Predicting your IM Swim Time Session?

zico10

I remember seeing a session that a poster here did or recommended to get an approximate guess of your IM swim time. It involved repeats of different distances and at the end you subtract the rest you took (or something like that). I'm probably not being very specific, but does anybody know where it was posted or what I am talking about?

Thanks.

tunney

• Start an overall watch to record the set duration
• 4x400m strong steady pace, rest 30 (including after the fourth 400) Straight into:
• 4x300m strong steady pace, rest 20 (including after the fourth 300)
Straight into:
• 4x200m strong steady pace, rest 10 (including after the fourth 200) Straight into:
• 4x50m strong steady pace, rest 5
• Stop your overall time at the conclusion of the fourth 50
• Subtract 4:15 from this time for your broken 3.8K time

dukeraoul

I'd imagine it would be nearly impossible to predict anything in Tri as distances are never properly measured, often short etc....

peter kern

max hr is 220 minus age

92044733]• Start an overall watch to record the set duration
• 4x400m strong steady pace, rest 30 (including after the fourth 400) Straight into:
• 4x300m strong steady pace, rest 20 (including after the fourth 300)
Straight into:
• 4x200m strong steady pace, rest 10 (including after the fourth 200) Straight into:
• 4x50m strong steady pace, rest 5
• Stop your overall time at the conclusion of the fourth 50
• Subtract 4:15 from this time for your broken 3.8K time[/QUOTE]

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

max hr is 220 minus age

Performance is the only true predictor of performance granted.

However
A) its what zico10 asked for
perhaps performance metrics are more accurate than physiological metrics

peter kern

in my case a set like this would predict my Im swim time 6 min off whats likely correct.

also what Ironman swim does this test talk about ?
are we talking aobut sea water ( no waves high waves ) , lake water ? somebody that can draft in open water , somebody that has massive kick in the pool or is a sinker in the pool ? 15 m pool 50 m pool water temp 27 or 31 ........ somebody who has a wetsuit that works for him or a surfing wetsuit (or even non wetsuit;-)...??? swim in a canal or not . do the have yellow buoys and hand out yellow swimming caps n the race that is bound to confuse people

bryangiggsy

i would put myself down between 58-60 at mo.....based on recent races.....12 mins for 750, 23 for 1500, 28 for 1900..thats my science.

peter kern

ps do you calculate your run in the same way? Moody just asked.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

ps do you calculate your run in the same way? Moody just asked.

I never said I used this.

Zico asked for something, I knew what he meant and posted it.

That being said I think this sort of test set is more accurate for experienced swimmers. And yes as you said how can you gauge on OW swim time? Is it long (Frankfurt this year) or short (Frankfurt some other years)? Is there swell? And so on.

However its like a FTP test, no real indication of performance but rather a defined, repeatable, test that can be used to gauge performance. One with one eye on event distance.

As for calculating run pace, for Moody its linearly proportional to the amount of triathlon clothing worn with extra marks for compression socks, visors and Cloud Racers.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

ps do you calculate your run in the same way? Moody just asked.

Ha ya bolli# ya !!!! Very good comeback i have to say. Carnage. My one positive from sat was i beat dave c out of the water the rest u will read about in a my race reports in a couple of weeks... Kronberg 70.3 to do first.

zico10

Thanks Tunney, that's exactly the set I was looking for.

I realise the only entirely accurate way I'll have of finding out my IM swim time will be when I swim the actual course on the day. I'm fully aware it's not an exact science, but the session Tunney described is something else I can try out. I've done enough tris to know that drawing comparisons between one swim and another is pretty pointless, but having a ball park figure can also serve as motivation. I've swam sessions of 3,800m straight, 10 x 400m, endless reps of 100m, etc., etc. over the last few months and was mostly looking for one more way to mix things up.

And I got your PM Peter, so thanks for that. Just like Tunney's session I'll try them out as well, though I imagine 3.8k in a wetsuit in a pool will get pretty toasty.

zico10

peter kern wrote: »

in my case a set like this would predict my Im swim time 6 min off whats likely correct.

