Poor FTP testing?

I received this email from an athlete with a common question about what to do if you just don't tend to be a good at testing for FTP, with results that seem to match what your race performances show.

Happy New Year Sir,

I've recently gotten through Triathlon 2.0 and Run with Power and have found them to be quite helpful. I was familiar with most of the concepts in 2.0 but you provided a lot of additional context that I was missing before. 

The question, or problem that I have really, is an inability to FTP test well. Over the past few seasons my FTP hasn't risen above 228 (averaged 240 in 20 minute test) but my overall fitness and endurance has steadily improved. Is there a way you would recommend "backing into" threshold power based on a long ride, etc? I'm getting more fit, just not any faster. Comparable 40 mile rides from 2015 and 2016 are done at the same speed, avg power, etc, but my avg HR is 18 bpm less.

I raced Ironman Mont Tremblant in August and while only my second fastest Ironman, it was by far my most complete and well executed race. I knew my FTP wasn't right so I rode race day by feel with an occasional glance at HR. Based on an FTP of 228 my NP was 174, IF was .76, Pw:HR was -0.84% and TSS was 350.2. That amount of stress should have ended my day but I followed that up with my best and first sub 4-hour Ironman run. Clearly my feel for the bike was spot on, but the numbers are not. Is there any way I can derive a more accurate FTP?  

I've recently FTP'd again to assess where I am as I prepare for IM 70.3 Puerto Rico and my test numbers were even worse (avg 217 watts for 20 min) but my average power / heart rate is close IMMT values when I do 1.5-2 hour moderate effort rides.

My apologies for such a long email and I sincerely appreciate your time if you've made it this far.

Thank you,

Steve

My response to Steve:

Steve,

Thanks for the email. You're not the only person who has struggles testing, as that intensity is definitely a bit higher. I tend to find the older the athlete, or the longer they have been doing longer, aerobic training, the harder it is to test well. 

I think part of it also can be how well an athlete responds to a taper. You might be responding very well to a taper, which raises your FTP more than you realize. Also, you need to make sure you are using the same protocol to test, especially in the days before the test, so the results are reliable and the test is repeatable. So if you take a day off in the 2-3 days before the test one time, you need to do that each time. If you don't do this, then you're not comparing apples to apples, as the fatigue you carry into a test can affect the result. 

In general, you are on the right track, using your perceived exertion to better handle the raceday intensity, especially if you feel comfortable with your sense of the intensity, so you can better maximize your performance. 

Hope this helps!

Coach Vance

Interview on Triathlete Training Podcast

I was recently invited to be a guest on another top triathlon podcast, Triathlete Training Podcast, conducted by Eric Schwartz. Eric does great work, and it was a great conversation, from my swim coaching to the books I am releasing this year, and a few laughs even!

You can listen to the podcast here:



You can also download the interview from the site:
http://triathletetraining.com/tt072-triathlon-2-0-data-driven-performance-training-wjim-vance/

If you read this blog, I know you'll love Triathlon 2.0 - Data Driven Performance Training, as it takes what I talk about on here to another level, and completes the picture. As of the date of this post, there are 7 reviews on Amazon, with 6 being 5-star, one being 4-star. You can order a copy here.

Enjoy, and please feel free to reach out to me on social media, via Twitter, @jimvance, and Instagram, @coachjimvance.

Coach Vance

Observations and Experiences at 2016 US Olympic Marathon Trials

I attended the US Olympic Marathon Trials in Los Angeles, this past Saturday. It was an incredible event, and as much as I have been critical of USATF in the past, this is one event they do very well, and do it right. They are to be commended on their venue, sponsors, course, and coverage via TV, internet and media.

As I watched the event, and especially post-race, there were some things which really stood out to me that every athlete should take away, whether racing at the Olympic Trials, or simply going after a PR or some other major goal for themselves personally.

Watching the race on TV, or just reviewing it through the media, you'd think it was all celebrations and happiness. You saw the heartache of the 4th place finishers, and felt bad for them, I'm sure. But you walk away seeing 3 happy people and only 1 sad or disappointed athlete per gender. But that's not really what happens when you're there.

I was watching the race and seeing athletes who were DNF's, limping, crying, sitting alone with their heads down, before the races were even finished. I saw athletes cross the finish line in tears, realizing they hadn't run very fast in terms of time, which had a lot to do with the course and conditions. But they also hadn't been where they thought they might be.

I saw family members of athletes needed to be consoled. I stood with Luke Puskedra's mom at the finish line, who was holding his daughter, while she stressed about the fact her son was in 4th and trying to grab that last Olympic spot toward the finish from Jared Ward. It didn't happen for him.

There were 211 men qualified, and 246 women. You saw 3 finish and make the team. Think about that for a second. Over 450 athletes who qualified for the event, trying to live their dream and accomplish their likely life-long goal, didn't achieve it. Only 6 did. But if you watched TV, it was all about the fulfillment of an Olympic dream, as though each athlete was going to have that happen. But it doesn't.

Sometimes you don't get what you want. There are plenty of tears, plenty of upset athletes, but we highlight the few happy ones on TV. The truth is we call it competition for a reason. Someone loses, and usually more people lose than win.

You can do all the work and not reach your goal. You can do everything perfectly, and it can still not be good enough. This is hard for athletes to comprehend and understand some times but it is a reality of competing. And of course, it is very rare we do everything right in preparation and training, as well as execute a perfect race.

One can and should be happy to make the Olympic Trials, but telling these athletes that is like telling you good job after you fell short of a dream result at your key race. I'm sure it is little consolation if you really committed and cared about the result.

