sub 10 for IM, and i dont know about HIM cause sub5 is too easy...
maybe sub 4:50~

i would add sub 2 for olympic

---

Toro Performance

in terms of overall fitness level, i would say probably 4:30 maybe 4:20. logic, if you are a 3:00 runner, then you should be able to go 4:30 unless you really, really, really suck at swimming and/or cycling.

Marathon PR is 2:58; i've found it a lot easier to go under 4:30 1/2 IM but have not yet gone under 10 hours in 7 IM attempts.

Sub 10, 4.30 & 2 I reckon.


.

---

nec rege, nec populo, sed utroque

I agree on sub 5 HIM (it is too easy, but it was a nice round number) I was just throwing that out there.

I guess one way of looking at this might be to measure the % of finishers that go sub 3 in a marathon and apply that to HIM / IM races. Then again, if the average finishers time is slowing every year since 1990, and the number of participants go up, that might skew the data a bit.

It's not a doctoral project. Just a random curious thought.

---

ADW

Ranked from most difficult and most rare to least difficult and most common.
Assuming easy courses & accurate distances:

1. sub 2 oly
2. sub 10 iron
3. sub 4:30 half
4. sub 3 marathon
5. sub 5 half

I don't think there's a magic number. People have different strengths and weaknesses. And your marathon time in an IM is as much a function of how strong a cyclist you are as it as how well you can run. But neither of those trump the most important factor in an IM - the mental aspect.

That said, as a 'rule' I've often heard though - take your 70.3 time, double it - and add an hour - to get your rough IM time.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Sub 3 Mary and a sub 2 Olympic are not in the same ballpark. Maybe a sub 2:20 Olympic or so.

Sub 4:30 HIM
Sub 2:05 Oly

For me personally it's easier to train for a marathon as far as scheduling. Training for an HIM and bringing everything together seems to be more difficult. I'm pretty close to a 4:30 HIM and would feel the same way about a 3:00 marathon were I to train specifically for that.

I think it depends on the HIM and IM course. A tough bike course will be more influential on overall time. granted 112 is 112...but running strong off a flat 112 is easier than the adverse.
For example I would not put a sub 10 IM Florida in the same category as a sub 3 open.

sub 2 10ish olym
sub 10 30 im
sub 4:45 him

sub three in a marathon isnt all that hard to pull off.

Wow, those are some pretty fast equivalents everyone is throwing around (sub-2:00 Oly!!).

Granted, my perspective is a bit skewed since most of the guys I know are converted runners, but the converted runners I know who can run close to 2:00 for an Oly were running well under 2:40 for a marathon. For people from a running background, I'd guess that 3:00 is very roughly equivalent to 11:00/5:00/low 2:20s.

+1

Ouch. That hurt, man. That really hurt.


(2:40ish marathon, 5:00 PR in HIM)

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I have gone 9:50 in an IM (IMCDA), but have never gone faster than 3:15 in a stand alone marathon.

FYI, I looked at the results from the Philly Marathon and compared results with some big triathlons.


3:00 marathon = top 2.66%
Top 2.66% = 69th place at IM Canada = 10:02
Top 2.66% = 41st place at Eagleman = 4:22
Top 2.66% = 51st place Philly Tri = 2:08

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Those results are interesting Barry. I wonder what top 5% would look like? As a past runner, the tri splits seem way more difficult than a sub 3. I'm not super fast as a runner (never was crazy fast, but wasn't bad back in the day), but I'm pretty sure if I focused on it, I could go sub 3 in less than a year. I don't know that I could ever get near 10 hrs for an IM or 4:20 for a HIM. For an Oly, 2:08 seems tough but reasonable. I just did a a 4:46 HIM last weekend and 4th place was 4:22. My run split (and much of the run course was underwater was 1:39 and hurt like hell). The guy that had a 4:22 ran a 1:22. Pretty sure he could go well under 3 hrs for a Marathon. Of course he's gone like 9:15 at Kona too.

It was just a thought. I was curious what people would come up with. Here are my uneducated opinions:

Oly 2:08
HIM 4:40
IM 10:30

---

ADW

last year (2008)
3:07 marathon (Sask.marathon =flat)
4:28 half iron(GWN)
10:32 im canada

thought it might give some more data for your question

My vote is sub 10 IM and sub 4:30 HIM

But contrary to that, my best stand alone mary was 3:12, best IM 10:04 and best HIM 4:27.

