is a "dirty" way to win an argument.

Better would be to address the points I made rather than say that I'm not one of the ST Illuminati right?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Cheers to that. How is your lovely wife? Is she training?

---

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

Thanks for the IM run training tip. I am anxious to use it

---

David

H & A Racing

yes, all the old timers and professionals know exactly what they're talking about and never make sub-optimal equipment choices or racing decisions.

This is the fallacy of "authority" and is a "dirty" way to win an argument.

Better would be to address the points I made rather than say that I'm not one of the ST Illuminati right?

Eric,

Hello!

Perhaps I should not have gone into so much detail and come right out and said that I agree with you. Did you read my posts?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I know you're so much smarter than everyone else on this forum and have everything figured out, but read the guy's original post, that's not what he's saying.

Whoops! Not enough sleep lately I guess.

bashfully,
Eric

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

IMO "running well" at IM is more a function of your bike pacing and knowing how to keep yourself in check over the first ~6 miles of the marathon...not so much running ability. I guess we're talking more about running to your potential, regardless of what that is. I'd say 95% of AG athletes fail to meet their potential on run course due to execution errors. Unfortunately, there are some really fast guys in my AG (M35-39). I laid down the 3rd best run split in the AG and 25th OA at IMCdA this year but that only got me 19th in my AG. FYI - it was 3:14, not 3:16. Admittedly, I underperformed on the bike which cost me 10-15min probably.

IMO "running well" at IM is more a function of your bike pacing and knowing how to keep yourself in check over the first ~6 miles of the marathon...not so much running ability. I guess we're talking more about running to your potential, regardless of what that is. I'd say 95% of AG athletes fail to meet their potential on run course due to execution errors. Unfortunately, there are some really fast guys in my AG (M35-39). I laid down the 3rd best run split in the AG and 25th OA at IMCdA this year but that only got me 19th in my AG. FYI - it was 3:14, not 3:16. Admittedly, I underperformed on the bike which cost me 10-15min probably.

That was not a wasted exercise. You have now found that tipping point on the bike where you know you can run really well off the bike. Any run split under 3:20 is going to really vault you up in the standings. I am guessing that you passed a massive number of people on the run and in your AG. What you need to do now is figure out how to cycle faster, but keep the run sub 3:20. Then you will truly nail it.

Best wishes.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Pat, love your stuff with bike pacing, TSS, and encouraging your athletes to get fast early and often with biking and running.

I would encourge you however to continue to flesh out your run pacing execution strategy. In an exchange I had with Rich on Facebook he said that the goal of the IM run is to not slow down. While I agree this is important, I believe it encourages your athletes to set their goals low and achieve them on race day. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Not slowing down is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

In like with your highly specific bike pacing strategy, which is based on objective measures like FTP, TSS, etc. I think your run pacing should stragegies should be the same. Goal run pace should be based on a predicted open marathon time (based on an acutal Open 5k time) with a number factored in, such as (eg.) predicted open marathon time plus 20 minutes. Then, add in your EN mojo... the WAY you achieve this goal is by negative splitting in the usual EN fashion.

Better still would be to run at a certain % of open 5k pace, much like biking at a certain % of FTP on the IM bike leg.

In the end, you are asking your body to produce a certain power number for ten hours... this should be based ultimately on your body's one hour FTP and extrapolated out. I believe this perspective STILL emphasizes the importance of properly pacing the bike... over bike and you under run... your body can only produce so much power for so long.

I know this will have alot of your athletes missing their goals, but at least they aimed high and missed rather than aimed for mediocrity and hit it squarely on the nose. Not slowing down is not a SMART goal to shoot for.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Oh, I know how to cycle faster :) I was intentionally throttling back on the bike based on my time splits and knowing what bike split I should ride. Turns out leaving the magnet off my rear wheel caused my computer to "pause" every time I coasted (either cadence or speed would have kept it ticking) so I was gradually missing accumulated time on the course and thought I was good. I didn't figure it out till later after I finished when I assumed the official results had my bike split boogered. I had it at 5:25is but it was actually 5:38. I didn't NEED to ride that slow to run that well. I rode 5:03 at IMFL and ran 3:21 but I blew it in the first 3-5 miles of the marathon and ended up logging a bunch of 8:xx splits in the last third because I was toast. 2 learning experiences so far...third time is a charm at IMAZ this year.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and yes, we can absolutely get more specific with the run guidance. That said, we do tell people what pace to run at specifically, on IM race day, and add that they shouldn't slow down (IOW, "Don't slow down." isn't the only thing we give them.). They have a run IF chart they can use, and it's color coded like our Bike TSS Chart so they can modify based on actual bike performance relative to planned effort (i.e. I was going to shoot for 260TSS but hit 275, now what to do with my run?).

What we tell everyone else, when we see them <36 hours to the race at our free Four Keys talk is "don't slow down" (and a few other things).

Hope that helps!

