Gray Guys/Girls Master's Focus Triathlon Mentor Group--Now Open (Page 5)

Chris,

About the only difference between the 920XT and the 910XT (besides ~ $250 and cosmetic differences) is the 920 provides run metrics through the run HR strap - it gives Vertical Oscillation, Ground Contact Time, and Cadence.  Nobody has really figured out how to use Vertical Oscillation and Ground Contact time so those probably aren't that important. You can get run cadence from a 910XT with the addition of a foot pod.  The 920XT will connect to your cellular phone and provide smartwatch notifications of messages, calls, etc. Once paired with your phone it also will allow live tracking so significant others can follow your workouts in real-time.

Nobody has mentioned it so I will introduce you to the DC Rainmaker site with his review of the Garmin 920XT - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/11/garmin-forerunner-920xt-depth-review.html. DC Rainmaker reviews pretty much all of the tech gear available for Triathlon. He has gotten such an incredibly high reputation that his words can quite literally destroy a product overnight, or send its sales to unheard of heights. Beyond all of that, his reviews give a very well written preview of the gear itself. If you have a question about a piece of gear, the first stop should be the DC Rainmaker site.

The problem with pre-written plans is that they are generic plans written for the masses - the plan wasn't written for YOU.  That isn't necessarily to say that pre-written plans are bad, just that they aren't very dynamic and don't easily adapt to different training goals.  I would use a pre-written plan as a guide and modify it as necessary to fit my needs. Specifically I would use the triathlon plan that best fit my goals - the Olympic or the HIM. Then I would add the run mileage to accommodate the marathon.

A couple thoughts on creating the plan. First, unfortunately bike fitness doesn't equate to run fitness doesn't equate to swim fitness. Meaning, just because you can ride 100 miles doesn't mean you will be able to run 15 miles. Just because you can swim 1.5 miles doesn't mean you will be able to ride 30 miles. Just because you can run 26 miles doesn't mean you will be able to swim 500 yards. What that means for a triathlon training plan is you must have sufficient volume and/or intensity to properly train for each of the three disciplines - don't cut out volume on the bike and swim when you start adding the extra run volume.

Next, regarding volume build.  You probably have heard don't increase your run volume by more than 10% per week.  I would actually argue you increase 10%, run that mileage for two-weeks, then increase, but I tend to be fairly conservative and put injury prevention above everything else.  More importantly, especially if you are going to be adding run volume to a pre-written plan, you need to account for volume build across the entire plan (swim/bike/run).  To that end, I use a formula that keeps my volume build in line. I give 1 point for each 100 yards swimming, 1 point for each mile on the bike, and 1 point for each 1/4 mile running.

100 yards swimming = 1 mile cycling = 1/4 mile running

I then total up all the points for the current week. Next week, my training can't go beyond 115% of the current week points. By following that general guideline, you won't exceed a fairly conservative build and shouldn't be at risk for overreaching.

Remember in any plan you modify that recovery time is at least as important as actual training time - I actually argue that recovery time is MORE important, and increasingly I am no longer the lone voice in the wilderness on this topic.

Finally, on how many runs per week and the long run.  I have some thoughts on this that will occupy a pretty good post all on their own so I will leave those comments until tomorrow when I have some time to organize them properly.

Hope all this helps a little bit.

This post got a little bit long so pull up a chair and grab some popcorn!

While this post is in response to Chris’s question about adding run volume to a triathlon plan, it is really intended more to spark a general discussion about the long run and an alternative way to think about the long run. I will say right up front that I take a bit of a contrarian view on the long run. I take that contrarian view because I have developed the opinion that good health and injury prevention should be the guiding focus underlying any and all training – especially as an athlete ages.

Getting to the view I currently have on the long run has been a decade’s long journey that ironically began back when I was swimming. Back then we often did “vomit-sets.” By which I literally mean if you weren’t hanging on the wall hurling into the gutter at some point in the workout, you simply weren’t working hard enough. It never made sense to me, even as a teenager, that I had to work so hard as to vomit in order to improve. Something about that just intuitively seemed wrong. I accepted the “no-pain-no-gain” philosophy as that was the only method known at the time. Fortunately, as my swimming career progressed, there was mounting scientific evidence that suggested aerobic conditioning was more important than previously believed, even for anaerobic sports like swimming. With that, swimmers began to move away from the “vomit sets” in favor of scientifically proven methods – which meant I was blessed to not become yet another broken athlete and went on to a fairly successful swimming career.