Personally:
9:47
4:14 (possibly short)
2:52
2:05

I agree, sub 2:00 oly means you have to be pretty damn fast at all three.

Sub 10 IM is not that difficult (done it twice and I'm nothing special). It's more about getting your nutrition right on the day then being particularly gifted. But then I don't see sub 3:00 as being super special either.

I think 2:05 is probably more on the money.

Wouldn't IM Canada be more top heavy than the Philly marathon? I think a sub 10 IM is more difficult to achieve than a sub 3:00 marathon. I would say a 10:30 IM (without drafting most of the bike) is closer to the equivalent.

Keep in mind marathons are typically run in cooler weather, whereas a lot of IMs and HIMs are not.

I don't think percentages work for this comparison, because the big marathons have way more people whose goal is just to finish than any of the big triathlons.

Compare 18,000 in last year's Philly Marathon to. 2,000 at a big IM race. With just about an order of magnitude difference in the number of athletes, the percentage figure for the marathon is getting pushed to the slow side.

You may have skewed the HIM time using Eagleman, Barry.

That is a notoriously fast (not to mention notoriously drafting-plagued) course.

For those that are making some of these assumptions, do you think the logic works backwards. If you think a sub 3 mary is equivalent to a 10:30 IM, does it stand to reason that someone who can pull off a 10:30 IM should be capable of going sub 3??? It seems that most of the people responding are saying no.

I think that very much depends on whether you are a bike or a runner. i did 10:17 at AZ, but it was all bc of a sub 5 bike, and a >4hr run. My open marathon expected times are in the 3:15 range- so my guess is the answer is "yes it runs backwards if you are a better runner than cyclist but not vice versa"

Personally i would vote for: 10hr IM, 4:30 HIM

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Cartels: Serotta, Zipp 2001, Guru, eh?
-"It was kinda long and then i got really tired"

I tend to agree. For example, someone like Oprah has done a marathon but I can't imagine her ever attempting an IM.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yeah, but I figured the Philly Marathon is a fast, flat course as well. I'm mainly just throwing it up there for information. I think this is all very subjective.


As stated earlier, for some of us a 3:00 marathon seems much easier than those tri times, while others find the tri times much easier.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Man, I cannot believe all the 4;30 1/2 responses to your question. I think a lot of folks must be using Clearwater or other Florida races as a bench mark. Let's use a real 1/2 time, like Oceanside or Wildflower. 4;30 on a legit non drafting course is not that easy, and is approaching a back of the pack pro time, and a winning womens time. A 3 hour marathon is not that hard if you just train a little, and have some background in running like any triathlete would have. I think I would go with the 4:45 number on a legit course, and certainly a sub 2:00 olympic is waaay off the mark. Once again, a non drafting legit course is super tough to break 2 hours. You are beating all but the few best women pros, and they are pretty fast. For an olympic I would say about 2:12 or so..I think people have been cheating so long, and using phony pr times from short or drafting courses, that most have lost all perspective on how hard a real 4:30 or sub 2 hour really is....Just my opinion anyway, you asked for it....

Except for BarryP with is 97.34th percentile :) and a few others, I think many of us are using our own personal experience or the experience of other athletes we know. That's why you see such a large range of times. Some of us (i.e. me :) aren't cut out for marathon running (I've run three, admittedly undertrained, but have never gotten even close to 3:00) and we low ball the equivalent triathlon time (my PBs are 4:20 and 2:01). Others perhaps don't swim and ride as well as they run and they inflate the equivalent triathlon times :)

I think many of us are using our own personal experience or the experience of other athletes we know. \\

Fair enough, and of course I'm using my own personal expirence and history in the sport to come up with an across the board answer..For me personally it was much easier to run a 3 hour marathon than to do even a 4:50 1/2, and running was by far my worst sport. I was trying to look at it from an overall perspective, and not just my personal one. Of course there will be guys like you that always had a hard time running, and there will be ex runners that compare their 2;30 marathons to a 5;20 1/2. Somewhere in the middle is a general rule, I was just trying to guess where that might be....

