General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2006-06-27 10:40 AM

User image

Member
22

Fort Wayne, IN
Subject: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
I'm a newbie, and wondering how much longer the run in a triathlon takes most people vs. if they were just doing a running road race. So how much slower are your 5K, 10K, half-marathon, and marathon times when part of a triathlon?


2006-06-27 10:50 AM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times

Depends on how much you leave on the bike.

Wink

2006-06-27 10:55 AM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Extreme Veteran
402
100100100100
Ogden, Utah
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
Exactly Bear..

Personally, myself.. right now I am noticing about a 5 minute delay on my 5k times, but that's because I haven't done enough Bike to Run "bricks". Everytime I get off the bike my calves are in a vice.

Others seemingly have NO time change.

As a beginner the way you can minimize that feeling is doing a quick mile or two after each and every bike you do.
2006-06-27 11:05 AM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Veteran
325
10010010025
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
I think I saw 20 seconds a mile drop-off as a goal to shoot for in Triathlete Magazine. I'd say that this is pretty accurate for me for sprint or oly, but a 1/2IM is a different story. I can run about 1:25-1:27 for a stand-alone 1/2 marathon, but haven't broken 1:55 in either of my 1/2IM run times.
2006-06-27 11:06 AM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
For a WELL paced and executed race in "general" your running splits should be around 5% to 10% higher depending how strong of a runner you are. Anything above 10% from your stand alone times will be a sign for poor training, pacing, nutrition, execution or all. Of course a caveat would be an extremely hard course, an extremely hot day, etc.
2006-06-27 11:06 AM
in reply to: #467269

Member
129
10025
Royal Oak, MI
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
I ran a 10k 4 weeks ago and ran a 40:09 (flat course, great day). I just did an olympic distance tri Sunday (flat course, great day) and ran 44:55 for the run, which ended up being 6.5 miles. 10k time at that pace is 42:50.

I think it all depends though. Running fitness, how the other two disciplines went that morning, and the normal any given day factor.


2006-06-27 11:07 AM
in reply to: #467304

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
doublej - 2006-06-27 11:05 AM I think I saw 20 seconds a mile drop-off as a goal to shoot for in Triathlete Magazine. I'd say that this is pretty accurate for me for sprint or oly, but a 1/2IM is a different story. I can run about 1:25-1:27 for a stand-alone 1/2 marathon, but haven't broken 1:55 in either of my 1/2IM run times.
read my previous post
2006-06-27 11:17 AM
in reply to: #467310

User image

Veteran
325
10010010025
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
amiine - 2006-06-27 12:07 PM

doublej - 2006-06-27 11:05 AM I think I saw 20 seconds a mile drop-off as a goal to shoot for in Triathlete Magazine. I'd say that this is pretty accurate for me for sprint or oly, but a 1/2IM is a different story. I can run about 1:25-1:27 for a stand-alone 1/2 marathon, but haven't broken 1:55 in either of my 1/2IM run times.
read my previous post


I agree 100%. For me, I think it has been a combination of somewhat extreme heat (90+), poor nutrition (stomach cramped up last time), and not quite enough bike training. This year will be different (hopefully).
2006-06-27 3:25 PM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Expert
623
500100
Wye Mills, MD
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times

It also depends on your training cycle. I had a half marathon in April, which was a B race for me. I PR'd the race, but I was not peaking for it.  I completed a HIM in June, which was an A race, and knocked 40 seconds off my previous half mary PR.  So your training plan has a lot to do with it, as well.

2006-06-27 3:29 PM
in reply to: #467269

Member
50
2525
Memphis
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
This will sound odd (or impossible), but I've actually found I run faster in a Tri than I do a stand alone run. Perhaps I'm more warmed up or perhaps I'm treating the Tri as an A race and the other runs as B races.

Here's my best example. I had never broken 19 minutes in a 5K run race. My first Tri this spring, my 5K time came in at 18:28. Either they measured the course wrong or I had one heck of a PR.

Charlotte half marathon in April - 1:40.

Rock n Rollman half ironman in June - 1:36 half marathon time.

Edited by Monker 2006-06-27 3:30 PM
2006-06-27 3:37 PM
in reply to: #467745

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 3:25 PM

It also depends on your training cycle. I had a half marathon in April, which was a B race for me. I PR'd the race, but I was not peaking for it.  I completed a HIM in June, which was an A race, and knocked 40 seconds off my previous half mary PR.  So your training plan has a lot to do with it, as well.

I would agree if that would have happened over a period of a year or longer. If you PR on your HIM after a few months in which you ran a stand alone ½ mary, IMO you ran the half mary way to conservative to your running capabilities. Maybe Mike Ricci can chime and tell us what he thinks…



2006-06-27 4:52 PM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times

Another factor is where you are in your training carreer.  The "younger" you are, the more quickly you will make performance jumps.

After a few years of consistent training, you should see less drastic changes from year to year than you see in your first couple years of training.

If you've only been training a year or so, a couple months between a standalone running race and a triathlon is enough time to add to your fitness significantly enough to have a faster run during the tri. 