So what is my point? My point is that when you decide to take this performance journey, you aren't promised anything. You likely should be promised that you won't be successful, especially as the goals begin to reach elite levels. You might come close, but you aren't deserving of the result you want just because you work hard and are dedicated. Winning and high performance is about a combination of ability, fitness, coaching, strategy, health, commitment, race execution, and even luck. Many athletes think because they have some ability and commitment, they should see the results. But that's only a part of the high performance puzzle.

I'm not trying to push you away from trying, but I am trying to get you to not focus on the result. The process of going after your goal is the real rewarding aspect of sport.

Be patient, and don't expect anything. Have confidence in your preparation that you have the opportunity to perform at the level you want, or the goals you want, but to expect these to happen just because you worked hard isn't realistic. Yes, you likely aren't going for an Olympic team spot, so you're not competing against the elites, but you likely are competing against a much larger population base than the Olympic Trials athletes were. There's probably more than 200+ athletes in your category, or chasing the championship level you are.

You will have set-backs. You will fail and get beat at certain races. You might even hate the people who beat you, but it will happen. Does this mean you wasted your time? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You will learn more about yourself in the losses than the accomplishments.

Just keep in mind, it isn't all Olympic berths for everyone, or happy endings. You're taking on this challenge of sport because it isn't easy. So don't expect easy, promised results. But this also makes the great results you do have, that much more rewarding.

Coach Vance

W/kg at FTP of Elite Ironman Triathletes

A few years ago, I asked myself, "Just what type of rider has it historically taken to be a top level long course triathlete?" When I sat down to find the answer, it lead me on a journey that ultimately lead to writing the book, Triathlon 2.0: Data Driven Performance Training. The goal was to see what the data says the performance requirements are to be at the highest level. This eventually led me to wondering what the different levels of performance requirements were for different genders, ages and goals, thus the book.

The elites I gathered information on, I wanted to know what their FTP was on the bike, (bFTP), and what their w/kg @ FTP was. I even took some non-long course triathletes to see how they compared. I always wondered if there was a power profile for triathletes, that could be created, like Coggan had created for cyclists. It became clear it wasn't that simple, as the population of triathletes is much more diverse than cyclists in terms of strengths/weaknesses, but that w/kg @ FTP still matters. So I am going to share some of the items from my book in the coming posts, which help show what the level of the sport is for Ironman triathletes, from age group males and females to elites.

But before I share the age-group power profiles, I will share the elite profiles. Some of these are from publicly available information, such as power files, blogs, websites, and more. Some of these are estimates, but based on many known variables, so I am confident they are very close. (Even those that are estimated are only a few.) This table is a few years old, but I haven't shared it until now, so it could have some changes, especially in the accomplishments category. It's also possible athletes could have lost or gained more mass, and even raised or lowered their FTP. For example, it is quite possible and believable based on Tim O'Donnell's 2015 performances that his numbers on this chart have improved. This was really just a snapshot in time, but a good picture of what it takes to perform at the highest levels.

The Power Profile Ranking would be where the athlete would rank on Coggan's power profile as a cyclist. I didn't list each athlete's ranking, just highlighted a few thresholds where the categories changed or were most important. You'll notice I also included women, highlighted in blue, and some of them have better w/kg values than the men. This shows how some of the top women are very competitive, sometimes even against the men.

(Click on image to enlarge)

What does this chart mean for you? If you're looking to compare yourself against the best, you now have a barometer to measure against. 

Is it all about w/kg @ FTP? Not necessarily, as it depends on the course. If the course is flat to rolling, maximal FTP relative to aerodynamic drag matters most, but this drag value won't vary significantly would be my guess, making max FTP the most important. If the course is extremely hilly, w/kg matters much more. 

But notice the amount of wins, podiums, etc, and the prestige of the accomplishments are concentrated near the top. Want to get better? Raise your w/kg @ FTP. 

Anyway, the point was to share this type of information and data with the triathlon community. If this is the type of stuff you love, to measure yourself and use data, I am pretty sure you'll love my book. 

Enjoy, and good luck in your training and racing!

Coach Vance

Data vs. Perception - An Example of the Relationship

One of my athletes logged a bike workout this week where he said...

"Loved the workout tonight. I feel like my power is going the wrong way."

But when I looked at the workout, and how it compared, it was his best session under me, for the type of workout it was, and his best 6 min power output in a year. When I replied to him with this info... 

"I'm not seeing that at all Ron. I expect you're a little tired, but this was one of your best workouts in a long time. See attached. 

Remember, we haven't even touched this type of intensity in awhile, and you showed you're still very strong at it. I am excited to see what you do when I let you loose soon on some harder, longer rides. "

This clearly brought a reality to his perception, that only numbers and data can do. His reply was...

"Thanks for the email!

That is why we can’t train by perception. Data doesn’t lie. Feelings do. I really enjoyed the workout tonight. I enjoy feeling a little worked afterwards."

While I agree the data doesn't lie and feelings do, I believe you can and should train on perception, BUT USE THE DATA to refine that perception. When your perception is in line with reality, you can trust it better, especially in those moments in a race or workout where you are feeling good, so the numbers don't control you, they just guide you. 

Here are two of the charts I sent him...

Use the data to refine your perception, and I think you'll find a better sense of yourself and fulfillment in your training and racing. 

Coach Vance

Test Workouts and Data

One of the biggest reasons I use data with athletes isn't to simply stare at numbers and restrict athletes with the numbers. It's actually to help the athlete see their improvement, raising their confidence as the key events near, so they are on the start line, prepared and believing they can perform well. Yesterday, an athlete logged this in TrainingPeaks, which shows the value of the data from test workouts, and how it affects the athlete's confidence, excitement, and even sense of fulfillment from the work they are doing...

