Ironman Coeur d'Alene : Official Thread (Page 49)

I actually enjoy reading and learning from the diverse perspectives on this board so please keep up the.........ummm........disagreements.   

On the positive side, I've learned two new words in the last week (hubris and pedantry).

That sucks, I hope things work out and you are able to race.

Swim or run?  From your logs it looks like it's been a long time since you were in the water.  I know that you are really run focused right now but when do you plan to get back in the pool?  Same questions for the bike. 

I didn't really see any of this as disagreement.  At a high level, we're all saying to train your weakness.  Someone with my background - former swimmer with knee injuries - needs more time to carefully build up on running.  Someone who learned to swim last year probably needs more time in the pool.

Nothing I read so far contradicted that.

Edit: and Josh - I really hope you manage to do the race.  I'm curious to see someone's opinion on how the course compares with Lake Placid.

Edited by spudone 2011-02-07 11:06 AM

I not going to say anything else, since I don't want to get banned from this site.  I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.  I forget that some people are sensitive.  Afterall, I came to BT for the good logging tools, & somehow got sucked into this thread.

I think there is room for all types here. You can be serious, light, etc. That is fine with me. But I do agree that we should all try and contribute in some form or fashion to the build up to IMCDA. I think Josh's point is that your contribution is welcomed above and beyond trying to keep it light.

Because you mentioned it, I would like to know what Rocketman said that bugged you Josh. And of course we are all pulling for you to make it to CDA if its right for you!

First let me say I've never heard of you before now, and was responding to a training philosophy before you were mentioned that you seem to embrace... but I hope nothing I said was seen as an attack on you.  I appreciate your sentiment to Phatknot (and I wish Mr. Nitwit would take note) - I hope it extends to me.  Heck I'll have a cold beer waiting for you at the finish line if I make it to CdA (I'll put it on ice when I finish since your 10 minute swim cushion will be gone by mile 40 of the bike).




Frankly, this "experiment" does not help your case very much.  Of course if I have to swim at a pace beyond my target IM pace my subsequent ability will decline.  I've been a champion of smart pacing in this thread, and that includes swimming an easy pace.  Your study speaks far more to race execution (and far more for shorter races than long ones, where holding FTP is most relevant) than it does to how you should allocate your available training hours.  The premise of my philosophy articulated in this thread is that if I took the necessary training time (from a limited pool (pun intended) of total training time available) to get to a comparable ability of your study participants with a swimming background (so I could come out of the water in like condition as them for my FTP test), I'd be able to sustain a higher percentage of my FTP on the bike, but that my FTP would be FAR lower than if I had spend the majority of that training time crushing it on the bike.  The difference will be substantial enough that despite the lost time on the swim (and the extra energy consumed by swimming at an appropriate pace for a few extra minutes), it will be gained back multiple times over by allocating training load towards the time you will spend in each discipline on race day.

Note that I said training load, not training time.  With injury potential as the wild card, this is my rationale for riding less (but harder) and running more (but easier) even though you will spend longer on the bike on race day (most likely).



I completely agree that by swimming more you will have a faster and/or easier swim.  And I acknowledged that there is a point where improving the swim will be the biggest bang for your buck for some athletes (really slow swimmers, or folks who are really fast on both the bike and run already).  My main point, which I hope was clear, was that for the vast majority of IMers, the most efficient way to finish faster would be to "lower your overall energy bill" for the bike and run first.



The ironic things is that you could not be more wrong about my history and ability to adapt.  I spent about 15 years as a relatively slow and injury-prone runner (shin splints and foot problems galore)... never getting higher than 20-30 miles a week, and never stringing together more than 4-6 months of training without a major hiatus due to injury.  In fact, I got into triathlon 4 years ago to "cross train" because I was convinced I just wasn't built for running.  After years of doing it wrong, I finally had a chance to do it right... and it stared with a season-ending bike crash that allowed all my running-induced injuries to heal (while my broken bones from the crash were healing).  During that recovery, I had a lot of time to read and think about my previous training and what it had gotten me.  It  was during that time that I stumbled across articles by BarryP on slowtwitch about a new approach to triathlon run training.  Actually, it was nothing new but was a well organized explanation of the infamous "run lots, mostly slow, sometimes hard" mantra you read on BT all the time.

