Jesse Kropelnicki

How does one know if they are durability limited? One of the best ways to get your arms around this concept is to observe HR data from yours or your athletes (if you are a coach) races…the higher the HR relative to threshold HR, the better. One could say, I work with my athletes to try and produce the highest HR possible while racing. If I can do that, I’ve been successful. This may sound silly, ridiculous, and counterintuitive however; it actually captures a lot of information, physiology and is pretty darn close to the truth. Now of course HR is a parallel indicator of other things going on at the muscle, but in most cases it’s a pretty good metric to use in evaluating a very complicated system. Let’s take a look at two scenarios:

1) The significantly durability limited athlete: this guy does his IM and due to peripheral system limiters, is forced to walk the second half of the marathon (assuming nutrition wasn’t the limiter). Now, while he’s walking along the marathon “RUN” course his HR is 85 bpm. Of course this significantly reduces the average HR for the day and he might end up with a 120 avg for the day (just picking numbers from the sky).

2) The non-durability limited athlete: this guy is able to run the whole marathon and continue to produce high HR’s throughout the day. Of course his average HR will be higher (maybe 130 for comparison sake), and his overall time much better.

What you find is that pros are able to continually fire their HR all day long using their peripheral system as the driver. Note, I like to include the head (mental game) in the peripheral bucket. We need to be mentally tough in order to continue telling the muscle to fire, which in turn demands more blood and increases HR. Another interesting limiter that HR is good for tracking is nutrition related limiters. If an athlete “bonks” on the course due to improper fueling or is forced to slow down due to cramping, his HR will be much lower during that episode and end up dragging the HR average down for the day.

Based on this qualitative theory, your job as an athlete/coach is to take the best strategy you can in both preparation and execution to produce the highest HR avg for the day. How do we do that?

1) Meet critical volume through aerobic intensity exercise which insures adequate durability.

2) Avoid nutritionally limited HR on race day by having a solid and practiced fueling plan.

3) Use a pacing strategy that gives you the best shot at a high HR average. This means knowing what average to shoot for and staying there all day (respectively in each sport).

4) Don’t stop on the course! Bathroom breaks for instance would pull down the HR average quite a bit.

As a coach, one approach is to known what ratios of race day HR avg versus TH for each race distance are good. From that, you can than evaluate how a particular athlete is racing and whether or not there are peripheral, nutrition, or pacing limiters on race day. If you turn all the dials properly (fix all of the issues), you should start to see higher and higher HRs on race day.

What’s the difference between pro level and amateur level athletes in IM racing? You’ll find pro level Ironman athletes have the ability to continuously push their core system and stimulate HR to high levels throughout the whole day.

Bottom line: do whatever it takes to achieve the highest HR average throughout your day of racing whether it is from better preparatory activities, or better execution on D day.

Just another way to look at things…

-Jesse

I know this is a bit late, but better late than never! Last week was our 3 day training weekend in Ludlow VT where we had 26 athletes participate (including 2 from the boston body worker who were there to help keep us pieced together! Thanks Jim and Katrina!).

The agenda this year was the same we used last year and included 18 hours of training over 3 days including about 230 miles on the bike, 35 miles running, and 5,000 yards of open water swimming. Although these numbers sound very high and unattainable for some, when approached with proper intensities, spot on fueling, and top notch restoration methods between workouts, you find 23 folks who roll right through the weekend with no injuries to speak of. Also keep in mind that for 90 percent of the folks attending the weekend, this was their single biggest training week (what we call overload weeks at QT2) for their build up to IMLP. It was again, very, very impressive to see this group stay so strong and positive throughout the weekend’s workouts…….what a blast!

My favorite (and most dreaded) part of the weekend was the 2 mile open water TT. We actually time everybody through the course and post the results. This is a great accountable way to push everyone at what is for most, the weakest portion of their triathlon racing. What you typically find is folks doing bike TTs on the group training weekends because its fun. To me, it makes more sense to lay focus where most people don’t……in the water. It’s a training weekend for heaven sakes!

Next year we plan to have another training weekend in Ludlow VT, likely during July in preparation for Timberman 70.3. This weekend will feature reduced volume, more intensity, and more focus on technical training/nutrition analysis each night. Stay tuned to the QT2 website for details on this one which should be out this fall. The camp will be open to anyone who is interested once we first offer it to QT2 athletes.

Also, for those interested, BegginerTriathlete.com has posted a video segment of the workshop I held this year at the New England Multisport Expo HERE.

Thanks!

