Without some extra benchmarks it's hard to figure out if you're fooling yourself pace wise. What do you run for say a stand alone HM? Looking at your goals, I think a 3:20 IM run is also harder than a 1:30 HIM run, if you go by Ale Martinez chart: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5145078#5145078

Taking the average between his low and high estimates, a 1:30 would be VDOT 55 ish, whereas a 3:20 would be VDOT 60ish. That's a big gap, a difference between running an open HM in 1:24 or 1:18. So I'd say you bonked more in St. George than in Wisconsin. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful as to what may have caused, just wanted to put this out there to help you make sense of your pacing.

I honestly have no benchmarks because I don't race open runs. I can't remember the last half/full run I actually did.

For the 3:20/1:30 difference... look at the courses, IMSTG is much much harder regardless the fact it's a half. That and I was in better run shape for IMWI than IMSTG simply due to time of the year and weekly mileage.

Not trying to disagree with you but simply add some data.

Ah yes I forgot about the St George course. So how do you reach your arbitrary benchmarks if you don't do open races? Trainingpaces? If so what are those.

Yes.

Easy pace/long runs: 7:20/mi
25-30 minute tempo: 6:20/mi - mind you, I hate speed work. I can go long forever but my top end speed blows.

Bricks:
Before Wisconsin: 5 hour bike at 70% FTP; would run easy around 7:30 pace (up to 10 miles)
Before STG: 4 hour bike at 70% FTP; would run 70.3 pace (6:45/mi) pretty easily (up to 5 miles)

The one correlation I'm noticing between "bonking" and training is the brick distances. I have done the easy 2 hour ride and 14 mile run at 7:30/mi pace (before IMWI).

have you done a half that if flat to rolling? i do them 1:25 - 1:28 and havent been able to get under 3:35 in a full, 3:20 in a full i would think you can do around 1:20 run in a half im

I'm a little confused by your question but, if I do understand, then your numbers are a little off what the general ST guidelines are.

Most people look at the McMillan running chart and assume they can run a 70.3 run in their open marathon pace. So, for me, I thought I could do the IMSTG course in 3 hours if it was 26.2 based on my fitness. That correlates to a 1:30 70.3 run.

For IMWI last year, I was in roughly 2:50-55 run shape. Add 25-30 minutes (general ST rule), 3:15-3:20 IM run.

Until you get your nutrition correct.. you'll not know if it is anything more than that..

When I have had issues re nutrition the result is black and white..

Nutrition correct, THEN i can focus on my pace being correct..... IF my PACE is correct THEN I can worry about the unplanned issues...

I wouldn't over complicate it, or stress on it.. you'll likely be expecting a bonk now and you need to get that shit out of your head...

Best of luck with the next one..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_R-G_i4Xk

Debbie Downer... not what i was expecting in the video from the title.. disappointed

Not a Rick Roll moment.

Perhaps a different idea here.

It could be you are doing everything (hydration/nutrition) just fine. But, every race will feature times (moments) where you won't feel great (in relative terms). I can't imagine most people who are putting forth a serious effort - feel completely equal during the entire event.

At a minimum you should "take stock" in the fact that you were able to pick things up after the tough time. That in itself is HUGE, because many people would let that tough time unravel the rest of the day, making the race a bust. As I get older I've been able to learn a mental trick. I know before I start the race that I'll have those tough moments; when they happen I try and flip them into a positive and say to myself "ok, that's one more down, one less tough moment to go" and, I know I can and will be through it in a moment - almost like it never happened. At Wildflower this weekend, I had that happen around mile 10, It lasted for about 600 meters. After that I stepped on the gas for a (for me), good run.

I hope that helps - the mental side of this sport is... Like Yogi Berra said about baseball: Baseball is 90 percent mental, the other half is physical -_-

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

if you can do a 2:50 - 2:55 stand alone marathon, yes, you should be able to do a 3:20 ironman run, but that also assumes you biked perfectly, not too hard

You run your easy long runs at 7:20 pace? You're aware that several elite's run their easy miles between 8-9 min pace right? I would say that is way too fast!

