Forum Replies Created
so, then on the days we are feeling exceptionally “Bonnie and Clyde” can we pound it and really go for it… or is that a slippery slope of easing the discipline from staying in zones 1 and 2, 80 % of the time?
Since I’ll do everything to avoid taking threshold tests (augh, have one tomorrow), can I use the above information as a marker?! : ) IE – If I am finding that I am exceeding Zone 3 on a consistent basis – I just give myself some free Watts??
That’s an interesting question – I always used a 70.3 as a gauge, and it was usually pretty close. On my last ironman, I had a 20 minute mechanical so, not as close. I did find this https://www.runtri.com/2010/08/ironman-vs-half-ironman-factors-for.html#:~:text=Expect%20your%20full%20ironman%20swim,ironman%20time%20of%2012%3A35..
Did you look at your plan a couple of weeks before the race to see what it had you doing? I have not yet looked at mine. When I was not using an 80/20 plan, my coach would usually have me do a 70.3 a couple of weeks before to help figure this out and hone it in. I’ll be interested in this response (from someone smarter than me).
It’s clear you’re not a novice when it comes to triathlon. I’m also assuming that you’ve done the math to determine how you would reach the sub 12 marker for a full distance triathlon. Keep in mind you’ve probably completed the training required for that distance to come to that number…unless you’ve been able to complete a 70.3 using an Olympic plan. What you’re asking to do here is cut corners. Which is ok for some training days, but should be the exception in extreme cases, not the rule.
In my opinion, there is a reason that the full ironman plan calls for the duration of training that it calls for. If most people could complete a full distance ironman using a half distance plan, then I would assume that this would have been created. I have not seen this type of plan, so I’m assuming that research supports a longer training program for a full distance ironman for good reason.
A couple thoughts that come to mind are nailing in your nutrition. Without those long bike and run workouts, how will you determine the amount of caloric intake you will need/combo that works for you. Nutrition for a 70.3 is significantly different than a 140.6. I’ve done 4 fulls, and I’m still learning from each and every long bike and run how to best fuel myself for race day. Training plans help to minimize the risk of injury. I would be concerned that pushing the distance by nearly half would cause an injury during the race. Mental fatigue – in the 140.6 “demi-god” ironman training plan, there is fair amount of dialogue regarding mental fatigue. The monotony of those longer training runs helps to train the brain as well. Sliding in and out of concentration can be dangerous – especially on the bike. This is where the 80/20 demonstrates its superiority to other plans and helps you train your mind as well as your body, but you need to do the long distance for both the run and the bike to prepare the brain for what the body is doing- a 70.3 mentality is far different from a 140.6
Most half ironman plans top out around 60 miles for the bike and 14 miles for the run. Do you think doing this type of mileage will prepare you for a sub 12 hour full distance ironman? If so, then go for it, no-one is stopping you.
Of course, there is nothing stopping you from trying your approach. However, if this were me, and I was looking to eliminate over half of the process, then I would question the motive behind really wanting to do a full. Would you be able to talk with your family regarding the time commitment of completing a full so that you could do it as programmed, with as little impact on them as possible?
For me, the journey in it’s entirety was well worth the time. Good luck in your decision and your racing.
This is a really great question. As someone who natoriously tests poorly, but completes most workouts fairly well… I’m concerned that if I use the results of my ftp, I’ll end up sandbag myself.
For example, I tested a cycling FTP at 196, but when I completed a difficult workout (that was probably a secret FTP but it wasn’t called a specific test, so didn’t feel me out, it prompted trainer road to recommend I change to 226.
I see that some of the workouts intended for testing aren’t necessarily an actual FTP test, and are used to establish or restablish zones… But if I can hold the 24 minute at my fTP, does that mean I just give myself some FTP coins (like pacman) and just gently increase? I’m not sure extractor how to confirm or restablish my zones when it says this…
Tedc… I’m wondering if we are better “restablishers” then “testers”
Thanks so much Matt, that’s what I was thinking, and I really appreciate the clarification.
I’m also excited to use the word conflate in a sentence today 🙂
Thank you so much, everything you said helps piece previous training experiences with the race outcomes…
I had considered life demands, as “more is better!” And since my life activity level was high, it was still based off my baseline, so increasing with training was fine.
However, I do think it’s important to consider that so many outside variables can really sway the results of the training if not completed as is.
Thank you again!
Yippee…I’ll never have to do math again. See, those teachers were definetly wrong! We have calculators! Also, thanks for answering the time math question, I think you’ve just clarified the last 20 years of time math confusion
I’m not sure if this could be an option for you, but I live in western pa, and my house is on the top of one of the highest hills in the county… Which means that all of my runs are affected by elevation changes and it’s really hard to get an accurate picture using heart rate (which lags) or pace (where it bangs up my confidence where I can’t pull off a zone 3 pace going up a 23 percent inclined hill). At any rate, my husband started training with power a couple years ago, and he really seemed to like it, so my little pod came yesterday. I think it’s going to end up being a really good training tool and investment… I know that I’m probably still overtraining despite my best efforts, and that’s because of elevation consistency, with the pod, I think this will eliminate that concern. I purchased that stryd, and am aware that garmin also has a pod for power information (but don’t think their technology is quite at the level it needs to be yet). I also think it will help me beat up myself less when I can’t hit those pace intervals going up a hill. Not sure if that could be an option for you, but as one hill dwelling resident to another, it might be helpful for you
Hi there! While each person’s experience with Ironman differs, I can only speak for myself. I can tell you that over the last four years of ironman training (this is the first time I’m following an 80 20 plan) I’ve experienced fatigue often following an increase of load and|or intensity. Sometimes the fatigue happens when I had my lighter weeks as well, which I wouldn’t necessarily expect. Some days, it was all I could do to push myself through a work out, either physically or mentally. Towards the end, (with the taper) is when my legs tend to feel their heaviest and just sluggish… You’re body is always looking to adapt to the loads or the expectations that we put on it. Consistency is key,, and following the course is vital. I think everyone experience is going to be different, and so long as you are listening to and staying within the couches for this plan, which is crucial to succes, you should see some amazing results. Anyhow, at the end of the day, look at what your asking your body to do .. Of course it’s going to be tired