Jump to content
KieranR

Question for the runners

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Hoffy86 said:

There's a reason 98% of the field can't average sub 5 min/km for an IM run leg - they're not strong enough on the bike and/or they pace themselves poorly.

Partly yes, and partly no.

I cannot run sub5's for 5k atm. (injury a few months ago), I have NEVER been able to run sub 5's for a marathon. I hope that one day I will. There are some people stupid enough (Yes, I am including myself) to start an IM knowing that no matter how perfectly they pace the bike, the run won't be under 4 hours. (My best stand alone half mara is 2h05m, best off the bike is 2h08m?... - And without Fitness Buddy, I think my best off the bike would still be ~2h25m) 

Some cannot train enough, maybe we are the people who shouldn't race, but then again, I am happy to be a tri-tourist. as much as the sentiment shits me, I am still happy to say I am the reverse pro-cyclist. (When you are oncall and getting paid to carry a laptop, it shouldn't stop you riding, and if you get paid to ride, that makes you pro, right? Just when work rings, you have to stop - thus paid to NOT-train...)

Getting stronger on the bike only helps so much, if there is not enough run-base to be able to be able to do something with good legs when you get off the bike. For those who can ride well enough, but can pace VERY well, more running will help more. (This is somewhat course specific, the harder the bike course, the more bike time will be required, ymmv)

More training in general will help those 98% of the field. more bike or run, both are needed.

 

(And I do remember a self confessed 'gun runner' swearing at me as I walked past him one IMMelb, as he didn't have the bike training and pushed too hard)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Hoffy86 said:

I think the discussion has become blurred between run training for triathlon and run training for a straight marathon..

Yes, a marathon training query that many are responding to with advice and experiences on triathlon training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

Yes, a marathon training query that many are responding to with advice and experiences on triathlon training.

To be fair, I don't think that was entirely clear in the opening post. He explicitly mentions both straight marathon running and IM marathon running in his opening hypothetical.

There needs to be a clear distinction between the two as each requires very different training IMHO.

Edited by Hoffy86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys,

So its both, I know i said no time frame but i guess there has to be one, I've just rolled into the 35-39 age group this year so id like to be bale to run a 3:15 marathon off the bike before i move to the next age group, so that gives me until 2021 to complete it.

Once i can do that i should be able to run a stand alone marathon at that or better....maybe?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hoffy86 said:

To be fair, I don't think that was entirely clear in the opening post. He explicitly mentions both straight marathon running and IM marathon running in his opening hypothetical.

There needs to be a clear distinction between the two as each requires very different training IMHO.

Sorry. I just re-read the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KieranR said:

Sorry guys,

So its both, I know i said no time frame but i guess there has to be one, I've just rolled into the 35-39 age group this year so id like to be bale to run a 3:15 marathon off the bike before i move to the next age group, so that gives me until 2021 to complete it.

Once i can do that i should be able to run a stand alone marathon at that or better....maybe?

 

There's a huge difference between a 3:15 marathon and 3:15 off the bike.

As a rough guide, my respective bests are 2:49 and 3:18. 10km PB of high 36 minutes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Paul Every said:

As a rough guide, my respective bests are 2:49 and 3:18. 10km PB of high 36 minutes.

This is a good guide for those wanting to improve their marathon off the bike 

You have to have the combination of base fitness, run strength, technique development and toughness to be able to run a fast 10km before your Ironman marathon times will improve

Paul's 36min 10km time equates to around a 3.20 IM marathon (and you have to get a whole lot of things right on the day for that to happen) - I've known guys who have got their 10km time down to 33min before being able to run a 3.05 IM marathon

Another good Aussie Ironman athlete with a 2.41 off the bike has a 10km PB of 31.30  set a few years before his IM run time dropped below 2.50 

Just having a fast 10km time won't get you a fast IM marathon time until you get a whole lot of other things right, but it's a great starting point - and it is a long term plan B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2017 at 3:57 PM, Hoffy86 said:

I don't agree with this.