---

"I would definitely smell her seat after a century ride"

.695 and tss was perfectly in the clear to run well

I guess it depends on what you consider "long"? I only ran one run over 15 miles. Instead I do the 15/5 Sunday double run.

Plus, i find that hard to believe. General rule is 1-1:30 below open mary pace. If you're elite, thats probably 2:30-2:40. So 6:45-7:15 sounds more on point.

My friend who's trying to qualify for the olympic marathon trials wont run slower than 6:30!!

I am a ok runner, I would say it is my speciality in a tri (3h13min at IM Chattanooga).

With regards to whether the 'bonk' is due to nutrition or ability - I don't think you can bonk unless it is due to nutrition.

I am not sure if there is an official description of a bonk but I have only run out of fuel twice and it is very different to running beyond ability. It feels different, almost a bit confusing. Once minute I am ok and the next I just start to drift to a standstill. It's always been fairly rapid with not that much of a warning.

If I run beyond my ability then it is more of a staggered panting muscle fatigue feeling. You can keep going but it's really tough, you lose form a bit, your HR is high and your respiratoty is a bit out of control as you fight to maintain pace. With a bonk everything is ok, then goes 'light' and then you run out of batteries like a Duracel bunny and feel a bit shaky and want to just sleep. At least that's been my experience.

A bonk is possibly (I mean, who's keeping an eye on the meaning!) when your muscles are ok, you've not overused them, you just have no fuel left. If you are fuelled but run beyond your ability then your muscles are not going to be ok, they are the thing that will be fatigued - or your respiratory or cardio system, which would be even more obvious.

So, I guess my question would be did you actually bonk? And if so then it's a fuelling / digestion issue. You say 'after bonking' you got back to goal pace. That would indicate that it is not a muscle fatigue issue as you likely would not be able to overcome that so rapidly.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

I agree with everything you said and it was definitely not the feeling you get when your muscles fail. Ive had that, i know what it feels like and what happened at IMWI and IMSTG was not that. It was the tired/weak feeling.

This is completely over your head, with all do respect. Unless you're running repeats/tempo etc. all your miles should be at a very conservative pace or you will burn out and get injured. And there are so many flaws with your "general rule" calculation I don't even know where to begin.

---

"I would definitely smell her seat after a century ride"

That helps. Thanks :-)

Will Clark just ran a 2:53 full marathon this morning in training. I bet he doesnt know what hes doing --<pink>

It's okay, you're lack of training acumen is perfectly acceptable for ST. If you think for one minute elite's are running 120-150 miles per week at 7 minute pace, you are completely lost. But hay, go ahead and give a shot for a month and let us know how it works out for you.

---

"I would definitely smell her seat after a century ride"

Who said anything about mileage?

Btw... Your sarcastic, unhelpful responses are even more on point for ST. GOOD ON YA!!

a simply advise as i have deal with my athletes in your situation.

Next race, have a goal pace for 3:30 for your ironman....head out at that pace and focus on nutrition. the lower intensity will allow you to get more calories in. That will help in the later stage of he run. And negative split the run.....finish hard. That will be a safer approach giving you the chance to run closer to your 3:20....

Same with half ironman. I say it often and keep it simple, until your can do the full run solid/strong with no issue....goals time are too fast. Once you have that part figure it out...you become a very dangerous runner for your opponents.

I m saying all this without having a good insight in your training and racing so..... it s worth what it s worth... ;)

---

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

This is kind of a hard pill to swallow because I'd be putting the hopes of qualifying for Kona on a negative split Ironman run... but makes A LOT of sense.

I was starting to think it wasn't necessarily a calorie issue as much as a digesting issue. My HR has been low enough that I shouldn't have any problems digesting at my pace but, given that after I "bonked" and was slow enough that everything digested, I was then able to run well again.

Taking a step back and looking at it that way, it would make more sense to start slower, get the calories absorbed and then high tail it to a negative split.