I would disagree that the 37 min 10k is equal to a 60 min 40K. Granted I am a former runner but 6:00min miles were more training pace. I've run many 10Ks (and longer) faster than 6 min pace but have never been that close to the 1 hour 40K. Granted I have never raced a fresh (non-tri) 40K though.

I would guess a 34-35 min 10K is a similar effort.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

Yes.

I'm going to go out on a limb then and say either you are underestimating your current 5k open time potential or you did not push the bike fast enough (assuming you're talking about non-draft style).... no way you should be that fast off the bike without being a 16:30 guy or at least REALLY close to one....

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://cyclussports.com/ - #ZeroPositive #CyclusSports
http://app.strava.com/athletes/355549
https://twitter.com/ryanAjoyce

It seems like all of the runners are saying that a 60min 40K is equivalent to a 34-35 min 10k and all the bikers are saying a 60min 40k is equivalent to a 37-39 min 10k. I think we should just average those out and we are left with a 60min 40k is equivalent to a 36min 10k.

Nah. Exercise physiology is a science based on natural processes. Nature loves simplicity and symmetry. Forgt the fancy calculations and look for the elegant, simple answer.

40K in an hour cycling = 40 min 10K running.

Is it a mere coincidence that the slightly-above-average Slowtitcher can aspire to an FTP of 4.0 w/kg? I think not.

Best 40k TT was 1:01 on a 5 loop flat course.. ran a 44min 10k in that tri. My 10k PR is 39min on a rolling central park course in the same year. I think that a 36-38min 10k is a good rough equivalent. I'd say I'm a pretty equal cyclist and runner though I carry some upper body weight.

Haha I like the way you think. I would love to be able to throw down that kind of 5k time, and my guess is that it will come along soon. I guess there's only one way to find out...I'll try to find an open 5k to run soon and report back. The next triathlon will be Memphis in May (perhaps White Lake Sprint #1 as a tuneup) so we'll have to see where my off-the bike run fitness is in about 3-4 weeks.

PS, I run probably 15 miles per week, maybe 20 on a really hard week of training. I'm not durable at all due to my weight. Years of swimming w/o kicking got me too much upper-body muscle to be a truly great runner--I'm 5-7, 150lb on race day, with 138lb muscle, 67% bw. I'd be injured for sure on 25+mi week. I get by on quality and technique, not quantity. 3 solid runs off the bike with some seriously hard intervals are plenty for me each week.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

I'm the same way, except I'm big kick weak arm swimmer. I can't run more than 15 miles a week without getting hurt. Stupid floppy ankles.

Once I get over my cold and sort out issues with my new road bike I'll try do a 40k hilly tt merckx style. If I get really lucky I'll borrow a powermeter or buy the powertap someone on craigslist has for $370.

24.8 mph is basically training pace for a pro roadie for a 25 mile ride. So not any different than running 6:00 miles for a fast runner.

6:00 flat miles for training pace? So I am assuming you are at minimum a 31:00 10K guy? If not, either you are exaggerating your pace, or you could have been a lot faster if you learned the right training pace;)

You need to think of the question objectively, not based on what your specific abilities are. 60:00 40K is a good time for a journeyman bike racer, for a Cat 1 it is easy. Likewise, 37:00 may be a good time for journeyman runner, but for someone who is good (as you apparently are), this is easy. As a runner, the 37:00 is not particularly hard for me. Although I have not done an actual 40K TT, based on other TTs and bike results I would be able to go under 60:00, but this would be a very hard effort compared to the 37:00 10K. A lot of that has to do with being tall and not very flexible (bad bike position), because based on pure power and power/weight, I should be able to go under 60:00 with ease.

It is pretty easy to win a lot of 10Ks running 34-35 minutes. You might win a Cat 5 TT with a 60:00 40K, but not any other category.

---

*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."

I rode 41kph in a Half Ironman last year and went on to run a PR stand alone half marathon off the bike, 1:27:30.

I would say that a 40 min 10k is about equivalent of a 40kph TT effort.

