Agers more resiliant than pros at IM? devashish / Kittycat

Triathlon Forum
1

Over on the treadmill marathon thread, devashish paul and kittycat brought up an inner argument I have been having for some time, and I was hoping for some input.

Let’s say we have a pro, not the best, but up there, doing an ironman triathlon at their race pace. For the sake of simplicity, they have an average HR of 150 (zone 3), and a perceived rate of exhertion of 15/20, and finish in 9:00:00.

Then, we have an average Age-grouper. They are racing at an average HR of 165 (zone 3), at a PRE of 15/20, and with a finish time of 15:00:00.

Obviously the pro is going faster and is a much better athlete than the AGer, but here is my question. Since the pro knows he will only be going for 9 hrs at race pace, an has trined for such, could the pro keep going for another 6 hours at that same sustained pace?

I’m just amazed that pros and AGers seem to be running different races. The pros sometimes compete for half the time that poor AGers do, and it feels as if though the AGers ought to be given at least some credit for what might seem to be better endurance that the pros. Or do they?

I do supprt pros, and I am grateful for them, and don’t want to demean any of their hard work. And for that matter, I know that any pro could totally whip any age grouper by a long run for any distance or specified amount of time. But Paul and Kittycat were discussing the merits of a pro vs an amatuer on a treadmill and Paul seemed to think that a short time marathon was harder for the pro than a long time marathon of an amatuer. Are the AG’ers more resiliant, or just dumb for not going at a faster pace?

Kudos to the fast pros. Kudos to the slow IM’ers who go twice as long as the pros. Thay are all heros in my book.

2

Ben - I don’t really want to get in the middle…but I’d say your AGer HR of 165 is not possible throughout the duration of an IM.

3

Yeah, after I posted I realized the numbers are a little skewed. But this isn’t a scientific study. I’m just trying to generate the overall feel of my inner turmoil, see what people think.

4

I don’t think your analogy is accurate. Have you ever heard of someone finishing an Ironman at 16:00+ hours that didn’t walk one step of the marathon? Sure, those folks are hurting and struggling and should be commended for finishing, but they often walk for good parts of the race or at least through the aide stations. That’s what they need to do to finish the race. I doubt most pros who are finishing in 9:00 hours are walking very much. The effort they are putting out is totally different.

I think a similar situation occurs in the discussion Kittycat and Dev were having.

D.

5

Since the pro knows he will only be going for 9 hrs at race pace, an has trined for such, could the pro keep going for another 6 hours at that same sustained pace?

No.

On the other hand, could your 15:00:00 age grouper maintain that pace for another 6 hours? Or better yet, for another 10 hours? If he can, it means either that he’s not putting out to finish in 15, or he’s not adequately trained, and is limping through on (for him) a survival pace.

The race is 140.6, or whatever distance the race is. You train to cover that distance as fast as you can. If you find at the end that you can keep going at the same pace for another 6 or 10 hours, you didn’t pace yourself correctly for the race you’re running.

6

Good input you guys. Maybe this is what I’m getting at:

If a pro and AGer (with ironman training) both biked/ran right at zone 3 on trainers/treadmills side by side, the pro would be way faster; but who would poop out first? I’m assumin gthe pro would last longer, but I think the AG’er would give a surprising run for the money. Those guys can go all night long. (I’m assuming a pro could too, but you never see it.)

{ps. This post is meant merely to give some platform for mildly athletic related issues to be discussed; so that my wife doesn’t get mad at me for reading “tri hotties” posts for hours on end.}

7

Who should be giving this credit? So, when I’m fat and slow I have better endurance than when I’m not so fat and not so slow?

8

interesting question. I think the pros have additional stress that the agers do not, and that is the necessity to win/earn money.

as far as difficulty, the pros are more likely to push through hard spots, as literally, their careers depend on it. much more is at stake for these pros…thereby, producing additional stress for events. an ager, although assumably 100% committed to racing, the results, etc, just doesn’t have as much at stake…their incomes/careers aren’t dependent on it.

physically, in the events themselves, i have no doubt that agers push themselves…most are in fact very competitive/driven/committed to win a.g. etc. so, I do believe that in terms of output, it is relative.

ie, one person’s 6 minute mile, might be as challenging for them as my 8:30…meaning that we are exerting the same amount of effort to run the mile, even though the 6 minute is obviously so much faster. so, my answer is that each person has their own race. but, a difference in the end time doesn’te doesn’t mean that the output is less than or greater than the other. i think what needs to be measured is exertion rate, not time.

so in all actuality, my 3:45 marathon time might have the same exertion level as another person’s 2:30 or 5:00. again, it’s about exertion, not time. if I raced my marathon as a pro did, I could very well have the same exertion (and pain) that a pro racing would have. but, my time would be longer, so theoretically if we were producing the same exertion level, my efforts would be harder because I would be exerting the same level of energy for a longer amount of time.

again, my point is that a person can produce the same exertion level as another even though they get differing results. differing results are because of differing fitness levels and ability, not necessarily because of differing output in energy or effort.

and, for the record, agers aren’t necessarily stupid for going slower. if i could go as fast as a pro I would…but I just can’t. it’s a by-product of my own limitation, and everyone has a limitation level…again that is something that is relative.

kittycat

9

I recall that the great Bill Rodgers once marvelled at the strength and endurance of 4+ hour marathoners. He jokingly doubted if he could be out there that long without breaking down.