A 3:00 marathon is 1.45 times the men's world record. Multiplying the men's ironman and olympic distance world records by 1.45 yields 11:23 and 2:25, respectively. Of course, this assumes we are talking about fast courses. I still tend to think people are over estimating the relative difficulty of a sub-3

sub 3 isnt hard at all. the only people who are saying its tough havent run 70+ miles a week for a few weeks.

i come from a swimming only background and my first marathon was under 2:55.

putting together and executing a proper 4:30 or 10 him/im is so ridiculously hard, so the ones that do it get the kona slot (give or take 15mins)

One of my favorite exchanges was from a training partner of mine to a guy in our local running group.

John: "Man, you looked like you got run over by a truck as you struggled to finish that marathon. I guess you blew up pretty bad, huh."
Marc: "Yeah. You know, I never realized how much one could walk in a marathon and still break 3 hours."
John: "Hey!! I've never broken 3 hours!"


Marc was probably in 2:35 shape but went out at about 2:20 pace.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I disagree. Sub-3 is hard for a lot. Else a lot of people would be doing it.

I trained pretty dang hard on marathon, getting up to 100mpw, and going thru Pfitz Advanced marathoning 70mpw and beyond 3 times. Got my marathons from 3:55 to 3:40 to 3:20 to 3:16, but still a long way off from sub-3. (My HM got as low as 1:25 though.)

I'd say anyone who trains for real for their first marathon and comes in over 3:45 is in for a rough time trying to go sub-3. 45+ minutes is a lot to cut off unless you were really undertrained for your 1st.

have you ran 70mpw for 6-8 weeks?

if not, do it then tell me how your next marathon goes.

it starts getting hard once you break 2:45. then you have to do quality workouts and even more mileage

Whle sub 3hr has a definate sound to it, that time isn't super fast for a marathon. Depending on the course I would go sub 4:50 to 5 for a half and sub 10:30 to 11 for full.

It's an interesting debate... for some running a sub-3hr marathon is easy but getting under 10hrs in IM or 4:30 70.3m is real hard because they may come from a running background and suffer on the bike and swim. From my own experience I can't imagine running 60-70 miles a week but have gone 2:40 marathon, 9:56 IM and 4:19 70.3m.

Ah, but you can't use the same 1.45 factor for the swimming and cycling because of the exponential nature of the primary resistance.

I think this really depends on the course, 10 hours at IM Florida is not really special, prob equals 10:30 + at most other IMNA events.

Running 3 hours is really not very fast "IF" you can manage to get your running mileage up for a good 6-12 months.

I would guess that

3:00 = 10:40 standard IMNA course

2:45 = 10:00

I did the Pfitz 18wk/70mpw per week program (max 70) twice, and then did Pfitz 18/80-100mpw (custom) once, over a 2 year period. Cut 50 minutes off my first real marathon, but still 3:15 - not too close to sub3. It's hard for us less gifted, and I wasn't a terrible athlete to begin with.

Blimey I never realised a 3hr marathon was so easy! Seriously though, I am miles off that but did a 10:06 at IMNZ and a 4:48 HIM on a hilly course last season. My running speed is not high (marathon PB only 3:39, admittedly I didn't know how to train in those days) but I can run close to that speed no matter how hard I go on the bike.

I would say these are equivalent assuming all are on flattish courses:
3hr marathon
2:07 non drafting oly tri
4:40 HIM
9:45 IM

18,000 is the combined field limit for the Philly Marathon *and* Half Marathon. According to marathonguide.com, the marathon field was just over 7,000.

Using the 97.34th percentile time at the Pigman (lake swim, usually wetsuit legal; gentle rolling hills for bike and run; not a super fast course but by no means slow; the local pro, David Thompson, has gone under 4:00; the winning amateur time is usually around 4:10; the size of the field is usually around 500) for the last 10 years gives 4:27, 4:30, 4:27, 4:41, 4:31, 4:28, 4:29, 4:28, 4:34, 4:37.

I stand corrected on the absolute number, but it doesn't change my point. Before you start picking out percentiles and comparing them, you have to make sure the distributions are shaped the same.

i agree, I ran sub3:10 for my first marathon and it took another 7 marathons to go sub3 and I was very familiar to average 80-90 weeks and 20+ every weekend. I think it's easy to go 3:45 to sub3, if you trained like a complete idiot the first time, but if you trained correctly, it's hard to shave off minutes.