Incidentally Peter, how can you make this prediction?

tunney

zico10 wrote: »

Incidentally Peter, how can you make this prediction?

Cause it makes him seem omnicognisant and is thus good for business.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

max hr is 220 minus age

92044733]• Start an overall watch to record the set duration
• 4x400m strong steady pace, rest 30 (including after the fourth 400) Straight into:
• 4x300m strong steady pace, rest 20 (including after the fourth 300)
Straight into:
• 4x200m strong steady pace, rest 10 (including after the fourth 200) Straight into:
• 4x50m strong steady pace, rest 5
• Stop your overall time at the conclusion of the fourth 50
• Subtract 4:15 from this time for your broken 3.8K time

Peter, would you advise something different or is predicting a IM swim using a pool based formula just asking for trouble?

What would you advise as a good session (other than just going for a 3.8km OW swim) ?

tunney wrote: »

Cause it makes him seem omnicognisant and is thus good for business.

Never thought of him as the Oracle

Kurt Godel

zico10 wrote: »

3.8k in a wetsuit in a pool

Huge new stresses involved when turning, I'd have thought?

bryangiggsy

zico10 wrote: »

Thanks Tunney, that's exactly the set I was looking for.

I realise the only entirely accurate way I'll have of finding out my IM swim time will be when I swim the actual course on the day. I'm fully aware it's not an exact science, but the session Tunney described is something else I can try out. I've done enough tris to know that drawing comparisons between one swim and another is pretty pointless, but having a ball park figure can also serve as motivation. I've swam sessions of 3,800m straight, 10 x 400m, endless reps of 100m, etc., etc. over the last few months and was mostly looking for one more way to mix things up.

And I got your PM Peter, so thanks for that. Just like Tunney's session I'll try them out as well, though I imagine 3.8k in a wetsuit in a pool will get pretty toasty.

I would not attempt 3.8km in a heated pool in a wetsuit. You will collapse of heat exhaustion. A 400m tt is hard enough to deal with the heat. Albeit at different intensities i still would not do it

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

Test sample size #1

I have done this test a good few times in the lead up to IMs. It acts as a good benchmark to track swim progress over the distance, and yes i know the same could be said about 400/750/1.5k tts but form can deteriote quickly over 3.8k.
For me this year it would have predicted a 72min IM swim time in Frankfurt.
I swam 81mins in Frankfurt but worth noting that,
1. It was 300mtrs long (Germans are not always right:pac:). Nothing to do with GPS, they had people turn the first buoy on the 2nd loop incorrectly (long)
2. In real terms the estimated time was about 3mins out, 75min if legit 3.8k distance, so not that far out from the predictor
3. Yes i go faster in a wetsuit but i also swim a little slower in OW as i suffer with sea/motion sickness...sure when the bath water splashes too high i get dizzy!!

I think its a good set for benchmark testing and breaking up a longer session to relieve some boredom. I do think its unhealthy predicting times and splits in an IM, sounds rich coming from me but its true.

griffin100

I've used this swim set a few times in my log. It's a good gauge of swim fitness I think and allows you to track progress. For the record when I did this test in late July this year it gave a predicted time of 1.15.xx; when I did an IM three weeks later I got out in 1.14.xx. That said I thought the course was a bit long on the day......... but whatever about its accuracy it did tell me last time I did it that my swimming had deteriorated this badly this year (last year I did a 1.08 for this set).

peter kern

zico10 wrote: »

Incidentally Peter, how can you make this prediction?

because i have done the test ;-)

and i have a decent idea how test sets transfer into the race for certain types of athletes.
depending on swim stroke, character, tests ,and pool vs open water expereince ( and form time to time i get it horribly wrong ;-)

dont get me wrong it is a good test set but for the points i have made in a previous post the test not a serious predictior for an ironman time because of the minus 4.15 min it is is totally individual and of course different IM swims are shorter or longer as people have pointed out already

besides what is really important is to make sure to swim 3.8. in a wetsuit so the body can adapt to it and you find out will you chave will you get back pain and might need to adjust the legs of the wetsuit a bit etc etc
( i dodnt think anybody would train for an ironman in a road bike and then think they will cycle 180 k in the tt position on the day ;-)
and unlike bike and run its very easy to simulate an ironman swim .

