IM 70.3 Steelhead race report -- Matt Aaronson
For context, this is my second year in triathlon and of being "active" off of the couch. In my first year last summer I trained for the Olympic-distance. Steelhead 70.3 was my second-ever HIM race and followed fairly quickly on the heels of my first, which was July 17 at Racine 70.3. I'm going to start this report with a mini-report on Racine because my strategy for Steelhead was somewhat based on lessons learned at Racine (and I never did a report for Racine so you haven't read this before!).
For Racine I followed the EN execution guidance to the letter – rode IF 0.83 and VI 1.01 – and had a great race. My time was 4:48:48 with a 1:38:38 (7:31/mile) half marathon that, frankly, I played too conservatively (pretty major negative split where each of the last 6 miles was not only faster than the overall run average, but also was faster than the mile before it). When I came out of T2 and saw the clock I realized I only needed to run a 1:50 to get sub-5 (which was I goal I had for no real reason other than it seemed pretty challenging when I started training) so I started out really slow. My "slave to the powermeter" bike ended up 2:26:55 (22.9mph), including 2 and a half minutes to "water the trees" by the side of the road. In that race it was 94 degrees and 106 heat index. I seemed to handle the heat pretty well vs. the rest of the field because I managed to finish 11th in my AG and get the last rolldown slot to Vegas.
Heading into Steelhead I wanted to try for a PB and beat my time at Racine, since the course (like Racine) is very fast and flat, and I figured that even if I replicated the same performance it was likely to result in a better time as long as the temps were more moderate. The main improvement I wanted to make was not being so conservative on the run.
My training between Racine and Steelhead was 4 weeks:
Week 1 – Recovery week from Racine. Two weekday swims. I planned to do 2 long rides on the weekend but got rained out so did an hour on the trainer on Saturday then an hour run on Sunday.
Week 2 – HIM plan week #7 (supposed to be week #6 targeting Vegas as the end date of the plan, but I did not want to do the testing and race rehearsal so just did week #7 instead)
Week 3 – Repeated HIM plan week #7, but again got rained out of the Saturday ride so just did an hour on the trainer.
Week 4 – Massive taper due to a business trip to Brazil. One swim 60 + run 30 before the trip, one 30 min run on the trip, and that was it. I did manage to eat at a churrascaria (yikes…not recommended taper-week behavior!!).
I actually think the training ended up being pretty effective – my TSB in TrainingPeaks showed a decline from +30 right before Racine, steadily falling and bottoming at -30 where it stayed for about a week, then spiking up almost to +30 before Steelhead race day. So I feel like I got in a couple of weeks of good training stress and the "taper" was effective. Most importantly I FELT tired during the two hard weeks, and I FELT good and ready to race by the end of race week.
As for the race, well, I have very mixed feelings. First off, the swim was cancelled due to rough water driven by strong ~20mph winds that impacted the bike as well. Although I'm not a strong swimmer it's disappointing to have the swim cancelled...the event wasn't really a triathlon and as such it's hard to gauge the quality of my execution – which was the main thing I wanted to improve upon after Racine.
Objectively I should be pleased. I beat both my bike and run splits from Racine…although that doesn't mean much without the swim.
On the bike I was 2:20:31 (23.9mph) which included ~2:48 of stopped time watering the trees (I was CRUSHED to give up this much time, but didn't have a choice...I just can't manage to relieve myself while riding). My numbers on the bike were very strong and I think the cooler temps (mid-high 60's) had a lot to do with that. My IF was 0.897 and VI 1.01, very consistent across the ride. So MUCH higher intensity on the bike than Racine. But I felt good and strong, and unlike in Racine where my HR and power "decoupled" in the last 30 minutes (thanks Coach P for identifying that in the crucible analysis!), in the Steelhead ride my HR was actually pretty flat for the whole ride after settling in. I took splits every 5 miles plus manually triggered a split when I made my pit stops: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/106542477.
