The figures I calculated were nearly identical to yours. I'd say about 70% of adult males under 35 could obtain this:

~4w/kg cycling
~19:15min 5k
~6:45 500

Those numbers look pretty good. I'm fairly certain at 43 I can reach the cycling and swimming numbers with appropriate training. After my broken leg the running could be pretty tough for me. It sucks because that was my endurance background and up through my mid 20s was running consistently in the low/mid 16s for 5k and still sub 20 into my 30s on minimal running.

---

Formerly DrD

    Numbers need to be age quantified. As I'm in the 60-64 AG, those aren't applicable to me. Well, if they are I can tell you I'm not at that stage but it would be nice to think that I could get there.

---

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.

Valid point, but I was originally thinking....but did not note....that it would be at out peak age fitness.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Just looking at 'the engine' simplifies things too much, IMO. You can have a large engine, but sub-optimal form/technique. Watts/kg on the bike may be the closest/best, as with enough training/discipline (almost) anybody can reach (or get close to) a reasonable target (age-adjusted). The question then becomes how long can they sustain riding at threshold, or at 90%/80%/etc. At that point form/technique comes into play, as sub-optimal technique will waste energy and/or lead to pre-mature fatigue. In running, and swimming especially, form/technique are even more important. The largest engine only does so much if your technique/biomechanics are sub-optimal (or worse), as most of the energy produced will be wasted to overcome unnecessary drag/resistance (I'm not talking about position/fit on the bike).
The path to the hypothetic targets you give I think would be different for everybody .... some may just have to work on 'the engine'. Others may already be at or near max 'engine' capacity and would have to work on form/technique, or lose weight, or ... ?

Just a different point of view.

- S

I think a different type of genetics has an effect as well. My wife and I agree - the very best of the endurance athletes are generally (according to the general populace) - not right in the head.

In my younger years (runner, biking) - I could beat those numbers (didn't swim till last year). Over the course of my amateur athletic career, I've noticed that I get many funny looks and comments when I attend "general exercise" classes. Spinning was the worst; the instructor would say "Okay, no go all out!" - so I would. I got a lot of funny looks at the end of those intervals, as I sat there heaving my way through a recovery with my sweat puddle creeping across the floor. (I bought my own spin bike & Sufferfest videos; problem solved)

This is absolutely NOTHING in comparison to the state of mind of Tyler Hamilton, as an example, who rode a Tour de France with a broken collarbone. Clearly - the engine kept him competitive, but the ECU kept him in the race.

I doubt very much that I'm alone in this regard- especially on this board. Those at the top - its not just the engine, but the ECU that's getting the job done. Likewise, I think a proper ECU can compensate for the engine.

One question, one comment:

3.75 w/kg for how long? That seems like a much higher bar than a 19min 5k.

The swim is highly experience/form dependent. There are lots of 15min 5K guys who would struggle to go sub 1:30 pace for 500m in the pool, even with a year of training/coaching.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Well crap, I have been trying for years to hit all these numbers and haven't yet....as someone who will be 50 this year

The bike at 3.75w/kg is the only one I will hit. Finnally training with power, learning what hard is, learning to ride with a purpose, this one is most doable from most folks because you can ride relatively hard without getting hurt.

Running, if I could ever stay healthy I think I might have a chance but once I start doing too much hard running, I get hurt. Best 5K was 19:55 at 27, now I can run about 21:30...its hurts too much to go faster. I am doing the 100 run challenge, but its all slow stuff.

Swimming, I think the qualifier is if you grew up swimming as a kid you can hit 6:30 per 500. No way in hell, I will ever swim that fast.

3.75 w/kg FTP.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Do you mean capable with maximal training or do you mean capable based upon what they will do? There is a big distinction. Many amateurs are unwilling to put in the work to maximize what engine they are provided with. This means putting in the appropriate time and intensity which means a fair amount of suffering. It means carving out time to sleep 8-10 hours a night. It means maximizing a healthy diet for them. It means minimizing weight. It means minimizing stress. It means working on the psychology of enduring pain and discomfort.

I work a job where there are multiple people who are sub 2:50 marathoners, have FTP's of greater than 4.5 watts/kg, are Kona qualifiers, Leadville 100 runners, etc. The common theme is that they are dedicated to maximizing their results and all of them work their tail off to do it. I see them regularly post 4 hour trainer rides, 20 mile runs, etc on Strava.

I think if people did what was necessary to maximize their abilities the numbers are better.

18 for 5k
4.5 watts/kg
5:30 for 500

Even these numbers may not be representative and may under estimate the ability of human physiology.

That's what I figured. Feels like far more people can run a 19min. 5k than can lay out 3.75 (256W for a 150lb. biker....easily enough to go sub-1hr 40k).

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I seriously disagree with the 19 flat 5k. It takes me a lot of training even at M18-35 to just dip under 19 in a 5k.

I've seen people do the Pfitz programs religiously and train for years and not even come close to 19 even at those young ages.

To have a shot at a 19 flat 5k, you should be at least low 21s on <30mpw of pure running (not triathlon), with some speedwork thrown in there, in your very first training cycle of that.

Engine is rarely the limiter. Doing the work to upgrade from a V4 to a V12 turbo is usually the problem.
Many get to a V6, maybe even a turbo V6, some even a V8 and run out of time/motivation/insert X # of kids/careers etc.

Most people, if training 500 hours year after year and go to 650 hours they will see improvement.

In endurance sports there really is no substitute for volume.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Most mediocre high school cross country runners can run an 18 min 5k. Keep in mind that this on a cross-country course not a flat road course.

Your anecdotes are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias.

HS lond distance track runners purposely seek out the sport are i would assume are at least 1 or 1.5 SD better than what a moderately active person could accomplish.

Kona KQ, leadville, now we talking at least 2 SD over the average competitor.

4.5 w/kg, this will get you to the front of a cat-3 field and in line for a cat-2 upgrade. None of the above is average

But...but...but...I keep hearing that if I just do 2x20 sweet spot rides using Trainer Road I can ride sub-5hrs.

---

------------------------------
"Unless you have a ... GF who might put out that night and that night only ... skip it and race." - AndyPants 3-15-2007

As a swimmer I feel sad when I see a 19min 5k is equal to a 6:30 500scYARDS!!!

I feel sad too, but it's because I've ran a 16:58 but am lucky to swim under 8:00...and I'm a cyclist.

It could be selection bias, but most people that I hear saying they can't aren't limited by their genetic potential. They are most often limited by something else. That is not to say those other reasons are not perfectly valid. If someone prioritizes work or family or other hobbies, that is perfectly understandable. I have no qualms with that. However, the OP asked what the limits were for the average person based upon intrinsic limiters not extrinsic limiters. I would argue that many more people are limited by extrinsic limiters.

Your argument about averages and standard deviations is based upon what people are doing not about what they are capable of.

Take your average Joe and immerse him in intense training with progressive building of his volume over 5-7 years. Add in meticulous focus on nutrition, recovery, injury prevention and sports psychology. Most would exceed what normal people would think is possible by enormous margins.

I am not arguing against the power of genetics because genetics and epi-genetics likely play giant parts in how fast an athlete progresses and what their maximum capability is. However, many people underestimate the power of simple hard work. Unfortunately, you will not find a study of unselected participants randomly assigned to 5-7 year training plans, thus, I am forced to rely on anecdote to illustrate my point.

I think Coggan mentioned somewhere that the theoretical maximal bound for the average person is 4.0 w/kg, which is quite a bit less than 4.5

Also, i think distinction should at least be made btwn KQ and leadville vs 4.5 w/kg and 18 min 5k . The former two are way more of outlier than the latter two

Yes, selection and confirmation bias are both at play here. That being said, I think it's MUCH easier to make the HC XC team (~18min 5k on grass....say ~17:30 on the track) than to get a Cat2 license.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Despite agreeing with the whole hard work thing completely, I still think you're vastly overestimating people's genetic ability at least in running.