so why would I really try to predict my swim time with a test without wetsuit if its a wetsuit swim ..... and then complain in a race that i get dizzy on race day i have backake in my wetsuit from the CONSTANT swimming which i did not have when i did 30 sec rests .......

bryan if a skinny athelte like you could not do a 3,8 swim in the NAC than chances are high you overpaced the swim ( and yes Mark D could not this test in the nac )

zico wont have a problem as he almost froze to death in an 4 k open water swim ( which one could use as a big argument against my point ;-) well it would be a great point that a test has to be specific . but this is why i would swim at seapoint as it gives a more relaible result than kilarney ( unless its Ironman south Africa and kilkee i want to test )

anyway to claryfy what i hate is that people come up with bull s..t formulas that the unassuming public belives are true
( ie many people will think that 220 minus hr is a relible test )
it can be but it could be 30 beats off and therefore its a usless test IMHO. and so is the test set its not the best test for the outcome one wants to achieve especially as in the case of the swim one can do the reace distance without a high cost.

Or in other words I would swim a 10 x400 m test set at a very similar pace than Fazz ( most of the times i would not swim 10x400 sub 6 min of 6.30- ok let me be honest i have not swam 10x400 in 4 years time and bail after 6 usually ;- ) our outcome in the open water would be quite different ie kilkee was ( on top of my head 18.44 for me 22.42 for Ian so there is a 4 min difference over 1500m
so all this set really tells us how we are doing in the pool . in a flat lake swim it would again be different again
while zico tries to use it for the first time to predict a time without having pointers .


ps tunny I am not sure about your Point B
i think they have the same inacurcy potential if the testing protocol is skewed and not specific enough. and both fail to adreess other factors that precit perfemance. Ie( Paula redcliff did not win the olympics because she was not the fastest runner .... )
of course one could improve the testing protocol

peter kern

in a way trying to predict an ironman swim is not really good .
what you want to learn is to swim 3.8k in one go confortable.

also what does it help if you swim 3.8 in x ammoutn of time and then you are so fecked that you spend 12 min in t1 .....

so yes i think a 3.8 openwater swim before an ironman is a very good thing to do and again less for time prediction but to know how to swim 3.8 k . and then cycle off it to see what happens ;-)

AKW wrote: »

Peter, would you advise something different or is predicting a IM swim using a pool based formula just asking for trouble?

What would you advise as a good session (other than just going for a 3.8km OW swim) ?



Never thought of him as the Oracle

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

also what does it help if you swim 3.8 in x ammoutn of time and then you are so fecked that you spend 12 min in t1 .....

Get with the times Peter. Transitions no longer count towards your overall time. At least that's what the Kilkenny fanboys tell us.

Fazz

My 2 Cents.


The most practical test is surely just doing a 3.8k TT in the pool - perhaps with a pull buoy depending on your kick.

I don't have much of a kick, and so have learned to keep legs hydro as opposed to try kick more as it gets better effect for me.
In that sense, training with a pull buoy has replicated wetsuit style swims in regards to my leg positioning and kick.


For me, I've done a few 1.9k TT's with the Pull Buoy and in general float around the 27:30-28:30 depending on effort.
In Kenmare last weekend I was 29:40 but managed to swim 2,020 according to my Garmin.
no idea if others had Kenmare as long, or my sighting/lines were the cause or lastly of course the potential course error.
Judging by the fish, it seems the course was relatively accurate as 24:00 for the fish may be about right, perhaps even 30 secs slow.

So down to my lines, and also getting caught in traffic at the start and missing the front pack (again).


I've done a few 3.8k TT's with the PB also, and am coming in around the 1:00-1:01 mark.
I do get a benefit from the wetsuit, but haven't mastered the open water racing yet in particular drafting off the right bunch and taking correct lines.

Suspect IM Mallorca will see anywhere between :58-1:02 depending on the variables of draft, traffic and swim lines.
Waves/chop may add another dimension but there we go.
As for the non-wetsuit, well, that will be even more fun.... what are the swim cut off times again?? :pac::pac::pac:


So for me, a pool TT of that distance with the pb comes relatively close to my open water swims with wetsuit.