-Jesse

Well, I did my annual 5 x 1 mile track workout last night. This post is meant to show just how aerobic our sport really is. Some facts:

1) I do 3-5 track workouts each year (so called “speed” workouts). All other work is done at least 30 seconds per mile under my one hour run race pace.

2) This is the 4th year in a row I have done the 5 x 1 mile workout.

3) I take exactly 3 minute rests between each repeat.

Below is a figure I put together which shows each of the last 4 years and the repeat times I had for each mile. What it shows is a significant improvement each of the past three years despite doing 98 percent of my training extremely aerobically.

It begs the question: Why do more than 5+, risky “speed” workouts each year while training for an IM…these have the potential to get you injured and sidelined? No reason! As shown below, at all running race distances over 1 mile, more than 50 percent of ATP comes from aerobic energy production.

Since the major limiter in IM (and half IM for many) is muscular durability and aerobic efficiency, it always baffles me to hear folks pounding out track workouts which do very little for the their intended training response, and taking huge risks of injury or burnout which can undermine the very limiter that they have……durability and aerobic efficiency (which comes through CONSISTENT aerobic volume)! If you are on the couch with an injury, you are going backwards, burning up about 3 weeks of fitness for each 1 week spent on the couch. This intuitively tells you that your training program should have the primary focus of keeping you out of that position.

What we do at QT2 to avoid this is, focused strength work in the early season, year-round hip and core strengthening, lots of focused aerobic work, and a FEW very focused track workouts throughout the season at specific/critical times. Anything that even has the slightest chance of putting you on the couch is avoided like the plague. Like most things in life……progress in triathlon takes significant sacrifices and significant patience. For many, not doing “fun” speed work is a sacrifice.

Although track work may not directly target the energy system that primarily fires us forward on race day, there are other benefits not necessarily related to sport physiology like potential improved biomechanics (and is one of the reasons we include it in the training program). That’s the trouble with sports training…so, so, many things interconnected.

For those geeks out there (or those who have too much time on their hands), here are links to my 5 x 1 mile garmin files for the last two tries at it:

2009: HERE

2008: HERE (HR data currupt)

-Jesse

A lot about building a successful athlete is about identifying limiters and then compensating for them. For those who know me or have worked with me, I like to call these limiters “dials”. The more dials an athlete has when they come to me (assuming we can identify them), the happier I am because it simply means they have more speed potential. Being a coach is partially about becoming an expert in finding these dials and then knowing how/when to turn them (or at least refer to some expert who does!).

The simple flow of this process is: ID limiters (Dials) – Compensate for them at the right time (turn the dials) – produce faster athletes.

These dials typically fall under one of the pieces within the QT2 4 part race performance system. Below are the most common limiters grouped within the 4 part race performance system, but really just represent a fraction of what you may find in the athletes you work with:

Training
Body mechanics
Equipment
Volume distribution between sports
Improper periodization plan (or none at all!)
Lack of durability
Improper intensities
Strength limiters
Injuries
Flexibility

Nutrition/Recovery (restoration)
Lack of micro nutrient density
Improper macro nutrient profile
Lack of nutrition periodization concurrent with training periodization
Poor body composition
Lack of recovery nutrition specifics
Low sleep averages
Lack of massage

Race Pacing
Pacing not tied to training indicators
Pacing tied to outcomes
Pacing not adjusted for one’s specific durability
Sport psychology
No pacing at all!

Race Fueling
Specific sweat rates not measured
Specific sodium losses not measured
Single sugar types use for long distance racing
No caffeine loading logic
Too much fat or fiber in carb load or race morning breakfast
Repeatability not considered

Again, these are just a few of the dials you may find as a coach…the more you find, the better! Once you’ve done that, its all about knowing how to compensate for them, or how to turn these dials. If you as a coach don’t know how to turn them, you must at least know how to identify them and refer your athletes to an expert (like a dietitian) that does. Some of the dials need to be timed properly as well. An example would be body composition: arriving at optimal body composition 6 weeks before race day would be detrimental to progress. The dial was turned, but way to early!

Another thing to note, most athletes/coaches just identify, and compensate for the training bucket which really only brings out 25% of your athlete’s potential. If that’s not bad enough, many only really identify and compensate for the volume/intensity piece of that bucket which brings the percentage down well below 10%. Full potential is met once greater than 95% of the dials that account for 95% of the performance are found, compensated for, and execute for 5-10 years.

What are your “dials”, and how will you compensate for them?

-Jesse

What can I say……this past weekend lived up to what I had hoped it would. This report is a race report; not about my race but about the QT2 triathlon team, as their performances take precedence over my own in my book. I’ve thought of myself as a coach first, and athlete second for about the past 3 years. This day was no different.

