Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
"Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most"
Quote | Reply
There are two primary pacing strategies I've heard of at HIM and IM distance, and I'm curious how others think about it/them. The first is to "flatten the course," which is to say, maintain as steady an output of power as is possible in order to minimize physiologic stress. The second is to "use power where it will help most," i.e., where most overall race time will be gained per watt expended.

Strategy #1 entails maintaining as steady a power output (bike) or effort (run) as possible no matter what the terrain in order to get through the distance with the minimum amount of stress to the body. The theory behind it is that glucose consumption, lactate generation, and muscle breakdown all increase geometrically with increasing effort. Given the same expenditure of effort, a steady effort is less taxing than a variable effort, which will allow one to finish stronger. An ideal bike leg pacing for this strategy would be to maintain as constant an output as possible, not going too hard up the hills, and trying to keep the wattage up on the downside of the hills in the name of constancy. In TraningPeaks terms, the goal would be to have the Normalized Power as close to the Average Power as possible, with a Variability Index (ratio of NP to AP) as close to 1.00 as possible.

Strategy #2 would involve using more power where it will make one faster, and less where it won't help as much. On the bike leg, this means pushing it a little harder on the uphill, a little less on the downhill, and generally saving leg strength for the run. Pedaling hard down a hill will not add much to speed per unit of power expended due to increased wind resistance, where pedaling hard up the hill at a slower speed will, and having enough leg strength to get through the run at full strength is certainly the best use for it.

Both make sense in their own ways, but it is not clear to me which is better, or at which distance, on which type of course, and perhaps even at what relative level of fitness. It doesn't make much sense to put any extra effort into biking up a hill if one doesn't have a surplus of fitness for the given distance, as it will just come out of your hide at the end of the run. Maybe there are more strategies I'm not aware of.

But the principles of minimizing the stress and accumulating it where it's best, seem to me to be in competition, and it's not clear to me under what conditions one ought to trump the other.

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Strategy 2! Otherwise you will slow down to a crawl on hills. I'd much rather peg a 20 minute threshold on hills, then recover on the downhills.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
#2 is faster and better, the key is just to what degree you do it.

For HIM/IM one approach might be to go harder on the uphills but never go above FTP.

By not going above FTP you aren't really dipping into your anaerobic reserves much, so you don't pay a huge price for the effort.

The exact optimum strategy would be rather complex, with differing power targets depending on the grade and length of the climb and stuff.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Last edited by: jackmott: Apr 9, 13 10:12
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And don't forget training. If you've trained #1 and attempt to execute #2 you'll be buggered.

Personally I'm more a fan of #2 but then I live in what would be regarded as more hilly terrain so on my training ride I end up with lots of up and down hills.

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
^^^^THIS^^^^
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
read up on VI variability index if you are using power
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [haole] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
haole wrote:
read up on VI variability index if you are using power

What is it you think I don't understand re it?

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is what I was looking at doing for IMAZ this fall. I know IMAZ is relatively flat, but still has the long gradual uphill that I went up at 16.6 mph vs the down side at 22.

Looking at it time wise, going up took me 33:36 vs 24:47 for my quickest trips up, vs down, I know I'm slow.

Would riding at FTP be the same as riding at LTHR?

Also while we are on the topic, I'm still wondering about my first 1/4 of the bike where I was going insanely slow.

I was going by HR and came out of T1 with a super high HR, right at LTHR for the bike and it took me a good 28 miles or so to get it consistently down where I need it. Maybe I should rephrase that, it didn't take long to bring it down, but it took a while for my speed to come up to where it should be for that HR, I just kept getting faster and faster and the same HR.

I was wondering if I just said screw the HR and just going faster and it will eventually come down.

I think I just got more and more comfortable the longer I rode, and that is evendenced by each lap be faster and faster even though my hr would within 2 beat average per lap for each lap.

First lap I felt like the slowest person on the course, second lap, hey I'm going faster, last lap, I was the fastest person on the course (of course all the fast people were done 1.5 hours ago).

But anyway, took 10 minutes off per lap at the same HR, I know a little had to do with shift in wind, but even after taking that out if the equation I kept getting faster, so maybe ingnore bringing HR down for the first hour as long as I'm not over LTHR? Thoughts.
Last edited by: cstoulil: Apr 9, 13 10:23
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
HIM and IM are completely different beasts that require different strategies.

I tend to really attack HIM bike courses. Whether I run well depends on my run training and not so much on how hard I went on the bike.