I could go on and on and an about Barry's approach, but I encourage everyone to read it for him/herself (it's all good, but particularly parts 1-3 of "the program").  I will say this, however -- you are completely wrong about this being a plan that only works for a few people who are highly adaptable like me (first of all I don't think I am) -- there are regular anecdotes of people like me (injury prone low mileage runners) who find the program, follow it, and become high mileage high frequency injury-free runners (while training for long course triathlon).  And virtually all of them have breakthrough races following the program.  Other than a few dissenters, it is widely accepted as gospel over there.  I'm one of those people who believes in the principles outlined in the articles, and who experienced a complete transformation as an athlete in the 1 year I trained like it suggested.  I went from a 5:50 flat HIM PR to a 10:23 hilly IM debut.

Here's my run build from bike accident in April, to IM in July the following year.

MAY	JUN	JUL	AUG	SEP	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	APR	MAY	JUN	JUL
0	13	52	87	98	157	62	111	151	173	180	90	155	164	133

 

 

Two notes:
1) I ran too much because I was too excited about my increasing fitness in October, and I was injured in November.  I started running too fast because I could (the articles I linked promote running SLOWLY to build your volume) and paid the price. 
2)The "low" mileage in April was due to a personal/life issue, not injury.

IF YOU FOLLOW THE PLAN (volume through frequency, not through long runs... and all runs at easy effort during any volume builds), I think most people are capable of that kind of volume.  In the past, I would have been one of the loudest objections saying I couldn't even run half that volume.

Lastly, let me say very clearly - I am not a coach to anyone (though I have coached high school cross country in the past with some success), and I have tried to be very transparent that what I am sharing is both semi-controversial and based completely on my experience and research.  But it is not some outlandish philosophy I invented.  There are MANY people who are both very fast and very smart and very experienced who are advocates of this approach, and who coach their athletes (of all abilities) to success using the approach I've outlined. 

Thanks for the debate - I hope prospective CdA'ers find it informative.

Edited by JoshKaptur 2011-02-07 12:07 PM

LOL!! Me too!  :-)

...interesting to hear the different perspectives.

I assure you my feelings are in tact, but thanks for your apology.  My defensiveness was more towardes the community of this thread and against your repeated implite attempts to shut down legitimate conversation because it doesn't interest you or you don't empathize with it.

PS - saying you won't say anything else doesn't undo the reality that you then immediately said something else that was passive-aggressive and clearly expressed your intent... but nice try.  It would be no different than me saying "I won't say your user name is well chosen because I know personal attacks aren't allowed on this site." -- see what I did there?

Sorry to hear about your friend and thanks for sharing that story.  I know when I ride in a pack we do some stupid things like aerobars in the train.  I definitely won't be doing that anymore.  We always say "it will never happen to me"....until it does.

VERY surprised to hear this!!  You have been very helpful to myself and many others as far as your opinions and recommendations.  I am very interested as to why you don't think you won't be able to race CDA?  Hang in there!  I look forward to meeting you in CDA!

So two things: is the swim really as bad as everyone says it is? This is my 2nd Ironman, 1st mass start. If I shoot for 1:05 or under, where should I start? I know its way early to think about, but I want to go ahead and know what is in store. Also, how hilly is the bike in relation to other IMs? I would imagine it to be pretty bad, but I am sure not as bad as St George or Louisville for instance. Anyone with a baseline?

ok so for us dimwits, i need to see if i am getting this Josh.