Patrick

---

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

Eric, I like what you are saying, however, I think you'd be better off with "running at x% of open 10K pace vs 5K pace". You can kind of fake the 5K. Anyway, if you are a 40 min 10K runner, 120% of the pace (or 83% effort) would be 5 min per k or 3:30 marathon split. For a 33 minute 10K runner, it would be 4 min per K, but the guys running 2:48 at IM are likely closer to 32 minute runners. For a 45 min 10K runner, 5:24 per K.

I think running 120% slower (or 83% effort) is largely unrealistic.

I'd guess that the number is closer to 75-80% effort assuming well trained for the run and good bike pacing. This is actually higher than the 70% FTP effort as recommended on the bike. 70% effort on the run would be too low as the 40 minute 10K runner, would be taking the marathon out at almost 60 minute 10K pace

This thread is a pretty decent microcosm of all that is right and wrong with ST. Great stuff, liberally interspersed with people acting like complete dicks. Not unlike life, I suppose.

Dev you make a great point re: faking a 5k... I guess this is true.

But, the reason I like 5k is that is shows your *potential* to run long, not your actual ability, and I think your IM run split is much more based on potential. This talks to the issue of athletes who go out and do a marathon in prep for an Ironman just to "check" to see that they can do it. As we all pretty much agree, this is the worst training you can do for an IM. Here's why:

Bike pacing and effect on IM run
Bike nutrition and effect on IM run
overall weekly run volume and effect on IM run
weekly long run and it's lack of effect on IM run

as I said before, you're IM run "power" is based on your FTP, which is an artificial and arbitrary number for a certain length of time. I'm saying that your 5k time is the "FTP" that your IM run is a function of. Think about it... how embarassingly SLOW is 8 minute miles? That's horrible, yet if you split 3:30 off a 5:15 bike you're a stud. See what I mean? Do you really think slogging along at 8 min miles had anything to do with a 10k time? Really, it had to do with your 10 hour power, or CP 10h if you prefer. your 10 hour power is probably, for the trained athlete, 95% of 5 hour power, which is 95% of 2.5 hour power, which is 95% of 1.25 hour power, which is 95% of you get the idea.

So, if that were true, do you want to spend all of your time noodling around in training at your CURRENT 10 hour power or less, or do you want to invest your training time now to increase your FTP power levels to go faster later on race day?

If your 5k time is slow, or your 20 minute bike power is slow, don't expect to go at 85% of FTP on race day for an IM and expect to be able to run after. If you spend all of your run time running at "IM pace", effectively de-training yourself and lowering your run FTP, don't expect to be able to continue to hold 225 watts after the bike deep in to the marathon leg.

So, in the end 5k is ability, 10k is did you do the work, but really it's easily predicted, if you did to the work, from your open 5k time, and vice versa. I'm going under the assumption, that for me, I am going to do the work and therefore I'll start my race day execution planning from the open 5k baseline, not how slow did I run on my 4 hour long runs.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Good grief...lighten up and don't be such a jerk!
All the OP did was post what he has found to be a "predictor" of IM performance on race day, and he has some evidence to back up that it can be accurate with some folks. Thats all his post was about - folks like you are reading into things and trying to turn it into a bash fest on him. He didn't say it applied to you or anyone else - only that he has used it as a predictor and has found it to be useful knowledge for some folks, and threw it out there for others to try if they choose! He didn't say it was a "be all, end all".

I would argue that your statement that "those who run the fastest long also run the fastest short" doesn't apply across the board - just as you assume the OP's theory does not!

why would you waste an hour of training "predicting" performance instead of improving ability for when it comes time to in fact perform? If you knew you were going to run a 3:49:32 what difference would that make? What would knowing that information do for your decision making?

and I DO think it applies across the board. It's not absolute, and is dependent on bike pacing and nutrition, but running fast is a skill, and running long fast is a function of that. Crowie, Raelert, Macca... all fast short course guys. Potts... no IM training and runs 2:50 low in first try, came from an ITU background. If you take all of the sub 3:00 runs in the last 10 years at IM and cross reference them to open 5k run time I'll bet you'll find that they are HIGHLY correlated together. Not to number of 30+ hour training weeks, not to number of 4+ hour long runs.

Furthermore, I'm not being a jerk, simply stating that an arbitrary and highly personal, variable, and unreliable metric like HR is way inferior to using objective metrics like bike FTP and run FTP, training to improve those, and THEN once you can understand and visualize what they mean, plan out your race day exectution.

Finally, this is a discussion board. You're right, he threw it out there for discussion. Would you prefer that I just say "attaboy" to the OP, great post, or maybe add something to the discussion? Perhaps an alternate viewpoint with some supporting points and comparisons to the original viewpoint?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Thanks for posting this, I find it to be very useful. I am one of those average people who this will probably apply to.

Again thanks for sharing the information, I find this to valuable to someone who is going to train for an IM.

I don't think you can compare the pro's with us age groupers in general. Sure, it makes sense that if you're a fast runner, then -period- youre a fast runner no matter the distance. However, I don't think it applies to everyone across the board, in particular the age group crowd. I see it within the group I'm around race after race. The fastest short course runner is not the fastest long course runner. Perhaps thats a training issue, performance issue, etc...but still - it doesn't apply across the board!

