Today it is close to 90 degrees. I celebrated by making it a point to fit in an open water swim, my first of the season except for my race swim in that warm, alligator-infested lake in Florida. It was just awesome out there: warm on the surface and sharply cold a few inches below that. I forgot how much one's shoulders need to adjust to the wetsuit. I swam for only 50 minutes, but my shoulders were super tired by the end. It made me happy to swim outside, though. Really happy.
AND ON THE HAPPY FRONT.
I am each day letting go a bit more of my fuck up at Florida 70.3.
Sort of.
I will say that my fuck up in Florida has put an even bigger fire in my belly to compete well this season. I started out the year in awesome form with a slew of PRs. That trend needs to become a trend--again. I'm so determined I am actually annoying myself. I eat sleep and TRAIN to the music of I will kick ass. I will kick ass. I will kick ass. and I will never run more than I have to in a race again (Repeat 5 billion times. Do you know I have run considerably more than I had to in three races in the last calendar year? Mooseman 70.3 70.3, CELT sprint, and Florida 70.3. I have an issue, clearly. But not anymore.) THAT TREND is OVER. I have asked Andy and the kids to stand at the entry to the finishing chute at Couer D'Alene, and their assignment is to steer me into it--and not let me go off course. I'm not kidding. That is really their job for the day--the only thing I really really really need from them.
Lately it is has occurred to me that I must be the most boring person to be around because I rarely--okay NEVER-- leave my little universe of focus focus focus. (okay, obsession. FINE!)
And lest you think this obsession will end with IMCDA, you are sadly mistaken. I actually believe that CDA will just fuel the obsession fire.
Sometimes I think I need electric shock treatment.
So, in line with the obsession piece I will detail what I became obsessed with this week.
Jesse's Triathlon Calculator
Jesse is the founder and head coach at QT2 Training Systems. The Q in QT2 stands for Quantitative, which should give you an idea as to what his training protocol is all about. It is data based--and if you look at the results his athletes put forth, his approach does works. I think the reason his approach works is because athletes are taught to pay attention to the numbers--especially, and most importantly, on the bike. QT2 trains the run by training the bike... which is to say, the belief is that more time on the bike allows for the run to be executed as it should be--according to the athlete's potential. Also, the bike portion of a race (longer than a sprint, anyway) is done at a prescribed power or hr pace. The cardinal rule is not to exceed that pace during the race, no matter what the athletes around you or the conditions on race day seem to command of the athlete. The QT2ers therefore excel on the run every time. It is their trademark.
Anyway... about the calculator. He created it awhile back and this week I have been studying it.
I am generally not a fan of deterministic models. It's hard to nail down specific data pieces with a degree of accuracy that justifies placing huge faith in them. However, I'm still obsessed with Jesse's calculator, because even though I ostensibly don't believe in such models, this one does seem to work with relative accuracy. I'm less interested in the actual time the calculator gives me in terms of predicting my race performance, because as I said, the model's accuracy is not absolute. However, the calculator is very useful in terms of thinking about how to execute one's training and racing in a way that produces success. I've been manipulating the variables he uses to see what combination of things seem to produce the best result (at least according to the calculator). This process has been really illuminating. Thank you, Jesse!
So here is what I have found:
If I weighed 50 lbs my power to weight ratio would be so good I could do the bike course at CDA in 4 hours while only pushing 130 watts, average. The problem is, I would be dead at 50 lbs.
More realistically, I now really, really understand why Jesse makes sure his athletes are slim and trim. For every pound you drop, your bike split improves if you are able to push the same wattage on average that you could before you dropped the weight. I think most of us think of the weight loss helping the run. According to the calculator, it only does so inadvertently. By improving your power to weight ratio on the bike, you have a faster bike split and still do the run as you should. Your run isn't necessarily faster, but you can do the bike faster without dire consequences resulting on the run.
The only problem I have with the whole thing is that it appears that by just losing one pound you can significantly improve your bike split (by several minutes over 112 miles.) But weight is variable. Does that mean that right before I get my period when I weigh 2 lobs more than usual I will be slower on the bike? Apparently...yes. Also, scales are variable. Even very accurate scales are never completely accurate. So how do you know what exact, to the pound weight you really truly are the day of IM? You can't.
Also problematic is the fact that power meters vary in their measurements. For example, in discussing the SRM power meter juxtaposed to my computrainer, I have been told that there may be as much as a 15 watt difference between the two meters. That is a huge huge difference. Even just five watts is a huge difference. According to the calculator, changing my output by four watts over 112 miles produces a 6 minute improvement in my bike split. But yet meters can vary by up to 15 watts in their measurement? How am I to determine which meter to use when using it to monitor my output?
However, as I said, I am less interested in the calculator giving me a specific time, and more interested in how it can guide my race day plan.
Take home messages:
- Train more on the bike, and you will have a better run.
- Make sure you figure out what your zone 2 watts are, and stick with them on the bike for IM.
