Ironman Lake Placid : Official Thread (Page 106)

This is good advice except for one detail about your race.  You wrote that it is on July 4th which is a Wednesday.  You should have no problem with a sprint tri on Wednesday and then your scheduled weekend training.  Sounds like a fun way to spend the holiday while getting in a good training day.  Have fun!

Im new to this distance just like you so my opinion is not based on experience but there are other thoughts as well.  Like you, I have a race scheduled that doesnt really fit well into IMLP training.  I certainly dont want to risk a petalla shock/bruise or something that can happen in shorter distances due to speed increases versus the nominal Z2 that is 90% of our training.  However, Im doing a Oly this weekend and calling it a light weekend of training.  I will not try to break any PR's but you know racing is racing and its hard to tone down but I will be careful.  My other thought of this is that you should enjoy this prep for LP.  I enjoy Oly and sprint distances as well and I dont want to block out everything less than HIM's for 6 months due to a slight risk of injury.  Theres a balance.  Keep in mind they are B or C races and we should be fine - I hope, maybe, perhaps. 

CRAZY QUESTION

How many miles is everyone putting on thier marathon shoes before IM LP?

I know this is a personal question but curious

I am still debating between Nike Air Pegusus 28 my training shoe for the last ??? years or K-Swiss Qwicky blades

Thanks for this question.  I'm really interested in what the runners and gear junkies on the forum have to say.  I run in New Balance 1080 (now 1080v2) and typically put 220-260 miles on a shoe before it is retired.  I try to rotate two pairs at any given time with one pair at home and one pair at the office. 

Last week I ordered a new pair for the race because my current shoes have 210 and 66 miles on them respectively.  I want to break them in but don't want to break them down.  My guess is that anything less than 100 miles and they will still be "fresh" with maximum spring and cushion.  But, I really don't know and all things running are foreign to me (as you can see from my logs.)

One other thought: The answer to the question may matter a great deal on the type or style of shoe.  I run in a full cushion shoe.  The more you pare down the weight of a shoe, it may matter less how many miles you have on them as long as the fabric is sound and they have been broken in.

AH HA! thanks for catching that....details, details... lol

I might actually be able to answer this one. I worked at a running tech shop for 4 years and have run competitively for about 15 years now FWIW... most trainers are made to withstand about 400-500 miles of training for someone of normal impact. If you overpronate to a degree, that might be different for you. I overpronate pretty badly and have always done that but am still able to get about 450 miles out of a pair of shoes before I really start to feel the cushioning "evaporate". I run in Saucony Hurricanes for training shoes but race in some lighterweight trainer(Asics DS trainers) For training lately I have been soley using the Hurricanes though as I just don't feel the support I would like from the DS Trainers. I will be getting a new pair before LP but will make sure I get at least 50-75 miles on them before the actual IM because the insole needs to be broken in.

A common misconception is that the shoe itself needs to be broken in but really it is the insole of the shoe. all running shoes are handstiched to the sole of the shoe so the flexibility of the shoe is ready to go right away. if you need to, what you can do is take the insole out of your old pair and put it into the new pair and you will already have a custom fit shoe that way. Hope that helps!

Andy,

I just got the new Asics DS in the mail... actually they came about an hour after I left for my LP training weekend... thanks running warehouse and UPS... lol... anyway I will be running in those for Placid and will have about 50-75 miles on them I would think for the marathon. 

So towards the end of the 2nd loop, Mama Bear, on Saturday I needed some uplifting thoughts... this is what comes to me every time I am winded... tired... "I'm gonna have me some fun"

http://youtu.be/YeVyXFN1OTY

So I think I saw you on Sunday as I was going to do, and back, of the my second run loop.

Mt Tremblant is a gorgeous place. I might consider doing IMMT in 2013

I just checked.  Someone signed me up for this crazy race.  I'll be sporting number 1652 on July 22.  Looking forward to seeing all of you there.

This link at the IMLP page shows the elevation as 2,395 per 56 mile loop.  I've seen a pretty big range on various reports and files.  Some people report as much as 3,000 plus feet.

Has the course changed or is this simply a measurement issue?  i.e.  Different maps, devices and techniques will cover the same ground and get different numbers.

my joule showed 6400 ft after  a few weeks ago

The course has changed from two years ago, it's gotten a little easier with the new out & back.  I don't think we should worry about total elevation because it can be misleading.  What I am going to do is focus on the THREE Sections where you have to climb.  1.) Around 5 miles in 'the climb up to the Keene descent'.  2.) Miles 26 to 32 the 'climb from Wilmington to Jay'  3.) The 11-mile 'notch climb' at the very end of the course, including the Bears. 

I can tell you one thing Kent, World Triathlong Corp is all about money.  They are really moving in a disgusting direction of giving out false information to make races seem 'easier' and appeal to more people.  For example, you're asking if the course is 2395 per loo.  WHY are you asking? Cause that's what WTC is posting on the their site with a BULLSH1T picture of the elevation.  It's an outright lie. 