Monster day on the bike. I noticed last year I did this exact same workout 17 days out from Nationals also. Check out the comparison:
Today's Wattage by 5 min: 415, 395, 404, 403, 400, 393, 395, 398
Last year wattage by 5 min: 348, 370, 347, 345, 349, 334, 325, 333

The workout was 8x5 mins, with 2 min recovery. And he was the one who went back and looked up the workout from the prior year, and listed the numbers from the session, not me. The data was so clear to him and his improvement, he was excited to look back and see how it compared.

This athlete is preparing for USAT Collegiate Triathlon Nationals in a few weeks. Last year he set the bike course record at Nationals, so seeing this big of improvement in his numbers, he knows he is capable of even better this year, and excited about it. That success in training is the basis for his mental preparation and focus on the startline, able to focus on himself, not worrying about the competition, or other things out of his control.

If you don't have data to compare your workouts, and track how your training is going, you're missing an opportunity to be truly confident and mentally ready to race.

Coach Vance

A Training Day with Formula Endurance

Formula Endurance is my development program, a non-profit I started in 2010, focused mostly on the development of juniors, but also youth and collegiates, U25. In early 2014 we became the first and only program in the US to be both a USA Triathlon High Performance Program, and a USA Swimming Club, helping to maximize the support and opportunities for young athletes, especially as the NCAA Women's Triathlon opportunity grows. No swim club in the country can offer what we can for triathlon development, and no triathlon program offers the amount of support for swim development that we do. With the junior, elite and NCAA versions of the sport being draft-legal, the swim is a vital piece.

This past weekend, a volunteer cycling coach for our program, Nestor Rodriguez, (owner of Studeo DNA), did some filming of one of the triathlon workouts of the team. The team was doing a workout which is as race specific as it gets...

2 rounds of...
300 meter swim
7K draft-legal bike
800 meter run
(all with transitions)
10 min recovery between rounds, each round as hard as they can go.

Here's the footage of what it looked like...Enjoy!

 

Coach Vance

Boutique-Style Mentality

High performance sport can't have a factory mentality. It must be a boutique-style mentality. Specific, detailed, ever-changing, artistic
— Jim Vance (@jimvance) June 3, 2014

It's not about what you did, it's about what you're doing...

Recently, I was at the pool at UC-San Diego, doing final preps before starting practice for the University City High School swimming programs, and an elderly female asked me about my swimming background. The conversation went something like this...

Her: "So did you swim here at UC-San Diego?"

Me: "No, I didn't swim in college. I ran track and cross country at the University of Nebraska."

Her: "Did you swim in high school?"

Me: "No, I was too busy with track and cross country."

Her: "So how can you coach swimming?"

Me: "I learned it. I know the technical aspects, and I understand training stimulus, specificity and periodization, how to read athletes, follow data to see how to adjust the stimulus."
Her: "But you never swam?"
Me: "I swam for years as an adult, ma'am, training for triathlons."
Her: "But how can you coach swimming if you never competed in swimming?"

There is an old school belief that if you didn't come from the sport at a young age, and grow to be some elite athlete at it, you can't know how to coach it. When I was a youngster, I was learning, but I wasn't learning at the rate I have been as an adult. I know what it is like to compete at a high level in many different sports, from running to cycling to triathlon. I know what it is like to suffer through a large training load, and commit to high goals. I have been mentored by some of the top coaches and athletes in all of endurance sports, from Peter Reid, Greg Welch, Joe Friel, Bobby McGee, Gerry Rodrigues, Mike Holman, Bob Seebohar, Cliff English and many more.

I coached the Elite Women's National Winter Tri Champion a few years ago, and I have never cross-country skied or snow-shoed a day in my life. But I understand training stress, specificity and how to monitor for those two to match.

It's not about what I did as a kid, it's about what I know as an adult. It's actually an advantage, I believe, (and I was also told this once by Gerry Rodrigues), that I didn't come from the background of a swimmer, because I see the world of swimming differently than those who did. I come with a different skill set, and I'm not stuck in old school beliefs like the woman had.

So far the girls swim team at UC High is enjoying probably it's best season ever, undefeated and just clinched the Eastern League Championship this week, which is only it's 3rd since 1992. We've had one school record broken twice, (100 freestyle in 56.31 and 55.80), and there very well may be more records to come. The boys have a ways to go, they mostly swim as water polo supplement training, but the improvement is clear so far.

I took the UC High swim coach job because I was confident I could apply the principles I've learned about training effect, specificity and periodization, and apply them to swimming as a single sport. Would I be perfect and make all the right decisions? No, but that's a standard no coach can meet in any sport or at any level. But you only get better with experience, and training decisions seem to be easier once you have that experience to draw on. I challenged myself with swimming, and it seems I had good reason to be confident.

I was confident because it's not about I did as a kid or in the past at all, it's about what I'm doing right now. As an athlete, you should have the same confidence, especially if you're using your experience to draw from.

Good luck.

Coach Vance

Kona 2013 Run Data - Pro Men

Two years ago, I wrote a couple posts on the pro men and women, and how they ran the marathon in Kona. One of the tendencies of the race is that the run starts off similar to the bike, with a big surge. Much like the bike has the early town loop with the 2 climbs and everyone fighting to make the lead pack onto the Queen K, there seems to be a similar surge out of T2, pressing to open a gap and break the strings connecting them to the other competitors.

This happens in both races, men and women. In the past, I have stated in multiple interviews and writings, that Mirinda Carfrae likely lost to Chrissie Wellington in 2011 because she paced the run too poorly early on. She played right into Chrissie's hands, possibly missing out the victory which would have validated her entire career from that point on. (Note: She seems to have validated now with Kona course record, but a win over Chrissie is certainly something which will always elude her). Chrissie was running scared in 2011, fighting to catch the girls in front of her for the first time off the bike, and made a big error in early pacing, and Mirinda wasn't able to capitalize, since she made the same mistake early. I wasn't in Kona for the 2012 race to get the data, but would have been interesting to see if she made a similar mistake. More on the women's 2013 run data next week.

