In the thread **What’s Considered a Good IM Run? **, Paulo wrote:
…
Daniels T pace is the functional threshold pace for one hour. SO that means that you can work out what pace as a percentage of functional threshold pace does running a marathon in an Ironman equates to.
Does the approach sound familiar?
…
I would say that it is very similar to cycling. The range might be 75-80% of FT, with the best runners really close to 80%. BTW, I also think that good cyclists can be near 80% of FTP and still run.
I liked the approach but the thread was deleted by the OP, so I started this to continue the discussion.
The table shows the 75-80% range for the IM Run and 90-95% range for the HIM Run using 10k and HM times from Daniels VDOT Tables:
What do you think about these ranges for IM/HIM run times ?
Spot-on for me. (within the ranges that is; it’s hard to pin down exactly).
And – to repeat a theme from the other thread – the idea is NOT that these are *predictions. *They represent what a motivated athlete who trains properly ought to hold themselves up against as a benchmark. They represent what is possible, not what is certain.
As always, you gotta do the miles. This has always been the case with the Daniels tables. In order to move across the table from short race performances to longer ones, you have to do the training.
In the thread **What’s Considered a Good IM Run? **, Paulo wrote:
…
Daniels T pace is the functional threshold pace for one hour. SO that means that you can work out what pace as a percentage of functional threshold pace does running a marathon in an Ironman equates to.
Does the approach sound familiar?
…
I would say that it is very similar to cycling. The range might be 75-80% of FT, with the best runners really close to 80%. BTW, I also think that good cyclists can be near 80% of FTP and still run.
I liked the approach but the thread was deleted by the OP, so I started this to continue the discussion.
The table shows the 75-80% range for the IM Run and 90-95% range for the HIM Run using 10k and HM times from Daniels VDOT Tables:
What do you think about these ranges for IM/HIM run times ?
Ale Martinez
I dig that table, man. Nice work. I’ll try my hand at the HIM run splits next season. The ‘HIM high’ is gonna be a tough nut to crack, but it gives me something to shoot for. Thanks for putting it together.
PS - My IM(LP, not Kona) run was actually a tad faster than 80% (at assumed 56 V.DOT, which was probably pretty close to reality, but I hadn’t done any stand alone run races for 2.5 months prior). I RULE!!! ;-p
OK, I had a chance to think on this some more, and I think that your calculations may be wrong…
It is counter-intuitive (at least to my pea brain) that somebody w/ a V.DOT of 40 (BOP’er most likely, or somebody pretty old) would have only a 2.5 minute differential between an optimum open 13.1 and an optimum HIM-High run split, whereas a V.DOT of 75 (World Class Elite) would have a 3.5 minute differential between the 2 optimum splits.
Shouldn’t it be the opposite??
Wouldn’t a faster runner have a smaller differential, and a slower runner a larger one? Isn’t that what seems to actually happen in the real world?
(FWIW, the HIM-Low 90% column seems closer to this, with the lowest V.DOT having a larger differential than the highest)
PS - how do you calculate 95% of a given pace such that you come up with a pace that is slower?? I’m having a hard time wrapping the pea brain around that one too. Do you use the inverse (1/.95) to multiply against the open mary pace time?
Thanks for taking the time to do this! And if it’s not too much to ask, could you add the predicted marathon time column right next to the half-mary and 1ok times? I know I can do this in my head but it would be nice to see it visually right there since we are talking about IM run. Steve
OK, I had a chance to think on this some more, and I think that your calculations may be wrong…
It is counter-intuitive (at least to my pea brain) that somebody w/ a V.DOT of 40 (BOP’er most likely, or somebody pretty old) would have only a 2.5 minute differential between an optimum open 13.1 and an optimum HIM-High run split, whereas a V.DOT of 75 (World Class Elite) would have a 3.5 minute differential between the 2 optimum splits.
Shouldn’t it be the opposite??
Wouldn’t a faster runner have a smaller differential, and a slower runner a larger one? Isn’t that what seems to actually happen in the real world?
(FWIW, the HIM-Low 90% column seems closer to this, with the lowest V.DOT having a larger differential than the highest)
I understand this comes from the fact Daniels formulas consider the relative intensity (as % of vVO2max) that can be sustained for a longer duration is lower, let see:
VDOT=40 → Open HM pace ~ 97% FT-Pace
VDOT=75 → Open HM pace ~ 100% FT-Pace
The HIM/IM columns are fixed %FT-Pace, then the absolute difference is lower.
This also corresponds to Paulo’s observation: good runners can sustain higher IFs (in fact they are running a “shorter” event).
Would be interesting to add this correction somehow.
PS - how do you calculate 95% of a given pace such that you come up with a pace that is slower?? I’m having a hard time wrapping the pea brain around that one too. Do you use the inverse (1/.95) to multiply against the open mary pace time?
Yes, the fraction is to speed and speed = 1/pace, then Time = (distance) * FT-Pace / fraction
Thanks for taking the time to do this–I did a version of this in my head just for myself to predict my times, but it’s nice to have it worked out for lots of VDOT values.
In the thread **What’s Considered a Good IM Run? **, Paulo wrote:
…
Daniels T pace is the functional threshold pace for one hour. SO that means that you can work out what pace as a percentage of functional threshold pace does running a marathon in an Ironman equates to.
Does the approach sound familiar?
…
I would say that it is very similar to cycling. The range might be 75-80% of FT, with the best runners really close to 80%. BTW, I also think that good cyclists can be near 80% of FTP and still run.
I liked the approach but the thread was deleted by the OP, so I started this to continue the discussion.
The table shows the 75-80% range for the IM Run and 90-95% range for the HIM Run using 10k and HM times from Daniels VDOT Tables:
What do you think about these ranges for IM/HIM run times ?
Thanks for taking the time to do this! And if it’s not too much to ask, could you add the predicted marathon time column right next to the half-mary and 1ok times? I know I can do this in my head but it would be nice to see it visually right there since we are talking about IM run. Steve
Steve, I preferred not to include the predicted marathon times because, IMHO, they are almost impossible to reach without specific marathon training, so I thought they not be very useful for HIM/IM discussion.
OTOH the predicted marathon pace could be a nice target for HIM: it is 94-96% FT-Pace with 95% average, someway addressing Murphy’sLaw concern.
The modified table:
HIM-High is predicted marathon pace (just double the time to see it)
HIM-Low is 95% HIM-High
IM-High/Low are modified in the same way (averaging 75%/80% FT-Pace anyway)
Al, question for you, I’m having a spirited debate with a buddy of mine and I was wondering if you consider an IM run at closer to 80% FT to be “good”? Or do you think it is a “great” run?
And do you consider IM runs at 75% FT to be “good” or more “ok”?
This goes back to trying to figure out what is a "good IM run…
Because I really do feel that 75% FT represents “ok”, it’s not bad or horrible, but it’s not “good” in terms of running to one’s potential. I know this may sound silly and nit-picking but I want to get your take and/or anyone else.