Most AGers run times fall below expectation because they're not strong enough on the bike and/or ride too hard.

I agree with this.

I think the discussion has become blurred between run training for triathlon and run training for a straight marathon.

As far as IM run training is concerned, most athletes would be far better off getting super strong on the bike and actually pacing the bike on race day to ensure they can run to their potential.

There's a reason 98% of the field can't average sub 5 min/km for an IM run leg - they're not strong enough on the bike and/or they pace themselves poorly.

My 70.3 and IM PB run splits were off easily my lowest run mileage in the builds. But I was easily the strongest I've ever been on the bike and I paced my rides to run well off the bike.

But if you can't run, doesn't matter how bike fit you are. As far as K-dog is concerned I think simply running more is going to go a long way to improving his running and race time as well as dropping some kegs. 

"Most AGers run times fall below expectation because they're not strong enough on the bike and/or ride too hard." - that's based on the assumption the AGer has done the run work. A lot of them haven't. 

Obviously as you improve as a runner, you're going to have to have a more specific run program, telling a decent runner to simply run more isn't going to cut the mustard. But there are a lot of AGers paying a lot of money for coaches and/or programs that don't really improve their running much. And I feel that's largely to do with the typically low run volume they're doing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, zed said:

But if you can't run, doesn't matter how bike fit you are. As far as K-dog is concerned I think simply running more is going to go a long way to improving his running and race time as well as dropping some kegs. 

"Most AGers run times fall below expectation because they're not strong enough on the bike and/or ride too hard." - that's based on the assumption the AGer has done the run work. A lot of them haven't. 

Obviously as you improve as a runner, you're going to have to have a more specific run program, telling a decent runner to simply run more isn't going to cut the mustard. But there are a lot of AGers paying a lot of money for coaches and/or programs that don't really improve their running much. And I feel that's largely to do with the typically low run volume they're doing. 

As is always the case with these type of debates, there is no silver bullet and different approaches will work for different individuals.

I can only talk from my own experience where I went from a 3.35 IMSA marathon off 65kms per week in the build to a 3.12 IMOZ marathon off 40km per week which was the fastest 30-34 AG run split and 3rd fastest overall AG run of the day. 25kms per week less running but I was so much stronger on the bike, rode at a smart intensity, and my body was just stronger overall. I always get worried when people assume the answer is to throw more volume at it, as it used to be my approach and my improvement was negligible.

You mentioned earlier that you rode 2.25 in Busso off 100km riding per week but ran slower than you had hoped. Expecting to ride a hard 90km in a race off 100km riding per week then run well off the bike just doesn't add up for me.

Edited by Hoffy86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hoffy86 said:

You mentioned earlier that you rode 2.25 in Busso off 100km riding per week but ran slower than you had hoped. Expecting to ride a hard 90km in a race off 100km riding per week then run well off the bike just doesn't add up for me.

Yup valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quickest run times for 10km and 42km have both been the run legs of a triathlon...  but I've always been a bit odd! :huh:.

Lots of good advice in this thread, just take the bits that seem to work for you and give it a crack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Go Easy said:

My quickest run times for 10km and 42km have both been the run legs of a triathlon...  but I've always been a bit odd! :huh:.

Lots of good advice in this thread, just take the bits that seem to work for you and give it a crack!

Same 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hoffy86 said:

I can only talk from my own experience where I went from a 3.35 IMSA marathon off 65kms per week in the build to a 3.12 IMOZ marathon off 40km per week which was the fastest 30-34 AG run split and 3rd fastest overall AG run of the day. 25kms per week less running but I was so much stronger on the bike, rode at a smart intensity, and my body was just stronger overall. I always get worried when people assume the answer is to throw more volume at it, as it used to be my approach and my improvement was negligible.

Except you didn't race IMOZ off only 40km/week of running.

You also raced it off all the preparation you did for IMSA and the experience of that IM in your body, and whatever else you may have done in between the races.

While not disputing that you may have raced smarter, training and race experience are both cumulative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Go Easy said:

My quickest run times for 10km and 42km have both been the run legs of a triathlon...  but I've always been a bit odd! :huh:.