You are saying there are two separate but related issues at play: 1. race execution and 2. division of training hours.

bottom line on division of training hours is your firm belief that the ranking for most people ought to be run (easy and often) firstly, ride hard if time is an issue and long if you can, and swim (hard and also long) with the remaining time if time permits and you can make it through an IM swim without whackin yourself out for the day.

on race execution, for most swim-fit people, swim smart and easy-ish making sure to leave most of your tank full for the solid z2 bike and run. i am trying to simplify but i need to do this for my little pea brain.

Please edit this as necessary to clarify

--  start violin music now --

Please don't do yourself the disservice of checking my logs for an example of the type of training I've been preaching here.  The harsh reality is that, this time around, I know far better than I've actually done how to get there.  And I'm starting to be okay with that.

I signed up for CdA with a singular goal - qualify for Kona.  The fact is that goal is virtually impossible for me at this point.  That's just a reality of where I am in training vs. where I need to be.

2010 was a crazy year for me.  My wife and I split early in the year, and I poured myself into ironman training.  We got back together later in the year, and it required a lot of hard work in a lot of difficult areas.  Without going into too may details I've had to dig up a lot of ugly stuff from my past, and come to terms with it.  We're now doing much better... in fact better than we've ever been, despite the mountain of hurt we caused each other earlier this year.

My new year's resolution for 2011 was to be more balanced in my health - to make sure that emotional, spiritual, marital, and physical health were complements to, not compensation for inadequacies in, each other.  In late 2009 and early 2010 I got really physically health... because the other areas were a mess.  In late 2010 I really focused on those other areas, but neglected my physical health.  I gained a bunch of weight and barely trained.

If you look at my logs in 2011 you'll see what could best be described as "striving for balance" instead of "heading to Kona" training.  I'm really hoping that I can spend the majority of 2011 in balanced health.  Right now I'm pretty healthy in the non-tangibles, and not nearly as healthy as I'd like to be physically.  I'm on the right tragectory for fixing that (without screwing up the other areas), but not on tragectory for KQ by June.

It's possible I'll still race and finish CdA with adjusted goals... right now I'm figuring out if that's what I want to do or if I'd rather bank the money, vacation time, and emotional toll that a KQ would take for a future date (note I do not think serious training = not good for you emotionally... but for me it is not the best idea right now).  I'll let you guys know what I decide.

In fact if you really want to shrink my head, you could say that the advice in this thread is my best attempt to help someone else achieve what I won't be able to this time around.  That's jut a consequence of having to sign up for these things a year in advance and having limited knowledge about what the year will bring.

But no feeling sorry for me -- I'm the healthiest ALL AROUND I've been in a very long time.  In the meantime, I look forward to training for and discussing CdA with you all while I figure out the next few steps.

-- end violin music --  ** group hug **

So to your question.  My approach (FOR ME) if I was able to do it would have been to be in marathon shape right now (at this time in my previous IM training I was running 150+ mile months).  At that point I went into a run-maintenance phase and focused on the bike for the next several months, with a small amount of weekly swimming.  It wasn't until the race got closer that I really focused on some mechanical corrections to my swimming, which can be a quick improvement if you can figure out what's wrong.

The reality is my logs at present are perhaps one of the poorest reference points you could use for IM training, unless you are wanting to know about building a run base through frequency.  But what I am doing now I should have been doing 4 months ago.

Edited by JoshKaptur 2011-02-07 2:08 PM

I like almost everything you said, except for a few nits to the last paragraph.  Regarding z2...  I won't debate the merits of zones, how they should be determined, etc... but suffice it to say my gut reaction is that you could go harder than z2 (depending on how you and I define that) for most of the day.  I also emphasized the part about this being my opinion.

Wow...skip a couple of weeks of checking BT forums and see what I've missed.

Seriously though,  to Josh (and everyone else) that comes into this forum posts questions, suggestions, advice, etc, I really appreciate hearing what you have to say.  I am intelligent enough to realise that what is being offered is, in most cases, an n=1 hypothesis.  As such, your mileage may vary.