It was also close in the men's race in 2011, with Pete Jacobs possibly costing him the title, as he poorly paced himself early on. It'd be a stretch to say he would have beaten Crowie on that course-record setting day, but he would have certainly been closer, and who knows what happens as he gets closer, with Crowie cramping and stopping late in the run.

A lot of people believe that the race is all about the run split in Kona. I disagree. The number one metric for predicting performance in Kona is Total Race Time to T2. How quickly and well positioned in the top places into T2 an athlete is, is their best predictor of how they will do in Kona. The run split is the second best predictor.

With the run split still being so important, and coming into T2 greatly fatigued from a hard swim and ride, there is little room for error in pacing, but a majority of the pro's still make large pacing errors. Whether that is because of a mental boost to drop athletes near them, meaning it isn't an error in pacing, is another debate in itself.

My biggest question is, with the quality of fields getting deeper, are the top performers really fitter, or do they just execute better pacing?

So what happened in 2013? I wanted to look a bit more at how the athletes paced themselves the first mile, but also how the pacing compared as they went thru the first 5K, and their final marathon split. (I've listed a projected marathon time, which is based on their first mile split).

Disclaimer: This requires an assumption that all markers are accurately placed, and the course is accurately measured as a whole. There was a timing mat at the 5K mark, but it might have been off, considering how many athletes ran faster for the 5K pace than the first mile. However, I am confident in the measurement of the 1st mile split, which is what most of the analysis is based off. 

More specifically, this time I wanted to see what the differential off the actual pace they ran for the entire marathon was, compared with what they ran the first mile in. Here's how it shook out, by finish order of the top 20 Pro Men... (Click on images to enlarge)

A few highlights of the top 10 men...
Average 1st mile split: 5:59
Average 1st mile to actual pace differential: 39 secs
Range of 1st mile to actual pace differential: 7 secs to 1:28


Question: Did Fredrik Van Lierde, (FVL), secure the win with better pacing than his closest competitors, like it was shown he did on the bike? 

Only two athletes in the top 20 ran a smaller or equal pace differential for the first mile compared to actual split, than FVL, and of those two, only one actually ran faster than him. Only 3 guys in the race ran faster than FVL, and one of those was by only 11 seconds.

Answer: FVL certainly executed a smart pacing strategy. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than his closest competitors.



Question: Did the top 10 men just pace themselves better than the 11-20th place men?

Answer: No. First, remember that the top predictor of performance is total race time to T2. You can see in the chart that these guys had slower times to T2 on average. Other highlights of places 11-20th...
Average 1st mile split: 6:19
Average 1st mile to actual pace differential: 38 secs
Range of 1st mile to actual pace differential: 21 secs to 1:10

The 11th-20th places did have the slower first mile on average, but almost identical differential in 1st mile to actual pace, 38 vs 39 secs. Their range of differential shows they paced about the same as the leaders.


The fact the pacing of FVL was so solid, means athletes have to execute proper pacing on the run to win now. I think this is the next trend we will see in Kona, with athletes getting smarter about their pacing on the run, maximizing their potential. We would never encourage an athlete to start off 40 seconds or faster for the first mile of a marathon fresh, so why would we think it is the correct strategy coming off the bike in Kona, in an extremely fatigued and fragile state?

Two athletes heading onto the run in Kona, of equal run ability, and everything else being equal, the one who executes the better pacing will win. If you're not the best runner in the field, you have to be smarter to make up for the difference in ability, preparation, etc. This is the next area of the sport, where we will see an athlete break through, winning or performing better than expected, due to better pacing. (Luke McKenzie wasn't awful in his pacing, either).

Coach Vance

Pacing at NYC Marathon

Just thought I would share this excellent example of pacing at the NYC Marathon on Sunday, by one of my athletes. Yes, he slows down late, but never falls apart, because he was patient and executed the correct pace early on. (Click on image to enlarge).

You'll notice only an 11 second difference between his fastest mile, and his slowest mile, on a course known for having some hills, plus wind.

You must be patient in the marathon, because even being patient will bring challenges late in the race.

Coach Vance

Introducing Formula Endurance

(Formerly known as TriJuniors)

In 2009, I noticed a gap in the triathlon community of San Diego, where development of junior talent, and introduction of the sport at a young age was missing, especially for Olympic-style, draft-legal triathlon. I saw that there were two very large and successful programs in the US, one based in suburban Chicago and the other in Des Moines, IA, and figured if there was a place to be successful with a junior program, it would be here in the birthplace of the sport. I had retired from professional racing, and decided that if anyone was qualified to start a program in San Diego, it was me. After all, I was a school teacher and coach for 6 years before leaving to focus on triathlon professionally.

In 2010 the program TriJuniors was born. That first year we finished 11th in the national championship team standings. In the following 2 years, we would finish 5th each year, despite the massive growth of the sport and more teams popping up all over the US. This past season, we finished 9th, but produced a #1 ranked Junior Male in the US, and the top 13 year old female at Nationals. I am encouraged by the progress and talent of the youth in the program. It's been especially rewarding to look out and see 30 teenage athletes competing at a high level, realizing what was once just an idea in my mind had come to fruition.

With the NCAA set to vote on January 18-19th, 2014, for triathlon to become the next women's sport, and would be set to begin in the fall of 2014, we are at a crossroads for both the swim world and triathlon. Most swim programs around the country are very controlling, expecting athletes to commit to only swimming, and many only want pool swimming at that. They ignore open water, and triathlon. Their interest is only in the goals of the club, not what is best for the individual athlete.

