I know it's highly individual, but I'm always interested to know what kind of cadence you fast guys are putting out on IM rides. Do you have that info?

Great race by the way. Are you still going to the Nutmeg Half? If so I'll probably see you there.

Thanks,
-Colin

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Jordan averaged 85rpm.

86 during the non-coasting stuff. Yes, I'll be at Nutmeg.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Wow. That's higher than expected. Is this a "low 70s on the big hills/ 95+ on the flats" type of thing, or do you keep your cadence much higher on the hills?

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Do you bring your cadence up when you want your power to go up?

Did you start higher and trend lower throughout the ride as Slowman has observed in the Pros at Kona?

No, I ride pretty consistently in the 83-88 range, with a high of about 91 and a low of about 79. Once I exceed those outer markers, I'll shift up or down accordingly.

To answer cdanrun, nope - first 60km - avg 87, second 60k (which has most of the climbs) - avg. 85, third 60k - avg. 86.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

What about for an Olympic distance for instance, do you still pedal that same 83-88?

Are you still riding those 165's?

Would you have been a little more aggressive with your pacing if you had planned to peak for this race, or would you have ridden the same and tried to run faster?

Pretty much. I averaged 89rpm for my last Olympic.

I ride 175's. I'm 6'3" with a very, very long inseam.

I would have hopefully ridden and run faster.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I thought Slowman had mentioned you were experimenting with shorter cranks, and this is why I asked. I must be mistaken.

So, in the original post we have examples of two people who went a little too easy on the bike if this was a key race.

Where are you going to look to go a little faster on the bike? I would guess moreso on the flats than the hills.

Anyway, there's only so much I can take away from your pacing strategy...

It's interesting that we've got this thread and the 10K/IM run Thread and nobody's put them together. At least in a post.

Good luck with the rest of your season.

Clearly, our two situations are/were different. So, speaking for myself, conditions dictated that I not build power during the 2nd half of the ride. I didn't ride too easy, imho. I believe this is the mistake that so many make on race day. That mistake being: Even people with PMs can be so fixated on a number they are not willing to make dynamic adjustments during the race. My deep belief is that you have think long and hard (but real quick) about sticking to your original target when you KNOW you're going to be on the bike for a longer period of time than originally expected because training stress (TSS) is now increasing beyond a range you can sustain and still run well. Those winds were quite bad and we had a very similar experience last year at IMCDA but for entirely different reasons (ie the heat). Again, just talk to those at IMCDA who sat on their original targets and those who didn't. So, just remind yourself about your IM bike execution goal(s) and I think the answer is clear.

Hope that helps clarify things...

Thanks, Chris

the 10k/IM run thread stemmed from an email discussion among Chris, Dev, and I, so it is related to this one. Basically, it seems that you can run/ride at pretty much the same percentage of threshold power/pace - 75-80%.

I would look to go faster by pacing the same way, but just at an overall higher percentage of FTP. I.e., I'd ride the same way, just at closer to 80% of FTP rather than 75%.

Jens was the one who experimented with really short cranks, and rides 165's. Dan did mention that I switched to 175's from 180's, but that was a switch back. I.e., I rode 175's, switched to 180's last season, and switched back to 175's this season and realized that I much preferred the 175's and had much better power output, especially in the aero position, and had a much easier time riding a comfortably high cadence. So you aren't crazy... :)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"It's interesting that we've got this thread and the 10K/IM run Thread and nobody's put them together. At least in a post."

Oh, we've already put them together. You just haven't seen them put together on ST. You probably saw a glimpse of this back when amartinez posted his chart which I believe was back in late Oct/November of last year.

Thanks, Chris

Btw, Jordan's TSS was 272 which is a bit on the conservative side for someone with his capabilities, imho. The point being that his numbers very much support the idea that he'd ride a bit harder (ie closer to 80% of FTP) if he had attempted to peak for this event.

Thanks, Chris

I have to say that despite the various tangents, both of these threads have been really useful in enlightening me. The original conversation that Rappstar, Lakerfan and I had offline was based on a few datapoints that we felt were quite solid. What the 10K/IM marathon thread confirmed amplifies on one of Rappstars statements on that thread , which was that "in general, a well executed race from a well trained athlete will result in a run effort that is 75-80% of the range and that the same can be done on the bike.

Till now, I have seen numbers starting down at 70% for the bike, so I thought 70% of a 10K might be reasonable for the run...what we are seeing is that most of the FOP guys are actually going 75-80% of 10K effort, in line with Rappstar's thoughts.