EDIT: I'm a roadie too... so highly variable power outputs don't seem to hurt me as much.

For IM, it's really about patience, patience, patience...
Last edited by: NordicSkier: Apr 9, 13 10:27
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
another thought, is you can come up with a general plan , say, FTP = 250 and HIM average watts normally 200 for a flat course

ride the flats at 200 watts and uphills at 250 watts, downhills 130 watts, for example.

run the math on what that result in for normalized power. Normalized power shouldn't be above 200



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
#2 is superior if you have equal average NP for both options. In other words, it's better have a slightly lower avg power with more variability if that goes into higher than avg power on the uphills and lower than average power on the downhills such that the NP is the same as someone who rode with Avg Power= Normalized Power.

I do think specificity of training is relavent as well (as was mentioned above). You should train yourself for the variability and have a good sense for what your max power on the climbs is going to be. So if you are trying to average 72% of FTP then you might set your max at 90-95% provided that its not for extended times. If the climb is really short you might also push to FTP or even slightly above. If I was doing the big climb at the old IM Canada course (Richter) I would probably want to stay below my FTP because that climb could approach 20+ minutes, which is not what you want in an IM ride....

BTW, in my view the same strategy applies to into the wind vs with the wind. If you are looking at significant winds (say 15 mph+) that both help and hurt at different times, you'd be advised to ride a little harder than average into the wind--if you don't you'll spend a higher % of time at lower speeds....

The best thing you can do of course is to train a lot and raise your FTP as high as possible!

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
#2 is faster and better, the key is just to what degree you do it.


For HIM/IM one approach might be to go harder on the uphills but never go above FTP.

By not going above FTP you aren't really dipping into your anaerobic reserves much, so you don't pay a huge price for the effort.

The exact optimum strategy would be rather complex, with differing power targets depending on the grade and length of the climb and stuff.


Bingo. If you really want to get precise, I would try and figure out your critical power for a given time, and then set some kind of "do-not-cross" red line that you never go over. Dr. Skiba has done a ton of work/writing on this topic, but my understanding is that once you cross a certain power/pace (and this number varies based on how long the overall effort will be) your physiologic response (e.g., HR, glycogen use, etc., etc) starts to trend up very fast, and if you cross this line too often and/or stay above it for too long, even if you come back under it to recover, your body still goes down a path of increasing physiologic response, which in long course racing could be disastrous.

I'll have some good N=1 data after I race a fairly hilly HIM course this weekend. My goal power will be at 255-265 (about what I can maintain for 1.25-2 hours on the bike in the middle of a build phase in training and still be able to run off effectively assuming sound fueling), my 5 minute red-line 275, my 3 minute red line 285, and 1 minute red line 295 (which is about FTP). I plan on attempting to attack the downhills at that 255-265 number nonetheless, but won't force the issue and found last year on a similar course (Syracuse 70.3) my power tends to drag a bit on the downhills and things even out nicely anyways.

In terms of the run, due to some injuries I haven't been running on land very much, so my strategy there will be get to mile 8-9 uncomfortably comfortable and then start racing/suffering.

*********************************************
Brad Stulberg
Author, Peak Performance
http://www.BradStulberg.com
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [cstoulil] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cstoulil wrote:
But anyway, took 10 minutes off per lap at the same HR, I know a little had to do with shift in wind, but even after taking that out if the equation I kept getting faster, so maybe ingnore bringing HR down for the first hour as long as I'm not over LTHR? Thoughts.

Probably time to invest in a powermeter. Your heartrate will always be crazy at the start after transition, and also when it is too hot outside, or you are too dehydrated, or any other number of factors.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [rcmioga] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wind is actually a bit different. the theoretical best pacing into a head wind vs tail wind is very very nearly constant power.

Like only 5 watts harder into a strong head wind. Hard to even apply the theory in practice, so better to just ignore it.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
VI

if i recall correctly, there was an article on the front page also about it...
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
During the race, I keep a sharp focus on keeping the effort as steady as possible. If I'm riding at 85% CP for 56 miles, I try to keep it within +/- 5W of that target. That being said, when I hit an incline, I'll allow my output to increase depending on the length of the hill. A short one(<5min) and I'll go up to 100% CP. Anything longer than that and I'm at 90-95%, always seated and spinning easily. Sometimes that means I'm moving along at a crawl as guys in my AG fly by me, but I'm satisfied knowing I'll see almost all of them again by the end of the bike or on the run.