Lots of good advice in this thread, just take the bits that seem to work for you and give it a crack!

How many marathons have you raced? Not just run, but actually raced? How well did you train for them? Did you run your marathon PB well, with good race execution appropriate to your fitness and held a consistent pace for 42 km? If you blew up or it was half-arsed prep or race, it's not at all odd if it doesn't represent your potential.

Same for 10km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hoffy86 said:

As is always the case with these type of debates, there is no silver bullet and different approaches will work for different individuals.

I can only talk from my own experience where I went from a 3.35 IMSA marathon off 65kms per week in the build to a 3.12 IMOZ marathon off 40km per week which was the fastest 30-34 AG run split and 3rd fastest overall AG run of the day. 25kms per week less running but I was so much stronger on the bike, rode at a smart intensity, and my body was just stronger overall. I always get worried when people assume the answer is to throw more volume at it, as it used to be my approach and my improvement was negligible.

You mentioned earlier that you rode 2.25 in Busso off 100km riding per week but ran slower than you had hoped. Expecting to ride a hard 90km in a race off 100km riding per week then run well off the bike just doesn't add up for me.

did you ride port at less intensity than SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Every said:

Except you didn't race IMOZ off only 40km/week of running.

You also raced it off all the preparation you did for IMSA and the experience of that IM in your body, and whatever else you may have done in between the races.

While not disputing that you may have raced smarter, training and race experience are both cumulative.

No argument there.

However, my four IM marathon times prior to the 3.12 were 4.30, 3.42, 3.29, 3.35. The first IM is always a blowout, but improvement after that was very small for 3 IMs and numerous 70.3s between them. After each disappointing IM marathon I would increase run volume in an attempt to run to my potential, only to be let down by a run split that I was certain did not reflect my ability. In triathlon terms I was never a 'runner'.

My approach changed dramatically for IMOZ '17 (thanks to my first build with a coach), and while I still wasn't fast enough to KQ, I at least crossed the line feeling like I'd raced and more importantly run to my potential. I reckon good IM running is about being the strongest athlete, not the strongest runner.

I'm certainly not arguing against your approach. You have the runs on the board over a long period of time, and I have huge respect for that. I'm just offering an alternate experience that worked for me.

Edited by Hoffy86
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

did you ride port at less intensity than SA

I averaged higher watts at Port than SA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Every said:

How many marathons have you raced? Not just run, but actually raced? How well did you train for them? Did you run your marathon PB well, with good race execution appropriate to your fitness and held a consistent pace for 42 km? If you blew up or it was half-arsed prep or race, it's not at all odd if it doesn't represent your potential.

Yeah, good points.  I've done 8 Marathons, but only 3 of them stand alone, the rest were part of an IM.  Pretty much all of my training is 'half-arsed' as I'm self coached and have never followed any set training program.  My run mileage leading up to all of them is still usually well under 50km/week and is normally just made up of runs that I enjoy doing rather than being structured.  My fastest run was 3:26:34 (which is still not great) but it was done in Hawaii in 2012 - You know, Kona 2012... 'the toughest, hottest and windiest race ever in the history of the sport'... so I'm pretty happy with that!!

Edited by Go Easy
Forgot to add that it was also the hottest on record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked and my average mileage leading up to Kona 2012 was actually less than 40km/week.  My total time for the Ironman was 10:23:09.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Go Easy said:

Yeah, good points.  I've done 8 Marathons, but only 3 of them stand alone, the rest were part of an IM.  Pretty much all of my training is 'half-arsed' as I'm self coached and have never followed any set training program.  My run mileage leading up to all of them is still usually well under 50km/week and is normally it's just made up of runs that I enjoy doing rather than just being structured.  My fastest run was 3:26:34 (which it still not great) but it was done in Hawaii in 2012 - You know, Kona 2012... 'the toughest and windiest race ever in the history of the sport'... so I'm pretty happy with that!! 

