The benchmarks that I have used are:

Swim: CSS speed 1:30 min/100m ;)
Bike: FTP 4,5 w/kg
Run: 10km time sub 36min

That’s awfully fast...

---

Matt

In kona people are finishing from 8 hours to 15 hours

Qualifying benchmarks vary wildly depending on which age group, gender (sorry), and qualifying event right?

New Zealand ironman used to have 114 qualifying spots, and 10.30 would get you in as a open men age group (20 to 30) but now you probably have to do 9.30 hours to qualify as a 40 year old male...while 10 hours might get you in ironman malaysia

Maybe but my experience is that CSS of 1:30 and than you are sub 60min with out going all out and have to do less of a catch up on the bike.

Wouldn't winning your AG at WTC 70.3s be the best indicator? (Maybe top 2). Do that and then go for a kona spot at a full distance.

Like who cares if your CSS is 1:45 but you can close with a 3:05 marathon in an IM. It's the whole package.

You clearly missed the joke/sarcasm. Read your post again.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

The best benchmark is a fact that a candidate is focused on a killer interval session tonight as a part of preparation for late fall IM next year. :)

Without sarcasm: my personal opinion the stand-alone requirements are not so high.

swim: don't suck, CSS <1:40/100m is fine
bike: 4.0W/kg
run: ability to do a sub-3 marathon.

But having those is not enough. You need to have enough 16+ hour weeks in a season in order to execute all three properly.

https://www.coachcox.co.uk/...nship-qualification/

Here you go...You can view prior qualifying times for each race and adjust your plans/benchmarks accordingly.

Curious, do you mean open marathon sub-3?

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

Are you referring to this article by Alan Couzens?

https://www.alancouzens.com/...kona_qualifiers.html

Yep, that's what I meant. I think benchmarks make since only when they're tested separately, right?

Much better! There is hope!
i can do this on all disciplines but cant do the previous one posted on any discipline.
I imagine these numbers are very dependent on age group? As i get older my running speed (10km time) is getting slower but without much change in marathon speed.

Imo, you aren’t getting to kona as a man on 4.0 FTP, unless you are an ACE swim/runner.

I’d think 4.4-4.5 is a requirement as a dude under 45.

4.0 probably gets you a top 10-15 in your AG bike split. The top guys taking slots are all 4.5+

Goodness gracious.

CSS: 1:49 100/m
Bike: 3.4/watts KG
Run: 1:24 on a treadmill for a half....I have not done a marathon in almost 2 years.


So I need to get my FTP to 320, swim a lot more...and hope a good run happens?


Yeah....Lake Placid is going to be fun *rolls eyes*

I don't like FTP as a benchmark for KQing. An Ironman bike leg is so far away from 1 hr max power (which most people only estimate from an 8 or 20 min test), it just doesn't seem that relevant.

How about what W/kg can you easily hold (without trying) on long/boring 3-4 endurance rides? I'd say 2.75-3 w/kg.

I like the standalone marathon benchmark, but it probably should be closer to 2:50 than 3hrs I'd guess.

Using FTP or w/kg isn't the best measure IMO as it doesn't show the whole story. We need to look at something like watts/(kg*CdA).

---

blog

I agree with this. KQ'd 5x. Every time my FTP was depressed 10-15% from it's high which is usually in the winter with group rides and intervals. As the build progresses, 4-5 hours at 2.75-3 w/kg get easier and FTP gets harder. So by race day I am doing 70-72% of my FTP from the winter but about 75-78% of present FTP. 4.2 when focusing on FTP, 4.6 in the old bike racing days, 3.75 on race day but able to ride at a high % of that with a HR of 135(mid zone 2). So FTP is not benchmark I use.

I do a 60 mile loop on my race bike at >140 HR with simlar wind/temp a couple times a month. Looking at av speed. Then brick an hour run >142hr and look at speed. That is my test. I can usually race at that run speed, or slightly slower. Stand alone 10k and 40k open tt are interesting but you can those to be pretty good and be going backwards at IM training.

What do yo consider ACE swim and run ranges?

Hey Tamiii,

Here is a link to my old article as it appeared on the Endurance Corner site...

https://alancouzens.com/...kona_benchmarks.html

Though, considering it's almost a decade old now & looking at some of those numbers, I think an updated version might be in order :-)

Thanks for the kind words!