2006-06-27 5:48 PM
in reply to: #467269

User image

Extreme Veteran
346
10010010025
Honolulu,
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
I started running about 2 years ago and just started tris this year and my running has overall improved. Just running a year ago i was averaging 10:30 mile splits for 5k since training for a tri stand alone my 5k splits dropped to 9:00 and in my last tri my 5k splits were 7:45
2006-06-27 9:50 PM
in reply to: #467769

User image

Expert
623
500100
Wye Mills, MD
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
amiine - 2006-06-27 3:37 PM
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 3:25 PM

It also depends on your training cycle. I had a half marathon in April, which was a B race for me. I PR'd the race, but I was not peaking for it.  I completed a HIM in June, which was an A race, and knocked 40 seconds off my previous half mary PR.  So your training plan has a lot to do with it, as well.

I would agree if that would have happened over a period of a year or longer. If you PR on your HIM after a few months in which you ran a stand alone ½ mary, IMO you ran the half mary way to conservative to your running capabilities. Maybe Mike Ricci can chime and tell us what he thinks…

Hopefully this will be more helpful than hijack, but based on my perceived exertion and HR, I ran the April race to the best of my ability.  My training strategy for that race was to cycle the running separately from swimming/biking/weights.  In other words, I scaled back my running workload the week prior to the race, but maintained the same workload in the other three areas (Build 1).  I believe residual fatigue from a semi-aggressive workout schedule limited my ability to run faster. But I worked hard all winter on running, so I was still faster than I was at the time of my last 13.1 in Sept, 05.  For the HIM, my training since January was focused on this race and I tapered for two weeks. Everything came together for me during that race.

2006-06-28 8:18 AM
in reply to: #467269

User image

COURT JESTER
12230
50005000200010010025
ROCKFORD, IL
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times

After two Sprint races this year I've noticed almost no difference between training pace and race pace. Even with the legs talking to me as the transition to run.

Of course last year was my first year and was happy with finishing.

This year I'm trying to learn more about how my body does during a race. Since my sprints were back-to-back weekends I didn't take the time to do a lot of learning between them. What I realized after Sunday's race was that I've got a decent bike leg going and had enough left for the run. Once the legs loosened up on the run, I learned it's mostly mental as I held my 10.5min/mile pace yet afterward realized I could have increased the pace and probably been fine.

Now I have till Sept 9th to get in lots of bricks to help with that.

Oh yeah, and the run is my weakest area.

2006-06-28 8:25 AM
in reply to: #468117

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 9:50 PM
amiine - 2006-06-27 3:37 PM
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 3:25 PM

It also depends on your training cycle. I had a half marathon in April, which was a B race for me. I PR'd the race, but I was not peaking for it.  I completed a HIM in June, which was an A race, and knocked 40 seconds off my previous half mary PR.  So your training plan has a lot to do with it, as well.

I would agree if that would have happened over a period of a year or longer. If you PR on your HIM after a few months in which you ran a stand alone ½ mary, IMO you ran the half mary way to conservative to your running capabilities. Maybe Mike Ricci can chime and tell us what he thinks…

Hopefully this will be more helpful than hijack, but based on my perceived exertion and HR, I ran the April race to the best of my ability.  My training strategy for that race was to cycle the running separately from swimming/biking/weights.  In other words, I scaled back my running workload the week prior to the race, but maintained the same workload in the other three areas (Build 1).  I believe residual fatigue from a semi-aggressive workout schedule limited my ability to run faster. But I worked hard all winter on running, so I was still faster than I was at the time of my last 13.1 in Sept, 05.  For the HIM, my training since January was focused on this race and I tapered for two weeks. Everything came together for me during that race.

that's a great improvement nevertheless. Good job!  Still I think with a few days of rest prior your 1/2 mary you could have run faster or if you do one soon you’ll crush your stand alone PR )



2006-06-28 8:49 AM
in reply to: #468321

User image

Expert
623
500100
Wye Mills, MD
Subject: RE: Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times
amiine - 2006-06-28 8:25 AM
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 9:50 PM
amiine - 2006-06-27 3:37 PM
wyecrab - 2006-06-27 3:25 PM

It also depends on your training cycle. I had a half marathon in April, which was a B race for me. I PR'd the race, but I was not peaking for it.  I completed a HIM in June, which was an A race, and knocked 40 seconds off my previous half mary PR.  So your training plan has a lot to do with it, as well.

I would agree if that would have happened over a period of a year or longer. If you PR on your HIM after a few months in which you ran a stand alone ½ mary, IMO you ran the half mary way to conservative to your running capabilities. Maybe Mike Ricci can chime and tell us what he thinks…

Hopefully this will be more helpful than hijack, but based on my perceived exertion and HR, I ran the April race to the best of my ability.  My training strategy for that race was to cycle the running separately from swimming/biking/weights.  In other words, I scaled back my running workload the week prior to the race, but maintained the same workload in the other three areas (Build 1).  I believe residual fatigue from a semi-aggressive workout schedule limited my ability to run faster. But I worked hard all winter on running, so I was still faster than I was at the time of my last 13.1 in Sept, 05.  For the HIM, my training since January was focused on this race and I tapered for two weeks. Everything came together for me during that race.

that's a great improvement nevertheless. Good job!  Still I think with a few days of rest prior your 1/2 mary you could have run faster or if you do one soon you’ll crush your stand alone PR )

I was thinking about this driving into work, and had to laugh at the one detail that is taken for granted when comparing races and results - how well are the courses measured?!

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Tri run times vs. stand-alone run times Rss Feed