I used to think just like you did, but it's really selection bias. Realistically, after your first year of honest serious 30mpw-ish run training, you will be within less than 3 minutes of your potential best 5k time. The elite stud runners who run 14-15 min 5ks, were not 22 min 5k runners after a year of run training, chipping away at it until they were 14-15; they were 18 minutes from the get-go with 30mpwish, if not faster, and got faster from there.

You might think all those MOPer M30-40 guys in the local HIM triathlons are just terrible at training, but it's not true. I've seen quite a few of them now with coaches, regular attendance at the weekly speedwork sessions where they run all-out, and keep solid logs of their 12+hr per week training. These guys still run 23+ minute open 5ks, and many (most) of them will NEVER run 18:xx 5ks, even with professional volume, even if some of them will be able to with that kind of training.

There's a masters swimmer on BT who had a private qualified coach, swam 12k/week at one point for quite awhile, and has raced for years, took various additional weekend coaching sessions, and said she never went faster than 2:00/100 in the POOL for distance. Some people just don't have it. Just like there's a point fast end of the bell curve, there's a slow pointy slow end.

Actually, my impression from watching our local XC teams train is that the "average" male HS XC runner prob runs around 22-23 min for 3 miles XC. Keep in mind that most HS XC teams do not cut anyone from the team, since there's plenty of space on the course for anyone who wants to run, so you've got some slow kids out there as well as the the 18 min and under kids.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Obviously it would be a breeze for a kid/teen/college swimmer but if we're talking about adult onset swimmers then that number seems very optimistic. Top 20 in am IM swim is about as good as an adult onset guy can get and I doubt many could do 6:30 for 500scy. I'd say for that time it's more like 30% and engine has little to do with it. There are plenty of 4.5w/kg and higher cyclists/16:00 5K guys who would be happy with a 7:30 500scy.

The bike number seems very reasonable and the run also attainable but harder than the bike.

Actually I'd bet that for most men on the bubble for KQ between 35-44 are at between 4-4.5 watts/kg and a 18-18:30 5k. But it is hard to argue with Coggan. He has seen far more data then I have.

Maybe I had an outlier school but middle of the road JV was 19-20 on a XC course. Which is 18's-19's on the road. The fastest guys on a cross country course went 15-16. All of these times were at altitude. Slowest kids were 25's.

You could be correct. I have just gotten to know a few guys who thought they were average even after years of training, but when really pushed year round at an intense level they started dropping people right and left. They thought they were maxed out at 22 minute 5ks or at 3.5 watt/kg. They started training with quality and quantity over a period of time and they went over 4 watts/kg and under 20 5k.

Like I said I am not discounting the contribution of genetic ability, but most people don't plumb the depths of their potential whatever those depths may be.

For giggles, I looked up the NY State Cross Country Championships for 2013.

The fastest guy in the entire state went 15:06. The boy who won the Class B was 15:16. C and D runners were in the 15:40s. So, what I hear you saying is that the fast guys on your team were as good as or better than the top runners in the entire state of NY.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Fastest guy on my team won state and top 3 guys on my team went to Foot Locker so yes they were as fast.

Your link demonstrates something else. 36 guys went sub 16 and 92 guys went sub 17. That demonstrates the depth of ability in the field.

I get some of the swim and bike estimates, but some of the run ones have me scratching my head.

I don't mean to call you out by quoting you, this just happened to cover me.

I ran under 200miles all 2013 which included 2 70.3s.. I'm 33, hate running, 209lbs as of this morning and can do a sub 23min stand alone 5k if uncared to try. I've done a 23.xx 5k as part of a personal 10k as well as a few times after a 2+ mile swim.

It is really hard for me to imagine that someone doing 30mpw, is my age, and 180lbs would struggle to beat that. I mean I also personally know I'll never do a 16min 5k (just don't care enough about running to put that effort in) but I also saw no reason I couldn't get down to an 18.xx at 180lbs and even a halfassed attempt at getting some miles in.

I can do a 6:30 500yards, probably meter if I tried don't feel like estimating.
I don't know my actual w/kg since I have no real power source. I don't see why once down to 180 I won't be over 3.75.


Granted maybe I'm not thinking about the majority in the same way, I took this to mean the limits of the majority of people who put in the effort not the limits of the genrsl majority of people.

The interesting thing to me, that relates back to the original post: a lot of folks are calling out one event or another as being out of whack. I guess, by that averaging, then the assertion is mostly correct?

As another example, I can get the run & bike, but 6:30 for a 500 is a pipe dream for me.

So if the OP has the experience to have spent enough time with enough athletes, then why not use them as targets?

I am with you here. I am with a local Tri group and one person can run 18ish 5k. I think sub 20 minute 5k is borderline for the OP's 80% of endurance athlete comment. In my small world I would say this is not the case. FYI, great topic! I have often wondered how I could stack up.

On another note, what is the average heart beat for a (say 30 year old) sub 18 minute 5k? I know it varies drastically from person to person, but you can extract median from any group of numbers. I often wonder if I push myself a little bit harder, say 190 bmp, would I have a stroke or just really be pushing my limits. I know it is science and subjective art forms at work, but hey, it keeps me up at night.

My average heart rate for a mid 36 10k averaged 174 bpm with a max of 182 at the age of 41.

What is your all-out max HR??? I'm guessing not 182. Also, JOOC, what's your resting HR when lying in bed in the am???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I don't think I have seen much higher than 185-187 and my resting HR is about 45-48 bpm.

Your opinions merely reflect your self-biased view of the world. YOUR view of it given your isolated results are essentially meaningless to draw conclusions from.

Go to any triclub, just as I have, and take a look at who's doing what and how fast. There will be more than a handful of serious triathletes, complete with hired coaches writing their workouts, who are very dedicated to training, yet are nowhere near those 'easy' times you suggest. And yes, in the M30-40 division where there's no physical limiter otherwise.

There are TWO halves of the bell curve for genetics for sports. It's easy and erroneous to think everyone can do what you can do when you're in the upper part of the curve. I made the same mistake with music - for nearly 12 years, I mistakenly assumed everyone around me could do what I was doing in violin, and just wasn't practicing enough. Then I hit the level of what would be considered a competent professional violinist in my later youth and saw how insanely hard some of my peers were working - for markedly less results. This was at a top music conservatory as well, so no slacking there.

Have you done an all-out sprint at end of say a hard 2-mi run to see where you come out??? And I mean all, all-out to where you are absolutely gasping for breath at end. Also, you need to be fairly rested to be able to truly hit your "top end". Sorry, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir with you, but just in case:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I'l take that bet, how much do you want to lose?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I didn't say those targets were easy, I said I agree that they are probably limits, you know what this thread is about, as in anything but easy.

If a 210lbs guy who never runs can do a 23min 5k I think it is kind of ludicrous to assume that is what people should consider a limit. Especially when I easily lose 30-40 places on the run usually.

Granted I get that I'm a good swimmer and cyclist, which is why I simply stated I agreed with the proposed limits there as I don't think I'll blow past them. I have no gift for running at all, so I find it hard to believe someone 30lbs lighter than me running 30miles a week working with a coach would be limited to a 23min 5k.

Don't want to bet a coach who has far more data than I but I'd be curious what your experience has been with athletes in the last 3 years.

Not any time recently so it could be higher but not a lot higher.

Ya, that's what I was thinking, maybe 190 to 192-ish.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

In endurance sports there really is no substitute for volume.

I agree with Brian.

. . and when you are lucky enough to do that bigger volume training at a key developmental time in your life - ages 15 to 25, the impact of that volume I am guessing is more substantial and will stay with you longer. Ounce you get older my sense is you get further and further away mentally from what is hard and difficult and also other things in your life start to take a priority - career, family etc . . It's a big ask for say a 32 year old man, to start to the build up to 800+ hours a year of training. It's NOT that it can't be done, it's that it will take a number of years to get there and be highly disruptive to his life and the lives of those around him.

There are also issues of durability and efficiency - that are more easily established if you start younger. If you see a runner, swimmer, or cyclist who trained a lot and did "well", younger ( in that 15 - 25 age range), even when they are older when you see them swimming, cycling or running, and you watch them move, you can tell almost right away there is something different about the way they move vs the 35 year-old just starting out!