Jump ahead several years, as I became more involved with triathlon, both as a participant and ultimately as a mentor and coach, I continued to see things that intuitively didn’t make sense. I see athletes that push their training to the point of functional overreaching in order to gain a slight competitive edge. I watch athletes continually injure themselves in a quest to add volume – with the vast majority of those injuries coming during the run. I often find myself among very fit, unhealthy athletes that are one illness or injury away from the end of their athletic career.

Prior to last year, this was all casual observation. However, last March I met a young athlete (26) who I will refer to as “John” and I unexpectedly found myself confronted with a very fit, injury prone athlete. Suddenly I was forced to re-evaluate everything I knew about training and improving fitness within the context of helping a young, energetic athlete overcome injury while leading him to the greatest athletic achievement of his young life at Ironman Louisville. I discovered that while most of my beliefs and techniques were indeed valid, I had to re-examine and re-define the long run as that was the obstacle to success.

John had a chronic problem with shin splints. He could run long, but if he ran long today, he couldn’t run again for 2-3 weeks. We finally accepted that John could not safely run over 10-miles if he wanted to run again in a timely fashion. We couldn’t do a true long run. We built to ~40 miles per week without the typical 16-20 mile long runs. The longest run that John did in training was 9.2 miles and he only did that once.

Through all of the training however, John kept asking me the same question, over and over again –“What happens when I get to mile 10?” At some point when he again asked the question, I had an epiphany of sorts as I realized that John’s understanding of endurance was not at all how endurance works. John had formed an idea in his mind that his endurance was like a meter that had been tied to his longest run, and his meter had only been turned up to 9.2 miles. The flaw in his model was that endurance simply doesn’t work that way. I’ll get to that in a moment, but first, I told John, “At 10 miles you keep running.”

Fortunately most of us aren’t limited to running less than 9 or 10-miles. That said, John is not the first athlete I have known that had an injury directly related to running and as often as not, related to the weekly long run. So, I submit that there may be a better way than the weekly long run. Now let me say, before anyone calls me a moron - weekly long runs DO work. It is the HOW and WHY they work I want to look at as I present my alternative to the weekly long run.

There are three variables that we can manipulate in training – duration, intensity, and frequency. It is the sum total of the work done through the manipulation of those three variables that equals our total training load. Total training load is the number one predictor of performance on race day. So, as I said, long runs do work, but not because of some imaginary meter. They work because of their contribution to total training load. More specifically, training runs work because of how many miles or minutes you run each week and how fast you are running – duration, intensity, and frequency.

If we look at an average training load for an average marathon/IM plan we would see a build to ~ 35-40 miles per week running. It’s pretty easy to get to 35-40 miles when you are running a 16-20 mile long run each week. I submit however, that there are far better things to do with those 35-40 miles than blow 20 of them on one run. Certainly that is true for most weeks. It is true that in a perfect world you will OCCASIONALLY do a long run. You need to familiarize your body with being on your feet for an extended period of time, you need to get used to the pounding, and perhaps most importantly, you need to dial in your nutrition plan for a marathon run. But those things are separate from the aerobic capacity you need to run a marathon or the run segment of a triathlon.

So if long runs do work and they are occasionally necessary, why am I against them? It isn’t really that I am against them. I am against running long too frequently and I am against running long for the wrong reasons. I suspect that the vast majority of athletes would not hit their run volume if they didn’t run long. Simply stated, they wouldn’t hit that 35-40 miles if they didn’t include the long run. I am saying they should run those 35-40 miles, but with a different approach most weeks. What if you ran 5 x 8 mile runs? Same 40-miles of training load right? Not exactly. Because you are running a shorter distance, you could run at a slightly faster pace. So what if you ran just two of those runs each week at a slightly faster pace? Faster pace = higher intensity = greater training load. Remember the #1 predictor of performance?

The biggest reason I am against the long run is the potential for injury that comes with the long run. For each additional step you take on ANY run, your likelihood of injury increases. Go back to that 5 x 8 mile week for a moment – now you have 24-48 hours for your body to recover from the pounding of the run and each individual run provides a whole lot less pounding to the body. This is manipulating frequency to your advantage. By running more frequently, with a couple of those runs at a slightly faster pace, you have increased your training load while reducing your risk of injury. Of course those 8-mile runs at a faster pace come with an increased injury risk as well. However, so long as you don’t get ridiculous with your pace, they still have far less injury risk than a 20-mile long run at ANY pace.