The past few weeks have been very busy/stressful for me given all of the athletes we had racing mooseman. This meant sacrificing sleep/recovery on my part to meet the needs of our athletes and/or get my own training in. At the end of the day, this approach paid off in a big way this past weekend with 7 of the top ten overall men and woman being athletes that I coach. As I headed out on the first loop of the run course, it was an amazing feeling to see the top 4 males be the athletes I coach at such a competitive race. Its one thing to have an athlete win a major IM race in the states, which it was, and will again be an amazing feeling, but its another to produce the breadth we did this weekend with such a broad showing on both the men’s and women’s sides…humbling. These top placings including the following:

Men
1st - Chris Martin
3rd - Chris Casey (new bike course record!)
4th - Tim Snow
5th - Tim Tapply

Women
5th - Molly Zahr (fastest bike split of the day!)
7th - Michelle Joaquin (fastest run split of the day!)
9th - Chrissie (my wife!)

It should also be noted, Pam Roasch finished 10th OA under the direction of coach Tim and the QT2 protocol. After 10+ years in the sport, to see her make the progress she has is unbelievable.

12 other QT2 athletes raced and all produced outstanding performances with most of them finishing under 5:00…….all while having a blast and feeling a huge sense of accomplishment.

When finishes like these unfold under the system you have created, it’s humbling, and makes this coach wonder if he should be spending more and more time working with his athletes versus pursuing his own performance…….

I love this game.

-Jesse

This weekend is the Mooseman Triathlon in beautiful Bristol, NH. For those who don’t know the race, its one of New England’s most popular early season events. It’s put on by the same folks who run Timberman.

Although most of the top athletes in the country (and world) will be racing the Rev3 in Connecticut, you can expect a fairly strong field at Mooseman due to its reputation for great racing, race organization, and scenery. I’ve always liked this event……just a great early season test with a typically stacked New England field. This year will be no different!

I’ll be heading up to NH tonight along with about 20+ other QT2 athletes who’ll be racing either on Saturday, or Sunday. Saturday’s Olympic distance event is on the same course as the Half Sunday, but features just one loop of the bike and run courses.

I’m really looking forward to see how our athletes do after a tough winter of training. If you are planning to be up there this weekend, stop by and say hi!! I’ll be on the course as a spectator on Saturday and as a numbered athlete on Sunday….

 -Jesse

I got thinking this past weekend while doing some conversions to relate a hike I did to bike and run volume. Typically for hikes, I have athletes assume 35 percent of it counts toward running, and 35 percent toward biking. Based on that, if you had a 2 hour ride and a 2 hour run planned on a particular day, a 6 hour hike would take care of both those workouts.

People ask me how I come up with these conversion factors……its actually quite a simple process that I use based on approximate cardiac output. Let’s say your training HR zone on the bike is 129 (middle of zone) and your run training HR zone is 139, your average HR for the 4 hour workout day described above would be 134 (2 hours at 129 and 2 hours at 139). Let’s also say your resting HR was 45 bpm. Based on that, your heart will beat 89 times each minute more than that required to stay alive at rest for a four hour workout. This is a total of 89 bpm x 240 minute’s equals 21,360 beats extra just because you went out for a short ride and long run. If we look at the hike now, for the same person, a solid paced hike would result in an average HR of about 105 bpm or 60 bpm more than that required to stay alive at rest. Over a 6 hour hike, this results in 360 x 60 bpm equals 21,600 beats. As you can see, from a total cardiac output standpoint, 2 hours of biking and 2 hours of running at an aerobic “zone 1” pace is approximately equal to a 6 hour hike. Armed with this information, you can quite easily figure out what a particular hike is worth in terms of bike/run volume that may have a lower HR like 92 bpm. Of course is quite subjective to figure out how much of the volume should go to bike versus run, but in my opinion, a 50/50 split is appropriate given the specificity of hiking to both biking and running. It should be noted that this approach only addresses the cardiac piece of the equation. There is a significant peripheral impact on soft tissue during the descents when hiking which is an additional stress (beyond most damage done when running) not accounted for in the total cardiac output method above.

After playing with this method a bit, some interesting numbers fall out. For most top level traithletes, a 25 hour training week is routine. How many times do you force your heart to beat though for that volume? Well, again assuming an aerobic HR of about 134 on average and a resting of 45 bpm we get:

In a week: 133,500 beats

In a year for a top level triathlete training 1,000 year-hours: 5,340,000 beats

What it takes to reach your potential at endurance sports is commonly thought to be about 10,000 hours: an astounding 53,400,000 beats!