I also beat my Racine run with a 1:36:22 (7:22/mi) and a pretty massive negative split (last 4 miles: 7:19, 7:19, 6:54, 6:34). I finished feeling MUCH too strong having played the run MUCH too conservative (AGAIN). I certainly left something on the table run-wise -- after I finished I literally felt like I could (and should) go for another run, and my wife commented on how I looked pretty fresh – so a ton left on the table and mismanaged energy. This is really the disappointing part of the day. The whole last 2 miles of the run I was just kicking myself for not running harder earlier. I was so bummed. Although I do not monitor my HR while running, I think the HR chart tells the story of this run: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/106544288 -- essentially my HR hangs out in the 150's for an hour until I start turning up the dial. The average HR for the run is 160. I've just gone through all of my training runs between 60-90 minutes and I've only once had an HR that low. Typically my average for a run is high 160s to low 170s. I undercooked it. Period.
I finished 20th in AG out of a ~230 and 113 out of ~2000 overall, so much worse than Racine. I'm certainly not an AG "contender" so that doesn't bother me other than natural curiosity as to how I could beat my Racine splits and do so much worse in the standings. I suppose part of the result is not being able to control who shows up, and perhaps part is that I do better in the heat than other people.
I think another issue may be that without the swim, the run is easier for most people...after all, the run at Steelhead was the last 1.5 hours of a 4 hour workout, vs. the last 1.5 hours of a 4.75 hour workout. Because I'm comparatively good at running I think that I'd outperform more on the run if everyone went into the run already fatigued from swimming and biking after a swim (even though I'm a comparatively bad swimmer and would "lose time" on the swim leg itself). This is conjecture but I think it might be true.
Finally, because it was a time-trial start (pairs starting on the bike every 5 seconds) rather than my whole AG in one wave, there was no seeing people in your AG and thinking you need to pass them -- because in this case you didn't know how much time separated you (and in my case, I was the first in my AG to start due to alphabet so anyone who I actually saw was CERTAINLY ahead of me already). So there was probably some element of not "racing" as much. Truthfully I don't think that really impacted me all that much, but I'm looking for reasons here...
Fundamentally I think I just need to become comfortable turning up the dial earlier in the run. My hesitancy to do that is less about dealing with the pain and more about being super-nervous that I'll implode. But for that I'm running out of excuses. Racine was my first HIM distance so I could say I didn't have the experience to push the limits…this was the second so I should have played it more aggressively but just didn't.
So an interesting day, and I feel like I learned a lot. Unfortunately I also feel like I have some unfinished business at the half-ironman distance, having never really run to my potential. Vegas will be meaningless since the course difficulty will eliminate time comparisons and the competition will ensure my AG standing is BOP even if I execute my best race ever. So it will be bittersweet if I go back and focus on the shorter Olympic-distance next year, as I have thought about doing. We'll see.
In any case it's been a great experience to get into the HIM distance this year and I'm really looking forward to a well-earned vacation in Vegas in September (um, and a race, right…).
Cheers,
Matt
0
Comments
Great work, all told, I think you have to say...even if you do think you left a little out there.
Steelhead does usually attract a crowd of fasties. I did it the first time and had the second from the bottom bike on the blinged out scale.
Enjoy Vegas. Rock your athlete talent. Have fun! And why the return to Olys? Any dreams of Ironman someday?
Enjoy Vegas! Can't wait to hear about it (and the race
Matt - Very, VERY impressive, my man. You say, "I'm not an AG contender" and then speculate on how poorly you might do in Vegas. I beg to differ. You are *just* starting your triathlon career. Your still rapidly improving FTP (no way you did a 0.89 FTP in an HIM - try dividing your NP for that race by 0.86 to see what your FTP might actually be closer to), and VI of 1.01 show further potential on the bike. And your rippin' final six miles in the run show opportunities to fine-tune your bike/run race executiion further.
PLEASE treat Vegas as a race, and think about what you can do to pump up your race day run a little bit earlier. And, as Jennifer suggests, it may be that the feeling of a lot left in the tank on the last half of the run is actually telling you that you may be constitutionally better suited to even longer races.
I don't know your life situation well, so you may not be seeing a lot of time available to focus on triathlon, but if you do, you've got a lot of room to grow into being more successful than you can currently envision.
