Just returning to this thread since I posted that 4.5w/kg iirc is too high and someone should bet me.

The big problem when Agers is, actually it really applies to anyone, pro or AG but when they toss out numbers, well there are several problems actually.

1st they often toss it out on their best 20-30min effort and call that their p/wt ratio. They are lying to themselves.

The second is that someone riding 3.3 on a PT is more powerful vs someone at a 3.4 on Quarq/SRM or other crank based system. Easiest way to add to your FTP and/or p/wt ratio is go from a PT to a crank based system. I've seen some pretty nice jumps in p/wt ratio but no jumps in race performance. It's an apple to apple but also apple to orange comparison.

The other problem, and it's come up often on here is people just don't test, they guess, or they don't test/guess in a repeatable manner. I'd say 80% of my power meter users come to me with crappy testing protocols, do it on different courses, etc. They get 15 different variables in their test. variables matter.
Finally a lot of people test on the trainer, I've found that 50% of the time, maybe more, trainer watts do not = real outdoor watts.

That being said 3.5 is a more realistic number.

When someone tells me they are well above 4 my first thought is good for you and my second thought is no, you are probably not.

I've had people mention they are 4.x at races. Then my tested on the same course at roughly the same time of day +/- 10min is what I shoot for, 3.x (PT user) puts 12 min on them over 90k. Either they are less aero than a cinder block or they are as wrong as 2+ 5 = 18.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

JOOC, for the few non-power users, how would the 3.5 w/kg translate in terms of an oly dist bike split, assuming decent aero-ness??? And, is the 3.5 what you believe that about 80% of healthy males under 40 should be able to achieve??? Also, can't recall that you ever weighed in on the analogous 5K and 500 scy times??? And, what would you say for the oly dist race as a whole, assuming a truly accurately measured swim, bike, and run, fairly flat, and light winds??? Assuming "total dedication", could the 80% go sub-2:20, sub-2:15, or???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I wish you could have collected this data point for us without such a horrific injury! Yikes.

Massive respect.

Interesting question. I'm 23 year old, top of pack in most races I enter but nowhere near elite (raced Lisa Nordén in a short race, 800/14/3,3k and was 4 minutes behind her. During her plantar fascitis..) Last winter I had a minor knee surgery and couldnt bike for 2 weeks and run for 4. When I came back I couldnt run for 2 km straight. I did 400m repeats at 5:30/k pace. 4 weeks later I did my first 5k tests and managed 23 minutes. This was on running twice weekly (which I still do). I was swimming 400LCM in 6:20 something.

Now a good year later without any real setbacks (worst was the flu and some annoying shin problems) I swim a 400LCM in 5:40, my FTP is problably somewhere at 4w/kg and my open 5k is probably around 19. I dont even feel like I'm close to my potential. I've been into endurance sports, transitioning from martial arts and gym training, for 2-3 years now. My first tri was 2011 and with only bike training and I did a 1:22 sprint.

I cannot for my life understand why a healthy male would plateu - genetically - at 19k/3,75w/kg ftp/6:30 500y. Its just too mediocre. For females I can believe it. The general weekend warrior has so much potential to tap into if they would be allowed a few years (say 4, an olympic cycle) of elite training with training camps, weekly massages, qualified coaches, good equipment, motivating people around them etc. I'll say for a healthy male to NOT reach these numbers with 4 good years of training would be suprising and certainly an outlier on the low end of the bell curve.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

ericmulk wrote:

JOOC, for the few non-power users, how would the 3.5 w/kg translate in terms of an oly dist bike split, assuming decent aero-ness???

The graphs below from this 2012 thread, courtesy of Art Hare, should answer your question. Looks like an 8 mph delta between best and worst performance at 3.5 W/kg! It would be cool to see a histogram of performances in that range to get a sense of what to expect with "decent aero-ness". The average appears to be around 24 mph.

The huge variability stems from many sources: inaccurate reporting (exaggeration or honest mistake), inaccurate PMs, hub-based vs. crank/pedal-based PMs, CdA, Crr, ambient air pressure, and possibly other factors...

---

CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications

I had forgotten but actually I commented on this thread back in Aug 2012. Apparently, AHare used data from various distance races from 10 km up to 180 km.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Actually this supports my assumption that most people would need to be 4-4.5 watts/kg FTP to arc an Ironman at around 5:20

I can show you 10 guys in the local triclub, healthy males 20-40, who can't break 23 in a 5k despite training with legit intensity and reasonable volume for an AGer for running.