One other thing to consider when talking about running and injury – the long run shouldn’t be longer than ~ 35% of weekly volume. A long run with a weekly volume of 40-miles should top out at 14-miles. If you are intent on running a long run of 20-miles you should have consistent mileage around 60-miles per week. Anything else and you are inviting injury. The single biggest obstacle to obtaining your triathlon goals is injury. Far and away the leading contributor to injury is the weekly long run.

What is my alternative to the long run? I like the weekly 5 x 8 mile run model with a long run every 4th week for most athletes. Three of those 8-mile runs would be at marathon pace while two of them would be at marathon pace + 30-seconds per mile (roughly ½ marathon pace). On the long run weeks, I lean towards 4 x 7 mile runs, two at marathon pace and two at the faster pace with a 12-mile long run at marathon pace.  For athletes competing at the shorter Olympic and Sprint distances, I include one speed workout per week beginning 8-weeks before the race and continuing for 6-weeks.

What I like the best is the highest possible training load that can be consistently maintained for the longest period of time with the lowest possible injury risk.

Excessively long runs simply don’t fit into that equation.

Oh, by the way, John went on to run a sub 3:30 marathon at Ironman Louisville. His first marathon, at the end of an Ironman, in only his second year of running. Which validated the idea that you don’t have to run long every week – indeed in John’s case, he didn’t run long at all.

[On a side note, I am a HUGE proponent of the Maffetone Method to build aerobic base. I do not believe you should run faster than your maximum aerobic function (MAF) pace until you have FULLY developed your aerobic base. Running at your MAF pace in SLOW – painfully slow, however it is the most efficient way to build aerobic base. Additionally, it offers the least potential for injury. I am happy to share my thoughts on the Maffetone Method with anyone interested.]

Edited to mention at the top that this post is long.

Scott - It's going to take me a while to digest your last post and I'll have to make some notes as well.  I briefly scanned it and I'm looking forward to reading up on the Maffetone Method.

For now, I wanted to answer Chris' question on nutrition/hydration.

Chris - You asked about what everyone does for hyd/nutrition in races (and I'll include longer training sessions as well).  First - everyone is different so ultimately you will have to figure out what works best for you.  The following is what works for me and it may not work for you.

Up to one hour running or cycling I don't worry about any nutrition and I would only hydrate when the temps get warmer in the summer.  The exception is swimming.  I always take a small (12 to 20 oz water bottle) with gatorade diluted 50% with water to sip on whenever I get a short break in the swim.  I find the diluted gatorade just provides enough flavour to make the water palatable. 

Over one hour - I want a bottle of water (large water bottle) per hour of ride or run.  I aim to sip every 10 min but it usually works out to every 15 min and I finish a bottle in the hour.  Personally, I find it hard to eat solid food on the bike or run so I usually add 60gms of carbs/ hour in each water bottle.  I also like to add a Nuun electrolyte tablet to each bottle.  I mainly get my carbs from Perpetuem by Hammer or CarboPro.  You can add more carbs to your water if you want but don't go less than 60gms.  I do find I can eat Honey Stinger waffles in limited quantities while running or cycling and I like to suck on ice cubes or any of the "chews" (like ju jubes).

In a race - on the run - I tend to take in whatever I want, depending on what is offered at the Aid Stations.  Many people like gels but I can't bring myself to eat them so I stick to water. ice, gatorade, coke, watermelon etc.  I can't even think of choking down pretzels or bagel chunks.  On the bike - I carry as much of my own nutrition as I can and I only stop at Aid Stations after I run out of my own.  If I take anything at an Aid Station it is usually whatever drink they offer like gatorade or Perform.

In Canada we have "Eatmore" chocolate bars that I can actually chew while riding and they are quite good (with lots of peanuts and no actual chocolate so not messy).  I only rarely eat them for a treat.

After the race I love watermelon, cookies and pizza!  As a diabetic I avoid pop but on a hot day during a race I love a cold pepsi - colder the better - or beer.  Beer is actually a good recovery drink with lots of B vitamins, right!!

