TeJa wrote:
The saw tooth terrain at Muskoka is very deceiving. I rode a 2:30 yesterday on a 243 avg/257 normalized. I felt like I rode 280-290 but the data includes zeros and lots of soft pedalling down all those small hills. A a result, heart rates fluctuates and power was all over the map. If I was doing the full I would be VERY careful to not surge on the hills. Be patient, smooth and consistent with your power - it will pay off with your run. Tremblant is an easier bike and easier run. You can hold consistent power for long periods of time and the run is essentially flat and shadded.Congrats on the 2:30 ride. That is awesome. For me it turnd out to be 2:41 ride time off 225 NP. On the steeper climbs, it would go up to 300W and I would dial it back to 275 W or so, which is around 105% FTP for me. My ride was at 3.6W per kilo (NP). I think for the Ironman for me, aside from the first few hills it would not be possible to ride it that "surgy" and certainly at the end of the second loop doing anything at 105-110% FTP in short surges would be a non option. I'd probable end up riding most of the climbs at half IM effort and coast down at zero watts.
I do think that for lighter athletes the general guidelines about consistent power on a bump course is bad. We have an advantage on climbs and disadvantage on descents, so better to use our watts where they make a good impact and then recover at zero watts. Zero watt recovery on a sawtooth course is gold.
In terms of run course, I am not sure if this course is any harder than Tremblant. Tremblant is very deceptive in terms of aggregate hills. The first 5K has a lot of gradual uphill and the bike path/old train track is a continuous uphill one way and downhill the other way. There is around half of the race that is shaded. I think the Muskoka race offers much more variety on the run course than Tremblant (I personally find the bike path mind numbing, but that's a personal thing). As a point of reference, I ran 1:39 in Muskoka and 1:40 in Tremblant and had a much better run in Muskoka. Sanders ran 1:11 in Tremblant and 1:15 in Muskoka and said his legs were off in Muskoka. So I suppose you are probably right that Muskoka is harder. I don't know how much harder though. I THINK it FEELS harder because of the Muskoka half IM bike...however, the Muskoka full IM bike will be easier (Tremblant full IM is double the difficulty of the half, Muskoka Full IM bike may only be 190% the 70.3...this should make a diff on the relative perceptions of the runs ). Plus in Tremblant there are a ton of people drafting in massive packs which makes the run easier. In Muskoka very few will be drafting.