This is why many "older" athletes who are new to an endurance sport are somewhat incredulous about it all - they have some challenges that are not at first obvious, compared to an athlete who started younger and already has that huge base and volume of fitness established.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

No kidding. It is a bad estimate but an FTP of 4.0 w/kg is going to put you well under 58:00 in an Oly triathlon (flattish, accuritishly measured). In other words - basically 1/1000 age grouper.

I have heard in the past (sorry can't find citation) that the average male cyclist is capable of an FTP of 250 watts, and I think this seems reasonable. Without training most people would work hard to hold over 150 (mostly due to having a hard time riding for an hour straight) and they rapidly progress over 200, but 250 is a ceiling for many. Among competitive people you have a slice of the population who have self selected for their innate ability, so you tend to hear of averages closer to the 275-325 area.

Please do tell a bubble qualifier then?

My guess would be 17 low 5K fitness and 4.25 w/kg

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Again I'm no coach and have only been in the multi-sport scene for about 3 years.

My background is as follows. D3 college runner. 5K PR about 16 flat so nothing outstanding. I'm 36 so have been around endurance sports a long time.

I started biking (zero background) 3 years ago. I started swimming the same time (zero background, but I knew how to swim to survive).

My 6:30 SCY guess was I feel the most uneducated. I swam my ass off (for me) for about a year and got down to about 7 flat for 500scy. That was many 10K weeks which while biking and running was a real bugger. So I haven't yet come near the 6:30 mark, but may have the ability? I would probably consider myself a bubble type Kona qualifier.

Due to back injury my volume will likely never be what it needs to be to put in the work ever again.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

You may be underestimating what people have to do to qualify. I'll give my personal experience and numbers from last year. I am a bubble qualifier in M40-44. My FTP last year was 4.315 watts/kg. My biking was top 20 in my AG by holding 75% of my FTP. Therefore, there were 19 guys that could ride faster than me. I was fortunate enough that I had a swim/run combo that put me in front of 12 of them at the end of the day. I will also assure you that while I may not be the most aero I am by no means a slouch.

There are some really strong guys out there.

As much as I'd hate to admit it, 250 is prob close to my ceiling. I'm about 68kg and my current FTP is probably close to 210, which puts me at close to 3w/kg. At 250w, I'd be pushing 3.6w/kg, which would net low 5 hour IM bike splits.

That 210 is after a late October iron distance race and several months of FTP work (not a lot of hours, but still hard workouts)...

4w/kg seems unrealistic if I ever want to keep up running and swimming.

That's just me, though...I'm guessing a lot of AG triathletes are in the same boat.

What's your swim / run combo? Not just IM, but 500SCY and 5K?

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

I don't have data from last year for those distances. I didn't run an open 5k and I did a couple of 500 TT's in the pool but I swim in a SCM pool.

In my qualifying IM I swam 59 and ran 3:22.

I can give estimates. I think 5k I could go 17:30 and I think that I could swim 5:30 when in peak condition. But I actually kind of suck at long distance.

Wow....impressively balanced age grouper that can swim very well!

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Thanks for the compliment.

It kind of sucks spending the next 5+ hours after T1 being passed, but I guess that is where one needs to implement some mental resiliency and thank goodness that it is a triathlon.

from my attendance at HS XC meets I'd agree with Eric.. 'most' are running over 20min, not 18min. Certainly I didn't break 20min for 5k until after HS, although did get down to 15:50 eventually.

I don't know what OP means by 'engine size'. I used to to think that endurance sports were entirely trainable, but since then research has showed that just as some people have innate gifts for endurance sports, others have innate training responsiveness, and some people do not respond to training at all.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/...hours-and-the-genes/
" is success genetics or training? It’s both. In fact, it’s 100% genetic, and 100% training."

also
http://www.setantacollege.com/...e%20to%20regular.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691366

Running 15:50 is smoking in my opinion.

Out of 5A schools in Colorado 489 males went under 19 minutes (18:XX). This is out of 1000 runners listed. That seems to be close to 50th percentile. In 2A 80/200 went under 19 minutes.

http://www.athletic.net/...ist.aspx?DivID=23672

In NY 2187 kids ran under 19 minutes.

http://www.athletic.net/...ist.aspx?DivID=24706

So what is the definition of mediocre?

But how many total kids ran XC in NY and CO??? We need those numbers to put the sub-19 numbers in perspective:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

interesting list of x-c results.. for 4A 50th percentile is 19:47. I guess 5A is faster than the meets I see..
Also, it looks like the lists are curtailed after 10 pages. For the US as a whole, the slowest time shown is 15:54..
http://www.athletic.net/...ist.aspx?DivID=23342
So we can't say much about the slower runners from these results.

You would also need to know how many were training to their maximal potential.

They do continue after 10 pages you just have to keep hitting next.

1624 males athletes went under 20 minutes in Colorado in 2013 in the 5A Division.

They have 2900 athletes listed for 5A so I guess 18 minutes is top 15% and sub 20 is top 56%, but I'll stand by my assertion that a number of these athletes were not training to their maximal potential. Imagine what the times would have been if all they did in their life is focus on running, nutrition, and recovery.

Now imagine if you took every 30-50 year old triathlete and they focused on nothing but training, nutrition, and recovery. I think that the majority would be pretty damn quick. Unfortunately life gets in the way. I am dedicated as hell and there is no way I could hit over 800 hours a year for 5-7 years with my current life balance. I put in 613 hours in 2013 and it was a struggle.

Definitely agree. I personally did a lot of volume from age 14-25. Other than a few periods of downtime due to injuries I've been pretty consistent with maintaining at least a decent level of fitness into my early 40s. That allows me to ramp up a couple months before an event and do relatively well. I carry a little more weight than before and don't look particularly fast but usually can be relatively competitive at small local events.

A few guys I occasionally ride with get frustrated that they put up slower splits when they know I don't train much. They weren't around 15-25 yrs ago when I was building that base. It's hard to catch up if you start in your late 30s.


Experience in racing is huge too. More than once I've won my age group or been on the podium due to smart equipment choices, pacing and fast transitions. In fact two years ago I won my age group in a sprint tri with slower splits in all three disciplines than 2nd/3rd but had a total transition time more than 1:30 faster.

---

Formerly DrD

True, prob very few were were close to their true potential. I think that, IF the average male in his 20s dedicated his life to running, he prob could run under 19 for 5K, maybe 18:40 which is right at 6:00/mi avg. Similarly, I think that same guy could prob get down to 2:10-ish for an accurately measured Oly dist tri. I'd put those two numbers out there as what say 80% of the male population could do if they set their full attention to it.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

4.5 w/kg and sub 18 are easier than a KQ? Huh....guess I screwed the pooch on that one.

Depends on the age group.

I know 2x folks in the 45+ age range who are AG winners at qualifiers who don't come close to those.


I know several guys in the 25-39 age range, who range from AG winners to just barely qualified. Some exceed those by a lot, others (myself included) not so much.

I would be very surprised if that were true. To be clear, that strikes me as high, not low.

ETA: Sorry.. looks like many already addressed this.

I am glad you brought it back up because I still maintain that to be true. Most on the bubble have to ride around 5:20 to 5:30 and probably faster (unless they are going to run a sub 3:20 of the bike). That seems like 200 watts for a typically aero 150 lbs.

At a 268 watts FTP 200 watts would be 75%. 268watts/68kg = 3.94 watts

So how am I way off on the FTP numbers?

Edit: I just looked at Couer d Alene and Lake Placid, 2 course that are not speed fests, and no one in the top 8 rode slower than a 5:25.

Keep in mind that races with hilly bike courses are self selecting towards athletes with higher W/kg versus heavier athletes with a higher top end FTP.