I am a 2:51 runner... and I have yet to hit 4:30 , while still hitting close to 25mph in a 20K TT :(

Really bad swimmer.. you betcha

---

___________________________________
Mizuno Running - http://www.mizunousa.com/running

I had four 70+ mile weeks for Boston '07 and several more that were almost that. 3:33. I don't think the lack of headwind would have bought me 1/2 hour. Don't get me wrong...the mileage was very beneficial and moved me to a different level, but unfortunately that level was nowhere near sub-3. Sure, take a 40min 10K guy and slap 70 mile weeks on him and it's probably there, but take a 43min 10K guy (like, say, me :-) and slap 70 mile weeks on him and you get 3:20-3:30.

I might have agreed with you 20 years ago - now as a masters triathlete - I find that running tears me up a bit more than it used to. So going sub 4:30 for a half or 2:00 for an Olympic is a bit easier for me because i can train to get extremely strong without breaking down so much.

In my experience - cross comparing times in IM or HIM or OLY are pointless - every course is so different and you cant compare a 4:30 at wildflower with a 4:30 at Florida 70.3 - they are just different beasts. Even year to year its difficult on the same courses. Fleck mentions that he came in 200th place in IMH in 1993 in 9:45 -well in 1991 I was 96th OA in 9:46 and in 1994 9:56 was 160th, etc. So many variables make it difficult to compare year to year, course to course.

---

Michael Hay - helped on the journey by the great folks at ZiZU Optics, (for the custom fit), and Bialkowlski's TRYSPORT

I've run 2:40 as the best of some 60-odd marathons. Right now with marathon training I'd expect to run in the 3-3:10 range. In tri I have no weaknesses (but no strengths either), typically place much the same in all 3 legs - for example at Nationals, 21st AG, 21/24/21 in AG for s/b/r, 272/279/340 in OA.
On a reasonable Oly course could probably do 2:15. HIM 4:50 on a good day. IM about 16:59..

So based on my experience, I think monty's numbers are good for Oly and HIM, 2:12 and 4:45 sounds about right.

Boston 07', bad race to compare your "actual" fitness level to :)

---

___________________________________
Mizuno Running - http://www.mizunousa.com/running

I think most of you guys aren't thinking long term (a problem in general with society today). Yes, doing lots of mileage is important, but it's the YEARS of doing mileage that is important. Too many people today start running and want to do a marathon in a year or two, which is fine if you want to finish, but if you have a time goal, it is a different story.

While I think some people have natural "gifts" for running, I think many times this is a weak excuse. Your body knows how to run, you just have to make it remember.

I would say that if you run at least 30-40 miles a week for 3 years (you know, making running part of you life), it would have more benefit that doing a marathon build peaking at 70 miles/ week.

I don't know. Since I ventured into a marathon this year, my perspective has been changing a lot. When you hang out and train with people who run a lot, and many who run pretty decent times, it is hard to understand how someone just can't do it?

And I never did long course triathlon (but was probably a 1:55 guy for Olympic, ITU has such varying races (but usually have pretty balanced athletes), with a best of 32 flat off the bike). I did my first marathon, and ran a 2:36. (hoping to go sub 2:30 at Boston next year).
Does that help your equation? Probably not.

+1 to everything there.

but you probably know how many people can run sub 3. theres not a ton of people going sub 10.

yeah, I guess I am the wrong person to ask, as almost everyone I know could do either, pretty handily.

There is a much higher pool of athletes that run marathons vs. doing triathlons. Just food for thought.

I'm heading into my first Ironman (IMAZ) and friends/family keep asking what my goal time is. I was thinking that by this point with several months of training behind me, I would have more of an idea. I have a pretty good idea of what my swim and bike times will be but have no idea what to target/predict for the marathon! So I read this thread with interest! I read through it an didn't notice too many (or any?) females chime in. I'm assuming that the times thrown out there are for male athletes? I've read about various formulas for predicting overall times, individual (swim/bike/run) prediction times etc but it seems like there's no one perfect formula. I'm a decent runner but the IM run is scaring the heck out of me for some reason!
Hoping I have a better understanding of it all after I get the first one under my belt! :-)

If you know your v.dot, AND you pace and execute properly on the swim and bike, then here is your answer (at least in terms of ideal/goal run splits):





It has worked well for me - my V.dot was ~56+ in '06, and I ran 3:24 and 3:29 at LP and Kona.
In '08 my V.dot was ~58, and I ran 1:24 off the bike at Demi Esprit.

