Variable Pacing for Easy vs Hard IM Courses by ACouzens

Coach Patrick

http://www.endurancecorner.com/Alan_Couzens/optimal_pacing

Read the full article before playing, but in general his final analysis is as follows: The harder the course is, the more you benefit from pedaling hard / working harder, as a steady power plan will result in lots of time left on the course. His generic guidelines are:

• Coast at >50km/h
• Pedal Easy at >40km/h
• Pedal Steady at >30km/h
• Pedal Mod-Hard at >20km/h
• Pedal Hard at >10km/h

With the usual caveats for beginners not crushing themselves, what do folks think about riding somewhat harder on a hard bike course vs just going steady? I have my own bias (of course!) but want to hear more from you!

P

Coach Rich

Where to begin...

His example is 80kg and FTP of 320w. In my experience, that's a pretty rare bird right there. In my opinion, using this cat as the model isn't realistic, as you're like talking about the doode putting up at top 5 in AG bike split.

I don't know any courses that include a 56 mile climb at 2%, 5%, or 10%, followed by an equal downhill, so why use those as your model? The 2% isn't that off base, but to seriously include a 56 x 5% or x 10% course in the discussion is just ludicrous. Dunno, maybe a smart guy can explain the modeling sense of that one to me.

Completely misses what we have learned re TSS points, that they are not all created equal. I'll get to that in a sec.

I think it leads to some pretty stupid examples to support his theory:

Flat course

How many folks are riding 4:35-43 at Florida and, frankly, do we even care about what or doesnt work for them? Me...I don't.

Moderately Hill (2%) Course?

I'll kinda buy this example in the highlight, as it sorta follows our guidance: go up a gear on the uphills and stay on the gas (but fine to come off a bit) on the downhills. However, remember, not all TSS is created equal, I think this is a good example of what I mean.

1. No clown is going to ride @ FTP minus 20w for 56mi @ 2%...and then just coast it in the remaining 56mi. Sorry, that's just a stupid example.
2. We've all ridden 56mi at FTP minus 20w. We've all ridden a steady, even paced ride. We've all gotten off the bike for both rides with equal/nearly equal TSS. We all know there was a difference in how our run felt. In my experience, those 233's below don't tell the whole story and only people who ride with power and pay close attention (you) know this.

5% and 10% Courses

The remaining examples, especially 10%, are just too stupid to even talk about...but I guess we will anyway.

We have years and years of data that says:

Mr. 245w and 376 TSS "might" be able to run/shuffle. Depends on what IF that 245w is.

But 263 and 300w...you're done. Absolutely done. I'll bet any amount of money that this guy is under a bush, or walking, by mile 10.

10% -- Are we seriously going to include a 675 TSS ride this discussion?? That's your example??

Lastly, and this relates to Couzen's stuff in general:

• No such thing as a good bike split followed by a poor run. I'm more interested in the bike split/style for riding that sets up a good run than I am talking about what is the fastest way to get around a bike course.
• Two guys, 80kg. One with FTP of 320w, the other with an FTP of 270w:

1. These guys cycle on different planets. A world of difference between the two.
2. I can't look at his stuff for more than 2-5' at a time, but how does he account for the FITNESS differences between these two athletes?
3. What is the real world, real time application of his pacing guidance? Tell me what numbers I'm supposed to see on the dial, right now, on THIS hill, when I'm not in your lab?

cwhyte

I skimmed through the article. Here's my summary or simplified version:

I believe he's just saying the higher the gradient the harder you should climb (ideally not reaching FTP) which is basically true. Check out my gradient/optimum power graph in my article here:

http://chris-lakerfan.blogspot.com/2010/04/im-bike-execution-using-rpe-power-and.html

This has been proven by the models whether it's Ashburn's, Simmon's, et al models. Couzens apparently has a 5-gear model based on speed. I suppose that works fine. I've always used:

Flats: overall NP target

Short climbs: 85 - 90% of FTP

Long climbs: 80 - 85% of FTP

I don't base anything on gradient because we never really know the actual gradient. It's kind of like guessing the wind. Rich and Patrick have a slightly different model but it yields very similar results. The reality is that we're never going to be that precise in how we apply power because:

1. RPE is a significant factor in the actual power we target at any one point in time

2. What's being displayed on your screen is something like +- 5 or so watts from what you're applying in reality.

Thanks, Chris

carpej30

I am getting ready to head to france where the race is a lot of 6& for 6km 8 % for 5 km etc.. and the first half of the course is mostly uphill..
I am pretty sure that doing the entire course at .7 is unlikely, simply due to the places where it exceeds 12% (500m) or the fact that it is almost pure climbing for half the course.
With that said, I am going to keep it as close to consistent as possible, and just know that its going to be slow. I think to keep the bike from falling you have to go over .7 if your FTP is lower...
Glad this came up, as it has pretty direct bearing to my race in 10 days

Al Truscott

Science, schmience.

His analysis ignores two key variables, the absence of which makes the results worthless, and thus not worth talking about:

1. He assumes athletes don't fatigue, or rather, that one fatigues at a constant rate regardless of the IF one is working at. (I.e., how long can you hold an interval at 120% of FTP, compared to 100%, compared to 80%, when asked to do it over and over maybe 50 times in the course of 5-6 hours.)

2. He loads ALL of the climbing in one swell foop, and in the firs thalf of the course at that. Where is that IM, can I enter now, so I can coast for two hours before I run?

If someone were to take the trouble to build a model of, say, the CDA or WI course, with scores of short, steep hills of varying length and grade, and then input a factor for fatigue depending on the IF used, the grade, and length of each hill, I might pay attention.

cwhyte

I guess I'm a little confused. The way I read it is that he's saying the same thing we've been saying. Arguably he has a poor way of stating it but if you were to focus on the following then I'm unclear how you would conclude otherwise:

Coast at >50km/h
Pedal Easy at >40km/h
Pedal Steady at >30km/h
Pedal Mod-Hard at >20km/h
Pedal Hard at >10km/h

I don't think speed is the best way to base your "gearing" and he should specify power targets (as a % of FTP) instead of using subjective terminology but is that much different than Rich and Patrick's model? Am I missing something?

Thanks, Chris

Coach Patrick

I am with Chris on this one, in that what he says in reality is similar to what we say...he just uses some really bad examples to make his point. I think it's worth considering what other folks do to make ourselves better. For me, how hard I pedal up a hill on race day depends on what I get out of that work. I have learned that about .82 is all I can handle for a few times of sustained work (.72 + 10%) and still run well off the bike.

Instead of sweating how hard to pedal up the hills, I think we could all learn a lot from how the fast folks pedal down them (like mr. whyte) nailing a very low VI.

P