If you look at flatter races, I suspect you'll see more people with 3.5/3.8 W/kg averages because of overall power output being less impacted by climbing efficiency. I'd also be willing to go along with DD(since I'm guessing this is how he feels) and assume that the average for KQ bubble athletes is closer to that 3.5 W/kg range overall. Remember, there are a lot of Fast running Fish out there who have just enough power on the bike (and are light enough) to hold their early swim advantage until they can get back to the run and start working again.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
Proud member of the GUCrew
Twitter: @tripigeon Blog: Ironpigeon.com
Thoughts on AG sponsorships / community involvement: http://bit.ly/1dQlVDy

You guys posting XC results also realize that XC courses are not always accurate.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

I've followed this thread with some intrigue over the last day or two, if I'm honest, mostly to establish what I might be able to realistically achieve in the world of triathlon and the personal targets which I have sent myself. Within the community, there is (understandably) a train of thought that those 'lifetime' endurance athletes, will achieve more / have bigger numbers / KQ over the rest of us. I am not one of these (Lifetime athletes that is). This could prove disheartening for a lot of us 'adult onset' triathletes... however.... based on the little (or lot?) that I have learnt in the last 3 years, hard work goes along way in this sport, not being a natural at sport I do alright. Some as mentioned above, got a lot of that hard work done early doors, but us adult onsetters can see steep improvements in performance in the first few years, which is extremely rewarding, volume accounted for a lot of my improvement in 2013. There are a couple of races I continually go back too to see how I have improved, and if I have reached my ceiling, not happened yet and I hope with the knowledge I gain, hard work I put in, some luck with injuries, an understanding family I can reach the goals I have set myself...

Anyhow, this year, I'm hoping my ceiling wont stop me from hitting 4w/kg, sub 19 5k & swim 400m in.... (ummm, well, this one might need some work).... (Just for the record pushing 34yo, 2014 will be 4th year doing tris,154lbs last season, 178cm tall, FTP of 252 last season, no notable running, cycling and swimming throughout 20s only regular football [soccer])

Good debate... carry on... :)

Thanks for looking that up, you're not nearly as lazy as me. Generally I'd guess FTP for these riders would be in the mid to high 3s which, to me, is a long way away from low to mid 4s in terms of the training required to get there. I'd also guess (a total guess) that most of these racers are heavier than 150 lbs as guys at the top end tend to be on the tall side.

My FTP last year was 4.315 watts/kg. My biking was top 20 in my AG by holding 75% of my FTP. Therefore, there were 19 guys that could ride faster than me. I was fortunate enough that I had a swim/run combo that put me in front of 12 of them at the end of the day. I will also assure you that while I may not be the most aero I am by no means a slouch.

Do you know what your CdA is?

I'm 53 year old. I never swam in school and really only got into swimming, for tris, when I was early 30's. I focussed almost entirely on techique and endurance, as I am pretty IM focussed. That said, about 4 years ago, when being more focussed on speed, I got my 400m time down to 5:31. Yeah, I was pretty shot at the end of that, but could routinely got sub 5:40 without too much distress at the end.

500yards is 457.2 metres. So, my 500scy time would be about 6:08 or so. Even in my current fatness/fitness, I could come pretty close to 6:30/500m scy.

You don't have to be an ex-collegiate swimmer to go sub 6:30. You DO have to stop being self limiting tho' :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Well, I don't think you are way off, but you do seem a bit pessimistic about what kind of power is needed to go 5:20. For comparison, I went 2:28 at timberman (certainly not pancake flat) on about 190W. I'm about 143 lbs and that course is about 1 mile short, but still.

---

--
When I channel my hate to productive, I don't find it hard to impress

Are your 400 m times SCM or LCM???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I swim in a 25metre pool. That's SCM right? While the pool makes a difference, it doesn't make 22 seconds difference over that sort of distance. Besides, all I was trying to illustrate was that 6:30 per 500yards (457.2 metres) isn't actually that fast, and it certainly isn't necessary to be a 'swimmer'. Yeah, it's reasonable, but not fast.
I just wish I could maintain that speed for the bike or the run. I run SO badly, that recently in the Rotorua 1/2 IM, I seriously considered running down to the lake from the lookout, and swimming back to the finish line, rather than running the last 3km. At that point, I could certainly swim faster than I was walking! LOL

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Ya, 25 m pool = SCM. I do about 1/2 of my swimming in a 25 yd (SCY) pool and the other 1/2 in a 25 m pool and, based on this switching back and forth, which has occurred over the past 20 yrs, I've come to conclude that 450 SCM = 500 SCY to within a second or so. So, I would say your 5:31 for 400 SCM = about 6:13 for a 500 SCY, which is just about 5 sec more than you estimated:)

In any case, it's always nice to hear of an "adult onset swimmer" (AOS) who's learned to swim pretty well. I agree 100% that at least 80% of healthy adult males under 40 could swim a 6:30 for 500 SCY, or around 5:47 for 400 SCM. As I've said many times on ST, I know at least 10 guys who I've swum with in the past, and/or I swim with currently, who took up swimming in their 20s or early 30s, and all of them got down to 6:30 or faster for the 500, and 3 or 4 have gone sub-6:00, or sub-5:20 for 400 SCM, which is still not very fast per se since the WR for 400 SCM is 3:32, which is indeed smoking fast!!! I think most tri guys just don't have the desire:(

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Wouldn't that be 3.42?

While I love swimming, I think most trigeeks have knowingly or unknowingly come to the realization that the swim is merely a formality. It is so short compared to riding and running, that it's barely worth training. Recently, after nearly 3years of only swimming once every 2 weeks or so, I managed to swim 32minutes for a 1/2 IM swim. As I'm unfit, I took it really easy. In fact, a couple of times, I caught myself checking out the scenery! I still went just 2 mintues over a PB that I killed myself to do. 2 mintues? Why even pay for a pool membership?

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Nah, the long course (50 m pool) 400 m WR is 3:40 by Paul Biederman of Germany, but the short course (25 m pool) is 3:32, by Yannick Agnel of France. I remember that time very well because my jaw just dropped:)

The 3:42 you were thinking of is actually the American long course record by Larsen Jensen:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

But you can't compare one half iron swim to another because the actual distances vary so much. I've swum from 24 to 32 for diff half iron swims. You can really only compare pool swims one to another.

But I agree with your main point, which is why I only race Oly dist anymore, since at least there the swim has a bit more import:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Same lake for 10 years now. there have been two swim course option. yes there's long years and short years, but all pretty close in distance and times. My loss of 2 minutes from a PB really is pretty much all fitness and effort on the day.

The bike course has changed, adding more and more hills every year. Thanks to my new Cervelo, again, going really easy, I was only 3 min off a PB. After the swim and bike, "the wheels fell off" so to speak and there was a looooooooong walk back to the showers :-(

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

OK, well, perhaps in this case you are justified in comparing the swims. Regarding your run, I suspect you're more of a fast twitch guy, since you were a pro downhill skier. It seems like the swimmer/biker types like yourself usually come from some sort of fast twitch sport background:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Right, I was thinking of LCM, and I thought it was even less than 3.42. Remember when Agniel did the record actually, but yeah, SCM records are not as much inked in my brain as are the LCM records :-)

I swim about 1/2 the time in a 25 m pool so tend to pay some attention to those, just out of curiosity as to how incredibly fast those top guys go:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I'm an adult-onset swimmer, having taken it up five years ago when I decided I wanted to get into triathlon. Over the years I worked my way to last season, where I swam a little over 500,000 yards (I know very small for a true swimmer), and I managed a 1:06 IM swim and a 32 min HIM swim. Definitely not record setting by any means, but I was in position to do well within my AG based on more of a strength on the bike and run.

For me, and for many others, putting in tons of pool time to gain a minute or two doesn't seem worth it when the swim accounts for a rather small part of an overall race (excluding the Olympic distance). For me there's more ROI spending time on the bike or running. My w/kg at FTP is around 4.6 and my 5k PR is 17:42, so I often play catchup after the swim. It seems to work for me. Would I like to be 4-5 min faster in a HIM swim? Of course, but for me with a new baby it isn't feasible to spend that much time in the pool.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

First off I do not consider myself a gifted athlete, decent, but not fantastic by any stretch compared to a lot of the talent on ST.

I have never broken 20 for a 5k even when I was in my best shape. I think 20:40 rings a bell for best 5k in a road race. I did break an hour a few times on 40k ITT"s back in the day, but that was way b/f power meters so I have no idea. Had a couple in some races too, but they were nowhere near a true 40k so I don't count them.

