Port Macquarie Training Camp 2013

In September, I am planning a trip to Australia to work with athletes on the Ironman Australia course, and do some speaking in Sydney and Melbourne. You can find out all the info at this link, but here are the main details...

Details

When:  25th – 29th September 2013

Where:  Rydges, Port Macquarie

Costs:  $1,500 twin share (single room supplement available)

Group Size: 20 max – get in quick

*Please note that all attendees must be Triathlon Australia Registered Members for Insurance Purposes

What’s Included:

• 4 nights accommodation at the Rydges Port Macquarie (twin share)
• All breakfasts, dinners and lunches
• Training nutrition provided by Endura
• Expert training guidance and technical analysis
• Sag wagon
• Training jersey
• The experience of a life time

What’s not included

• Travel to Port Macquarie
• Hotel Car Parking

 You can register here...

Hope to see you there!

Coach Vance

Podcast Interview for Triathlon Science

If you're interested in a good podcast, and want to hear more about my new book, Triathlon Science, check this interview out that I did with Triathlete Training, run by Eric Schwartz.

http://triathletetraining.com/triathlete-training-podcast-episode-5-with-triathlon-science-editor-jim-vance/

If you have the book, let me know what you think!

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

Confident my athlete is ready...

I spent the day watching the Collegiate Triathlon Championships, today being the first ever draft-legal championship race. It was exciting, and a great start to an event which will likely grow the sport exponentially in the US and greatly help our US development. 

I had an athlete in the race today, and he is racing tomorrow. He swam great, out in the top 10, about 17 seconds off the lead. He followed the plan, and dropped out at the start of the run. Tomorrow he races the Olympic distance non-drafting, and he is ready to do well tomorrow. How do I know this? Besides using my own intuition as a coach and my own eyes which show me, his data shows me as well. 

Here's his Performance Management Chart for the bike and the run, which has calculated his training stress, (TSS), from each session we've done over the months.

There are some important numbers which help show how much rest is enough, and how much is too much. CTL is the blue line, basically represents his fitness. His loss of "fitness" during the taper was only, but he dropped so much fatigue that the short term training stress, (ATL = pink line), is now less than his CTL value. This difference is positive 1.7. These values help show he has had an excellent taper, and is ready to go for the race tomorrow. 

Is this perfect? No. Will these numbers mean he is going to perform to his absolute best and win the race? No, but they do increase the odds and probability that he will race to his potential at this point in time. There are a number of things that go into racing well, like mental prep, technical skill, and race execution. But so much of performance comes from training, and putting your odds in your favor that you're doing that right should help your confidence as an athlete. We will see tomorrow how he does.

Of course, if you're not using data, then you're just flat out guessing. We are all guessing and making judgments on what the right amount is, especially coaches. At least this guess as a coach is backed with data and evidence, in addition to my intuition, sight and experience.

Coach Vance

"Going by Feel" Part 2

As I mentioned in the last post, there is a disconnect among many athletes, high level triathletes especially, that using data or science means you can't go by feel, when actually, going by feel is paramount at the highest level of sport.

When you're trying to eek out the extra half percent to 5 percent, depending on where you sit on the performance continuum, you have to maximize each training day, and a great sense of "feel" for what is best on the day is critical. Everyone is working hard, those are working smartest and getting the most of every session, (BOTH hard AND recovery sessions), are the ones advancing.

Darren Smith, one of the most successful coaches in ITU history, uses his own metrics of having the athlete tell him how they are feeling before each session. They have to have a number to give him, on a scale. This number is 100% feel! It's a metric though that allows Darren to give the right amount of stimulus on the day.

Those of you who don't have a Darren Smith on deck or at your side for each workout need something to help you assess. Knowing your numbers and how they are responding to the training stress you are giving them, is only going to help the feel process, giving more confidence with evidence of what the right decision is, whether to push or back off, what energy system to train, and how much.

Feel is the best way to train for those last few percentages of improvement, but at the highest levels it is crucial to get it right. Margin of error is too small.

Coach Vance

"Going by Feel"?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1

I sat down with a high level professional triathlete last week to discuss goals and where they are headed with their training. When I asked about power data and Garmin run files, the athlete responded with, "I just go by feel usually, no data."

This athlete is confused, like many out there, that somehow data collection and analysis means you can't trust your gut in what the right training is for you. The truth is, high level athletes must still do a lot of training based on "feel", no matter how much data they have. The stakes are so high for this athlete, that they have to become very much in tune with their body. They can't afford rest days which aren't needed, or a stimulus which sets them back a number of days with deep fatigue or injury, affecting consistency.

The collection and analysis of data for athletes is only going to help the "feel" process, by providing objective feedback to better hone their assessment skills of themselves, and actually build confidence in the training they're doing. It helps them to learn from the past, not making the same mistakes over and over.

