HIM 2011 Rollcall

shotgunmcos · 24-11-2010 10:17pm

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

HR,FTP, SST?????

Nonsense. I'm going to push as hard as i feel comfortable doing on the day and keeping my cadence at 100-105. The rest involves too much thinking.

I still intend on doing kenmare in 5 hours.

5 hours would be good for Kenmare. Best of luck holding that kind of cadence too

BTH · 24-11-2010 10:45pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

5 hours would be good for Kenmare. Best of luck holding that kind of cadence too

The cadence is something Im working on this winter. Avg 101 for 2:30 spin on Sunday so it's going well and I'm fairly comfortable at that. Will only be my second year of tri and I've only 1 oly behind me but looking at what I can do I reckon 5hours is very doable. We'll see I suppose, but I'll not be using all your science nonsense. Don't even have a hrm!!

Gringo78 · 25-11-2010 8:58am

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

The cadence is something Im working on this winter. Avg 101 for 2:30 spin on Sunday so it's going well and I'm fairly comfortable at that. Will only be my second year of tri and I've only 1 oly behind me but looking at what I can do I reckon 5hours is very doable. We'll see I suppose, but I'll not be using all your science nonsense. Don't even have a hrm!!

Why do you want to keep cadence > 100rpm?

tunney · 25-11-2010 9:35am

Gringo78 wrote: »

Why do you want to keep cadence > 100rpm?

Because he read that the worlds greater doper won the TdF cause he rides at >100rpm.

For me Jan the Man is a much classier doper and I thought he was great. He span at <80rpm I believe.

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

The cadence is something Im working on this winter. Avg 101 for 2:30 spin on Sunday so it's going well and I'm fairly comfortable at that. Will only be my second year of tri and I've only 1 oly behind me but looking at what I can do I reckon 5hours is very doable. We'll see I suppose, but I'll not be using all your science nonsense. Don't even have a hrm!!

As Gringo says - why spin at 105rpm plus?

When I was new to the sport I rode at 105-110rpm - simply because I knew no better and I too had read Lance Pharmstrongs books and thought "sure if its good enough for him". Just like you have. However then I got more into the "science nosense" and learnt about things like optimal cadence and how it varies for individuals. Then I got more into it and I learnt about the correlation between bike cadence and run cadence.

Good luck with kenmare, I may see you there if I don't hit my 'A' goal for the year.

BTH · 25-11-2010 11:00am

Gringo78 wrote: »

Why do you want to keep cadence > 100rpm?

Ok, a small bit of science, thanks to one of my club coaches. http://www.stephentlynch.ie/node/91

Spinning the pedals is clearly much easier than pushing them. Those muscles will be needed over the 13 miles in foot

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 11:52am

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Spinning the pedals is clearly much easier than pushing them. Those muscles will be needed over the 13 miles in foot

Not exactly, producing less watts is easier. Is 100+ your optimal bike cadence?
What is your run cadence like?

tunney · 25-11-2010 11:53am

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Ok, a small bit of science, thanks to one of my club coaches. http://www.stephentlynch.ie/node/91

Spinning the pedals is clearly much easier than pushing them. Those muscles will be needed over the 13 miles in foot

Read the last paragraph again, then read it once more. Then think about what you have said.

Then perhaps read some research that isn't third hand.

Some obvious holes in this particular study:

FC(fast cadence) and SC(slow cadence) on the bike. Thats FANTASTIC but it tells us nothing about the bike other than the cadence.

Typically a FC ellicits a heart rate higher than a SC for a given power output.

In this test the Heart rate was kept static. This would suggest that the power output was significantly less for the FC periods that the SC ones.

Using N=1 - a turbo I did last night had extended periods of FC and extended periods of SC. The power output was the same for both (Computrainer set the erg to be the same for FC and SC). However HR was 15bpm higher for the FC. Where I to have maintained the same HR I would have pushed a wattage 40-50 watts less.

So basically what this study has said is "cycle slower, then run faster".
This is very different to "complete the bike and run legs at the fastest overal time".

A little knowledge and all that.........

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 12:00pm

To back this up.. sometime last November I was aiming to keep my cadence well above 90, closer to 100. I realised after that my optimal is more like 85-90.

This is based on power to HR... best power to lowest heartrate without grinding on the bike. My run cadence these days averages at 88-89... Overall it works well for me.

shotgunmcos · 25-11-2010 12:04pm

+1 to what Tunney said I find the same thing. FC increases the heart rate for the same output. To prove, just sit on your turbo and spin at 90rpm. Then drop a gear and hold that output. The only way to do it is spin faster, maybe 100+rpm and you will notice your heart rate creep up.