5:53 500 yard last spring. In the world of swimmers that is nothing and while not pathetic it's a smidge over acceptable in my book for a mid 40's guy swimming as much as I do.

I'd say my limiter in the pool for the 500 was technique until ~ a 6:40 and then it was pain cave/engine building time after that. I say that b/c right about the time I was approaching a 1:20 100 yard pace for 500 yard tests is when my coach put me into dedicated paced swim workouts. Up to then he'd put me on a steady diet of ~ 50% drills and a LOT of kicking with some full stroke work post drill to bring it all together. Very little clock swimming with splits up to that point. I *think* my 500 would be slower now too, but I don't even want to find out as I hate distance. Come to find out I'm a fast twitch mofo and sprinting is my thing so 100 and below for me! Swimming anything over a 200 bores me to tears now as was confirmed by my mental black outs during the 1650 ladder yesterday:/

While I love swimming, I think most trigeeks have knowingly or unknowingly come to the realization that the swim is merely a formality. It is so short compared to riding and running, that it's barely worth training.

This would be a mistake.

I agree with you that in terms of percentage of the race and time-on that it's easy to reach this conclusion. Also, it's convenient to consider a minimalist swim training program, because, realativly speaking it can take up more time, and most have to work-around pool schedules - depending on some variables, a one hour swim can take up 2 hours of time . . and so on.

The point that is missed here by many is that swimming, just like the other two sports is an aerobic endurance sport. At some point in time, in an triathletes "career", a significant investment in swimming time, and volume, will yield some big improvement results - say, taking 6 months and, swimming as much as you can in that six months ( 5 - 6 days/week).

Success in triathlon, particularly the longer races that seem to be the most popular these days, at one level is all about energy managment. I've stodd on the shore at big 70.3 and Ironman races and watch the people coming out of the water. Many look completely maxed out by the swim. They have already gone deep into their energy stores, in the shortest part of the race! Is this the best way to start out a 5hr or 11+ hour day?

In each of the 3 sports that make up triathlon, you need to invest time in building up the size of the aerobic engine. This takes time (read - a number of years). That's why I always say, you really need to enjoy doing this. You need to want to be out there doing it. It's a long journey, best to enjoy it!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I also think there's a sweet spot of around 3-4 hours per week or about 15-20% of you total training volume... at least if you already have a swimming background.

Look at it this way, I know based on my swimming volume and speed in high school that if I raised to to 12-16 hour per week, the best I could manage is dropping another 3 minutes in a IM swim. So is an extra 8 hour spent swimming and not running or biking worth it worth going lets say 56 instead of 59? No way. Now, if I onl swam 1.5-2 hours per week I might slow to 1:05. So that extra 90-120 minutes is worth 5 minutes. But obviously this formula varies. But you can do the same math for any of the 3 disciplines.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Not sure what my CdA is. I haven't done field or tunnels testing. Eyeball wind tunnel says not bad.

I went right around a 2:21 at Boulder 70.3 on 205 watts measured with a Quarq.

It would be neat if some folks who have recently put in alot of swim training effort and subsequently lowered their swim split could be convinced to do the swim portion of their next race (preferably a race they've done previously) at a time to match their previous year's split. Presumably since they are better swimmers, swimming an old split would require less effort. It would be neat to see what effect this had on their other splits and overall time for the day. Hard to tell, I suspect, given their other training has probably been variable as well. I think you're correct, Fleck, in your assessment, but just curious if there's data to that effect out there or wondering if that data could be produced.

I did exactly this in a matter of speaking (and unintenionally). I did the Six-Flags Olympic as my A race last summer. I put a lot of effort into my swim and bike, doing both all winter, and then a lot of open water swims all summer. My 10K time at my last Olympic was 46:55, with a 21.2 mph average on the bike and a 1:45/100m in the swim.

At Six-Flags I averaged 1:43/100m on the swim and felt better than I had ever felt coming out of the water. So good in fact that I was able to actually run up the ramp, resulting in a trip/slip, and kick to the dock. That caused an open compression fracture of my left big toe. Bone sticking right through the top of my toe, blood everywhere.

I ran bare foot with a broken toe about .25 miles on pavement, then I did the bike with a broken toe. I could only lightly push down on the left pedal, and there was no lift. A few bumps caused enough pain for the world to gray out. I still averaged 21.0 mph for the course.

I then ran 10 k on that toe in 48:55. Same as the year before.

I would like to think that in the previous year I would have done much worse.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I agree that swimming counts in triathlon (but not much), and I for one love swimming, even tho I'm not a swimmer by any stretch.

My point is that if you are (at IM) say a 1:20 swimmer, and you are managing your energy use sensibly to get that time, with a LOT of time in the pool you could get to say 1:10 or 1:05, but it would take a long time to get to that speed using similar energy. For 10-15 minutes of savings, you'd have to make a HUGE investment in time and effort. Running is a much better way to improve your overall time at IM

ME? I love swimming, have focussed on it for nearly 25 years and I manage to get 1:02 at IM, without killing myself. I see no sense in spending more time in the pool or spending much effort on my technique to get efficiency gains, for say 2-5 minute improvement. I see it as being far more worthwhile to simply do my 2-3 swim squads a week, and spend a lot more time, effort and focus on riding or running. Hell, I finish IM at almost exactly 13 hours. The swim is not my problem and it's not the problem for the vast majority of IM participants. Given the number of walkers at IM, I think as long as you go under say 1:30 for the swim, you should go for a run instead of going to the pool

BTW, I used to think my 13 hour time meant I was a crap triathlete. However, at my last few IM's taht 13 hours means I've finished almost exactly at the 50th percentile. That makes me AVERAGE, and that ain't bad. :-)

I have a friend who hits the pool for about 4x 1 hour sessions in the last month before his A race, and he's managed to get down to about 9:15 or so at IM. With arguably no swim training, he manages to sneak under 60 minutes for the swim, so no use wasting time or money on swim training for him, or most people as far as I'm concerned. For pro's or the few people at the pointy end of an AG, sure, max out your training in all 3 sprots, but for the rest of us, go for a run.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Thanks for thinking I'm a fast twitch guy. Unfortunately I'm not. You might therefore think I must be a slowtitch guy. I'm not that either. I'm in the very rare NO twitch type.

I am thoroughly addicted to this freakin' sport, but I'm completely unsuited for it. I'm 53, I'm fat, I've broken 37 bones so far (and I don't count toes) I've disocated shoulders, I've got arthritis in my hips (and starting in my wrists and ankles now) I have 3 heart conditions, I have have exercise induced asthma, I have a slipped disc in my back, and I have an aversion to training. I should retire from triathlon and take up couch surfing, but I just love doing something hard and proving to myself that I'm not a completely broken down useless fat f&^k.

Some days I wish triathlon had never been invented! some days I wish I liked doing something I'm better suited for.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

WOW, that was some impressive pain tolerance!!! So, how's the toe now??? Did you stop racing after that or???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Well, I think you're being a bit too hard on yourself. Anyone who did alpine skiing as a pro has to have some pretty impressive thighs, not to mention incredible coordination. That's why you caught onto the swim and bike easily. The run eludes you prob due to a few extra bones plus the downside of having a fair amount of fast twitch muscles. You could consider just racing sprint tris with a 5K or less run - you prob do well!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Eric,

Thanks for the compliments and suggestions.

Back in the day, yes I had monstrous thighs. I looked like a freak, like a t-Rex with massive thighs and tiny upper body. Funny to look at is why I left my clothes on until the ladies were past the point of saying no :-)

With my heart problems, sprint distance stuff isn't an option. Redline racing ain't for me. I like the long slow stuff, where i can dial in a speed or effort and hold it. I truly do just need to find more time for running. Maybe I'll start skipping swim workouts, but the girls in my squad are just too lovely to go without. (are you starting to catch onto my life focus?)

About 2 years ago, my son owned a gym. I started going and got good results. Even after almost 25 years away from skiing, my legs are wicked strong. After just 5 weeks, I got the leg press (inclined bench thingy) maxed out at 420kg (925lbs). The PT I was working with said I'd just have to do more reps. I got up to 20 reps of 420kg and then gave up, as the gym was taking too much precious time away from my life. My son has sold the gym now, but I feel like doing some upper body stuff and a few leg presses might be a good idea again.