This is just me and there are so many other things you can use.  I recommend maltodextrin as a better option for glucosally challenged people like myself.

Don't let this nutrition/ hydration issue make you crazy - trial and error should help you figure out what works for you - and keep it simple.

This post got a little bit long so pull up a chair and grab some popcorn!

While this post is in response to Chris’s question about adding run volume to a triathlon plan, it is really intended more to spark a general discussion about the long run and an alternative way to think about the long run. I will say right up front that I take a bit of a contrarian view on the long run. I take that contrarian view because I have developed the opinion that good health and injury prevention should be the guiding focus underlying any and all training – especially as an athlete agesSo if long runs do work and they are occasionally necessary, why am I against them? It isn’t really that I am against them. I am against running long too frequently and I am against running long for the wrong reasons. I suspect that the vast majority of athletes would not hit their run volume if they didn’t run long. Simply stated, they wouldn’t hit that 35-40 miles if they didn’t include the long run. I am saying they should run those 35-40 miles, but with a different approach most weeks. What if you ran 5 x 8 mile runs? Same 40-miles of training load right? Not exactly. Because you are running a shorter distance, you could run at a slightly faster pace. So what if you ran just two of those runs each week at a slightly faster pace? Faster pace = higher intensity = greater training load. Remember the #1 predictor of performance?

The biggest reason I am against the long run is the potential for injury that comes with the long run. For each additional step you take on ANY run, your likelihood of injury increases. Go back to that 5 x 8 mile week for a moment – now you have 24-48 hours for your body to recover from the pounding of the run and each individual run provides a whole lot less pounding to the body. This is manipulating frequency to your advantage. By running more frequently, with a couple of those runs at a slightly faster pace, you have increased your training load while reducing your risk of injury. Of course those 8-mile runs at a faster pace come with an increased injury risk as well. However, so long as you don’t get ridiculous with your pace, they still have far less injury risk than a 20-mile long run at ANY pace.

One other thing to consider when talking about running and injury – the long run shouldn’t be longer than ~ 35% of weekly volume. A long run with a weekly volume of 40-miles should top out at 14-miles. If you are intent on running a long run of 20-miles you should have consistent mileage around 60-miles per week. Anything else and you are inviting injury. The single biggest obstacle to obtaining your triathlon goals is injury. Far and away the leading contributor to injury is the weekly long run.

What is my alternative to the long run? I like the weekly 5 x 8 mile run model with a long run every 4th week for most athletes. Three of those 8-mile runs would be at marathon pace while two of them would be at marathon pace + 30-seconds per mile (roughly ½ marathon pace). On the long run weeks, I lean towards 4 x 7 mile runs, two at marathon pace and two at the faster pace with a 12-mile long run at marathon pace.  For athletes competing at the shorter Olympic and Sprint distances, I include one speed workout per week beginning 8-weeks before the race and continuing for 6-weeks.

What I like the best is the highest possible training load that can be consistently maintained for the longest period of time with the lowest possible injury risk.

Excessively long runs simply don’t fit into that equation.

Chris - I started out struggling with these same issues a few years ago and in talking to other people like sport nutritionists and pro triathletes I cobbled together a system of nutrition and hydration that has worked for me for a couple years.  However, even now I am realizing I still need to make changes to my nutrition/hydration strategies.  Writing about refueling has shown up some cracks in my own refueling plans and I see I need to make some changes to my regimen.

For now you've been able to get away with under hydrating and fueling but it is a bad habit to get into unless you're always going to just train for under two hours or race Sprints only.  Heavy sweating will increase your need for hydrating and replenishing electrolytes.  You do have to play with it and figure out what works for you.  Consider the 60gms of carbs per hour to be a good starting point and have a look at electrolyte replacement products (Nuun, Saltstick - see what they have in your local bike shops or running stores).

PS - Writing about this has shown just how hard a subject it is.

Chris,

There are two different topics here.