It’s just amazing what we ask of the heart and how reliable it is.

All of this thought while looking for a can of beets to put over my salad after a 6 hour hike in NH yesterday……..

-Jesse

Most people train their anaerobic energy system for short term gratification.

Very few realize they should train their aerobic energy system for long-term progress.

One question I receive pretty often from athletes involved in triathlon and other sports, is: “what’s a good nutrition bar for me to eat during the day?”. Obviously your bar choice depends on when you are having it relative to your workouts. This post aims to provide some guidance for those periods between workouts (not during workouts or immediately before). In my opinion, the function/qualities to look for when choosing a bar during these key periods are:

1) Provide lean protein to facilitate soft tissue recovery between workouts.

2) Have a minimal and smooth response to blood sugar (low glycemic load). This is typically achieved by having some decent quantity of protein and fat with minimal sugar.

3) Avoid artificial sweeteners.

4) Provide some nutrient density through vitamins and minerals.

5) Provide natural, organic ingredients when possible.

Recently, I’ve been using a handy, rule of thumb equation when choosing sports bars while traveling or in need of a convenient source of food on the go. What’s done here is you add sugar to carbohydrates and subtract fiber. Then take that number and divide it by fat plus protein. If the result of that little equation is less than 2, the bar is good to eat between workouts for convenience. What this equation attempts to do is, magnify the blood sugar impact of the carbohydrates in the bar by double counting the sugars. It also try’s to take advantage of the low blood sugar response from fiber by subtracting it from the carbohydrate count. Then, this resulting number is divided by fat plus protein which both have a dulling affect on blood sugar response due to slowed digestion. This equation satisfies numbers 1 and 2 from my list above while #3, 4, and 5 should be satisfied by inspection of the ingredient list.

Of course the best way to provide nutrient density, antioxidants, and macronutrients is through real foods (like lean meats, fruits, veggies, nuts, and seeds) however, sometimes it’s difficult and impractical to lug around all of these foods while traveling. Given that, nutrition bars are a convenient replacement during these periods when something like a bar is better than nothing at all. This is particularly important to the athlete where frequent eating, steady blood sugar, and steady intake of sufficient protein/fat are paramount.

(Carbs+Sugar-Fiber)/(Fat+Protein) less than 2……..

-Jesse

Well, I’ve fallen a bit behind with my blog posts over the last month so hope to catch up with a few over the next few weeks….stay tuned. I definitely have a bunch of coaching thoughts to share that have been bouncing around. However, this post is meant to address St Croix 70.3 in which 10 QT2 athletes raced this past weekend!

This is one of those races that when you mention it, everyone knows what you are talking about and everyone knows its a tough race. I’ve confirmed that assumption this weekend for sure!

After arriving on the island on friday afternoon, we (all 10 QT2 athletes) began our carb load with a pasta dinner. Saturday was then the typical large breakfast where QT2 hosted a breakfast at the beautiful Divi Carina Bay Resort (ocean front). The rest of the day was the typical lay around the hotel room and eat grains, go over race pacing and nutrition plans with the athletes, and get rev’d up for a tough race.

I have to say, this race is MUCH different than your normal 70.3. Arriving at transition is more like arriving at your local sprint triathlon with an open transition area, minimal security, and unfair transition entrance/exit. Kind of nice to see the laid back atmosphere at a race that’s STACKED with top pros and age groupers. It seemed to me right away that this year’s race had really attracted some top athletes on both the amateur side and pro side. This is always good news and a good challenge for our athletes.

The race start was pretty calm but quickly became a rough open water swim with no wet suit and some seriously salty water. I felt great in the water and really THOUGHT I had a great swim. However, coming into T1 I found I was 15th in my age group! Well, that was a surprise but nothing to get hung up on. Later on I found that I had likely one of my worst swims in about 3 years……I must have been all over the place out there on the course! With that, I was about 3 minutes slower than typical relative to other folks I was racing with (it happens, again nothing to get hung up on).

Heading out on the bike, I began executing my fueling plan which was critical for a day like that forecasted (85-90 degrees). Like most competitive, hot tough races, dozens of people went out too hard on the bike and I very quickly fell back to 20-30th in my age group before 25 miles into the ride. The “beast” came which is advertised as a terrifying climb but really wasn’t too bad when controlled with a capped power number/perceived exertion which helped “flatten out the course”. Following that climb, the field really seemed to take a hit, and I wasn’t passed again on the bike for the remainder of the ride. The last 10 miles I passed at least 10-15 people that had passed me earlier in the day. And boy, it was getting hot!!

