natewalsh wrote:
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.
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.
stevej wrote:
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).
How many watts(kg*CdA) according to you to KQ?
Alan Couzens wrote:
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!
Appreciate you chiming in! :) What happened to the EnduranceCorner.com website? Where can we get the old articles? It was a bible of information!
Stimps9 wrote:
Itās not all about the numbers, I canāt remember who said it but the phrase āthe ability to sufferā is #1 in the requirements to be successful at IM.
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).