The only problem with doing big weights and too many reps was that I kept getting bruises on my lower back, from the seatback of the machine. LOL. My son thought he was a bit of a hero at the gym until I maxed out the machine. To be fair tho. I did struggle to do more than 5 chinups in a row, and that was after about 10 weeks of training! LOL I guess I'm still a bit of a freak.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I was trying to explain this to someone else on an unrelated forum that is into tri as well. When looking at his swim workouts for full iroman distance races his swim workouts were 1/3 mine and 1/3 as frequent and I am focusing on 70.3 right now, granted I'm focusing and he is just sort of finishing but still not slow. He thought the same thing as many, well getting faster won't help me much I should dedicate time to biking or running. Which in the grand scheme of things is true, however many seem to forget the aerobic part. I have a swimming background so yes it comes easier for me but I'm not necessarily faster than those I'm competing against. I usually get out of the water say 5th-10th place (with two waves for my age group usually top 15-20 or so then). But I'm basically just warmed up for a bike ride, my heart rate is low, my breathing is calm. Could I have gone faster, yes but instead I came out within 30 seconds of everyone around me and I'm probably feeling better than most of them. I make sure within the first 50-100 yards I'm no further back than say 20th and I just slowly pick them off as they run out of steam.

Besides if I finish the swim 2 minutes faster than the quickest runner then I don't have to run as fast, I think I mentioned in this thread I hate running :)...

So, with so much strength in your legs, I'm guessing you really like hilly bike courses???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

With a rather large belly hiding my quads from view, I do NOT like hilly courses. Gravity is a bitch! :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Well, you know what you need to do to get rid of that belly, right??? Losing weight is not easy but it's not THAT hard. Did you see this vid from a related thread???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Just returning to this thread since I posted that 4.5w/kg iirc is too high and someone should bet me.

The big problem when Agers is, actually it really applies to anyone, pro or AG but when they toss out numbers, well there are several problems actually.

1st they often toss it out on their best 20-30min effort and call that their p/wt ratio. They are lying to themselves.

The second is that someone riding 3.3 on a PT is more powerful vs someone at a 3.4 on Quarq/SRM or other crank based system. Easiest way to add to your FTP and/or p/wt ratio is go from a PT to a crank based system. I've seen some pretty nice jumps in p/wt ratio but no jumps in race performance. It's an apple to apple but also apple to orange comparison.

The other problem, and it's come up often on here is people just don't test, they guess, or they don't test/guess in a repeatable manner. I'd say 80% of my power meter users come to me with crappy testing protocols, do it on different courses, etc. They get 15 different variables in their test. variables matter.
Finally a lot of people test on the trainer, I've found that 50% of the time, maybe more, trainer watts do not = real outdoor watts.

That being said 3.5 is a more realistic number.

When someone tells me they are well above 4 my first thought is good for you and my second thought is no, you are probably not.

I've had people mention they are 4.x at races. Then my tested on the same course at roughly the same time of day +/- 10min is what I shoot for, 3.x (PT user) puts 12 min on them over 90k. Either they are less aero than a cinder block or they are as wrong as 2+ 5 = 18.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

JOOC, for the few non-power users, how would the 3.5 w/kg translate in terms of an oly dist bike split, assuming decent aero-ness??? And, is the 3.5 what you believe that about 80% of healthy males under 40 should be able to achieve??? Also, can't recall that you ever weighed in on the analogous 5K and 500 scy times??? And, what would you say for the oly dist race as a whole, assuming a truly accurately measured swim, bike, and run, fairly flat, and light winds??? Assuming "total dedication", could the 80% go sub-2:20, sub-2:15, or???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I wish you could have collected this data point for us without such a horrific injury! Yikes.

Massive respect.

Interesting question. I'm 23 year old, top of pack in most races I enter but nowhere near elite (raced Lisa Nordén in a short race, 800/14/3,3k and was 4 minutes behind her. During her plantar fascitis..) Last winter I had a minor knee surgery and couldnt bike for 2 weeks and run for 4. When I came back I couldnt run for 2 km straight. I did 400m repeats at 5:30/k pace. 4 weeks later I did my first 5k tests and managed 23 minutes. This was on running twice weekly (which I still do). I was swimming 400LCM in 6:20 something.

Now a good year later without any real setbacks (worst was the flu and some annoying shin problems) I swim a 400LCM in 5:40, my FTP is problably somewhere at 4w/kg and my open 5k is probably around 19. I dont even feel like I'm close to my potential. I've been into endurance sports, transitioning from martial arts and gym training, for 2-3 years now. My first tri was 2011 and with only bike training and I did a 1:22 sprint.

I cannot for my life understand why a healthy male would plateu - genetically - at 19k/3,75w/kg ftp/6:30 500y. Its just too mediocre. For females I can believe it. The general weekend warrior has so much potential to tap into if they would be allowed a few years (say 4, an olympic cycle) of elite training with training camps, weekly massages, qualified coaches, good equipment, motivating people around them etc. I'll say for a healthy male to NOT reach these numbers with 4 good years of training would be suprising and certainly an outlier on the low end of the bell curve.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

ericmulk wrote:

JOOC, for the few non-power users, how would the 3.5 w/kg translate in terms of an oly dist bike split, assuming decent aero-ness???

The graphs below from this 2012 thread, courtesy of Art Hare, should answer your question. Looks like an 8 mph delta between best and worst performance at 3.5 W/kg! It would be cool to see a histogram of performances in that range to get a sense of what to expect with "decent aero-ness". The average appears to be around 24 mph.

The huge variability stems from many sources: inaccurate reporting (exaggeration or honest mistake), inaccurate PMs, hub-based vs. crank/pedal-based PMs, CdA, Crr, ambient air pressure, and possibly other factors...

---

CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications

I had forgotten but actually I commented on this thread back in Aug 2012. Apparently, AHare used data from various distance races from 10 km up to 180 km.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Actually this supports my assumption that most people would need to be 4-4.5 watts/kg FTP to arc an Ironman at around 5:20

I can show you 10 guys in the local triclub, healthy males 20-40, who can't break 23 in a 5k despite training with legit intensity and reasonable volume for an AGer for running.

Similarly, ask the guy who runs 17s with almost no training, and he can't fathom why any healthy male cant win the state championship with serious training. Not an exaggeration - I've met a few guys who PR in the 15s, and with minimal training run 17-18mins for casual 5k fun runs, and that's exactly how they feel - because they can run a state-level, they can't fathom why nobody else can do it since 17s are so friggin' easy for them..

Using oneself as the benchmark for the entire bell curve never works.

FTW!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Nothing personal. Should have been in pink. I look at this way. Adult onset swimmers are at a disadvantage, so they have an excuse. Nearly everyone started running and biking as a child, so they have no excuse at sucking.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I guess I'm just - like too many - blind for my own privilige. I also hang out with way more gifted/motivated/seasoned athletes than me.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

You know, I just thought of this today, but I know three girls who are excellent bikers, and two of them are excellent swimmer/bikers, but none of them can run very well, e.g., I know a pair of twin sisters who can swim 23 in a 1500 m and ride 1:04 in the 40 km bike, but yet they run around 47 at best for the 10K. Know another girl who's an even equally fast, or maybe faster, biker but she can not swim or run to save her life:)

So, perhaps we should say something like "for healthy males under 40 who have some degree of talent in all 3 sports, they should be able to go swim xx, bike 1:xx, and run xx." Of course, at this point we have so many qualifiers that you just can't say the "average male", or female, anymore:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Except that some swimmer/biker types just have too many fast twitch muscles to run any distance over 800 meters well. Similarly, some very thin runner/biker types just don't have enough upper body strength to swim well. And some runner/bikers don't have sufficient motor skills to swim well; you see it in little kids all the time: some catch on in just a few lessons but some struggle for several summers to learn to swim decently:)

In the final analysis, there are prob NO "standard times" that "everyone under 40" should be able to do if they worked at it enough.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I think we agree.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I call EXCUSE!

when I was about 5, I had a near (very near) drowning experience. Luckily (or unluckily for the world at large) dad is a doctor and I got the kiss of life and am here to tell the story. I could always swim past the breakers at the beach, but was never a 'swimmer' per se. It was only in my early 30's that I got in the pool. I used to run with a colleague at lunch. One time there was too much snow to run, so we hit the pool. I had trouble swimming 100 metres. That depressed me. When my buddy suggested I do a tri, with a 1500metre swim, I hit the pool regularly. I built up slowly and managed the distance on race day. I swam just over 30 mintues and was not happy with that.