On my current turbo reps I have to increase the output by about 15-20 watts from the cruise pace. I could maintain cadence and shift up. The heart rate won't increase dramatically but the load on my legs will. I could also spin faster. My heart rate will increase mroe rapidly but I won't load the legs as much.

At HIM or IM in scenario A its great because my heart rate stays down, however my legs are toasted from the heavy gear for the run.
In Scenario B my legs are fresher but the higher heart rate has burned more calories and I'm going to run out of juice and suffer later in the run. The bonk costing me more than the dead legs in scabario A.

What I'm getting at is balance. It not about pushing a big gear slowly at low heart rate, or spinning the bejeezus out of one with a red face. Finding the optimum balance for you will have you getting the most out of your bike and run.

shotgunmcos · 25-11-2010 12:06pm

mloc123 wrote: »

... my optimal is more like 85-90.

My run cadence these days averages at 88-89... Overall it works well for me.

Bike at 85-90 and run at 88-89 sounds good.

I've improved my run cadence a good bit but its still only 84 ish

BTH · 25-11-2010 12:14pm

mloc123 wrote: »

Not exactly, producing less watts is easier. Is 100+ your optimal bike cadence?
What is your run cadence like?

Now your both looking at too much science. The main thing that is going to control my pace on the day will be how I feel. It's pretty much what I did this year and my bike splits have been my strongest. I'll settle into a cadence and gear ratio which i feel comfortable in and means that I'm doing a good pace without ending up wrecked at the end. So far that has meant a cadence around 95-100 and Avg speeds of 32-37 km/h depending on the course/conditions. If that is what I end up doing on the day so be it. I expect this to increase a little next year as ill have a lightweight tt bike instead of the heavy lump I was riding this year.

As for run cadence, I ain't got a clue.

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 12:21pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Bike at 85-90 and run at 88-89 sounds good.

I've improved my run cadence a good bit but its still only 84 ish

I am at the point now that I can run at 88-89 without thinking about it, I can average 90 if I concentrate on it... I'm not that pushed tbh.

I spent last winter working on it, it feels slow,it feels like you are power walking but it works..

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 12:32pm

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Now your both looking at too much science. The main thing that is going to control my pace on the day will be how I feel. It's pretty much what I did this year and my bike splits have been my strongest. I'll settle into a cadence and gear ratio which i feel comfortable in and means that I'm doing a good pace without ending up wrecked at the end. So far that has meant a cadence around 95-100 and Avg speeds of 32-37 km/h depending on the course/conditions. If that is what I end up doing on the day so be it. I expect this to increase a little next year as ill have a lightweight tt bike instead of the heavy lump I was riding this year.

As for run cadence, I ain't got a clue.

Okay, science is wrong... I'll just put my faith in gods hands and hope he come through for me.

BTH · 25-11-2010 12:44pm

mloc123 wrote: »

Okay, science is wrong... I'll just put my faith in gods hands and hope he come through for me.

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

In any case, science is imperfect as no two people are the same and I prefer to race off my own bodys signals rather than on info from a box.

tunney · 25-11-2010 12:46pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

+1 to what Tunney said I find the same thing. FC increases the heart rate for the same output. To prove, just sit on your turbo and spin at 90rpm. Then drop a gear and hold that output. The only way to do it is spin faster, maybe 100+rpm and you will notice your heart rate creep up.

On my current turbo reps I have to increase the output by about 15-20 watts from the cruise pace. I could maintain cadence and shift up. The heart rate won't increase dramatically but the load on my legs will. I could also spin faster. My heart rate will increase mroe rapidly but I won't load the legs as much.

At HIM or IM in scenario A its great because my heart rate stays down, however my legs are toasted from the heavy gear for the run.
In Scenario B my legs are fresher but the higher heart rate has burned more calories and I'm going to run out of juice and suffer later in the run. The bonk costing me more than the dead legs in scabario A.

What I'm getting at is balance. It not about pushing a big gear slowly at low heart rate, or spinning the bejeezus out of one with a red face. Finding the optimum balance for you will have you getting the most out of your bike and run.

Not 100% sure that a lower cadence means a lower calorific requirement. In fact I'd have imagined not. An interesting question.

tunney · 25-11-2010 12:47pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Bike at 85-90 and run at 88-89 sounds good.