Enter, Formula Endurance.

Formula Endurance's goal is to be the ONLY USA Triathlon High Performance Team and USA Swimming Club in the US, by January 1, 2014. We are already a USA Triathlon High Performance Team, and the swimming part should be completed before that date.

Why is this a big deal? Because when a female athlete finds their path to an NCAA scholarship is not highly probable in swimming, (like most swimmers), they deserve a chance to pursue triathlon. The fact Formula Endurance is both a swim and triathlon club, focused on pool swimming, open water and triathlon, (heck, even supporting training for water polo), means more opportunities for athletes to develop and find the best path for themselves, male or female. We don't restrict athletes, we support them. Swim programs around the country will find if they don't offer triathlon, they will begin to lose athletes to programs like this.

If you are going to be a top level male or female junior elite triathlete in the US and prepared for NCAA and beyond, you need to be serious about swimming, and this will give them the opportunity to do so. This program model will likely set the precedent of what a develop program should be for triathlon, as well as for swimming. 

What happened to TriJuniors? Nothing, it just changed its name to Formula Endurance. Mostly because it was not a good name for a swim club, and I want it to be consistent across both sports. Formula Endurance is still a 501c3, non-profit organization.

I am excited about the future of this program, and the sport. Please support us if you can. Stay tuned!

Coach Vance

The Evolution of Luke McKenzie - Part 3 - Pacing in Kona

In a continuation of Part 1 and Part 2, I wanted to dive further into the race data and see if we could begin to look at other aspects of the race which might have affected the performance of Luke McKenzie in Kona, and his outstanding 2nd place finish in 2013.

As I have stated, the question I am asking is, "Was Luke McKenzie's change to 90+ rpms on the bike, a big reason for his dramatic improvement in Kona?"

Of course, there are many other factors that contribute to a race, and proper pacing is probably one of the biggest. So let's look and see how the pacing went in these races, and if that played a role in the differences in the placings for Luke in Kona.

How can we assess pacing? In Kona, perhaps more than any other Ironman, the first hour matters a lot. The first hour on the bike matters in all pro Ironman races, but in Kona it includes the town loop, with climbs on Kuikini and Palani, packed with screaming fans, and the desire to make the lead pack onto the Queen K, given the legal drafting benefit, and the mental push of having the athletes around you to keep the pace high.

Considering Luke has always been a top swimmer, he comes out with the lead group and tends to stay with them early on the bike and throughout much of the race. The first hour of his bike will bring him well past the 25 mile mark, meaning they are traveling over 25 mph! In fact, the range of distance covered in 2011-2013 through the first hour is 26.1-27.8 miles! That's fast, and with the early surges and climbs in the town, you can bet there isn't much room for error. So I was curious, did Luke just pace himself better in 2013, than in 2012 and 2011?

Variability Index, (VI), is a measurement in TrainingPeaks which helps us see how much variance there was in the power output of the athlete. It is basically average power divided by normalized power. If the athlete rode perfectly steady, VI would be 1.0, meaning normalized and average power would be nearly identical. If it is 1.12, that means the power varied 12%. A typical pro variance is about 1.05 or less for an entire Ironman bike.

So let's isolate the first hour of the bike, and see how volatile the pace was, with surges up the hills, and staying with the pack. (Click on all images to enlarge)

You can see that usually the pace is quite varied early, and is much more settled down in the last hour. What is really interesting here is that I was expecting to see that in Luke's best performances, he likely paced himself better, limiting the surges. But what we actually see is the exact opposite! Luke's two biggest VI's were in his two best performances in Kona! His worst performance of the three, 2012, was a significantly lower VI and more steady, much better paced, in the first hour.

So what was different about these three samples, that sets 2012 apart in terms of best pacing, but worst performance? Let's review the basic data from the three rides again.

In the above chart, you can actually see that his OVERALL VI was higher in 2012. But don't forget, it also was his largest power fade of the three years. See the next chart. (Click to enlarge)

When your power output drops nearly 30% from the start, and you've paced yourself without surges extremely well at the beginning, the effort to produce the watts is too much to maintain. So was it fitness, or the execution of the ride, in terms of cadence vs. force on the pedals?

Remember, his FTP in 2012 was 360, same as 2013, and he actually produces a lower IF, and lower TSS in 2012 than 2013. Usually, that means less taxing or stress on the body, which would signal a better opportunity to run well off the bike. But that didn't happen in 2012 at all. 

Part of pacing is also knowing that the intensity you're riding at is correct, not just surges. So let's compare Luke's hour 1 VI in Kona, with the IF from that first hour, to see if he just rode too hard, even if not varied.

Here you can see he actually had his highest IF in 2012, in that first hour, but only 4 tenths of a percent more than 2011. And 2011 was MUCH MORE volatile in that first hour. In 2013, he was rather volatile, but the actual intensity of the watts relative to his FTP was lower than the prior 2 years by about 4%. 

(Just for reference, the first hour of 2013 World Champion Fredrik Van Lierde was 1.05 VI, and 0.79 IF).

Lastly, let's look at how he rode those watts, relative to force/cadence, with a quadrant analysis, isolating just the first hour of the bike each year, and then compare that with the QA breakdown for the entire race.

QA Hour 1

QA Entire Race

Here we can see that Luke actually increased his Q2% in that first hour in 2011 and 2012, compared with how he rode the rest of the race. Remember, Q2 is high force, low cadence, below 90 rpms. But in 2012, he spent a significant more amount of time in Q2, than 2011. In 2013, he actually spent less percentage of time in Q2 during the volatile first hour than he spent the rest of race. He even spent more Q4 time spinning over 90, in that first hour, than the rest of the race, percentage wise. He spent the same percentage of time in Q1 in 2013, in the first hour, as he did the entire race.