Very impressive race!
FWIW- I raced the 70.3 Championship course last year at Silverman and although the bike course is tough it's still quite fast. The RUN course is equally tough, lots of uphill running. It seems that you are either running uphill or downhill, so practice both. I was hoping to join you in September but missed out on the roll-down by 4 slots. Maybe next year.
A bit of elaboration based on some of the comments...
On FTP:
Indeed it's tempting to think my FTP isn't really 248 but may be higher. But I doubt it. I've thought about this a bunch lately. Truthfully I haven't formally tested since near the end of the OS (I attempted a test in late June but flatted 8' into the first 20'...at that time I was tracking to +8 watts or so but it was early going so who knows).
In my FTP interval workouts I'm not overachieving -- I usually hit 0.98-0.99 for the first interval or two, then maybe 1.00-1.02 for the rest. On Tuesday I did a workout on the bike including 3x15'(3') and the IFs were 1.008, 1.001 and 1.003. I then threw in a 5' interval to get my z4 total up to 50 mins and was only able to manage 0.987 for that last one.
In Racine my ride was 0.83 and in the last 30 min my HR and power began to diverge, so it seems like that was reasonable (of course it was 95 degrees in that race).
In an Olympic-distance race in late June I rode a 0.949 which is about the top end of what everyone seems to say is reasonable (I was really trying to ride harder, that was truly my limit, although I did manage to lay down a 10k PB and VDOT PB in that race, so perhaps there was something left on the bike, but I don't know how to access it…).
I think the big IF at Steelhead was driven partially by the lack of swim, and mostly by the cool temps. So maybe my FTP should be 5 watts higher. But doubtful it's 11 watts higher as the 220/0.86 math would suggest (i.e. FTP of 259). That implies a 2x20'(2') test where I hit ~263 or 264 for the 20' segments...on a "gun to the head" basis I think 264 would get me shot!
Underpinning a lot of my thinking is that FTP ought to have peaked in June when I exited the OS then been in some slow decline. At least that is what a lot of the team seems to say happens. But Al's comment about a "still rapidly improving FTP" may be valid in my case since I really have not been in the endurance game for very long and perhaps am still riding a steeper improvement curve.
In any case your comments all have me thinking again and since my 180 min workout tomorrow calls for 2x20'(5') @z4 perhaps I'll shorten the recovery interval to 2' and turn it into a test.
On VDOT and running:
Here I am more confident that I have the right numbers. I have skipped virtually all testing but have done open running races at the 8k and 10-mile distances plus a 10k run as part of the Olympic-distance tri I mentioned above. All of these races have yielded a VDOT within 0.4 points (including the 10k that was part of a tri). Last year my highest VDOT was in a 15k race and it was very close to one from a half-marathon…both of which were over a point higher than 5k and 10k's run around the same time. So the comments about being suited to longer distances are I think correct in general.
I think my problem on the run is not about being unable to hit my target pace (i.e. 7:19 MP after mile #3), but rather the fact that I allow fear of blowing up to be a rationale for not TRYING to hit the target pace. The big negative splits and fast finishes essentially prove that. So I need to take Jennifer's comment about blowing up in a half not being so detrimental and have it forefront in my mind for the next race. I have seen similar comments by Coach Rich in other threads. I need to increase my mental toughness, in other words.
As for my tri goals overall, I am the classic M3539 who has a young family and job that takes too much time and requires too much travel. My wife has been super-supportive of my doing the HIM distance this year, but I need to talk it over with her and see what I can commit to next year. Despite the "time efficient EN approach", this has been an order of magnitude more training than I did last year. But frankly, I'm fairly burned out after 20 weeks of the OS then HIM training up until now, so I can't really think rationally about next year just yet. For how it's Vegas (don't worry Al, I know I race it for real!), then I'll pull out my road bike and do some fun fall riding and some local running races.
I have to say, though, I have a score to settle with that HIM run, and Steelhead and Racine are begging me to come try again and go sub-4:40. Knowing me, that's probably enough motivation to do this all again next year.
Cheers!