I've improved my run cadence a good bit but its still only 84 ish

My prefered is bike 85-92, run 94-96

tunney · 25-11-2010 12:51pm

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Now your both looking at too much science. The main thing that is going to control my pace on the day will be how I feel. It's pretty much what I did this year and my bike splits have been my strongest. I'll settle into a cadence and gear ratio which i feel comfortable in and means that I'm doing a good pace without ending up wrecked at the end. So far that has meant a cadence around 95-100 and Avg speeds of 32-37 km/h depending on the course/conditions. If that is what I end up doing on the day so be it. I expect this to increase a little next year as ill have a lightweight tt bike instead of the heavy lump I was riding this year.

As for run cadence, I ain't got a clue.

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

In any case, science is imperfect as no two people are the same and I prefer to race off my own bodys signals rather than on info from a box.

You do that then. Whatever you do don't look at the proper cycling/triathlon boards which are frequented by pros and top AGers. If you think this is science.

I'd talk bike choice for Kenmare and TT versus road but that could be construed as science.

37kph is a nice speed to be holding, 1kph faster than the average I held in the one race I did this year. Assuming this was a sprint or olympic as Kenmare will be your first HIM you said?

BTH · 25-11-2010 1:15pm

griffin100 · 25-11-2010 1:35pm

The best of luck to those of you doing Kenmare and looking for top 10 placings (based on 2010 results). I've serious respect for anyone who can cover a bike course like that only 15 minutes behind Brian Keane.

BTH · 25-11-2010 1:52pm

griffin100 wrote: »

The best of luck to those of you doing Kenmare and looking for top 10 placings (based on 2010 results). I've serious respect for anyone who can cover a bike course like that only 15 minutes behind Brian Keane.

Well Done.

5 hours was a top 60 finish in 2009. Obviously if the extreme conditions of this years race repeat themselves in 2011 expectations will change accordingly.

And whats the point of aiming too low?

nomadic · 25-11-2010 1:58pm

Would you not arrive at your optimal cadence anyway by cycling lots ?

tunney · 25-11-2010 2:40pm

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

The TT versus road bike is something I'll make a decision on closer to the time. I'll be having a chat to some guys that did it last year. Either way it will be a better bike than the thing I used this year. Put in the 37kmph in CK in August. That was the first Oly so I was very pleased with that!

Nice - mine was a little longer race than CK.

tunney · 25-11-2010 2:40pm

nomadic wrote: »

Would you not arrive at your optimal cadence anyway by cycling lots ?

optimal for what though

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 25-11-2010 3:09pm

Whilst the science end of things can be baffling and complicated at times for tri newcomers like myself I will gladly listen to advice/research from those who know more than me.

I used to be in the "race to how you feel" brigade it does not work so well at times but heh you will probably figure that out when your peeling yourself off the bike to run the half marathon:)

pmg001 · 25-11-2010 5:13pm

tunney wrote: »

Nice - mine was a little longer race than CK.

Congratulations, you are better than someone who has only done one triathlon.

tunney · 25-11-2010 5:20pm

pmg001 wrote: »

Congratulations, you are better than someone who has only done one triathlon.

Trying to make the point that given a huge load of regular posters are discussing these topics here that perhaps they should not be dismissed as "junk" based on the experiences of a newbie.

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 5:36pm

nomadic wrote: »

Would you not arrive at your optimal cadence anyway by cycling lots ?

I would think you'll find your optimal cadence for cycling on its own, but take the run off the bike into account.

Forget 'science' for a moment anyway, I think the main point is that people read/hear 100rpm+ is the best way to ride the bike leg... but maybe that does not suit them. Play around with it, try cycling at various ranges and running off them... which and see which suits you best.

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 5:40pm

Anyway... its good to have some actuall discussion in here for once.

pmg001 · 25-11-2010 5:41pm

tunney wrote: »

Trying to make the point that given a huge load of regular posters are discussing these topics here that perhaps they should not be dismissed as "junk" based on the experiences of a newbie.

I apologise, I didn't initially see it that way but it makes sense now.

It's just on some forums there is a lot of snobbery with regard to new people in the sport and their lack of knowledge, but I must say these boards are very informative and helpful.

mloc123 · 25-11-2010 5:45pm

pmg001 wrote: »

Congratulations, you are better than someone who has only done one triathlon.