Yes i concur. Definitely the windiest race on record. Magnified when you weigh 50kg.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose run volume really depends on the runner, their ability and goals. If you're already a competent runner and happy with your running then perhaps 40km/week is fine i.e sufficient mileage to maintain current pace or some modest improvements. So someone saying that they ran a 3hr marathon off 40kms a week is a bit irrelevant. The implication being if I can run a 3hr marathon of 40kms/week then then so can you and volume is not that important. But for me and the OP who want to really improve their running plus lose weight I think volume is key to improving. I've found that 20 - 30kms/week = maintain current run form, 30 - 40 = slight improvements, 55+ I start seeing some decent results. There will be a point where I'm relatively happy with my running and I can start cutting down the mileage and making my running more specific. But for now, I'll maintain a high mileage. And I think this is something a lot of triathletes/runners are missing, especially the weaker runners. They're doing 30kms/week of hill repeats, tempo runs, 400m intervals, feeling flogged, but really making little progress. Not saying those sessions aren't important, but if you can only manage a 2hr HM, 400m intervals are largely irrelevant. 

I suppose it's hard to get the balance right, if you're training 10 - 12 hours for a 70.3 (would that be the average for an AGer?) how much swimming, biking, running do you do? 3 hours swim,  4 hours biking, only leaving 3 - 4 hours for running, which is little more than 40km. And for a lot of people, me included, 40km/week is little more than maintaining your current run performance. I'd expect some modest gains, but little more than that. You end up with a lot of disappointed, frustrated people who have followed their program diligently, but again had a poor race/run. Easy to blame the bike, but if your standalone HM time is 2 hours, you're not going any quicker than that in a 70.3. And that was me in May. I ran a 1.40 and I was pissed off. You could argue I overbiked, but my stand alone HM time back then would have been mid 1.30s and that's been optimistic. Run volume was around 35 - 40km. 

I've trawled through numerous running and triathlon forums, websites and I kept on reading the same thing from a lot of very good runners, "run more". It's obviously very simplistic, but it's a message that I feel a lot of triathletes are missing. I reiterate, this is aimed at the weaker runners. I'm sure a lot of people would baulk at this, but a 10 hour week for a 70.3 for an average runner should be split 2 hours -swim, 2 hours bike, 6 hours run. 

 

2 cents from an average runner.

 

Edited by zed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the bullshit that seems to be spouted lately from some of these professional amateur run coaches about things they can do to improve running economy the best predictor of economy at any given pace is overall run volume.  But given that economy at a given pace has little correlation with performance (but volume has a high one) I know what I would be doing if I wanted to improve my run.

 

The problem you see is that most people think their moderate/marathon pace is what you'd call easy and they can't imagine six hours of running a week at that without breaking down.  Get them to run proper easy and it seems way more attainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stikman said:

For all the bullshit that seems to be spouted lately from some of these professional amateur run coaches about things they can do to improve running economy the best predictor of economy at any given pace is overall run volume.  But given that economy at a given pace has little correlation with performance (but volume has a high one) I know what I would be doing if I wanted to improve my run.

 

The problem you see is that most people think their moderate/marathon pace is what you'd call easy and they can't imagine six hours of running a week at that without breaking down.  Get them to run proper easy and it seems way more attainable.

Exactly. I used to think that every km mattered when I ran i.e if it wasn't at the very least moderate pace, preferably hard it was a waste of time - junk miles... I now know that not to be the case. 

And yeah looking on Strava, everyone is running way too quick. It's hard to run easy, but once you know it's actually doing you good, it becomes easier to stick to that pace and not go quicker.

 

 

Edited by zed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to make it simple re volume vs speedwork. 90:10 rule makes it simple.

Doing 50km a week? 45km of that is not fast, 5km is speed work of some sort.

Majority of the week is going to be easy to moderate aerobic stuff.

Ratios can be adjusted a little but are a good way of keeping both relative to each other.

On a separate note good accurate honest self evaluation and then training specifically to address specific deficits/issues/targets/goals shouldnt be lost in all the generalisation s

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×