I intentionally only made a passing reference to the Maffetone Method.  The Maffetone Method is a very controversial topic, with the largest criticism being the ultra slow running that the method initially advocates.  It is that very slow running however that offers a couple of the biggest benefits of the Maffetone Method, namely that the slow pace fully develops the aerobic energy system and the bodies fat burning capacity while dramatically reducing the risk of injury.  Developing the aerobic energy system ties in to your questions about nutrition.  If your body is more efficient at utilizing fat for fuel, you will potentially reduce your carbohydrate demands which may simplify your nutrition strategy.  Sadly, few triathletes will seriously consider using the method because of the slow running pace. Ironically, the method never mentions a running pace.  Rather it defines a method to determine your Maximum Aerobic Function HR.  That is the other area that receives a large amount of criticism - how can a formula properly determine a target HR?  That criticism grows out of an incomplete understanding of how physiological changes take place in the body.  Finally, the method doesn't produce results overnight.  Indeed, Dr. Maffetone suggests it takes years to fully develop the aerobic energy system.  We triathletes tend to be a high-strung type-A bunch that want results today, not three-months or six-months from now.  There are methods out there that will deliver quantifiable results in just a few weeks.  Unfortunately, they come with significantly higher risk of injury.  As you know, if you are injured, you can't race.  The Maffetone Method takes a high-altitude view that combines striving for athletic excellence with heath and offers a way for an athlete to get to the starting line, healthy and best prepared to perform to their maximum capacity - it just takes a little bit longer and requires a greater commitment.  In 7-months, John saw his MAF HR pace drop from ~12:30/mile to 9:15/mile with the same effort (the same HR).  It took me a year to go from a +15:00/mile pace to <9:30/mile at the same MAF HR.  As I said in my earlier post, 6-time Ironman World Champion Mark Allen is probably the highest-profile advocate of the Maffetone Method,  Here is a link to his view on the method and his observations on the slow pace it initially requires - http://duathlon.com/articles/1460/.

When you talk about your triathlon training plan, I wonder if you might be overlooking something.  You aren't training for a triathlon; you are training for a marathon while training for a triathlon.  Your training must allow for both.  You probably won't be very well served if you train for the half-iron in September and then the day after the race "throw the switch" and start your marathon training for the marathon a month later.  However, if you are building for a marathon, then the 13.1 at the end of the half-iron will be no problem.  If you look at the half-iron and Ironman (which has a full marathon at the end)  training plans here on BT, both of those plans build to 4-5 runs per week fairly regularly.  So yes, I am advocating building to 5-runs per week.  One of the reasons I brought this up when I did is because, in your specific case and given the history of injury - " I've had several injuries last year to include Achilles tendon, heel pad and an IT band injury." - re-defining the long run may be your injury free path to race day.  5 x 8 miles with three of those runs at marathon pace and the other two at half-marathon pace.  Once a month include a long run - 4 x 7 miles (two at marathon pace, two at half-marathon pace) plus a 12-mile long run at marathon pace.  The long run I suggest is HALF the long run you are proposing.  The long run of 24-miles that you mentioned is nearly the weekly mileage you have recently been putting in, and you have already been injured at that volume.  What is going to happen when you try to do nearly that weekly volume in one run?  My vote is for re-defining the long run within the context of "injury free and healthy."

Obviously I am not your coach so please accept my words in the spirit with which they are offered - just another alternative for you to consider.

Just my often outspoken two cents.

Chris,

What works for everyone else, may or may not work for you.  That is the first thing to understand.  Your nutrition plan needs to be YOUR nutrition plan.

Next, I think the 1,000 calories per hour might be a touch high for mere mortal athletes.  But whether it is 1,000 calories per hour or 300 calories per hour, the point is you don't have enough fuel on board to complete a long endurance event without taking in fuel.  We have fairly limited glycogen stores with the human body typically having 1,400-2,000 calories available - that number is trainable by the way, meaning it can be increased.  If you consider completing an Ironman in 13-hours, about the average time for us older folks, and use 500-calories per hour (I know of medical studies that support that burn rate), you can see you might burn ~ 6,500 calories over the course of an Ironman.  Doing the math, it's obvious you don't have enough in your body to complete the task at hand.  The real kicker is that you can't take in enough calories to cover the difference.  If you body is efficient at processing fat for energy, you can more easily bridge the caloric gap.  However, remember that fat burns in a carbohydrate fire, meaning you are ALWAYS burning carbohydrate, even when most aerobic.