To summarize....
- In the most volatile hour of the 2013 race, Luke spent over 76% of the time over 90 rpms, which was more than he actually did for the whole race
- Luke's 2012 first hour of racing, his lowest cadence year, was actually less volatile the first hour than 2011 and 2013
- Luke's 2012 first hour was about the same IF as in 2011, but about 4% higher than 2013
- Luke's Q2 time in the first hour of 2012 was significantly higher than the other years, being more than twice 2011, and nearly 10 times more than in 2013
- Luke's biggest power and cadence fade came in 2012, despite the lower volatility in the first hour, and similar IF to his excellent 2011 performance

Basically, from this data I think we can say pacing made very little difference, as his small VI and similar IF early in the ride don't prove poor pacing on his part. (Although his IF in hour 1 was lowest in 2013, and 4% might have made the difference).

So what was the big difference in the performance? Was it that he was better able to tolerate the volatility based on his higher cadence he rode in 2011 and 2013 in that hour, compared with 2012? Did his mashing, high Q2 time, catch-up with him and sap the run out of his legs?

Yes, the sample size here is very small, but these are questions which coaches and Ironman athletes need to ask themselves.

Coach Vance

What do you think elite level sport is?

My recent posts on Luke McKenzie have been both praised and criticized, as is expected when you present ideas and evidence that perhaps the common way of thinking might not be the best line of thinking, or that there may be a way to do things better and more effectively.

The fact some might blow off this sudden jump in Luke's performance, when there is clear evidence of a change in training style and philosophy, shows a mindset which is lazy, stubborn, and facing a ticking clock. If people and athletes who are pursuing elite level sport want to wait until something is proven to the masses, then it is too late. Your competition has likely been doing it for many years, and you've been getting beat frequently and regularly by it.

That's what elite level sport is, trying to find an advantage to see the most effective and best ways of gaining performance and training adaptations, BEFORE THE COMPETITION DOES! If you think you can just do what everyone else is doing and just beat them at the same game, you better be sure you have the best athlete(s).

One example...When I raced XTERRA professionally, during the 2006 season, I knew I was never going to beat the likes of a Conrad Stoltz or Josiah Middaugh, racing the same bike(s) they raced. They were just too good on the bike, I needed an advantage they didn't have. So I went and got a 29er, (they rode 26 inch wheels then), which was a rarity during that time. In fact, many in the XTERRA pro ranks laughed at me, thinking I was just a sucker for the newest fad, as I was the only pro riding a 29er. (I also chose to go to the extreme and ride it fully rigid, hoping the fire road sections would really help me, and to keep the weight down). Unfortunately, some mechanicals and injuries kept me from continuing with the season, and I decided to switch to Ironman. But now you can't go to an XTERRA event and find a 26 inch wheel, practically. That advantage is lost now. Everyone in the field wised up. I didn't take advantage of the situation as well as I could have, but certainly, that opportunity was there for me. If I had used it more effectively, who knows what it would have meant for my career.

Now that everyone knows about 29ers and uses them, it's great that they are proven. But if you were waiting for proof, the opportunity is lost in elite level XTERRA.

Is Luke's change to 90+ rpm's on the bike proof enough for you to change the way you ride in long course? That decision is up to you, but you must also ask yourself if you're willing to give that opportunity of change solely to your competition, because some of them will be doing it. That's what elite level sport is.

Coach Vance

The Evolution of Luke McKenzie Part 2 - Kona 2011-2013

After my last post, many wondered how Luke's cadence was in 2011, when he finished 9th, and ran 3:05 off the bike in the Kona. It was a great question, and I was luckily able to retrieve Luke's file from 2011, so now we can actually compare his last Kona performances.

***I must give full credit to Hunter Allen of the Peaks Coaching Group, for the article he did on Luke's 2011 Kona ride for a now defunct tri magazine, as he supplied the 2 file photos and the actual power file for this post.***

So the general premise of what I am asking with these posts is, was Luke McKenzie's change to a higher cadence, (90+, which is 20 rpms more from 2012 to 2013), one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason for his breakthrough race, both on the bike and for the run?

Before I go on to present evidence, let me say I am not certain of this, as there are so many factors affecting performance, especially preparation, conditions, race circumstances and decisions of the competitors, and more. However, this change in riding style and performance was so great, it is unprecedented, and we must examine it closer, not just shrug it off as coincidence. It is especially compelling when we look at how Pete Jacobs rode to win in 2012.

So let's look at the basic info for Luke's ride in 2011, compared with 2012 and 2013: (Click on all images to enlarge)

  

Here's an image of his actual power file:

Here's an image of Luke's 2011 QA from the race:

The first thing you'll notice is his higher cadence than 2012, but his overall sample average is still in Q3. Here's the breakdown by quadrant for each year:

Many have said 2011 was a higher cadence year, and they are right. However, looking at the above chart, you can see even though he had more time in Q4, (90 rpms or higher), he still had an average which was weighted heavily in Q3, and his average cadence for the whole ride was less than 90, at 86. His reduction of ~40% of his total ride time for 2013 in Q3 compared with 2011-2012 is incredible.

Perhaps he rode too low still, and 86 rpms just wasn't high enough to see the advantages of the higher cadence. But let's look deeper, and compare what I call Cadence Fade/Power Fade. This is a new measurement I created, where I isolate the first hour and last hour of an Ironman bike, to see how the effort fatigued the athlete. I compare the average cadence and the normalized power for those 2 hours, and calculate the percentage lost or gained.