Dev

Ok... so how will you apply this "new" knowledge?

My argument for how to apply it is that even Ironman athletes need to do more than LSD. You need to raise your ceiling (FTP - power on the bike, pace on the run). Speedwork and high-intensity work has it's place, even in Ironman training. I think that is something that is lost in favor of "base, base, base." If someone was saying "okay, so I see how this thread can guide my racing, but what does it say about my training," that's what I'd tell them.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

What are you trying to say? I'm a bit confused.

"Ironman athletes need to do more than LSD"
"Speedwork and high-intensity work has it's place, even in Ironman training"

Do more volume AND more intensity (than most think)? Hardly ground breaking?

The premises do not support the conclusion though...
You've found out what people usually run thier IM run pace at.. and you conclude that people need to train in a certain way to run that pace.
Wouldn't you need to find out how they're TRAINING, compare it to their RACE result... to gather any conclusions....

Must be dialectic confusion. "Ironman athletes need to do more than LSD." By this I mean, that just doing LSD alone is not sufficient. I wasn't suggesting that you need more volume at all. In fact, given the amount of time most athletes have, I think more intensity (and maybe less volume) would be better for many athletes.

I disagree that the premises that do not support the conclusion. If most athletes run and bike their Ironman at X% of FTP, then shouldn't a part of the focus of the training be on raising FTP? And in order to raise FTP, you need to do intensity, not just Z2 base mileage. Obviously you need to examine how a specific athlete trains. I am speaking about what I perceive is the general approach to Ironman training - "big base miles." I believe this is not ideal for most AG athletes for a couple of reasons, but mostly it has to do with time. You can't train the way someone who trains 35 hours a week trains if you are doing 15 hours a week.

I was merely trying to offer a general piece of advice, which is that high-intensity training, such as you would do for an Olympic distance or sprint race, still has a place in an Ironman program. I'm not sure that is such a revolutionary idea, but I do think it's something that is overlooked (how often, I don't know, but I get the sense that it is regularly, just from what I read on this forum and in some of the magazines, for whatever that is worth).

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'm a computer geek, FTP to me is File Transfer Protocol.
Functional Threshold Power/Performance?

If I understand it correctly though.. ALL athletes, regardless of race duration should try and increase thier FTP then...
So asking people how fast they run thier Ironman comparitive to their 10k is a bit irrellevant isn't it?

Knowing the average % of FTP (the premise) doesn't allow you to make your conclusion (run harder)... it just gives you a number of how people USUALLY perform..
It doesn't tell you anything about how that performance was acheived.

If you asked people how much intensity, number of hours they trained, overall volume, etc... (the premise), and compared it to thier run split... THEN you might have a conclusion...

Except that it is pretty well known that you can ride at 75-80% of FTP (Functional Threshold Power). But run pace was a bit of a guess. So we asked people 10k split in order to draw some conclusions about exactly what you said "how people usually perform." Dev's thread was indeed a fact-finding mission, to see if our theory that run pace mirrored cycling power for Ironman racing pretty similarly during a "successful" race.

My premise is NOT based on Dev's thread. Rather it is indeed based on what I perceive to be a general trend about "how much intensity, number of hours they trained, overall volume, etc." and that is indeed where I am making the conclusion that high-intensity training is lacking from many people's training programs.

Basically, I think we're just confusing each other. I don't think we disagree. I think the confusion was what I was making my statement(s) based on.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Your post obviously goes to the point of all this discussion. Wait, let me take the word obviously out.

Don't be ridiculous. It is much better to look at results and to interpolate from there. For instance, I decided to start biking more right after seeing Normann win IMH, since it was clear to me that was the secret since he won by having a really fast ride! ;)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

PS: More is more!

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Raise the left (with more intensity), fill the right (with more volume)... More is more... Or is that more and more???

Jordan, I think Paulo's onto something... He says the point of your post summarizes the entire thread (my paraphrase). And the point of your post is that we don't disagree (double negative). Meaning, of course, we ALL agree. Oh wait, he's really on to something... Let me take the words of course out.

Damn!!! It took 9 freakin' pages and we finally all agree... That was worth it... ;-)

You're (obviously) confused, because I was replying to sinchronicity's post, not Jordan's. But I've come to expect this level of confusion and misunderstanding coming from you, so you're excused.