Since you were kind enough to ask, I guess I'd prefer that you add something to the discussion (which you've obviously demonstrated you're capable of doing) with a modicum of respect - or, that failing, just don't be a jerk.

Just curious, is this how you interact with people in person? If so, my scientific formula predicts you don't get invited over for dinner much.

Actually, I think you guys are reading too much into Eric's text. I'm reading a completely intonation into it because I have met him multiple times in person.

The first time, I was on business in Seoul in 2, and he came over to my hotel, equipped me with a road bike and took me out for a ride. I took him to dinner :-). We hung around together quite a bit last Nov in Clearwater and had a blast. I don't know what you guys are reading, but the text is being interpreted a different way by some vs how I am reading it. Maybe I have had the benefit of having had almost this very same discussion with him in read life.

I think he's just saying that heart rate is not a great metric as it is affected by too many variables and if you use a percentage of threshold pace in both bike and run to arrive at your "CP 10 hours" then you likely have a better guideline.

Truth

And get a Garmin!

thanks Dev, and sorry to everyone else if I come off as a little crotchety or rude. Not getting much sleep these days.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

eric, 10k is a much better predictor of marathon performance then 5k. IMO, I'd go off of 10k performance first. probably provide a bit more accuracy.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Wow....Brian and I agreed on the same thing on the same day! They may as well shut down ST at this point :-)

Rich,
Any thoughts on how this would apply to 70.3 pacing? Sorry if you covered this but I couldn't stand reading all the bull following your original post. Also, did racer experience have any effect on pacing?
Thanks

DD, 10k is a better predictor or open marathon time or IM run split?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I have not collected data on 70.3. An Elite age group/pro should be able to hold very close to there actual 1/2 M time. Look at athlete like Crowie who ran 1:11 on a very hilly course after a very hard 94km bike. His PB for 10k is only 32 I believe (you can all correct me if I'm wrong). But I'm thinking on a flat 1/2M solo run he would not run too much faster then a 1:07-1:09. For me I run a 1:16 PB currently for the 1/2M and last year I held 1:18 for my 1/2IM. Now before everyone jumps on me. Every course is going to be different and every athlete has the distance they are best at. I suck at the IM distance and I'm not fast either at the Olympic distance so the 70.3 distance rocks for me. The pro's I'm training right now also can run very close to the 1/2M stand alone times in a 70.3. Now if you are a MOP athlete it is going to be different. Muscular fatigue will be your biggest factor. So when muscular fatigue is a factor it is very hard to predict the pace you should hold. Your fatigue will be based on nutrition, pacing on the swim and bike and your mental state.

Not sure if that was much help!

---

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

10k is a better predictor of open marathon time then 5k. For triathlon it might follow the same pattern that an oly 10k is a better predictor of IM run potential then and sprint distance 5k.

I'd also say that an olympic tri 10k will be a much better predictor for a HIM then a sprint tri 5k.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

LOL, I was thinking the same thing! Glad I wasn't the only one. :-D

Thanks, it did help.

The advantage of an occasional prediction oriented workout is to validate that your training is going the direction you want it to go, also in the context of a race it provides an early pacing guideline such that one does not overcook their potential. I have used similar workouts in the past, and have found them to be valuable tools.

The predictor formula generally works well for me, and would suspect most people.

___________

Just curious, but have you ever had this conversation with Mark Allen? Curious to know why he would still use "outdated" coaching principles.

Fair enough - the reason is for females it is 180-your age +10 or yes 190 - your age

---

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

So . . . for females it's 190 - age? :-)

Yep

---

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

Prolly cause he's OLD!

Just curious, but have you ever had this conversation with Mark Allen? Curious to know why he would still use "outdated" coaching principles.
-----------------------------------------------------

Have you read some of the stuff Mark has written about coaching, physiology and the application of in context of coaching. It's more of a he gets results, in spite of what he puts out there in writing in the past. Don't confuse success with knowledge.

While I haven't bothered to read anything he has written in the past few years, he communicated quite eloquently his lack of knowledge about the basics of physiology quite well.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I enjoy how this conversation went from hey here is what I noticed to & this is how I track progress over time for athletes, to a discussion of validation of what you observed.

What many people should think about in the scope of your post is the fact that you have a test that is repeatable that allows you to evaluate someones pace and provide them with guidelines to their IM run.

While I may disagree with your HR formula for numerous reasons, I like how you have come up with something that puts a hard cap on the upper end of someones pace heading into an IM, and allows them to track that pace race over race to help evaluate how their training is coming along.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

--------------------------------------------------------
Hey Brian,

Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy reading the debates about proper coaching/training on ST because it is one of the only places I know where successful professional coaches call out each other's coaching system. It is very interesting to read about how/what the coaches think.

I have my thoughts on this, but I was hoping some of the coaches could give some feedback: Why, if many of these systems are so different, do each have so much success with their athletes? For instance, why does Mark Allen's athletes find so much success when his understanding of physiology is "wrong"?


Also, to somewhat keep things on topic...nice work to the OP. Please keep posting your future results. Very interesting.