In the above chart, I have sorted the years by place, with his worst finish, 2012 at the top, 2011 in the middle, and his best performance at the bottom. A few interesting correlations as finish place improves, (albeit this is a small sample size), are:
- Cadence was higher both in the first hour and last hour as place improves
- The percentage loss of cadence fade is lower as cadence goes up, and place improves
- The percentage loss of power is lower as cadence goes up
- Run splits get faster as cadence goes up and cadence fade goes down
- IF goes up, but given the power conditions can play on this, it seems to lack any credibility

Perhaps just as interesting is that TSS for ride, NP entire ride and VI ride show no statistical relevance.

Of course, as place improves in the race, you would expect fitness and preparation to be better. One item of interest is that actually in 2011, Luke's reported FTP was 330 watts, when he got 9th. In 2012 and 2013, his worst and best performances, it is reported at 360 watts. Does this negate the preparation argument, since he had a higher FTP or better bike preparation in 2012 and 2013? Of course not. After all, FTP is only one measurement of fitness. But one could also argue that if Luke made the decision to ride over 90 rpms, (which he clearly did), he made a decision to better prepare himself to do so, and executed that. Which would give credence to the fact his preparation was more effective when he focused on going over 90 rpms.

Was it because he did the race over 90, or that his training to ride at 90+ had a more positive effect on his fitness and preparing his body? Was 90 the magic number where the changes in fitness happened for him?

There are no simple, clear answers, as there are so many variables. In my next post, Part 3, I will look at one variable which may or may not play a role, (I haven't even investigated it fully yet, but believe I should). Stay tuned!

Coach Vance

Transformation via Training Plan

Here's a photo an athlete shared with me on Facebook, of his transformation after using one of my Training Plans. His name is Peter Prestley, and he used an XTERRA plan of mine to prep for the XTERRA World Championships in Maui, Hawaii this weekend.

Always great to see this type of feedback! If you're using one of my plans as well, would love to see something from you as well.

If you're looking for a training plan to prepare you, please check out mine at TrainingPeaks.com.

Coach Vance

The Power of Kyle Buckingham

Another article I wrote and is published at Slowtwitch.com, is on the top age grouper in Kona, Kyle Buckingham, winner of the Men's 30-34 age group, in a time of 8:37. If you are interested in how the top age groupers are performing, you will want to check this article out, as I compared his performance to that of the pro men.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/The_power_of_Kyle_Buckingham__3976.html

Enjoy!

Coach Vance

All TSS Points are NOT Created Equal

I've been asked by a number of athletes lately about PMC charts, and TSS. A lot of athletes use PMC charts and combine everything. I know a number of athletes using PMC charts with TSS scores estimated for strength training sessions, swimming, and more.

One athlete I spoke with was asking me, "How much of a TSS should a workout be over CTL, by percentage, to be counted as too much, too little, or just right?"

But let me clarify something which many athletes miss, that all TSS points are not equal from sport to sport. For the purposes of simplicity, let's define each sport and their TSS.

rTSS = TSS points from run workouts
bTSS = TSS points from bike workouts
sTSS = TSS points from swim workouts

I will not even begin to mess with strength training here. Too many variables.

1 rTSS does not equal 1 bTSS nor 1 sTSS, and that is universally true for each sport. Think of it in terms of how you would feel the day after a 100 TSS session, which is 1 hour all-out effort, (FTP).

100 rTSS = This is like racing a 10K or even a half marathon for some athletes! You'll likely be very sore the next day, and running hard again is probably a few days away, at least. Push the envelope a little too soon and injury is just around the corner. The weight bearing aspect of running really beats the body down.

100 bTSS = You could easily go out and do a bike ride the next day, and even race fairly well. Heck, the Tour de France proves this! The athletes hit over 100 bTSS on an almost daily basis.

100 sTSS = You could easily do a 100 sTSS swim in the AM, and come back and put in another big swim set in the PM. The medium of water helps to keep the physically damaging stress at bay.

In the end, if you're combining PMC charts, that's fine, I do it with bike and run, never with swim, (I will explain that in another post.) However, if your goal is to exceed a certain TSS over your combined CTL, this is a bad idea, because the physical weight of the TSS must be considered, or you're likely headed to injury.

For example, if your bike CTL is 100, run CTL is 45, and your swim CTL is 80, for a combined CTL of 225 TSS/day, and you're going to do a big run workout where you want to get 10% more than your combined CTL, then you're doing a run of nearly 250 TSS!!! That's a HUGE workout.

Consider instead the individual PMC charts and where each sport is at in terms of CTL. 10% of your current CTL for rTSS is a lot different, as that would be a 50 TSS workout in this instance, and that's totally doable. 30 percent would be 60, which is also fair and conservative at a 45 CTL.

It's fine to monitor total load, ATL especially, with a combined PMC chart of many sports, but be careful about judging individual sport workouts on that combined PMC's CTL, as the TSS values are not anywhere near equal from sport to sport.

Coach Vance

Understanding the Bike Demands of Ironman - Part 1: Kona Pro Men

If you ever use Quadrant Analysis in Training Peaks, (QA), then you likely see how the specifics of a race can really be seen, and the neurological demands on the athlete. I'll avoid explaining the basics of the QA, and instead refer you to here, and dive right into some observations. My hope is to take this one course at a time, and really begin to identify the difference in demands from race to race, course to course, so we as coaches, (and athletes), can train more specifically for the race, as well as learn what might be the best way to ride a course.

With this in mind, let's start with the race everyone is dying to do and know more about, Kona. Obviously this race has the best field of long course triathletes in the world, but there is a difference in the type of races being executed, from the pro's, to the age group competitor, to the lottery winner who is just looking to finish. For this first post on this, I will be focusing on the pro men, courtesy of TrainingPeaks' files of Pete Jacobs, Luke McKenzie and Michael Lovato from 2012.