On rec.sport.triathlon, way back in the day, I started paying attention to Terry Laughlin's articles (that he turned into a book and 'system'). That, combined with just one session with the university swim coach, and I realized that technique and efficiency when swimming was about 90% of what mattered, with fitness being the rest. For about the last 20+ years, I have focussed almost entirely on technique. Sure I do the session the coach prescribes, and hit the target times etc, but when I'm swimming, I'm thinking about what I'm doing, how fluid I am, how the water feels, etc etc.

I'm 53 now and regularly swim about 1:30 per 100metres and manage 1:02 at IM and I'm a fat little bastard that really doesn't put in much effort in the swim. I have a wife, kids, a job and love beer and chocolate. I can't run 15 minute 5k's but by paying attention to technique, I can go a lot faster than a lot of people younger and fitter than me.

Sooooo many people who swim, especially those who take up swimming later in life (ie not college swimmers) simply don't fully appreciate that thrashing about in the pool is a waste of time. In water, one has to sneak through the water, not try and beat it into submission. In cycling and running, working harder has semi-linear results. Work harder, go faster. In the pool, with water being almost 1000 times denser than air, being efficient is what it's all about.

AND it's possible for an old dog to learn new tricks. I have managed it. Most people just don't have the dedication to learn or the dedication to be efficient.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Please take note of the last line in post 108, and consider yourself guilty.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

@Tridork - I know it's hard for you to believe, but you are almost certainly talented in swimming. The description you give, of going fast with not much serious training, is the very definition of innate talent.

Some people have it, and some don't. I probably work harder than you do it in the pool now because I'm so bad at swimming, and I'm not even close to breaking 1:30/100m for long sets (I'm like 1:45-50/100m for long sets), but it's certainly not just a technique issue (although I've definitely got a bunch of speed lost due to my technique, admittedly.)

Have posted before, but my Vasa swim trainer gives power per arm, and at least for me, it's pretty close to my actual pool 100m times (not dead-on, but close enough, like <5sec/100off based upon perceived effort which I can peg pretty well from all those pool sets.) That Vasa tells me pretty clearly I do NOT have the arm power/endurance to maintain 1:30 pace for more than 50 meters, which happens to be exactly what I do in the pool. Given how well that Vasa pegs my pool pace, I'd seriously doubt that I could go 1:30/100 since I clearly don't have the power to maintain that pace.

Some people are talented at swimming, some at strength, others at running, etc. (I have genetically big quads, which aren't helpful at all for endurance sports, but I can leg press ridiculous amounts of weight without having ever done real squats or leg presses.) I suspect you're a swim guy. If it were as easy as you claim, there would be tons of people swimming sub 1hr IM swims in the AG .

I'm guilty of using myself as the benchmark.

However, my comments are still valid. I don't work very hard in the swim, (but I do work smart). I don't work very hard on the bike or run either.

I think most people new to the sport (as in adults coming into the sport) work pretty hard to achieve results. Hard work on the bike and run, works. Working hard in the pool just doesn't work. Working smart on the bike or run has relatively little impact or benefit, but working smart in the pool will get you 90% of the way there so to speak.

While I am guilty of using myself as a benchmark, it is really only to illustrate that my approach, that I think is markedly different from most people, works. For me to get sub 20 minutes for 5km would take a truckload of freakin hard work. Getting to 1:30 per 100m in the pool has taken hardly any work at all.

If riding and running smart paid off, I'd already have qualified for Kona, but that ain't gunna happen :-) Kona takes HARD work

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Of the three sports, I prefer running first. I've had some awesome runs where I felt like my feet weren't even touching the ground. I'm too fat and lazy to run fast. I like cycling, but maybe because of my skiing experience, I'm best at downhills :-). I love swimming third, but it IS a blast. I'm not a natural anything....except maybe a perv. I love women, waaaaaay more than triathlon!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Ya, it's that body awareness that has made you a good swimmer. Some people have that awareness much more than others:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Sport/body awareness is a chicken and egg thing I think

did I become a good skier because I had good body awareness, or did I get good body awareness because of skiing?


the body awareness thing is interesting. About 13 years ago, I broke my pelvis (and skull) in a cycling accident. About a week later I went to the doctor. He asked me to stand on one leg, with my eyes closed and tilt my head back. After 30 seconds, he asked if I was a gymnast, because my balance was so good. (he expected me to fall within a few seconds). That was the easy part of the test. Next he asked me to hop a few times on my left leg. I hopped once. By the time I hit the ground after the first hop, I was already crying from the pain. He said, "I think you've broken your pelvis" My eyes are welling up now, just remembering that pain!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I still disagree with your notion that average joe could achieve what you could with just 'smart training' and not a lot of killer hard work in the pool. Swimming sub 1:30s/100m for distance in the pool takes some real swim fitness, on top of good technique. But good technique alone wont' get you there.

Again, if you're gifted with powerful arms/lats as well as great water feel, the power + technique will come together in a way that will make it seem easy. But for most others, BOTH power and technique will be limiters, but power will likely be the far bigger limiter as to why those slow swimmers will never go that fast.

Even the best coaches cannot take an established 1:55/100m swimmer who's been there for at least a year, and get them to low 1:00s without tons of hard sets and significant increases in volume. No technique tricks are going to get them there, and after using my Vasa, I can say with pretty fair certainty that there will be no such swimmers stuck at 1:55/100m for a year, who can get on a Vasa and put up big wattage/pace numbers. No friggin' way - you can just look at their strokes in the water and see the lack of force - it's not just sloppy technique for them.

The improvement you describe, without killer efforts to get to FOP results, is pretty classic for a reasonably talented individual. Most people with that talent make the same error you did and erroneously attribute their progress to 'smart training', whereas that's almost certainly a false assumption given their lack of big volume and big intensity. If you're talented, you tend to improve much more on much less - that's almost the definition of talent. I have a lot of it it music and academia, and very little of it in triathlon =(

Not to be too blunt, but you're wrong.

I come from a skiing background. I have good legs, but never had good upper body. I can only swim as fast as I do, by cheating. I be really quiet, and sneak through, when the water isn't looking. As soon as the water notices I'm there, I go slower :-)

Seriously tho, water is close to 800 times more dense than air. You might as well try to swim through dry concrete if you're not focussed on technique.

In my own office, I have a co-worker who follows the more/harder ethos. He finishes IM about 10:30 or so, to my 13 hours. He swims about 1 minute slower than me. His youth, much greater fitness,and willing to suffer way more than me, results in riding and running a lot faster than me, and swimming almost the same. I'm not going to tell him how to swim faster. :-)

Power is a component of swimming, but compared to technique (as in efficiency) it's pretty much inconsequential.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Having done some downhill skiing in HS and college, and having watched 1000s of want-to-be tri guys/girls and also 1000s little kids try to learn to swim, I have absolutely zero doubt that body awareness is an innate talent. I mean some kids just pick up swimming and skiing in no time whereas other struggle for months or years.

That pelvis thing sounded VERY painful. I broke my left femur about 7 yrs ago and it was VERY painful immediately, the second I hit the pavement:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I am well aware of the water >>> air density. Yes, that means drag hurts you more in the water.

Despite this reality, Sheila Taormina in her excellent book about EVF and propulsion, makes a strong case that once your legs are reasonably flat in the water, your swim speed is 80% PROPULSION and 20% streamlining.

Total Immersion's philosophy of all-streamlining isn't wrong, but it's most correct for beginner swimmers, who have lots of really terrible technique errors that are really obvious, especially a big leg drop. But once those legs are pretty high, and you're not fishtailing like crazy, you need POWER to go fast. If you never swim hard/fast, you plateau pretty quickly at a slow BOP pace - unless you are talented.