Here is the "New Pic" WTC has of the course http://ironmanlakeplacid.com/files/2010/09/LakePlacid_BikeElevation_20121.pdf  .  This picture of the course is equivalant to the pictures of models in glamour magazine.  They are airbrushed and photo-shopped.  Kent, that picture posted by WTC IS A LIE. AND OUTRIGHT LIE.  Anyone who just trained on the course this past weekends, or raced the course will tell you that. 

Here is the old pic (and the real pic ladies and gentleman) that used to be posted on the Ironman website:

The course is 3300 feet per loop.  I've take the average of roughly a dozen different instruments used to measure the course, from Pro's and Amateurs, and the number is 3300 PER LOOP.  6600 for the entire 112 miles. 

The FAKE picture WTC is now putting up may be 2300 ... but they took out HALF THE HILLS!!!  They took out the whole freaking climb from mile 26 to 32!!!!! Jay to Wilmington!!  They just 'smoothed' it out on the "new website".  Freaking sad really.  And misleading.  Really pissed me off that they are blatantly lying. 

Is the Lake Placid course hilly?  Yes.  Is it mountanous?  Heck no.  Is it doable?  Yes.  If you only train flats and then ride Lake Placid will it be hard?  OMG Yes.  If you train hills will you be fine come Race Day?  Yes.

The common consensus of the Lake Placid Bike Course is this:  The 1st loop is not bad at all.  It's the second loop that is hard.  Why?  Cause fatigue sets in and the once manageable sustained climbs now become a little more difficult.  Do yourself a huge favor:  Take the first loop easy.  Simple

AND A JOULE IS VERY ACCURATE.  Thank you for posting this.   

And I am so NOT a negative person.  But the blatant lies just really irk me.  It's arrogant and disrespectful; as if athletes don't have the technology to measure the course themself.  I feel like writing an email.  It's the naive beginner who doesn't research who looks at that course map and says, "Hey 2395 per loop is not that bad."  And it's not.  That elevation is similar to the 'original' Rhode Island 70.3 course.  Lake Placid is NOT like a the Rhode Island course or any 56-mile loop of just over 2,000 feet of climbing.  And if an unsuspecting athlete flies in from abroad or far away thinking it is, based off WTC's inaccurate blatant lie of a bike course map, they are gonna be in for one shock.   

And the reason I can say it's a blatant lie is because WTC took off the correct and accurate Bike Profile to put in the phony one.  Someone in WTC corporate is clearly worried that the race that used to sell out in 15 mins now took a full day to sell out in 2012 and they want to make it as marketable as possible. 

Not to cause argument but my Garmin 405CX which seems fairly accurate and is usually very close to others I ride with put the IMLP course at 5800 ft with this mapping.  I guess thats close enough to what Bobby is saying.  Difficult for me to tell 500 ft over 56 miles though. 

(Untitled.png)

Jim? I didn't know you work for WTC!? 

Yeah, but even your 'new' fancy mapping has more bite than the WTC elevation map.  And there's still A LOT of Elevation Gain that just seems to have vanished from the course. 

Just my 2 cents... I know I know it never really is 'just 2 cents'.... FWIW, my 310xt shows 2312 for total elevation for 1 loop then 4597 for 2 loops (minus the out and backs on the 2nd loop)...

Can I toss my 2 cents in as well?  My Garmin calculated approx 2675' per lap.  I've never heard of the LP course being over 6000'.  But, what do I know, I'm just a rookie!

I will take your 2675, you rookie , over anyone that says its over 6000. They must have taken a wrong turn or maybe they rode the course backwards... that Keene ASCENT would be BRUTAL.

That was my joule that read 6400. BooTri are you sure you rode the entire course?lol

Isn't this the elevation profile for the old course with the Haselton out and back? The Jay to Wilmington climb looks like it starts at ~mile 25 in this profile, instead of about 10 miles later like it does on the current course. 

Either way, it doesn't really matter much whether the claimed elevation change is 4K, 5K, or 6K. The course is the same for everyone out there, and there's climbing in it, so you just have to prepare for it.

This might be the best advice in the entire thread. Unless you're in my AG. Then you should try to crush every hill and race every first lap hero up to the top of every little incline.

haha yes,... 3  loops this past weekend... hard to just make up numbers, for me anyway... just reporting what my garmin read and for giggles and laughs here is a mapmyride map....  http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/104512817    2421.26 foot climb, one loop....

also, if at any point my garmin  was that much off from what the RD said I would check a different tool... like map my ride... or check and see if my tool was set to meters or yardsa nd not feet.,,, and I make sure I lap and clear my garmin before each workout to be sure the reading was accurate. Not saying you don't, just saying the climb is not as steep as you think it is. Unless of course the WTC owns mapmyride and they change the elevation profile of LP.