If you run out of carbohydrate (glycogen) your body WILL shut down so proper nutrition is essential for long course competition.  Here are links to a couple of videos.  The first is Julie Moss near the completion of the 1982 Ironman.  The second is Paula Newby-Frazier during the 1995 Ironman.   If you haven't seen them, these are vivid, almost painful examples of what happens when your nutrition plan fails you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3GjOedMd1M Julie Moss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_utqeQALVE Paula Newby-Frazier

The average triathlete can absorb ~ 130-280 calories per hour.  Some people more, some people less.  Obviously it is difficult to take in any nutrition during the swim, the bike is relatively easy and during the run, your body has difficulty digesting anything taken in so the absorption rate tends to decline.  The goal typically is to try and take in roughly 300 calories per hour.

There are any number of products available from over-the-counter sports drinks such as Gatorade, to custom made sports drinks such as Infinit, as well as various gels and chew-able products.  This is where race day nutrition becomes very personal.  There is scientific evidence that supports taking in carbohydrate as well as protein during long-course races.  Some people like to have some caffeine while others need additional sodium to keep their electrolytes in balance.  There truly is not a one-size-fits-all answer for nutrition.  Understanding what your body can process versus what you need is the best way to determine your nutritional needs.  Those long training days, the bike rides and long runs, are ideal for this.  In reality, for the shorter races, a Sprint or Olympic triathlon for example, you are unlikely to need much more than a gel or two, or maybe a sports drink on the bike.  Any nutrition plan MUST allow for adequate hydration.  If you become dehydrated, it is FAR more difficult for you body to absorb calories.  Never mind that dehydration comes with all sorts of other bad things.

We could spend hours and hours talking about race day nutrition so hope this short little introduction helps.

Hey Steve,

This is precisely what I was hoping for - a lively debate about the long run!

I fully respect your position, indeed I hold your opinion in rather high regard.  I just happen to have an alternative view and I am sure that as adults, we can agree to disagree.

I ABSOLUTELY agree that there is no one-size-fits-all plan or method out there.  I should have clarified that the plan I was endorsing was within the context of training for a marathon as part of an Ironman, not a free-standing marathon.  If I were going to attempt to qualify for the Boston Marathon, I would approach that differently than I approach an Ironman marathon.  Those two events are simply not the same.  That said, for me, if I were trying to BQ, I would likely still not do 20-mile long runs.  I know what happens when I run that far - it takes days to recover; as in shut it down and do nothing for 2-3 days.  Whereas, if I keep my long run under 14-miles, I don't have those same issues.  I go so far as to say that if someone is intent on running long - which for the purposes of this immediate conversation I will define as 3-hours - then they should break the long run up in to two 90-minute runs - one in the morning, one in the afternoon/evening to reduce the pounding, recovery time, and injury risk.  Doing it that way, you still are running on fatigued legs in the afternoon, but have proactively dealt with the pounding that running long produces.

To your other argument for the long run, and please don't take offense, I merely am interested in your opinion -

I am not saying your way is good, I;m not saying your way is bad.  I simply want to debate the difference.  Is this something that is in your mind or is it something that is indeed physiological?  If it is a mindset, do you think that if an athlete is able to re-define the value and need for the long run in their mind that a process whereby you are not running as long a long run could be effective?

I seem to be working with a lot of injured and/or mature athletes of late so injury prevention has become paramount in my mind.  With running in general and the long run specifically being such an obvious source of so many injuries, that has become a focus - how to train for the marathon or half-marathon distance while avoiding injury or at least significantly reducing the likelihood of injury.

Hey Kelly,

Marathon pace - 30-seconds or so which puts it around typical half-marathon pace for us mere mortals (sorry, it does appear I put + not -, my bad).  For example, say your marathon pace is 9:10/mile (four-hour marathon), I would run three of the 5 x 8 mile runs at 9:10/mile and two the them at ~ 8:40/mile.  The McMillan Pace calculator predicts for a 4-hour marathon the half-marathon pace will be 8:42 so 30-seconds works out fairly close.  Clearly those paces are going to be very individual.  My point is run two the the five runs slightly faster; not at anything near a 10K pace but faster than marathon pace to slightly increase intensity -thereby increasing training load.

Hey Dave,

I import all of my data into Training Peaks.  I have used the BT logs in the past however they do not offer anywhere near as much in the way of analytic's, even if you pay for a membership, that TP offers.  You do need to pay for a membership on TP to get access to the advanced analytic's, but I think it is a small price to pay given that you have the same tools as the best professional endurance athletes in the world.