Similarly, ask the guy who runs 17s with almost no training, and he can't fathom why any healthy male cant win the state championship with serious training. Not an exaggeration - I've met a few guys who PR in the 15s, and with minimal training run 17-18mins for casual 5k fun runs, and that's exactly how they feel - because they can run a state-level, they can't fathom why nobody else can do it since 17s are so friggin' easy for them..

Using oneself as the benchmark for the entire bell curve never works.

FTW!!!

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Nothing personal. Should have been in pink. I look at this way. Adult onset swimmers are at a disadvantage, so they have an excuse. Nearly everyone started running and biking as a child, so they have no excuse at sucking.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I guess I'm just - like too many - blind for my own privilige. I also hang out with way more gifted/motivated/seasoned athletes than me.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

You know, I just thought of this today, but I know three girls who are excellent bikers, and two of them are excellent swimmer/bikers, but none of them can run very well, e.g., I know a pair of twin sisters who can swim 23 in a 1500 m and ride 1:04 in the 40 km bike, but yet they run around 47 at best for the 10K. Know another girl who's an even equally fast, or maybe faster, biker but she can not swim or run to save her life:)

So, perhaps we should say something like "for healthy males under 40 who have some degree of talent in all 3 sports, they should be able to go swim xx, bike 1:xx, and run xx." Of course, at this point we have so many qualifiers that you just can't say the "average male", or female, anymore:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Except that some swimmer/biker types just have too many fast twitch muscles to run any distance over 800 meters well. Similarly, some very thin runner/biker types just don't have enough upper body strength to swim well. And some runner/bikers don't have sufficient motor skills to swim well; you see it in little kids all the time: some catch on in just a few lessons but some struggle for several summers to learn to swim decently:)

In the final analysis, there are prob NO "standard times" that "everyone under 40" should be able to do if they worked at it enough.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I think we agree.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I call EXCUSE!

when I was about 5, I had a near (very near) drowning experience. Luckily (or unluckily for the world at large) dad is a doctor and I got the kiss of life and am here to tell the story. I could always swim past the breakers at the beach, but was never a 'swimmer' per se. It was only in my early 30's that I got in the pool. I used to run with a colleague at lunch. One time there was too much snow to run, so we hit the pool. I had trouble swimming 100 metres. That depressed me. When my buddy suggested I do a tri, with a 1500metre swim, I hit the pool regularly. I built up slowly and managed the distance on race day. I swam just over 30 mintues and was not happy with that.

On rec.sport.triathlon, way back in the day, I started paying attention to Terry Laughlin's articles (that he turned into a book and 'system'). That, combined with just one session with the university swim coach, and I realized that technique and efficiency when swimming was about 90% of what mattered, with fitness being the rest. For about the last 20+ years, I have focussed almost entirely on technique. Sure I do the session the coach prescribes, and hit the target times etc, but when I'm swimming, I'm thinking about what I'm doing, how fluid I am, how the water feels, etc etc.

I'm 53 now and regularly swim about 1:30 per 100metres and manage 1:02 at IM and I'm a fat little bastard that really doesn't put in much effort in the swim. I have a wife, kids, a job and love beer and chocolate. I can't run 15 minute 5k's but by paying attention to technique, I can go a lot faster than a lot of people younger and fitter than me.

Sooooo many people who swim, especially those who take up swimming later in life (ie not college swimmers) simply don't fully appreciate that thrashing about in the pool is a waste of time. In water, one has to sneak through the water, not try and beat it into submission. In cycling and running, working harder has semi-linear results. Work harder, go faster. In the pool, with water being almost 1000 times denser than air, being efficient is what it's all about.

AND it's possible for an old dog to learn new tricks. I have managed it. Most people just don't have the dedication to learn or the dedication to be efficient.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Please take note of the last line in post 108, and consider yourself guilty.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

@Tridork - I know it's hard for you to believe, but you are almost certainly talented in swimming. The description you give, of going fast with not much serious training, is the very definition of innate talent.