- Get as close to your ideal race weight as possible without having it affect your power output.
I know that those three points are likely considered givens... but I'm not sure how much attention I, for one, have really paid to them until now.
13 comments:
being heavier = more speed on downhills ;)
i train a shitload on the bike, and my run just plain sucks.
in conclusion, i dont like numbers.
which is why i am no longer working in finance. well, still in the industry. but you know what i mean.
good post!
Thanks for the calculator!
I am always amazed at how tired my shoulders get when I first start using my wetsuit each season!!!
Being lighter on the bike does not help on a flat course. Seriously. This is different than running. Weight is an issue on the climbs, and when you accelerate (which you should be avoiding by never slowing down for anything :o)
SRMs measure power at the crank. Power Taps measure at the hub. So there are mechanical losses from the friction of the chain, sprockets, and jockey wheels. So PT reading would be lower, even if you had them both hooked up at the same time. The computrainer is reading power at the tire. This is even further downstream. The tire gets warm during riding the trainer. Heat is energy. This energy had to come from someplace. Thus, the power reading here will be lowest of all. And sure, all the devices only claim plus/minus a few percent in repeatability. Don't obsess over this anyway. If this was the end-all, we would need to actually hold the race.
The advice is good though. Pace appropriately on the bike, using power as a guide. No big spikes. Save yourself for the run. The only number that matters is your finish time for the entire event, right?
I had no idea as to why the SRM, PT and Computrainer differ in their readings. That makes sense and is interesting. Still, the problem with the calculator, then, becomes that it needs to account for these differences by allowing you to select for SRM, PT or computrainer.
The calculator does take into account elevation. I will have to go back and play with it to see whether my bike time becomes faster with weight loss at the same rate for a flat course as it does for a hilly course.
One thing I don't understand is why weight loss doesn't change the run time... you would think it would.
Mary, you are becoming quite the expert! Wonderful! Such great learning for me! Thanks!
Well, since I'm not going to be able to afford a power meter anytime soon, I guess I should find somewhere without stop signs to do a time trial. Or maybe I don't want to know. I just ballpark guessed 20 mph for 20 minutes and it spit back a 12.8 mph pace for a half iron. Ouch.
@ Kristin... right. I think you really need the power measurement to be able to do this one... the mph is just so variable! 20 m tt on a trainer? outside? but with what conditions?
@ solobreak. I just realized (read the bottom, duh) he uses a computrainer power setting/test for the calculation. This is flawed, though, b/c you can't use a computrainer in the race! So he should be using a 20min power test using the PT or the SRM--preferably a separate data point for each? (I'm sure data point isn't the right word choice.)
Good stuff. I'm with you, mary. OBSESSED right now with improving every little thing I can. I think we get this way when we are nearing our athletic potential but still want to improve... then to get the most out of ourselves it's like squeezing blood from a rock! My latest obsession is to drop the extra 3 lbs I've been carrying all winter. I'm down 1... 2 more to go and 10 days to do it... but now your post is going to help me avoid any second servings of food, knowing that I don't want to carry them with me on the bike at Honu. You're right- I thought weight was more to help me on the run, though power to weight ratio on the bike is a big one. Thanks for the reminder!
OK, so I just went to the race calculator and it told me that I am going to KICK SOME SERIOUS ASS at Honu. Like a 16 minute PR. That's What I'm Talkin' About! ;)
you need to start visualizing the CDA finish now. seeing yourself finish in the appropriate distance. then practice it pre-IM. ;)
the calculator was too depressing for my made up #s. I will forgo that damnation for my day.... ;) i think if i got lighter for the bike than i can save the $$ from buying so much food and buy a powertap or some cool gadget that could help me.
happy birthday!
A friend emailed privately and explained that the run doesn't change according to a weight drop, b/c the run variable is based on the 5K. Duh. of course. So your 5K time would likely improve if you dropped weight, but the calculator assumes you were at the weight you entered when you performed in the 5k.
The 5k variable is actually sort of a problem too, I think. It assumes that the 5k was done recently and with current fitness.
Who has done a 5k so recently that the data there is reflective/accurate? I, for one, haven't raced 5k since last May, a year ago.
As per power stuff--it seems the smart thing to do (this was also pointed out to me) would be to simply make sure you test wattage using the same meter that you plan to race with. I wonder why Jesse asks the user of the calculator to use the computrainer, then?
Ok, so per the calculator, I'm not going to PR at Eagleman. Grrrr....
If it assumes the same weight for the run, then sure, it's sort of like the Macmillan calculator, except I guess factoring in that you're in a tri. Otherwise I've heard 2 seconds/mile/pound and I think that is pretty close (and this is assuming the same level of aerobic fitness).
But seriously, the calculator is always going to be just an estimate. 5% up or down on the watts is not a hill of shit. If you are going to try to be that precise, then you have to worry about having the exact same wheels, tires, clothing, etc. And then there is our friend the wind.
Post a Comment