40k TT time and 10k running time are dependent on VO2max. Problem extrapolating between sports is that VO2max is different depending on the sport/muscle groups involved. Cyclists who don't run will have significantly worse VO2max numbers on a treadmill VO2max test, and will only race a 10k based on their running VO2max. If your VO2max/VDOT numbers for cycling and running are similar, then times can be predicted. The same goes for swimming. The best triathletes have high VO2max values across the three sports. I highly doubt Cancellara would be able to break 40min over 10k...

It would be interesting to see him try. His engine is massive, but he is not small. I think he could run 38:00 at least, just because his fitness is at an unreal level. A lot may depend on his background, if he played soccer as a kid and/or is somewhat athletic (decent running form and flexibility).

you are right. I came from a running background and use to run 60-70 a week in HS. I was lucks as I was efficient and not injured pretty much ever (until i was injured pretty much forever). I suspect I undertrained on a bike because I enjoyed a fast run more than a bike ride and had less time than I would have liked.

I guess I am too biased by my own personal experience.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

I think it's also very age dependent. I am finding that as I age my running pace suffers more than biking or swimming. I can still do a 1 hour 40 km TT but my best 10 km is 41 min. I'm 53 and my running has gotten slower and slower with age (I had a 10k PB of 34:30 at 29 yoa). My swimming and biking is still competitive even with the 20 and 30 years olds.

In the ST article with Hunter Kemper he states:

Hunter Kemper: My swim and bike are good now, but my run is not where I want it. Even though at Ishigaki my run was the best [31:12] it still needs to be 40 seconds to a minute faster. In order to compete at top ITU events these days, you have to be able to run an open 10k in the low 29 minutes.

Granted, his 40K TT isn't 60:00. Just an example of what the top ITU guys are running for their stand alone 10K.

--

---

Straightenin' the curves; Flattenin' the hills
------------------------------------------------------------
Coached by Mike Plumb @ TriPower MultiSports
https://www.strava.com/athletes/1149072 - https://www.instagram.com/thoswoods/

I'm going to say it is exactly 35:49.

I see the 40k TT to be equivalent to a 10 mile road race. An hour for 10 miles converts to 35:49 through the McMillan running calculator.

Both are fairly fast and good times for a runner or rider to aspire to.

---

speedySTATES

it amazing how all the guesses are "sub 60 40k TT = mid to low 30 minute 10k"

but the actual datapoints are all in the 40s

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I like somewhere around 37 minutes give or take 30 seconds. I just ran a 37:30 and could probably break one hour in a 40k TT, although I have never tried. However, based on my half ironman times and Olympic times I'm confident I could do it given the right conditions. I ran 37:30 under perfect conditions - flat course, 40 degree temps..........there was a stiff head wind going out, but you got it behind you coming back.

but isn't that graph plotting 40K times prorated from a 112-mi ride and 10K runs from full marathons (after a 112 mile ride no less)? Presumably, standalone times would be considerably faster (more so even on the run given triathletes tendency to overbike).

Yes but the run data points on Rob's graphic might just be "flavored" just a bit by the rather hot 112 mile TT that preceded them;) Aren't we talking about stand alone
40k TT and 10k runs?

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

i don't mean those datapoints
I mean the actual STers who have posted their 40ktt and 10k run bests in this thread.

the people hovering right aruond 1 hour int he 40ktt are mostly (all) in the 40s on the 10k run

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Remember this?



Here are the same data, converted to 10K and 40K times [edit::]. However, note that the 55k bike wasn't flat (and I have no idea what the wind conditions were).

OK ,thanks for that. Would you briefly describe the method used to prorate the marathon times back to 10K times and the 112 mile bike times back to 40km times?
VDOT tables for running? a multiplier of some sort?

Thanks for playing:)

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Nothing so complicated. I just took the total time for the given distance, converted that to avg speed for that distance, and then scaled to 40k or 10k. I was more interested in the relationship between the run and bike times than the exact times themselves: the original duathlon scatterplot matrix shows that the correlations between bike and run speeds were around .75 so it didn't seem worth it to get too sophisticated.