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

take Wisconsin as example... coming in around 9:45 gets you a slot most years (coachcox website did the heavy lifting and compiled the data) in ags 18-45.

Most common way to “skin the cat” is to swim just over an hour, bike about 5:10, run about 3:20 with about 10’ in transitions.

5:10 will get you one of the top bikes in your AG. They are the 4.5+ type guys doing 5:10 and below.

If you ride 5:25 at Wisconsin, you are talking about having to make up 15’ in swim/run.

So ace swimmer might still be talking 56/5:15/3:25 type day.

Ace runner would need to be 3:05 off the bike to close down to that “standard” kq split at imwi.

It’s not all about the numbers, I can’t remember who said it but the phrase ‘the ability to suffer’ is #1 in the requirements to be successful at IM.

I’ve KQ’d 3 times in the last 3 years (40-44) and can hit virtually none of these ‘requirements’.
FTP - 4.1 ish (but I hardly ever test it)
Best 5k- 19:44
Swim- I’ve done 1:02 to 1:05 in my last 6 IMs

As mentioned above it’s more important to hold a high % of ftp for 5 hrs than being able to do 20 mins flat out... I race at 70-80% ftp.

None of these are fast, it’s about putting it all together and handling the suffering!

I agree with you on that. Find out the average bike speed for KQ for your target race. Then go out and try to ride that pace 3 to 4 hours. If it feels almost too easy and you can run faster than KQ pace afterwards with no problem, then you might have a chance. Anyway, that pace for me is about 2.75 to 3.0 watts per kg.

The results with their speeds and paces are posted. Don't just try to calculate theoreticals with formulas. Go out and actually try to do those speeds and paces on similar terrain and see what happens.

I'll ride Zwift with about the same amount of elevation gain as a target race and no-draft tri bike to see what speed my watts gets and it's pretty accurate. I think it's about 22.5 or maybe 23 mph average to KQ on gentle rolling (but not flat) terrain like IM Texas used to be on. 112 miles / 5 hours is 22.4 mph. So if you're not averaging at least 22.4 mph on your easier rides on terrain like your race, you've got work to do.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

My FTP is never much over 4.0 watts/kg and I can guarantee you a near top bike split at almost any 70.3 or 140.6. Saying 4.4-4.5 is a "requirement" for M<45 is just simply not true.

Threads like this are pointless as there are simply too many variables.

The point isn't about being FAST in any one single sport, it's about combining average to above average splits with zero mistakes, consistently.

Would you say that the benchmarks to qualify for IM70.3 worlds are comparable to KQ? If yes to what extent? Just curious about your opinion.



How many watts(kg*CdA) according to you to KQ?



Appreciate you chiming in! :) What happened to the EnduranceCorner.com website? Where can we get the old articles? It was a bible of information!



How do you measure it? I totally agree with this statement. How do you measure/develop it? Would be interesting to link this to the central governor theory from Tim Noakes.

@ZenTriBrett, that is a super alternative to benchmarks. Love the idea.

@jkhayc you are right but it is meant to trigger conversations with plenty of "what-if" scenario (and also popcorn + F5 on this thread).

Sorry, but this is the biggest crock of shit. The guy who is finishing an IM in 16:50 may very well have the ability to suffer greater than you or even Patrick Lange. In fact, when I started triathlon (shortly after my rowing career ended), I would have put my ability to suffer up against anybody, including pros. But yet 15 years later I’m actually faster even though I will candidly admit my ability to suffer has diminished. Because I have trained a lot more more and the numbers are much better.

Sure, the ability to suffer is helpful and necessary, but it’s not even close to the #1 requirement. I think the rest of your post is valid and underscores the point that power at 5 hours is more important than FTP. But, that is still a quaintifiable number.

In the past I've seen a lot of people qualify for 70.3 worlds that had no chance whatsoever of qualifying for kona. But there used to be a lot more slots at 70.3 races and not the extreme interest like there is for a kona slot (A LOT of rolldown). From what I've seen, approx. the top 2 in each AG at WTC 70.3 events seem to have the speed for a KQ. Not saying they will get it for sure, but they will be in the mix.

In other words, nobody goes from a 20th spot in their AG at a half and then 2 months later gets a KQ at a full. So don't even attempt a KQ unless you're winning your AG at a half, or nearly.

