Doug Sutherland's IMCDA RR#1
Vitals: Updated FTP 264, Weight 189 (-6lbs since STG) for W/Kg 3, rested (took day before off), with new 28/11 rear cassette to go with my Quarq compact crank.
Swim test (Friday @ 8pm): 4400 in 1:23 (25y pool)
My first attempt at the distance, in a pool with a few water aerobizers to dodge. Seems reasonable.
Bike RR (Saturday @ 9am):
Target: 112 miles in 6:00 @ NP 195, IF 0.74, VI 1.03, TSS 277. First 60" @ 182W, the rest @ 198
Actual: 107miles in 6:13 @ NP 189, IF 0.8*, VI 1.07 w/ 2650ft elevation (TSS 401*). First 60" @ 184W, the rest @ 200W. Stops: 2x pee, 3x for dropped chain, 2x to walk bike across gravel, 1x for refueling, 3-4x for traffic lights: estimated off bike time ~15 minutes. Estimate aero time @ 80-85%. Nutrition: 6L gatorade, 9xGU, 2xbar = total calories 2546, ~415cal/hour + 3 salt sticks). Wore winter spandex top and bottom, thick socks, and head cap trying to feel heat, but it was 55 degrees and rainy all day. Non-aero helmet, regular training wheels.
There remains a significant disconnect between my ability to estimate statistics and predict outcomes using the calculators on EN and training peaks calculators. My target bike paces came from the EN spread sheet, which suggested I would finish in 5hr5min (astonishing!) with a TSS of ~277. That sounded aggressive to me (this was my first attempt at 112) and as Coach P recommended I back it off to 6 hours (accounting for stops, traffic lights, etc). Yet, my finish time would have been closer to 6:30. How TP came up with a TSS of 400 for my RR is not understood, and why it was so much higher than the EN estimate is confusing. My actual average wattage and NP were below target, I hit every hill with my 27 or 28 tooth gear, with my watch set to beep at me for anything above 210W, and tried to keep the watts up on the downhills, yet my IF was higher than predicted, again confusing. Lastly, I hit 2600 in elevation, which is about 46% of the elevation I will see at CDA. Needless to say, after my experience at STG, I am not confident I will be able to estimate my finish time.
When I look at my actual wattage, I basically nailed my power execution (as far as I can tell), pulling back on the first hour, and hitting Z2 perfectly the rest of the race. Thus, my power execution did not translate into speed. This generates a sense of failure, i.e. not being able to "score", or in EN lingo "execute", despite a good plan. I sense the x-factor is my weight, or W/kg, but those are not accounted for in the calculators.
Brick Run:
Target: 9:19 pace (Z1 is 8:49)
6miles in 53:00 (8:21, 8:30, 8:41, 9:03, 9:13, 9:15). Ave HR was 154.
It took me 5 miles to drop my pace to recommended Z1+30 seconds. Bike legs went away after mile 2. I felt pretty solid, with some trapezius cramping at mile 5. I totally failed to keep HR at the bike pace HR (133-138) - first mile was 142-147, but then I stayed in the 155 range for the subsequent 5 miles. I get the sense I would have needed to walk fast to keep the HR lower (which is exactly what happened at STG - my HR was 140 walking up the first hill). Though I am kinda stoked - didn't feel the need to stop, which was a big confidence boost after 6:13 on the bike - I am concerned that performance would have led to a bonk at mile 18.
I think the lesson is simply consider the journey, stop focusing on the finish line/possible time/statistics. Goal race weight is 180-182. Goal finish time: TBD
DS
Comments
Doug, this is your first attempt at IM preparation, no? So the mere fact that you rode 6+ hours then ran nearly an hour should be considered a victory.
The whole point of the first RR is to present opportunities for learning and improvement. Let's start with your numbers. Assuming that your FTP is 264, then your IF is simple arithmetic, IF = FTP divided by NP >189/264, or 71.6. An IF of 0.8 would presume an FTP of about 236; maybe TP has that as your FTP? The only people who can hit 0.8 for an IM bike ride are top pros going for 4 hrs 30 minutes or so. So let's go with an IF of 71.6. That's pretty close to where you want to be, but if you try that on race day, you have a good chance to end up walking a bit in the latter half of the run. You need to be more in the range of 0.68/9, or 182. Next RR, try starting @ 175 for an hour, then hitting the low 180s the rest of the way, with a lower VI if possible.