Ironman World Championships - Kona 

(click on all images to enlarge them)

Most people probably don't know this, but there is about 3000 feet of climbing in Kona, (depending on what source you use to measure), due to the large rollers, and the climb up to Hawi. Add in the quality of the field, and you begin to see the athletes really pushing themselves hard. Let's look at the course profile, because that is a very important aspect of determining training specificity.

So the course is mostly an out and back, with a big climb at the half-way point, called Hawi, (pronounced ha-vee). You can see that there are some other decent uphill sections, with some big spikes within those as well. So there is a constant up and down, never really a flat portion, but the up and down is rarely very steep, as most athletes are able to stay in the saddle for the majority of the race, save for Hawi. 

This is the QA of 2012 World Champion, Pete Jacobs. Pete has an FTP of 370 watts. You'll notice he spent almost 90% in the lower force quadrants. Could there be something to this?

Pete's percentage of samples in Quadrants - 1: 4%, 2: 8.7%, 3: 27.1%, 4: 60.2%

Pete's run split: 2:48:05

Next we will look at Luke McKenzie, who finished 24th in the same 2012 race, and has an FTP of 360 watts, riding only about 3 mins slower than Pete.

Luke's percentage of samples in Quadrants - 1: 0.1%, 2: 36.4%, 3: 58.5%, 4: 5%

Luke's run split: 3:20:32

If we compare with Pete, then quadrants 2 and 4 really standout, as Luke varied greatly from Pete in those. Consider Pete had about 12 times more samples in Q4, which was lower force, higher cadence, and less than a quarter of the amount of samples in Q2 than Luke, which are low cadence high force, (think mashing). Surprisingly, Q1 which means the biggest surges, Pete had quite a bit more in comparison than Luke, but seemed to be able to manage that with such a still small sample, and much less time overall in higher force quadrants. 

Next we will look at Michael Lovato, who finished 25th, right behind Luke. I have estimated Michael to have an FTP of 375, based on the TSS provided by TrainingPeaks, of 274. (Proof that the higher FTP isn't always what matters, but how well you can ride close to it). Michael ran much faster than Luke, but didn't seem to ride near as well, from a time perspective. 

Lovato's percentages of samples in Qaudrants - 1: 1.4%, 2: 13.3%, 3: 49.2%, 4: 36%

Lovato's run split: 3:03:13

Comparing Lovato and Pete, Lovato's Q1 and Q2 seem to be in line with Pete, 14% of samples in those two for Lovato, 13% for Pete. The biggest difference seems to be the Q4 time, as both Luke and Lovato spent the majority of the time in Q3, lower cadence, lower force. For Pete, he spent most of the time in Q4, and about half the time in Q3 that the others did. 

The small yellow triangle represents the average of all the samples, and for Lovato and Luke, they fall in the Q3. For Pete, it falls in Q4. 

So does this mean athletes should be spending more time training with higher cadence, lower force? Not necessarily. It could be that Pete was simply better fit, able to push the gears faster than the other two, and able to run well anyway. Certainly, Pete has been a heck of a runner, having the fastest run split at 2011 Kona. 

I think if there is a conclusion to draw from this, less Q1 and Q2 time is probably best. I do think there is something to be said for having the neurological fitness to be able to hold Q4 for that much of the race. Just for fun I highlighted the samples from the top of Hawi and back for Pete to see if there was a change.

Pete's samples from Hawi and back in Quadrants - 1: 0.9%, 2: 7.9%, 3: 37.3%, 4: 53.9%

Of course, we can expect that he will fatigue, but there really was little change in the percentages for the Q1 and Q2. Q3 saw much more, as it seemed he just couldn't likely hold Q4 as much as he would have liked. (He's racing hard after all!) His average for those samples falls in Q3 now. 

Comparing his cadence from the first hour and the last hour, it dropped by 6.82%. Lovato's cadence fade was actually less, but his power fade for the first and last hour was 10% more than Pete's. Luke had the largest cadence fade, and the largest power fade. See this table which summarizes:

So what does all this mean? It's easy to say athletes should do what Pete Jacob's did, but it's not that simple. This is a small sample size of 3 athletes, and there are a number of factors which could play a role, and athletes are not all the same, far from it. But I do believe this is a small bit of evidence on what it takes to perform well at Kona. It would seem that Pete was trained well to hold a high cadence, and had the neurological fitness to do so. His cadence fade affected his power less since he was still holding a relatively high cadence to start with, possibly saving the higher force outputs for the run. 

In the next part, I will look at some top age groupers from Kona, and see what their QA's look like, if there is any big differences or not. What will we see? Truth be told I'm not sure, haven't gotten that far yet. I would love to do a similar post on the Pro Women, but the data is really limited. Let me know if you find some good files to compare. 

Coach Vance

The 6 Key Components for Performance

There are 6 key components I have found for high performance....

The first 3 are:
1. Preparation
2. Preparation
3. Preparation

Sounds silly, but getting prepared for the race is what it is all about. Training properly, getting the fitness gains and performance levels where they need to be takes a commitment few are willing or able to give, especially at the highest of levels.

The last 3 are:
4. Execution
5. Execution
6. Execution

Sounds silly again, but perfect preparation is meaningless if an athlete doesn't execute properly on race day. For example, watching the ITU WTS San Diego event here this past weekend, I saw a number of excellent runners go out WAY TOO FAST for the first lap of the run, only to blow up and be beaten by athletes who they are better runners than.

We see a lot of execution errors among amateur triathletes, from pacing to nutrition, and even if they did all the perfect training, highest level of fitness, they become their own biggest hurdle. They likely weren't confident enough in their preparation as well, which brings us back to the first 3.

Have excellent preparation, then execute according to that preparation. They go hand in hand, at all levels, from amateurs to high performance.

Coach Vance