10

When the IM race becomes “who can go the farthest in X time” then you’ll have your answer. Until then, all the races are “who can cover X distance the fastest.”

Which makes more sense?

11

I’d be willing to be that a vast majority of the people in an IM do not run the run. By “running the run,” I guess I mean moving at least at a 10:00 mile and walking only through the aid stations. I don’t know that my definition of “running the run” is necessarily accurate; the 10:00 per mile pace is an arbitrary number that I pulled out of the air, so feel free to disagree.

But I maintain that most AG’ers don’t run the run, whatever your definition of running the run is.

RP

12

One thing I see is that you probably have your HR’s flipped.

A pro’s Z3 HR is going to likely be higher than an AG’er, since his AT is going to be at a much higer % of his VO2max. And since a pro is going for a shorter duration, his avg HR for the race is also going to be higher (he will probably be at the higher end of Z2-Z3).

As a result, the pro is burning more calories than the age-grouper on a per-hour basis. Because of this, the pro cannot keep going for another X-hours.

It comes down to calories. That is the limiter (in oversimplified terms). If you and the pro both have 10,000 calories to burn, he might burn through his in 9 hours, which is how long it takes him to finish the race. You might burn through yours in 15 hours, which is how long it takes you to finish the race. Neither of you can go any faster, because then you start to break the balance and burn through your calories too quickly. And if you plan it right, neither of you should be able to go any farther, either.

This is an oversimplification, but should help you sort out your question…

13

I think the underlying idea behind the original post is flawed for two reasons.

  1. The effort put out on race day is less than 1% of what went into the performance. The real work is done day in and day out for years on end to produce that 9:00 IM. The only difference between the example pro and the example AG grouper is how long and how hard they have trained in the years leading up to race itself. Theres no magic that makes the pro faster than the age grouper - just more work over a longer time. Before anyone gets to ruffled by that - I realize that talent does indeed come into play, but for better than 99% of people, they are not limited by talent. Just because you put in 40hrs per week for a year does not mean you’ve reached your potential, those pros have been at it in one way or another for 10-15 years. Two quotes: “Training should be hard, it makes racing easy” & “The longer I ran, the more talented I became”.

  2. Though both the example pro and the example AG may have similar heart rates at there respective race paces, this ignores that fact that the forces involved in the 9:00 performance are exponentially higher than those involved in the 15hr performance. The stress on joints and tissues is also exponentially higher. Picture crashing a car at 25mph vs. 50 mph - way more than twice as much force involved. The 9:00 performance requires much stronger muscles, bones, as well as hearts and lungs. The effort required for the 9:00 performance is much greater than for the 15:00 performance, the performer is simply better adapted at producing that effort.

I have never finished or attempted an IM myself and respect anyone who has put in the time to do so. I am not attempting to bash anyone in anyway. However, I have run races of many distances while in all states of fitness from 26:00min 5K runner to 31 minute 10K runner. The fastest ones hurt the most by far.

14

Thanks Ben, you just made me feel a whole lot better, knowing that a 15 hour IM is OK for an average age-grouper. Makes my 14:42 first up effort seem quite respectable.

In my view, all Kudos to a pro who can do the race in 8:00 to 10:00, or any one whos is sub 13, which is what you get if you do run all the way. From where I was, I can tell you I was going as fast as I could, as was everyone else. No one was out for a stroll. But at least I had company: the men’s 2 and 3 seeds also had to walk a substantial part of the run, as did Ken Glah. Ken commented after the race, “I always suspected that the people at the back of the race had it tough. Now I know.”

From my point of view, as I gradually speed up, things are a lot easier when you are MOP than BOP.

15

I guess I would look at it like a sprint distance vs a half. I am sure you are not using the same pacing for both. You push the pace leaving just enough left in the tank to finish. I have yet to do an ironman so I don’t know what the difference is to cover that distance so…

I have done a few halfs and I can say that I don’t start hurting until the last few miles of the bike. Then I switch over to running feeling pretty good at first. Then the last few miles the hurting comes back. I just can’t see how the pros would go through a race without giving it their all. The sponsors would be upset.

I would say the pros have it harder. The pro has to keep an eye out for the competition, and push it when the cometition pushes it. Age groupers like me just keep an eye out for those mile markers and push it only when I am feeling good.

16

Been thinking about that too, lately. Lots of good points throughout the thread. I’d have to say that the base that’s been built up for years is the determining factor- everything about your body becomes tougher, and you are able to heal from the damage much faster the longer you’ve been at it. My 6:17 1st HIM almost crippled me for a week; the 5:27 I just did was comprised of sharper pain during the race, but I’m already ancy to work out again. I imagine the effect is more pronounced the longer the athlete has been in the game.

I haven’t done IM yet, but having a deep base of “dealing with pain” (mental side), seems like it would be as important as the deep base of fitness. Luckily, they’re built concurrently.

17

it’s funny, but i have no idea what you’re referring to. my guess is an old thread, seeing how i’ve hardly posted last 2 weeks! :slight_smile:

18

kittycat,

someone was digging around the archives, because this thread dates back to 2004. How weird is that? “But back in 2004 you said…”

Bernie