Next, your run. No question, you are going too hard the first 3-6 miles here. You *can* run at the pace you used in this RR for the first six miles, but you *shouldn't*. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU NEED TO WORK ON THE NEXT THREE WEEKS. Success on race day will depend on your willingness to shuffle along at a "stupid slow" pace of 9:20 for the first six miles. You don't need to walk more to do this, you just have to amble along. Your HR, as well as your pace, shows you were running too hard. Run slower (shorter steps), your HR will be lower, I promise. Every long run from here on out, the first six miles, focus on your HR and your effort level. If your HR is above that target you've set, simply take shorter steps, keeping a cadence of 90 rpm. Learning how to do this should become your number one priority the next three weeks. Its a skill that will serve you well on race day.
Remember, there are two pieces of magic in the EN race execution strategy:
Doing these two things puts you light years ahead of most IM age groupers trying their first IM, and will leave you smiling at the finish. You're close on the bike, just ease off a tad in your expectations. You've got a bit of work to do to convince yourself you can run slower to start the marathon.
One other tidbit: on race day, the combination of aero equipment (do you have wheel covers or a disc?), a taper, closed roads, and the "draft" effect of hundreds of riders in front of you usually results in a bike time 10-15 minutes faster than the RR.
Congrats on making solid progress since StG. Couple of key observations: First, the .80 IF TP gave you, and that ridiculous TSS, are inaccurate. 189NP is .715 of your 264 FTP. You need to uptate your TP profile to reflect your new FTP. Regardless, .715 is too hot for a 6:15+ ride. Which brings me to Point Two - the EN pace/IF chart isn't designed to predict a bike split time. Instead, through a lot of time on the bike, knowing your watts, knowing your speed, you swag a finish time, then find a good IF range. Based on your RR, looks like a 6:15-:30 split at CdA is doable. That means you should target no more that .68 or .69 on your second RR. That's around 180NP. Redcuing output by 9 watts and getting that VI down to 1.05 or better will help tremendously on the run. Yes, by reducing your watts, your time may get a little slower, which makes this a little circular. But it's more trial-and-error than pure science/statistics. But with a 180 and 189 RR, you'll have a lot of data (both numbers and feel) to refine your race plan.
Piece of unsolicited advice: Ironman is brutally hard, which is why finishing is so awesome and why we keep coming back for more. It's not 2xHIM. You really don't know how your body will respond until you do one. Focusing on a goal time, especially a goal bike split, is recipe for a long walk and a lot of disappointment. Time is output. You can only control input. Focus instead on your (growing) fitness, find a good IF for race day, work on your VI skills, pay tons of attention/practice on nutrition (hydration, calories and salt) and go execute your inputs. The outputs (time/place) will take care of themselves. Enjoy the journey, celebrate the prize at the end of it.
Mike
I do not have race wheels or helmet, latex tubes and super fancy tires, etc, etc. My cycle friends mock me daily for this perceived heresy, particularly since I bought a fancy bike. But I outweigh them by 40lbs. Hard to justify these toys before I have gotten control of my weight.
Questions:
- On the long run my pacing never gets me to a HR of 130's - last week's long run I was at 148-164 all 2:15 for a 15mi effort. I am beginning to think staring at my run pace is not best, rather I should be watching my HR more. At least that is what I gathered from Coach P's awesome IMTX race report.
- My average HR on the bike was 131, but max was 157. Compared again to Coach P, he had the same average HR but he maxed at 137 at IMTX.
- I am beginning to believe fitness = low HR at faster pace. Correct? Previously I understood fitness to be the ability to maintain a high HR (i.e. fast pace) for a prolonged period of time.
- I updated TP with my FTP after bike test 2 weeks ago. Any other ideas why TP is giving me inaccurate TSS and VI?
"It's not about who's the fastest on race day, but who slows down the least."
consider aero stuff.
easy to get helmet. something like the Giro Air Attack is a good compromise.
easy to get wheel cover. consider ordering one asap from WheelBuilder.