I think, but am not sure..Tunney can be quite cryptic sometimes.. the point he is making is that he has been at this for quite a few years now and that he might know a thing or two about it.

shotgunmcos · 25-11-2010 8:04pm

Kenmare 2010 had an inordinate swim, longer than usual by 20 mins for most. 2009 was the national half distance champs and most of the countries top athletes were down there. The conditions were also perfect. It was my one and only half distance race at the tail end of my rookie season. I paced it well and it was the best run off the bike I've done to date. My bike was my strongest split all year in races and I think I averaged maybe 33kmh. 37kmh would be a super bike split on that course. I just about finished sub5 in those conditions so if you can hit that bike speed, 4:59 is a soft target IMO. What club are you by the way?

Q meant for Hoyt btw!

shotgunmcos · 25-11-2010 8:24pm

tunney wrote: »

Not 100% sure that a lower cadence means a lower calorific requirement. In fact I'd have imagined not. An interesting question.

I based it on assumption only, haven't read into it yet. I figured since the higher cadence would correlate with a higher heart rate, your blood pumped faster increases meabolism and thus calorie burn. You would require more intake to sustain the effort. I could be way off here. An interesting question indeed. Off to Harry Potter now so will have to research another time

BTH · 25-11-2010 10:02pm

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Kenmare 2010 had an inordinate swim, longer than usual by 20 mins for most. 2009 was the national half distance champs and most of the countries top athletes were down there. The conditions were also perfect. It was my one and only half distance race at the tail end of my rookie season. I paced it well and it was the best run off the bike I've done to date. My bike was my strongest split all year in races and I think I averaged maybe 33kmh. 37kmh would be a super bike split on that course. I just about finished sub5 in those conditions so if you can hit that bike speed, 4:59 is a soft target IMO. What club are you by the way?

Q meant for Hoyt btw!

I dont expect to be able to hold an average of 37 on that course. I was just saying that my best bike split this year was at that speed. Afaik kenmare is a much tougher course and the distance will likely mean a lower Avg speed. And I'm in 3d.

tunney · 26-11-2010 8:53am

mloc123 wrote: »

Anyway... its good to have some actuall discussion in here for once.

Its great - discussion on ART - who would have thought it!

tunney · 26-11-2010 8:55am

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Kenmare 2010 had an inordinate swim, longer than usual by 20 mins for most. 2009 was the national half distance champs and most of the countries top athletes were down there. The conditions were also perfect. It was my one and only half distance race at the tail end of my rookie season. I paced it well and it was the best run off the bike I've done to date. My bike was my strongest split all year in races and I think I averaged maybe 33kmh. 37kmh would be a super bike split on that course. I just about finished sub5 in those conditions so if you can hit that bike speed, 4:59 is a soft target IMO. What club are you by the way?

Q meant for Hoyt btw!

Problem with the Kenmare course is that while the climbs aren't bad the descents are terrible - you cannot keep your speed up due to the surfaces and hairpins. I'm not sure if the few flat sections warrant a TT bike based on the descents. Especially with the lack of draft marshals and the tendency for trains to develop on the flat sections. Road bike with clip ons I think maybe, unless you are a super descender on a TT bike.

tunney · 26-11-2010 8:57am

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

I dont expect to be able to hold an average of 37 on that course. I was just saying that my best bike split this year was at that speed. Afaik kenmare is a much tougher course and the distance will likely mean a lower Avg speed. And I'm in 3d.

Its not a tough course really, its just slow. The road surfaces are brutal and the descents are all hairpins so you can't attack the descents.

nomadic · 26-11-2010 9:19am

tunney wrote: »

optimal for what though

Cycling fast

How should cadence differ from just cycling to HIM/IM cycling?

tunney · 26-11-2010 9:23am

nomadic wrote: »

Cycling fast
How should cadence differ from just cycling to HIM/IM cycling?

A triathlon should not be viewed as a swim followed by a bike followed by a run.
The goal is not to have the fastest bike split possible, but to finish the event as fast as possible.

nomadic · 26-11-2010 9:50am

tunney wrote: »

A triathlon should not be viewed as a swim followed by a bike followed by a run.
The goal is not to have the fastest bike split possible, but to finish the event as fast as possible.

I know yea but where does cadence come into it? Would(Should?) your candece not be roughtly the same no matter what effort you are putting in? Does spinning faster/slower save your legs for the run?

tunney · 26-11-2010 3:08pm

nomadic wrote: »

I know yea but where does cadence come into it? Would(Should?) your candece not be roughtly the same no matter what effort you are putting in? Does spinning faster/slower save your legs for the run?