Friendly and constructive dialogue is a good thing as it challenges us to examine our beliefs and maybe occasionally even grow them.  I don't understand nor do I appreciate the derision of noob's questions or attacks on various forum members for having n=1 hypothesis.  This stifles dialogue and prevents those of us who are interested in learning from the other members.

Sorry to hear you might not be doing the race Josh.  I was hoping to see how your KQ attempt would pan out.  Good luck with the home life though.

I don't think Josh's data is n=1. BarryP and Fleck's running program have got many followers with similar improvements across race times and race distances (tri's and running races).

Likewise, from what I understand Rocketman has many fans out there and by his claim several athletes who have met their goals.

This is some solid debate going on and I hope others are getting something from it like I am.

Hello group. I will also be raceing and am a little late to the thred but wanted to say hi. I live in Bonney Lake WA so anyone close by feel free to say hi and everyone else I am looking forward to training tips. talk to you soon.

funny that you mention z2 definition Josh. in the debate that Rocketman and I had that I cited above, he said you should never leave z2 all day at an IM. z2 is the endurance zone that long slow distance is done at. its conversational. In relation to a ga athlete (ga brown dog), I was saying that your fitness/training dictates whether you can "burn matches" (i.e., push it a bit harder) during an IM. I thought his at the time and I think my fitness and training allows me to push a bit harder during the day strategiacally.

in my n=1, what i learned at IMFL (and as a consequence of my training last year) was that I could push the bike harder provided i returned it on the run. I settled for an 8:53 pace on the mary when my stand alone mary pace is closer to 7 and change. Of course I would like to run faster at IMCDA and I am striving to get closer to 8 mins pace but that faster bike split really helped my overall time.

ultimately it came down to learning the pacing exchange for my body better, and I hope to dial it in even more at IMCDA if thats the game plan shanks lays on.

Daniel
I've heard some horror stories about the swim (cold, mass start crush). Watched some videos on youtube as well. I can't tell you where to seed yourself as I am a horrible swimmer but from my two mass IM starts I can tell you that if I was you @ 1:05 I would get closer to the front and draft the faster folks leaving us MOP and BOP behind.

We are all going to take a beating but I suspect its worse in the masses towards the middle and back. I'd be interested more in this aspect of things if anyone can add more about where is the least amt of traffic (i.e., far outside). You know those buoys are gonna be horrible.

There are some diagrams about which bike courses are more difficult out there if you google them. We have seen many course profile links and race reports on here and BT as well. I particularly liked the official pre-show on youtube which takes you on a visual tour with verbal description.

looking at some of the preview videos, it looks like the road conditions are not all that great. Can anyone verify this? Seems to me that there is a lot of patch work and rough spots to watch out for.

Josh, I would take a good marriage over a KQ anytime.  I'm glad that it is working out for you and still hope that you get the chance to come race in CDA.

Check and see when the video was made.  There used to be a very rough section up near Hayden but it was fixed with asphalt.  I don't remember any places with potholes or inconsistent surface during last year's race.

Disclaimer - I swim in the 1:20 range but have talked to a lot of people that swim in the 1:00 to 1:10 range. 

If you are planning to go sub-65 then plan for some contact. If I were you I would line up in the front just to the right of center.  You will be in a big pack when you get to the first turn (about 1000 yards).  Take the first turn wide, do not get trapped on the inside.  When you come around the first turn you will be swimming into the sun.  Most people will stop or slow down a lot to figure out where the next turn is.  If you are on the outside of the turn you should be able to gauge where the next turn is by just swimming parralle to the pack without getting trapped or slowing down.     

I agree, check the date.  The winter snow and ice takes it's toll of the roads around here.  Riding the course in the spring sucks.  There are pot holes and lots of gravel on the road.  However,  CDA and Hayden do a great job on getting things fixed up in time for the race.  I have never had any raceday issues with the roads.