Dory Dory

@ Peter....is there any value in doing a set of 38 x 100 meters at your target IM pace plus 10 seconds? Meaning, if you are targeting an hour for the swim, then the 100 meter intervals should be in on 1:35, off on 1:45. Of course you'd still be dealing with the various variables unique to the specific swimming venue that will no doubt affect the actual outcome, but wouldn't this type of set condition you to what it feels like to race at and maintain that effort and speed??

BTH

Dory Dory wrote: »

@ Peter....is there any value in doing a set of 38 x 100 meters at your target IM pace plus 10 seconds? Meaning, if you are targeting an hour for the swim, then the 100 meter intervals should be in on 1:35, off on 1:45. Of course you'd still be dealing with the various variables unique to the specific swimming venue that will no doubt affect the actual outcome, but wouldn't this type of set condition you to what it feels like to race at and maintain that effort and speed??

I decided to take Peters advice this summer. As you can't replicate the race conditions in training, it's a complete waste of time doing any training.

P2C

what you want to learn is to swim 3.8k in one go confortable.

also what does it help if you swim 3.8 in x ammoutn of time and then you are so fecked that you spend 12 min in t1 .....


My test is a weekly 4 k paced swim with the Garmin 310xt in the swim hat. I set a distance alarm at 1 k intervals and base the swim on feel. I alternate the venue between lake and Sea and record weekly times and conditions etc.

All swims are generally swam in a group but without inline drafting. There are weekly variations but consistencies within a specific range. Biggest variations are the sea swims as most exposed to current etc. Fastest times have being recorded in the sea with little or no wind.

Faz - I find variations exist between Garmins 310 xt and 910xt. I find the 910 xt which most wear on the wrist under estimates distance. The swim hat method is very close and reproducible. Check out rainmakers blog

The psychology of the continuous open water 3.8k swim is huge. There are no black lines at the bottom of the lake and no walls to take a break.

mossym

BTH wrote: »

As you can't replicate the race conditions in training, it's a complete waste of time doing any training.

that approach meant i was out of t1 before you at kenmare. that is not a strong endorsement for the no training regime.


(that's pink and bolded....)

coppinger

connect.garmin.com/activity/558026394

The garmin says I did 4.9km in athlone!!!!!!

So was it

A) Course was long
Garmin inaccuracy
C) Terrible navigation
D) All three combined

EC1000

coppinger wrote: »

connect.garmin.com/activity/558026394

The garmin says I did 4.9km in athlone!!!!!!

So was it

A) Course was long
Garmin inaccuracy
C) Terrible navigation
D) All three combined

I did the half and covered 2.14k. It was definitely long (swim times overall reflect this), but not sure if it could have accounted for 4.9k in the full!

peter kern

Dory Dory wrote: »

@ Peter....is there any value in doing a set of 38 x 100 meters at your target IM pace plus 10 seconds? Meaning, if you are targeting an hour for the swim, then the 100 meter intervals should be in on 1:35, off on 1:45. Of course you'd still be dealing with the various variables unique to the specific swimming venue that will no doubt affect the actual outcome, but wouldn't this type of set condition you to what it feels like to race at and maintain that effort and speed??

of course 38x 100 is a great training set ( and so it the test set we are talking aobut) at the same time if it is drafting and open water skills one needs than this might not the only key to faster open water swimming. but again 38x100 is a very good set.
i think this is overall where triathlon has an issue people dodnt focus enough on open water swimming in big groups they complain when lanes are busy in the pool when this is actaully the best thing that can happen to many triathletes to become more aware to 'read' the water

peter kern

likely D
and garmins are not correct in the water ( still a good referecne point)
the way fazz used his data referenze points for kenmanre give a much more accurate pic

The garmin says I did 4.9km in athlone!!!!!!

So was it

A) Course was long
Garmin inaccuracy
C) Terrible navigation
D) All three combined[/QUOTE]

peter kern

that looks like to be a really good test set for Ironman
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/09/training/stand-paddleboarding-sup-can-benefit-triathlon-training_105266