Some argue for IM distance you want a cadence of 85-95 rpm as this will mimic your running cadence and is also a cadence at which people are more likely to be fuel efficiency while not overly taxing the legs.

A study (cannot find link) was done some years ago to look at why cyclists could ride for much longer periods (even allowing for the differences due to the non-weight bearing nature of cycling) than runners. A theory was put forward was this was due to cyclists continually changing the cadence that they ride at. Some went as far to suggest that to extend the length of a really long run that the runner should vary the pace between 5km, 10km, half pace, marathon pace and keep mixing it up. Would love to have the link to that.

mloc123 · 26-11-2010 3:36pm

tunney wrote: »

Some argue for IM distance you want a cadence of 85-95 rpm as this will mimic your running cadence and is also a cadence at which people are more likely to be fuel efficiency while not overly taxing the legs.

A study (cannot find link) was done some years ago to look at why cyclists could ride for much longer periods (even allowing for the differences due to the non-weight bearing nature of cycling) than runners. A theory was put forward was this was due to cyclists continually changing the cadence that they ride at. Some went as far to suggest that to extend the length of a really long run that the runner should vary the pace between 5km, 10km, half pace, marathon pace and keep mixing it up. Would love to have the link to that.

'Free wheeling' on the run would be handy too..

tunney · 26-11-2010 3:41pm

mloc123 wrote: »

'Free wheeling' on the run would be handy too..

The study factored that in

Or at least I'd imagine it did

Seeing as over the last year 80% of my riding has been CT or on the fixie I've sorta stopping all freewheeling. Means my Normalised is generally pretty damn close to my average

mloc123 · 26-11-2010 4:55pm

To keep the discussion going...

Tri bikes, how much do people train on them. I haven't been on mine since DCT..
Last winter I did all my turbo work on it.

Does anyone work on their posistion? Now sundrive is open again I hope to get down a few times to work out best comfort/power/aero setup.

tunney · 26-11-2010 5:01pm

mloc123 wrote: »

To keep the discussion going...

Tri bikes, how much do people train on them. I haven't been on mine since DCT..
Last winter I did all my turbo work on it.

Old TT bike on turbo in an approximation of my postion. Rarely get down on the bars though. Once it hits March the Road bike goes bye bye and i ride only the TT.

mloc123 wrote: »

Does anyone work on their posistion? Now sundrive is open again I hope to get down a few times to work out best comfort/power/aero setup.

Now you have the PT you need to look at Golden Cheetah and the AeroLabs plugin to determine your Cda and you can work from there.

shotgunmcos · 29-11-2010 12:55pm

mloc123 wrote: »

To keep the discussion going...

Tri bikes, how much do people train on them. I haven't been on mine since DCT..
Last winter I did all my turbo work on it.

Does anyone work on their posistion? Now sundrive is open again I hope to get down a few times to work out best comfort/power/aero setup.

Only got a TT bike this year so no winter work on it yet. I won't put it on the turbo but I will do some race simulation rides on it in the spring. This year my main race was a 40k flat bike course so I did a few 35km TTs on a gentle rolling course. Handling the TT bike on climbs or as Tunney eluded to earlier in this thread, descents, is a different matter. I used my TT bike in the brian boru this summer and cut it fine on the decents. I'm generally not scared cat though. I had great fun on the Kenmare descents. I was on a road bike though

I will be doing hill repeats on it in the summer before the main gig

RE: Position. You will be forever tweaking it. Just mark the bike fit yyou pay for though. Work on feel always

thepassanger · 06-12-2010 8:18pm

metal dog · 09-12-2010 11:17am

Finally signed up for Galway - I know its a rip off and could all go horribly wrong but i spend a lot of time down there and would hate to miss it if it they pull it off. Also, it seems like everyone and his dog in Galway is doing it so the support will be huge. Might also try Sperrin this year as well, we will see.

Timing wise , i am looking at 5:30, pretty tentative, the swim and the bike could be quite demanding if the conditions are bad.

Now, back to trying to train in this bloody weather.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 09-12-2010 12:44pm

shotgunmcos · 09-12-2010 12:50pm

2011 SCR challenge should be a good one with this lot!

Bambaata · 09-12-2010 1:04pm

Right Mloc123 im calling you out for your Austria time :P ?? Whats it to be?!

HIM 2011 Rollcall

Comments