-Andrew
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [AMT04] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yup!
I've seen this happen!

AMT04 wrote:
A short one(<5min) and I'll go up to 100% CP. Anything longer than that and I'm at 90-95%, always seated and spinning easily. Sometimes that means I'm moving along at a crawl as guys in my AG fly by me, but I'm satisfied knowing I'll see almost all of them again by the end of the bike or on the run.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BOTH!!! The default strategy should be #1, it saves the most energy for the run. To improve on #1, there may be strategic times where #2 comes into play. Going a bit harder to stay with someone (within your abilities), smaller hills where maintaining speed over the hill at the expense of just a little more wattage nets a faster downhill speed. Pick and choose areas for #2 and default back to #1. My two cents.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Last I looked, those two approaches actually vary very little. A flattened course gave a VI in simulation of 1.01 or something like that due to spinning out, but strategy 2 gave a VI of only 1.05. In hilly courses that is actually somewhat surprisingly low.

So you may already be doing strategy 2 without realizing it.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
another thought, is you can come up with a general plan , say, FTP = 250 and HIM average watts normally 200 for a flat course

ride the flats at 200 watts and uphills at 250 watts, downhills 130 watts, for example.

run the math on what that result in for normalized power. Normalized power shouldn't be above 200

I like your plan, but I don't like your cutoff at FTP. Most riders have a 20 minute power around 105-110% of FTP. So most riders should be able to climb for 15 continuous minutes at 105-110% FTP and recover quickly. For shorter climbs most riders should be able to ride even harder. Of course, a 1 hour climb at FTP is not going to work out well.

It might be more reasonable to watch heart rate and use that to limt the hard efforts.

---

It is always best to test these ideas out ahead of time.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [N. Dorphin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you plan on running after you get off the bike, if so and want to be able to actually run the entire run vs. run a few miles then walk the remainder because you burnt your legs out pushing too much power up a hill I would suggest #1. A lot of people crush those hills and spend all their energy on the bike and don't have any left for the run, it's a long day and when it comes down to it you end on the run course not after you rack your bike in T2. A 15 min. mile walked x amount of times is a lot more time wasted than adding a few minutes to a climb.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [An Old Guy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
An Old Guy wrote:
I like your plan, but I don't like your cutoff at FTP. Most riders have a 20 minute power around 105-110% of FTP. So most riders should be able to climb for 15 continuous minutes at 105-110% FTP and recover quickly. For shorter climbs most riders should be able to ride even harder. Of course, a 1 hour climb at FTP is not going to work out well.

actually they should be able to ride 20 minutes at 150-200% FTP, while at the same time talking comfortably with the others they are passing.
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [AMT04] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AMT04 wrote:
During the race, I keep a sharp focus on keeping the effort as steady as possible. If I'm riding at 85% CP for 56 miles, I try to keep it within +/- 5W of that target. That being said, when I hit an incline, I'll allow my output to increase depending on the length of the hill. A short one(<5min) and I'll go up to 100% CP. Anything longer than that and I'm at 90-95%, always seated and spinning easily. Sometimes that means I'm moving along at a crawl as guys in my AG fly by me, but I'm satisfied knowing I'll see almost all of them again by the end of the bike or on the run.

I am going to try to remember this post in 4 weeks at Wildflower climbing up the first hill out of transition.....First race with power
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
wind is actually a bit different. the theoretical best pacing into a head wind vs tail wind is very very nearly constant power.

Like only 5 watts harder into a strong head wind. Hard to even apply the theory in practice, so better to just ignore it.

I'm still learning to use my PM correctly and I'm lost on the wind part. Why run higher watts into the headwind?



Wattie Ink Elite Team 2013/ Base Performance Ambassador 2011-Current
Quote Reply
Re: "Flattening the course" vs. "Using power where it will help most" [ProMOP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm saying you don't really. Not enough to bother worrying about.

In theory though, going a couple watts more into the head wind and a couple watts less in the tail wind would be faster. The reason for this is a bunch of math. =)



ProMOP wrote:
jackmott wrote:
wind is actually a bit different. the theoretical best pacing into a head wind vs tail wind is very very nearly constant power.

Like only 5 watts harder into a strong head wind. Hard to even apply the theory in practice, so better to just ignore it.

I'm still learning to use my PM correctly and I'm lost on the wind part. Why run higher watts into the headwind?



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply

Prev Next