I have similar 70.3 numbers, and if I was you I'd go ride 100 miles at 215w and run 5-10 @7:30 off that and see how it feels.

What would you say was the quality of the run you did at that HIM? Was it a good run for you? Or was it a sufferfest where you broke down somewhere?

Assuming that run was a good one for you with reasonably even splits I would put your full IM power between 210 and 225.

Run pace for the full perhaps 7:20/mi or so? Again, knowing nothing more about you other than this post.

Edit: For what it's worth I am basing that off my own experience since I have similar HIM numbers to you and the numbers I put up above mimic what I aim for at a full

I always felt the best test for target IM power was a percent of my 70.3 power since I did so many 70.3s in an IM year. My 70.3 power was generally 215-225W depending on course and IM was 185-188 depending on course. FTP for these races was generally always in the 255 to 265 range at around 138 lbs.

Was a good run for me (in fact my best), 3 loop course, splits were 29.59, 29.58 and 29.45, so slight negative split even.

How have you approached this in your other full IMs?

In that case leaning I would certainly say somewhere between 210 and 225 for the full. 225 might be chancing a bad run, but 210 might be almost too conservative. The answer is somewhere in the middle. As Sean H above says, riding 100 miles at 215, then trying to run 10 miles at 7:30 might be a really good barometer for how race day will feel, and you will know whether those power and pace numbers need to be adjusted.

Let the wattage on the bike be advised by others, I do not have a PM. (Although I've got an opinion on it: I do not think you should control your bike in a race ONLY according to wattage)

But I did do several IMs and read a lot about it. One thing which I still hold to is that you do not run according to pace: the pace is a result. You run according to perceived effort or heart rate.

I'm always surprised that since the introduction of the PM on the bike, this basic rule for running has been abolished and everyone having a PM started to run in a race according to pace.

I tend to agree and it is something like this what I actually do. That said, I find it good and motivating to have some realistic goals, it also helps in assessing the other inputs during the race, such as perceived effort and HR and how to deal with them.

I tend to be, it seems now, too conservative on the bike and in the last race setting the goal to get IF around 0.8 on the bike resulted me actually managing to do it and it didnt have a detrimental effect on my run, which I actually did almost entirely based on perceived effort. Except the last lap where I was running scared leading the AG with 1.15min gap to the 2nd at the start of the lap, information given by some spectator.

btw, my HR was 164 for the run, where would you like it to be for the full ?

I would experiment with 210ish on the bike and 7:30 on the run during training and see how you feel afterwards.

It depends a bit on your general shape. I think good athletes can do a half with nearly the same intensity as an olympic. If that's the case with you you should maybe aim for HR 155 or something. If however you got the feeling that you do an olympic with HR 174, you might be well off with 160 for the full IM.

I am unsure where you got this idea. For example you can't hold the same wattage on the bike that you target if you are digesting food. You can't hold it when the heat goes to infinity. Everyone with half a brain uses perceived exertion in tandem. The powermeter only provides a sanity check. In essence the powermeter undoes all the stupidity that cyclists started implementing when bike computers were invented and they just started chasing a "speed". Most people are too young to remember when this happened in the early to mid 80's. Prior to that, we all rode with nothing (just like runners and cross country skiers) and exlusively modulated our application of power through perceived exertion. Then bike computers were invented, and guys started chasing "iso speed" rather than "iso effort". You see this now with people running with GPS and chasing a speed and not picking up their speed with a tailwind and downhill or not reducing speed with headwind or uphill. Well we know what happens when you do that.

Whatever % your power or pace dropped off from olympic to half iron, it would drop the same % from half iron to iron. That % holds pretty constant.

If you don't know that number, then I'd use 10% lower for both power and pace. That assumes that the temperatures are similar between both races as well, if your iron distance day is hotter or more humid, you can be well off that 10% drop.

No matter what the estimate, I'd test it in a race simulation to know if you actually CAN hold it and also get your food to be absorbed at those effort levels

I think some other mentioned this as well. But I like to be looking at Heart Rate and Power in conjunction with one another and don't chase a power number. Everyone is different but I have found my power numbers for a full to be in the 68-73% of FTP range and HR is falling in the 75-81% (max HR) range with the goal not to let it stay over 80% for long periods of time. I only use these numbers as reference too, some parts of the race you may just be feeling it and other you are not so there is always some flexibility and variability with any numbers. I have chased power number and paid zero attention to HR % that typically has not worked out well.

In comparing my power numbers in a Oly vs Half vs Full on avg i see a 20w drop in power at each distance, but once again each race is slightly different and I have raced a 1/2 and the same power I have done olympics at.

Hope that helps some. Key thing I think is flexibility and not to chase a power number.

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz

as a general rule for a elite level....90% of your 70.3 is where you should be if prepare properly.

that 70.3 number need to come from a succesfull race with a solid run.

once you start going above 90% of 70.3...your getting in a very dangerous zone. This is for a relatively elite level. but you mention 4:15min/km so i take your a decent age group athlete.

then, i take temperature and preparation in consideration to move that number down..... but 90% is my starting point

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Do you take hr into consideration as well?

---

blog

I had not heard the 90% rule before, but its spot on for me this yr in 2 similar races with similar conditions.

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz

Thanks everybody for he discussion. It seems you're a bit more aggressive across the board than my initial numbers, 200-210W, 4.45min/km (7.40min/mile). I'll consider your suggestions depending how the training goes etc. Anyway, nice to know there might be sense in pushing a bit harder. Lets see.

Good luck with the training, and keep us posted on the progress/results!

that 90% rule is the UPPER limit that i will give to a athlete that is a accomplish runner. It s a start point and we go down from there if the race is hot...or preparation wasn't optimal.

i never give running pace....not a beleiver in targettting a run pace. I dont see it conductive of good fast marathon. i much prefer to give RPE guidline, i have much higher success rate that way.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

i do not. Hr is a indirect metric and i simply dont see it as accurate vs pace and power. Nothing wrong with those that want to use it but i prefer to use the other more stable metric.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Jonnyo,

The problem with RPE for the marathon is that the proper effort will feel way to easy for the first 10k or so. Darn near the whole field goes out way too fast and then many pay a huge price for it later on. A target for the run should be more of a leash for the first 10k to half marathon not a stimulus to go faster. Once you make it that far then I would agree that RPE is great.

YMMV,

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

i think the problem you see isnt one. There is nothing wrong with starting the run feeling extremely easy. It s a very simple concept and once you learn to be humble and to run easy at the start of the run..... it yield some very fast marathon

my advice:
-start the run easy. It as to feel very easy and controle
-from there, try to slow down the least possible as the run goes on...
-stay compose and try to let the big fight and digging deep not come before the last 10-15km of the race at the earliest.
-if you have something left....unleash in last 10km (6miles)

very safe approach....proven very successful and if you rode properly and fuel well.... you will run very well.


I m not saying to everyone to not use pace.... but in 15 years of coaching, i never never use it...never recommend it...and as a athlete...never heard paulo or joel or brett giving me a pace to stick to... just dosnt work that way and too many variable that come into play to derail this.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

even better would be to use your power #s from your long(er)(est)/hard(er)(est) rides around the duration you expect to ride and/or distance.

Why guess when you don't have to?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Maybe its a personal thing but when I violate some upper limits of my HR for prolonged periods of time it does not go well. So I have found HR to be a reliable metric to race off of, but it is just one tool the I monitor and use.

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz