Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks
Quote | Reply
Just came across Alan Couzens' new post on benchmark 'levels'.

https://alancouzens.com/blog/benchmarks.html

For those that KQ, where do you sit on these benchmarks during your KQ season/s?

I know the article says he's based them of years worth of data, but the data might be from his own athletes, which would give a natural bias to his training methods?
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The table looks way off for 50 free times...how many triathletes go 24 for 50 free?
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Looks way off for me as well, when looking at swim/run/bike benchmarks needd for a sub-5hr 70.3.

I've managed 4:51 last year and there's no way my Z2 swim is 1:36 per 100. Same with 1:30 HIM run (!)
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really hate it when people fail to do the simple things like fix the top row of a long spreadsheet.
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [logella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes that was annoying
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i mostly agree with him philosophically, about the usefulness of broad-based benchmarks and training resilient, whole athletes.

but agree with some of the others that the numbers just don't scale very well: in order to be 'elite' a 38-year-old male is supposed to run a 19-second 200m? there's a vanishingly small number of people on the planet who can run that fast and precisely none of them have ever done a triathlon.

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I like these sorts of spreadsheets/tools when they're well done. This one isn't bad, at least judging from entering my own numbers in there!

Not too far off my own performances, with my expected relatively weaker swim and stronger run than the spreadsheet as expected given my late AOS swim background.

I think his 'annual hours' and 'load per week hrs' (1st two colums) is kinda haywire though. He's got BOPers training up to 15 hrs per week and recreational MOPers training 16-21 hrs/week if I'm reading it right - no way that's remotely close to reality!

The other figures aren't too far off what I'd say is realistic though - I'll def bookmark!
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [fulla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The table looks way off for 50 free times...how many triathletes go 24 for 50 free? /

Well if it is 24+ then just about every guy in the lead group in ITU and the lead group in Kona too I would say. Says a 30 year old guy, me and most of my peers would have been able to to 24+ for a 50 free( SCmeters I assume they are talking about) at that age, or at least the equal of what it would take today. Certainly a lot harder 30+ years ago, not so much now with all the advances in speed outside of just fitness..


Now of course they all might have to take a week out and train sprints, but it is not that big a time that they all could not hit it somewhere in the 24's..
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
edit - OK, I entered my gender and weight... did not change much at all except now it overestimates my training hours by even more!! The half marathon time is now not as far off.... maybe 1-2 minutes, so that improved.


I think that chart is total BS.

When I go to my ironman time, and then look at the other columns in that row, it way way off.

It has weekly training hours like 11-12 more than what I do (honestly, I would never train anywhere near 26 hours a week). Z2 watts estimated like 50 watts higher than the top end of my Z2. 4-hour + half iron bike watts are estimated 40W higher than actual. The Half Iron time is 8 minutes slower than my PR. the 400 freestyle is about 30-35 seconds faster than what I could do. Oh wait - that's meters right? so maybe 55 seconds too fast then?

It estimates that I am faster in all three individual sports than I am, but then estimates that I am slower at 70.3's than I am. Weird.

Edit 2: when I put training response at maximum, then it "only" overestimates training hours by 9-10.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Last edited by: RowToTri: Apr 17, 18 10:04
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for posting. A lot of work has gone into that table and AC should be thanked. Have you considered that all the data we post to Strava, Garmin, TP etc can be pooled in such a way. AC has used as his sample the athletes he has trained and their data with their permission and filled out with publicly available data. This is the way of the future for breakthroughs in training. It could even happen on ST. Indeed previous posters have demonstrated their willingness to post their benchmarks to illustrate how bad the table is. Its not the table nor the concept behind it that is bad in my opinion.
Last edited by: Mark57: Apr 17, 18 13:55
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [logella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
logella wrote:
I really hate it when people fail to do the simple things like fix the top row of a long spreadsheet.


Agreed.

Super annoying when coaches go to the trouble of posting free content and don't format it to my liking. :-)

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com
Last edited by: Alan Couzens: Apr 17, 18 14:40
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Alan Couzens] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My Vo2max, OBLA and IM finishing time pretty much lines up but some other numbers seem way, way off. For example, I doubt anyone squats 100kg for 5RM yet is sub 500 watts for Wingate? Personally I would even be off the charts with 750w which seems unlikely even in a triathlon crowd. Also adding up the numbers for individual sports doesn't seem to match the finishing times listed at all. The table suggests a 230w bike split (at 80 kg) and a 3.41 run to make 11 hours, which would leave room for a 2h+ swim. Also 11 hours is hardly a FOP result, or requires 700+ annual hours. Maybe I'm missing something.
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Mark57] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you for the kind words, Mark and I agree with your comment 100%

To quote John Lennon...

"Imagine all the people trading their anonymous internet forum criticizing for open data sharing...

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one...." Smile

Thank you for again the appreciation and the nudge in a very productive direction.

Kindest regards,

AC

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com
Last edited by: Alan Couzens: Apr 18, 18 11:01
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Alan Couzens] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is possibly the coolest thing I've seen in a long time.

The swim times are pretty fast, and I feel like the HIM total times are a little slow.

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Mark57] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Have you considered that all the data we post to Strava, Garmin, TP etc can be pooled in such a way.//

Too late, already done in 2002, "Moneyball!" Well at least a different sport doing a lot of number crunching to predict future success...
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Alan Couzens] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for putting up the page in the first place Alan. It is a great concept. I don't know if you would be allowed to run some sort of survey on ST for the benchmarks you have chosen. Slowman would let you know. That would help you discern if they have any positive (or negative) predictive value.

Full disclosure: I have no association with AC.
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Mark57] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think this is really good, as I would expect from AC. It describes me well as I am a relatively weaker swimmer and cyclist but OK runner in triathlon terms. So my times mostly tally up. The utility for is not to go "Oh look this figure doesn't match what I do based on my HIM/IM time, therefore it's pointless" but based on the fact that I already know my swimming and cycling need more work, this table helps inform how I improve it. For example, it highlights that my FTP is way too low compared to my running paces so can plan around this. My swimming as an AOS, is again weaker than my running, but relatively better than my cycling and has been improving at a decent rate over the 12 months so I will continue doing what I am. There's lots of explanation and caveats where needed in the post so don't just look at the table, especially if you haven't even bothered adjusting the figures to match you.

IMHO Alan consistently puts out excellent information for FREE and has really helped me along my way as self-coached athlete who loves reading about exercise physiology.
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very interesting. The training hours are pretty crazy at my age of 65, MOP load weekly training hours are listed as 23-27 hours/wk. Even BOP hours are 11-22. Can't believe these are typical training hours for people my age. I fall at the low end of BOP hours (load week about 14 hours/wk) and managed 94th percentile in my USAT age group standings in 60-64 (we'll see how I'll do in 65-69 if my running doesn't fall apart).

When I look at my flat HIM time (5:11) all my individual metrics fall well short of what would be expected to meet that time. Most out of alignment for me is the bike, for that HIM predicts 225 watts, which is about my FTP. In practice I ride around 150 watts (ride pretty conservatively to save for the run since I took up running very late in life) and average 21-22 mph on a flat HIM course (riding legal, of course). But I started out as a time trialist before taking up tri and my aerodynamics are much better than most triathletes.

An interesting and admirable effort but I suspect a few bugs in the tables.
(ETA to fix USAT percentile)
Last edited by: tttiltheend: Apr 18, 18 6:19
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Mark57] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks again, Mark.

I'd be happy to put something together.

Though, I think something derived from file data (e.g. Slowtwitcher's granting permission to access file data via Strava's API as you suggested earlier) would give a far 'truer' predictive model than an internet forum survey Wink

Best,

AC

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com
Last edited by: Alan Couzens: Apr 18, 18 10:51
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Alan Couzens] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alan,

Would you want to address some of the discrepancies? My IM PR is from this past October in Louisville - 9:51. I'm 41 this year, 71.6 kg. I set the slider to high responder. My background is as a collegiate and post collegiate (for a few years) rower. Been doing triathlon since 2012. I went down to the row for a 9:48 Ironman time on the chart.

It says I should be able to run a half marathon in 1:19. My PR is 1:28, but I think if I gave it a real go while in shape right now I could do 1:26, maybe 1:25.

It says I should run a 16:31 5k. My PR is 19:11 but I think I could maybe crank out an 18:40 or so.

It says I should be able to swim 400m in 4:49, but I'm more like 5:50 in scm.

It says my 70.3 bike watts should be 266. Reality is 225.

It says my 70.3 time should be 4:34. Last one I did was 4:26 - strange since i'm no where near the swimming biking or running targets. And I've been under 4:34 at least 3 or 4 times, even when I was in worse shape.

It says I train 23 hours a week when reality is 12-15.

So it's not like I am stronger in one event than anticipated and weaker in another to balance it out. I am significantly weaker in all three events. Yet it predicts that I will be slower than I am in a 70.3

If I hit all of the SBR targets above, I think I would be AT LEAST a <4:10 70.3 racer and <9:10 Ironman racer. Waaaayyyy faster than I am now. I know pros who do not hit all three of those targets and have done 8:30's in an IM

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Last edited by: RowToTri: Apr 18, 18 14:09
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey Ed,

Not too much to say other than you're different to the 'meat' of the sample that I've worked with. I certainly have seen athletes over the course of the last 20 years or so with your profile but it's not the norm & not something other athletes more in the middle of the genetic pool should expect.

I made some assumptions as far as weight and height with the bike power. If you're a little more 'nuggety' than average, &/or if you have unusually good aerodynamics, you'll likely find the bike power ranges too high.

On the short distance v long distance, my point stands. In my experience, achieving or closing in on the short benchmarks helps athletes continue to improve on the long benchmarks over the long term.

No perfect 'one size fits all' model. Just wanted to come up with something representative of the 'meat' of the sample that I've worked with. Completely recognize the model may very well be 'BS' for you and others that don't fit the middle of the curve.

Cheers,

AC

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [rock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tl;dr;

Enter a race. There's your benchmark.
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [Alan Couzens] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 Are the training hours on this chart really representative of the workload you give your clients?

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The majority of them. Yes.

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Alan_Couzens
Web: https://alancouzens.com
Last edited by: Alan Couzens: Apr 18, 18 15:22
Quote Reply
Re: Alan Couzens new post on benchmarks [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Are the training hours on this chart really representative of the workload you give your clients?

I agree, seems literally 2x what I would expect.

I would love to see a real life bop triathlete training 18 hrs per week!
Quote Reply

Prev Next