As far as the numbers go, they are great until race day execution becomes a factor. Last summer I hit 4.5 w/kg and had a 1:19 open half (with a 32 min swim on race day), but could only get 6th in 30-34 at my half. My full ironman 1 month later I got 25th in my AG. So numbers are much less important than we think.

Despite biking more than anyone I know, I think my limiting factor was actually not enough biking. So in other words, in order to get near the top of the AG, you must become a superbiker. Not just FTP but also volume. Become like a Norman Stadler or Luke Mckenzie. Maybe the "benchmark" here for biking should be weekly hours!

Don’t agree at all for this. Quality >> quantity.

---

blog

I was referring to both quality and quantity. I did the TR full distance plan last year and there definitely was some good quality there.

I figured. But when you said the benchmark should be weekly hours, I rolled my eyes a bit (not directed at you). Mostly because I know too many people who ride a crap ton, but never with any intensity. And they want to know why they don't KQ or get any faster......

You can ride 10-15 hours a week all year, but if you never ride faster than 70.3 or 140.6 pace/effort........

---

blog

you're right, except when you're wrong... sometimes a particular athlete needs a particular training stimulus.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

True. But those are the exception.

---

blog

Thanks, I like to share different ways to see what you can do.

I rode this morning for an hour at 23.8 mph on similar terrain to a target race, feeling easy, definitely would be a KQ bike ride if I extended those numbers out for 5 hours. But the other thing to look at is heart rate. It was about 20 bpm too high to sustain for 5 hours and then run a decent marathon after. It needs to be around middle of zone 2 to get the job done on race day, and I was in zone 3 for a lot of it.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20171216231453/http://www.endurancecorner.com:80/

Thanks again for the kind words, Tamiii!

We disbanded Endurance Corner at the start of the year but I moved all of the old content to my server (as you said, there was too much top notch content from Gordo, Justin, Marilyn and the crew that accumulated over the years to just let it 'float off into the ether'! :-)

There was a hitch with domain transfer that slowed things up but that is sorted now so I should be able to 'flip the switch' and put the site back on-line shortly. Will report back when it is live again.

Thanks for the reminder and your support for what we built at EC. Some very special years with some great people & many treasured memories!

Truly appreciated!

---

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com

Which volume plan did you use? I am trying to compare what I am doing right now to prepare for my first full distance at Lake Placid.

Monday: I do about 1 hour 65-70% FTP
Tuesday: Intervals 30-45 min
Thursday: Intervals 45 min
Saturday: Long ride

I did the medium volume Full distance base and build. The long weekend workouts at 60-70% were incredibly valuable in my opinion. My friends would make fun of me for doing 4+ hour trainer rides but they never got the results I did from TR. I kind of liked it though. Watched a lot of good documentaries like the full PBS civil war series.

It's just so efficient in terms of watts gained/hours training. Plus I think it helped me with running results too.

I have KQ'd three times including for the upcoming 2019 race, this is my take.

First, I qualify at IM Taiwan. Certainly less competitive than many races, but deceptively tough. We do get a lot of fast Europeans showing up (e.g. 9:30 times in Europe, my AG (M40)) and they fall apart in the heat and humidity of race day. So looking at a 10H KQ time and saying "Ah...that is a good race to try to KQ at" is not so straightforward. To reference my IMTW time, I finished 10:01 at Kona in 2015 on the longer swim course.

For swimming, I think as long as you get it done close to or under an hour, you are already in good shape.I swim 52 minutes with wetsuit, 57min Kona no wetsuit.

For cycling, my short sprint numbers are not impressive, my FTP is 4.2. But what really matters is how I ride the last hour of the bike. So many guys give away so much time there either for lack of endurance or race day nutrition. I don't think either is reflected in my FTP numbers. Bike is between 5 to 5:10.

For running...I can run a 36min 10km but my open marathon is a slow 3:13, but on a good day, in 38 celcius of heat and humidity, I can grind out a 3:35 marathon.

So....I'm lucky with a quick swim and the physiology to grind out decent bike/run splits in hot and humid conditions. So I think the target numbers depend on your own strengths and weaknesses. For me, that meant limiting my losses on my weakest link, the run. And to that meant making sure I could use my strengths to gain an advantage without physically burying myself for the run. The other component is picking/training for a race that suits your strengths in terms of terrain and weather.

And for all of that, I do agree with training quality, but training consistency is super critical too.