Some people have it, and some don't. I probably work harder than you do it in the pool now because I'm so bad at swimming, and I'm not even close to breaking 1:30/100m for long sets (I'm like 1:45-50/100m for long sets), but it's certainly not just a technique issue (although I've definitely got a bunch of speed lost due to my technique, admittedly.)

Have posted before, but my Vasa swim trainer gives power per arm, and at least for me, it's pretty close to my actual pool 100m times (not dead-on, but close enough, like <5sec/100off based upon perceived effort which I can peg pretty well from all those pool sets.) That Vasa tells me pretty clearly I do NOT have the arm power/endurance to maintain 1:30 pace for more than 50 meters, which happens to be exactly what I do in the pool. Given how well that Vasa pegs my pool pace, I'd seriously doubt that I could go 1:30/100 since I clearly don't have the power to maintain that pace.

Some people are talented at swimming, some at strength, others at running, etc. (I have genetically big quads, which aren't helpful at all for endurance sports, but I can leg press ridiculous amounts of weight without having ever done real squats or leg presses.) I suspect you're a swim guy. If it were as easy as you claim, there would be tons of people swimming sub 1hr IM swims in the AG .

I'm guilty of using myself as the benchmark.

However, my comments are still valid. I don't work very hard in the swim, (but I do work smart). I don't work very hard on the bike or run either.

I think most people new to the sport (as in adults coming into the sport) work pretty hard to achieve results. Hard work on the bike and run, works. Working hard in the pool just doesn't work. Working smart on the bike or run has relatively little impact or benefit, but working smart in the pool will get you 90% of the way there so to speak.

While I am guilty of using myself as a benchmark, it is really only to illustrate that my approach, that I think is markedly different from most people, works. For me to get sub 20 minutes for 5km would take a truckload of freakin hard work. Getting to 1:30 per 100m in the pool has taken hardly any work at all.

If riding and running smart paid off, I'd already have qualified for Kona, but that ain't gunna happen :-) Kona takes HARD work

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Of the three sports, I prefer running first. I've had some awesome runs where I felt like my feet weren't even touching the ground. I'm too fat and lazy to run fast. I like cycling, but maybe because of my skiing experience, I'm best at downhills :-). I love swimming third, but it IS a blast. I'm not a natural anything....except maybe a perv. I love women, waaaaaay more than triathlon!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Ya, it's that body awareness that has made you a good swimmer. Some people have that awareness much more than others:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Sport/body awareness is a chicken and egg thing I think

did I become a good skier because I had good body awareness, or did I get good body awareness because of skiing?


the body awareness thing is interesting. About 13 years ago, I broke my pelvis (and skull) in a cycling accident. About a week later I went to the doctor. He asked me to stand on one leg, with my eyes closed and tilt my head back. After 30 seconds, he asked if I was a gymnast, because my balance was so good. (he expected me to fall within a few seconds). That was the easy part of the test. Next he asked me to hop a few times on my left leg. I hopped once. By the time I hit the ground after the first hop, I was already crying from the pain. He said, "I think you've broken your pelvis" My eyes are welling up now, just remembering that pain!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I still disagree with your notion that average joe could achieve what you could with just 'smart training' and not a lot of killer hard work in the pool. Swimming sub 1:30s/100m for distance in the pool takes some real swim fitness, on top of good technique. But good technique alone wont' get you there.

Again, if you're gifted with powerful arms/lats as well as great water feel, the power + technique will come together in a way that will make it seem easy. But for most others, BOTH power and technique will be limiters, but power will likely be the far bigger limiter as to why those slow swimmers will never go that fast.

Even the best coaches cannot take an established 1:55/100m swimmer who's been there for at least a year, and get them to low 1:00s without tons of hard sets and significant increases in volume. No technique tricks are going to get them there, and after using my Vasa, I can say with pretty fair certainty that there will be no such swimmers stuck at 1:55/100m for a year, who can get on a Vasa and put up big wattage/pace numbers. No friggin' way - you can just look at their strokes in the water and see the lack of force - it's not just sloppy technique for them.

The improvement you describe, without killer efforts to get to FOP results, is pretty classic for a reasonably talented individual. Most people with that talent make the same error you did and erroneously attribute their progress to 'smart training', whereas that's almost certainly a false assumption given their lack of big volume and big intensity. If you're talented, you tend to improve much more on much less - that's almost the definition of talent. I have a lot of it it music and academia, and very little of it in triathlon =(