I’m sure this is already a thread, but I made a somewhat decent attempt to find it and couldn’t. I’m wondering what the target TSS for a 70.3 is. Accordingly to trainingpeaks, the ideal TSS for a 140.6 is around 275-285. I’m fairly certain with a shorter run, the overall taxing on the body can be higher on the bike, and that a TSS of 285 for only 56 miles is impossible unless your FTP is around 5, that the target number would be entirely different. I’m wondering what it “is” though. Any help? Thanks.
180-200 sounds way too high to me. Would be curious to hear some others chime in.
At Racine 70.3, I had a TSS of 155 for a 2:22 bike split and ran very well. I rode at ~ 80% of FTP (which is where I’ve been at for the last 4 or so halts I’ve done).
I rode the Muskoka 70.3 course yesterday at a training pace, 3 hours at 180TSS .75IF and had a solid run off the bike. 200 might be the higher end of the spectrum. I rode a 2:30 at 130ish TSS on a pancake flat course as well.
HIM max bike TSS rule of thumb is 180. Any much more than that, and you (generic you, YMMV) risk imploding the run.
A fitter rider can usually get away w/ being closer to this (since they are off the bike sooner), whereas a less fit rider should aim for a lower target, as they’ll be out there for longer, with more cumulative stress, even at a (relatively) lower intensity.
I get what you’re driving at, but I kind of think the opposite–a slower rider will probably end up with a higher TSS than a faster one.
For simple mathematical sake, not necessarily based in reality:
Rider A: 2 hours, 180 TSS = 90 TSS/Hr = ~.95 IF = L’ouch, if even possible
Rider B: 3 hours, 180 TSS = 60 TSS/Hr = ~.77 IF = Manageable
Rider C: 4 hours, 180 TSS = 45 TSS/Hr = ~.67 IF = Walk in the park, Kazansky
It just seems the faster you are, the less time to have to accumulate TSS, so you’re naturally going to be a little lower. They also have a longer time to process the stress (and at lower %FTP should be getting a higher percentage of their energy from fat)
I was around 185 TSS (although my FTP might have been slightly low, overrating TSS) at Wildflower this year with a 2:35 bike/1:29 run. Have a much flatter HIM coming up that if I can hit goal power numbers* (and no major deviation from historical course conditions) should have me off the bike around 160 TSS.
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." – Eisenhower
I get what you’re driving at, but I kind of think the opposite–a slower rider will probably end up with a higher TSS than a faster one.
For simple mathematical sake, not necessarily based in reality:
Rider A: 2 hours, 180 TSS = 90 TSS/Hr = ~.95 IF = L’ouch, if even possible
Rider B: 3 hours, 180 TSS = 60 TSS/Hr = ~.77 IF = Manageable
Rider C: 4 hours, 180 TSS = 45 TSS/Hr = ~.67 IF = Walk in the park, Kazansky
It just seems the faster you are, the less time to have to accumulate TSS, so you’re naturally going to be a little lower. They also have a longer time to process the stress (and at lower %FTP should be getting a higher percentage of their energy from fat)
I was around 185 TSS (although my FTP might have been slightly low, overrating TSS) at Wildflower this year with a 2:35 bike/1:29 run. Have a much flatter HIM coming up that if I can hit goal power numbers* (and no major deviation from historical course conditions) should have me off the bike around 160 TSS.
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." – Eisenhower
The premis in your examples is wrong so you draw the wrong conclusion.
If we assume the route is windless and flat and assume that the power output is constant: it is close enough to assume that timepower is a constant. If 2 hours at 95% get you to the finish, 3 hours at 67% should get you to the finish. (2100% = 2 and 3*67%=2) If you believe in TSS, you can continue with the math. 180TSS for the fast time; 135TSS for the slow time.
Not exact but it does lead to a different conclusion.
For all practical purposes the energy consumption is close to being the same. If you stay below LT for both, there is not going to be much difference. I guess the proper test of this statement waould be to do the fast effort, sit down and wait for an hour, and then continue on. Compare that to the slow effort. (TSS measures something called fatigue. But the measure is so vague, that nothing can be said about it except that it is wrong.)
Not sure which premise you’re assuming is wrong, as the only assumptions I made are the time it takes each rider to finish and that they’d all budget the same TSS for the entirety of the ride.
I.e. take 3 theoretical riders of different capabilities that all somehow magically ride 180 TSS to finish the bike. I don’t care how they do it, independent of pacing. The one who does it in 2 hours would need to average 0.95 IF in order to pull it off, whereas the dude(tte) who rides 4 hours would need to average 0.67 IF. That’s all I wrote. You built a different model.
No, I did not make the assumptions you tried to counter–we were looking at two different issues entirely. I merely did the math that IF = sqrt(Target_TSS/(100*Time)). The stated Target_TSS was 180. The numbers that pop out are what they are.
If we’re going with an equivalent racer on a flat course, then, yes, we should do a different model. I appreciate what you’re trying to propose, but that wasn’t my point (or really a question that the OP asked). If you want to dig into a model that asks about the optimal TSS for a given course (accounting for one’s ability to run off XYZ TSS/IF), that’s another story.
I merely argued that it seems that the slower/longer one proceeds to race, the higher TSS they can probably budget (largely because TSS = IF^2*Time). IF, especially due to it being squared, only needs to be backed off slightly to go a lot longer.
I did a HIM with 4000ft of climbing with a TSS of 210.
Yes, I blew up in the first 3 miles of the run! (But weirdly, I had a second wind after those 3 miles, and ran progressively faster and faster until I was running at 10k pace for the final 3/4 mile, and still had gas in the tank when I finished.)
As I said someone else can explain your errors to you.
Older thread but thought I’d chime in, since I’m approaching race condition for Beach 2 Battleship. Did the bike distance in training with a TSS of 165. Off the bike had a great 8 mile run. Sounds like the range of 160-180 is accurate (for me).