There is a reason why the majority of sub 1:30 swimmers have done lots of HARD sets, for awhile, even if they weren't putting up a ton of yards, and it makes perfect sense for Taormina's estimates.

Furthermore, I guarantee we could put a freaking DRAG SUIT or even a DRAG PARACHUTE on you, and you would still easily outswim all the 2:00/100m swimmers in the pool, despite that massive drag. Because of your power. I guarantee your drag from the parachute will be significantly more than the drag those 2:00/100m swmimers are generating.

Again, I'm not discounting swim water sense - it's a crucial skill, and for elite athletes, that may make all the difference between 1st and last in a 100m swim race. But for a MOP triathlete vs a FOP triathlete swim pace, there's a big power component involved - and I'm inclined to believe Taormina's 80/20 estimate.

I think you just said I'm talented. Mum will be so pleased to hear that!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Yup, I'm saying it - compared to the joe average triathlete who would barely go 1:50/100m with your training if you're being honest about how easy you went about it - you're talented!

Not gonna comment if you're talented compared to the fish on this forum though - that's a different standard completely!

Nah, you have more power in your upper body than you think. I've never seen anyone who only had strong legs. Probably you just haven't done enough sprint work in the pool, but most swimmers who have done a lot of sprint work develop the V-shape that is the swimmer's trademark. I have one adult onset swimmer friend who went from 42 to 46 inches in jacket size just in his first year of masters swimming. During that year, he lowered his best 100 free from about 1:25 to around 1:01 flat. He swam about 1 to 1.5 hr/day, 5-6 days/wk, and prob swam around 20,000 yd/wk, with no bike or run or weights.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

yeah, the pelvis hurt, but not until about 2 minutes after I regained consciousness!

I remember to just before the crash (about 1-2 seconds before I hit the gound) and then I was 'out' for about 20 seconds or so. When I came to, the first thing I apparently said was "Oh fuck, not again". One of the pedestrians, who happened to be a nurse, was saying "don't move don't move", as my helmet was in pieces. "Yeah yeah., I know the drill" was my next comment. (Yes sportsfans, tridork is an experienced idiot!)

I waited for the pain to start, which took about another 30 seconds or so. Then my entire body screamed in agony. EVERYTHING hurt. Eventually that subsided to hip, head, and road rash.

I got up, sat on a park bench for a while (dripping blood onto the bench) and after about 20 minutes, hopped on my bike and rode home! A week later, I did IMNZ 2000, and managed a personal best for back then!

Like they say, if you're gunna be dumb, ya better be tuff.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

True dat!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Unbelievable that you did an iron distance race with a broken pelvis!!! Hell, I could not put any weight on my broken femur at all, and the morning after same-day-as-the-crash surgery, I could just barely walk across the hospital room to go the bathroom. It took me 3.5 months to get to quasi-running with a limp, and another 2 months to running semi-decently, and 3.5 more months before the limp had pretty much gone away, e.g. about 9 months recovery total.

Did you have surgery on your pelvis???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

My pelvis was broken just behind my balls. After the crash, I had an X-ray because I thought I'd broken my hip. The X-ray just missed the crack in the middle. I didn't tell anyone about my suspected skull fracture, because I knew I wouldn't be allowed to race. Hey, if ya gunna be dumb.....

I didn't train at all for the week before IM. On race day, as I barely kick, the swim was a typical 1:02. The pelvis must have healed a tiny bit as the run to T1 was OK. On the bike, the rough road slowly split me in half. I kept thinking I had the worlds worst saddle sore. Several checks showed it was fresh as a daisy, not even a bit red. So, I HTFU and kept going.

On the run I had bad stomach issues so walked a lot of the marathon, trying not to puke. The pelvis hurt, but my guts hurt worse, and of course the mind melting headache distracted me somewhat. :-) It was NOT a great day for me.

The next morning, a buddy and I were loading the bikes onto the roof of the car. We both heard a 'tick' like a bolt of something had dropped on the ground. Neither of us could see a bolt so we loaded the second bolt, and a second 'tick' . My buddy said "what was that?" to which I responded, "if I had to say, I'd say it was my bollocks!". Your bollocks don't make that noise he countered. I agreed, so we finished loading the car and headed home. I must admit that changing gears with teh clutch was not my favourite thing that day :-(

A week later I tried to go for an easy run, but it felt like someone with a dull knife was trying to cut me a mangina. I walked to the doctors office (right at the gym) and he diagnosed the likely issue. Several tests proved him right. The treatment? Go home and sit still for 3-4 weeks. It turns out I sat too close to the fridge and I'm still carrying the weight I gained back than.

the only good thing to come from all that was that we found out that I'm one tuff mofo! and my wife can no longer claim that childbirth is the worst possible pain. LOL

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Ya, you are definitely one tough mofo!!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

After all this discussion, I think that for an adult onset swimmer (why do I always think early onset dimentia? LOL), getting faster than 1:30 per 100m will be rare and even then, it won't be by much. I see a lot of guys from 30-60 who are adult onset, who are at 1:30 or not much faster. We all swim 2-3 hours a week, in a squad. Most are fitter than me but don't sneak through the water when it's not looking. They bash their way to 1:25, but suffer like rented mules to do it.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

since this is about endurance athletes and not sprinters, how about your best guess on annual distance totals for each discipline?

BTW, I think the numbers you tossed out are as good a yardstick as I've seen. Hard, very hard for me, but doable (IF . . . ).

---

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand

Though it's tough for me to swallow my pride a bit on that statement I think I agree with you.

I started swimming when I was 34. I had ZERO background. I swam 200scy my first time in the pool most of it side stroke. I got home that night feeling like I just did 5K all out on the track...LOL.

Fast forward about 10 months and I was able to do 10 x 100 arrving in 1:20scy. I was pretty proud of myself, but I was swimming for me a LOT (10K / week) and biking and running. It was tough. I plateaued there. I don't know what it would have taken to get faster, but for me 1:20 was really pushing the boundaries. And as you state that's getting real near 1:30scm I suppose.

For me to get faster than 1:20 I'd clearly have to swim 15K / week+ and probably do little to no biking. I can see where a big swim focus may benefit in the long run, but is it worth losing ANY bike w/kg during that swim focus? Maybe not.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

On your 10 x 100s, are you leaving on the 1:30, 1:40, or??? Also, if you did a "swim focus" in say Nov thru end of Jan, do you not think your biking power would come back pretty fast??? I would keep up some running, say 25-30 mpw, just so your legs stay used to the abuse, but biking does not require this per se.

Regardless of your leave interval, you made great progress in 10 months!!! You clearly have some talent for swimming. I'll bet no more than 1 out of 10 tri guys could do what you did. Tridork is one of those few. I had similar improvement back at age 14/15 when I started competitive swimming on a YMCA team. Those first big improvements can come fast but then your progress slows quite a bit. If you look at the national AG swimming records on the usaswimming.org web site, you'll see that the national record for the 100 scy is 53.12 for the 10 and under boys vs the 18 and under boys record of 42.34, i.e. 8 yrs of long hard workouts to take that additional 11 sec off your best time, and that is for the most talented swimmers in the country.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Leaving on 1:40.

My go to workouts during my last few months building up to the ability to swim 10 x 100 1:20:

15-20 x 100 arriving in 1:22-1:23. Leaving 1:40.

It was very hard work. Much harder day in and out than biking and running.

---

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex

Well, I think whether one regards swimming has harder than the BR might depend on whether one enjoys it or not. I know I'm strange but there is absolutely no better feeling in the world than swimming fast. You're right up there on top of the water, just flying along with smoothness, grace, and speed. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with the BR but OTOH from many years of swimming I know that, if I just swim and try to kill myself every day in the pool, then I'll burn out. Thus the BR for me is just a diversion from my main sport.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Some ? Thats more than I run on average per week..

---

_________________________________________________

Ya but I know some of the big runners do 50-60 mpw, plus their S and B, so just wanted to cover all the bases:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."