---

float , hammer , and jog

Or how about the marathon equiv. of a sub 9 IM? Flat, fast course.

---

C Ryan Robinson

Wow and I thought I was the only one who lived that.

I think 3 hour is some work for a good runner but not much. We need some gifted triathletes to weigh in with their times which they feel took some good effort but not great for a comparison.

I think there are a lot of people that overestimate how hard a sub 3 is..

"I think there are a lot of people that overestimate how hard a sub 3 is."

Sometimes it come down to talent and natural ability. There are some guys who can run a 34-min. 10K on a few miles a week. For those guys, a sub-3, even with some terrible final miles, is no problem, even with modest training. For those who really have to train 40mpw to break 40 minutes, its a whole different story ...

Well when I see posts like 4:20 half is = to a sub 3, that's crazy to me. Or a 2:00 Oly is = to a 2:55, that's almost stupid.

Oh well...

Nobody seems to realize that those guys doing the 34 min 10k have been running regularly for years, and do most of their runs at a high intensity. The guy training 40 mph to break 40 - how hard are his runs, and how long has he been sustaining 40mph. Also, how athletic are they overall?

You can't get off the couch one day, train for 6 months (even good training), then expect to be on par with someone spending similar effort for 3+ years.

People ask me how I became a FOP triathlete right when I started the sport, and the answer is simple. I certainly don't have some amazing gift that makes me a great athlete (my college swimming teammates can certainly attest to that), it's just that I've never taken more than a month off from working out my whole life - and even those months 'off' are doing more activity than 90% of people. Also, I've seen the bike rides that some people call 'workouts' - of the small percentage of the population that actually works out a significant amount, there's an equally small percentage within that group that actually train hard - bike workouts like 2x20@FTP, 90min @ 90% FTP, etc.

You don't decide one day that you want to be fast, then get it that season. It's a lifestyle choice, and anyone can adopt it. Genetics don't come into play until you're reaching the pro level.

My experiences from this past summer (take them for what they are):

RACE: TIME Course Description: Weather:
7/12/09 IM Switzerland: 10:24 50-70 Deg F. Slight Rain, Not much wind
8/9/09 Sylanvania, OH OLY 2:09 Completly Flat 90 deg F w/ high humidity. Very windy
9/12/09 Tawas Half-Iron 4:43 some rolling hills on the bike. Flat Run. Start: 35 Deg Finish:60 Deg F. Slight wind
10/12/09 Detroit Marathon 2:57 FLAT Start: 28 Deg F Finish: 40's? (comfortable)

Notes:

I had stomach issues develop on the bike in Switzerland that made me reevaluate my goals (slow down) due to not being able to keep anything down
My training significantly dropped off after my IM.
Reviewing my logs:
I logged 75 miles (total) on the bike after the IM and before the OLY, and never biked more than 150 miles per week the rest of the year .
I never logged more than 35 miles per week running in 2009, and consistenly logged just over 100 miles per month in 2009. Swimming is my weak link, but am working on it.
My goal for the marathon was to run even splits, and finish in under 3-hrs, and only run hard enough to do so. I accomplished both.
The month before the marathon, I stopped biking all together, and swam ~ 5,000 yds.


My PB for the distances (accomplished in different years begining in 1998): IM: 10:24, Half: 4:26, OLY: 2:04, Marathon: 2:47

I've gone sub 3 in 5 out of my last 6 marathons but never by more than 5 minutes and went 4:43 a couple years ago at Pigman. My swim sucks 35 minutes so I'd say sub 4:40 would be more accurate in most cases. I think sub 4:30 at Pigman would be far more difficult than a sub 3 marathon. I do weigh 135 lbs someone weighing 175 lbs would likely feel differently about which is more difficult.