When an athlete feels tired, and isn't sure that a workout went well, especially on the bike, the numbers can sometimes show otherwise, that the session was a great success with great performance. Time and speed on a bike is not always going to show that, especially in windy conditions. Or when they feel they aren't sure to push on thru a spell of fatigue, data can help provide some clarity, and ease the stress of a decision like that.

When an athlete also goes back and looks at data over many seasons, they can tell what training they tend to respond well to, and thru the years the body will change and need a new stimulus, and possibly a new stress balance, (intensity/recovery). Again, learning from the past with the objectivity of data, helps to prevent mistakes for the future.

I laugh when I read about coaches not letting their athletes use power meters, or GPS for running. These coaches are either afraid of the truth, (that they will make mistakes), don't know or understand how to use these tools and learn from the data, want their athletes to blindly follow them, and/or are lazy.

Training will never be perfect, but those who use all the resources available to get it as close to perfect as possible are the ones who maximize their potential. True athletic brillance is found with both the art of "feel", and science, in training.

Coach Vance

Consistency is an athlete's insurance policy

Without consistency, there is no true peak in performance which can be achieved. The higher the goals, the more important consistency of training is, and there is no magical workout or training plan which can make up for a lack of consistent training.

Consistency may seem hard to do for many athletes, as it requires a HIGH level of commitment. There are plenty of times when training may need to take a back seat, but those with a commitment to consistent training find ways to get it done.

Consistency rewards those athletes who commit to it, because the performance levels reach new heights, many times beyond the athlete's highest expectations. Consistency of training for many months and years also provides an insurance policy to athletes who might have an injury develop, a sickness, or something else which takes them out of the routine for a week or so.

An athlete of mine has been incredibly consistent for the past 18 months, and has been showing abilities which put him in contention for a Kona slot at Ironman Texas. He had a foot injury of tendonitis that cut his running for a week, and his 3 year old daughter spent a week in the hospital with pneumonia, which you can imagine would make training difficult. He has been worried that everything he has worked for is slipping away, but in 2 week's time he is now amazed at how quickly his fitness rebounded, and how little he lost. I told him, "You cashed in the insurance policy your consistency for the past 18 months has provided."

He can't take many more weeks like those two he had, but his consistency helped cover the gap for him, much like an insurance policy.

Consistency rewards athletes who commit to it, in both performance, and in times of injury or other challenges. Commit to it, and get the rewards.

Coach Vance

It's not the race nutrition plan

Many long course triathletes think their race nutrition plan is the problem, when really it is their training and pacing. No nutrition plan or calorie count can make up for poor training and pacing. It's not an eating contest, it's a preparation and execution contest.

Spend your efforts getting training and pacing done right, then address race nutrition.

Coach Vance

Foundational Workouts

While working with a coach recently, I was reminded of the idea of key workouts, but with a new and better term for them, "Foundational Workouts". This is the same as the key workouts sessions, in meaning, but I like this new term better. The reason is because this workout isn't just key, it is the workout you build the fitness in the weeks ahead on.

Foundational workouts are the workouts you begin your training plan for the week/month/microcycle with, and build on top of them, and around the stress they create. The idea is you should come into these sessions with the least amount of fatigue as possible, in order to maximize the quality of the session for adaptation to the stimulus.

If you're a runner, these sessions are your highest quality runs, like tempo runs and track sessions. It could be a long run, but it is likely that your long run is not the highest quality session, and the goal is simply building basic aerobic endurance, which can be required in a fatigued state, (relatively speaking).

If you're a triathlete, you might have 2 foundational workouts per week, per sport. If you're trying to focus on one sport which might be a weakness, such as cycling, that you might shift the equation to 1 swim, 3 bike,  and 2 run foundational workouts per week. If you have the luxury of being a professional triathlete, you can likely do more than this many in a week.

How do you determine which workouts are the foundational ones? They are the ones which meet the goals of your training focus for the time frame. In the general preparation phase, you're likely focusing on a weakness or general aerobic fitness, while in the later specific phase, it becomes the workouts which best represent the demands of the race.

If you're using TSS, and let's say you want to have a TSS for the bike of 190 in your upcoming 70.3, then in the general preparation phase, you are likely completing rides that are 190 TSS, but at a different intensity than what you would do in the race. As the race day approaches, you will ride more at the specific intensity for the race, at that 190 TSS. In both cases, (general and specific phases), these are foundational sessions, because it is the TSS of 190 you're building performance around.

Many athletes struggle to keep the balance of life and triathlon, and recognition of the foundational workouts from others can help athletes maintain the balance without stressing themselves out about some missed sessions here and there.

Think in terms of foundational workouts, and you will continue to build the quality sessions which are most important to your success, both now and in the weeks/months/seasons ahead.

Good luck!

Coach Vance