Going into the race, I thought I’d catch Cait Snow right at the end of the bike ride since she started with a 4 minute lead over me, which proved to be true as we rolled into transition together. The run started off very well, finding a rhythm of 6:15 pace through 3 miles. Cait began to pull away from me as I wasn’t able to (or planning to) match her pace. Now, everyone knows the bike course in st croix and the “beast”, but heck, this was likely the toughest half iron run course I’ve seen! The hills and heat really hit home when combined with the hills and heat of the bike course that precede it. Having said that, I was able to keep a steady and strong pace throughout the run. About half way through, I saw all of our other athletes on the course, which was a relief after a dangerous bike course. Everyone looked fantastic, and of course were ripping through the field in the typical QT2 fashion on the run. I finished the second loop with a total run pace of about 6:30 on my garmin and having passed a whole bunch of folks in my age group. Having said that, I really had no clue where I placed. Later I found that I had come in 3rd in my AG about 4 minutes back from the two in front of me. Had I wanted a kona slot, I’d have been pretty pissed about my swim, that’s for sure (there were 2 slots up for grabs)!!!

Everyone else who raced (other than Phil who got 2 flats, and ran his bike into T2!), finished dead on expectations which we had calculated prior to the event. What a day! I couldn’t be happier with our athlete progress at this point in the season. The hard work is paying off. Sometimes I think its tough for new athletes to see their progress on very tough, very competitive races like this one, and I must reiterate that they are doing fantastic and push them to see the light and positives of their performance. This is important for a healthy mental cycle in racing. Of note, Tim Snow had a VERY solid day (which was great to see), as well as Cait (his wife) who was dead on our calculated targeted time as usual. Also, my wife Chrissie continues to impress everyone with a 7th place age group finish at her 4th half iron and 6th triathlon ever! She is looking fantastic for Lake Placid and has a very good shot at going sub 11 there in her first IM…..amazing. Then again, she does have a decent coach :). I’m SO proud.

Next up: Mooseman, where 16 QT2 athletes will descend on the Half Iron there and hopefully produce some powerful results. This one will be a blast.

-Jesse

New Orleans 70.3 proved to be one tough race! Although that course CAN be very fast, this weekend it was not! We were greeted to a long swim, and Kona like conditions on the bike and run. Luckily I love hot and humid conditions which these were……could have done without the wind though!

Being the first Tri of the season, it’s always exciting to pull a race together and see what the outcome will be. This was no different. Off the starting gun, I was able to go off the front of the pack and then settle into a rhythm. A group of 3 outpaced me immediately and I was then forced to swim alone between that group of 3 and the rest of the pack. It was actually quite nice to swim alone with zero “contact” the whole swim. Having said that, I came out of the water 4th in my wave with a pretty darn good swim time relative to the field. I swam 30:xx which on a day where the fastest times were 24:xx….I’ll take it!

Onto the bike……I began executing my race fueling plan without a hitch. I did notice the heat though and began taking fluid beyond what my plan calls for until I pee’d once on the bike. The bike was very flat, hot and very windy. I knew immediately after the first turn around that the goal outcome of a 2:15 ride wouldn’t be possible so I readjusted and pedaled 90-92 rpm into the wind. I then came off the bike in 2:23:xx which I was happy with given the conditions and early season event.

Onto the run…..again with the heat and wind I knew my goal outcome run time wouldn’t happen so readjusted my pacing plan to go out at 6:18 and hold that as long as possible. I held it very well until about mile 10 where it slid to about 6:35 through the finish. This had me average 6:25 on my Garmin and not a bad run split given the conditions and early season event. Total run was 1:25:xx. What a nice finish line area in the French Quarter! Just a huge field of 2500+ made this race an interesting one. I ended up as the 5th amateur in 4:23 being bested by Chris Casey, one of the athletes I coach who had a stellar day finishing 4th. He has a ton of talent and will have a phenomenal season given where his training is now. Other beatings I took by the athletes I coach were Tim Snow as usual, and for the first time (since the late 90s), Cait Snow! This one I couldn’t be happier about since her progress is a reflection that what we are doing, is doing its job. Again, it’s going to be a great season for her since we still have dials left to turn going into the season.

Our other QT2 athletes had fantastic days as well producing multiple PRs even with the tough conditions. A couple of exceptions including a QT2 guy who almost chopped his fingers off by reaching for his speed sensor on the bike, and one other due to the race organization running out of Gatorade/fluid for the second half of the bike and run.

I couldn’t be happier with the race results we had at NOLA, California 70.3, and Lone Star, among others this weekend! Off to a great start……

Next up: St Croix 70.3 where my goal outcome will be 4:35 and a top 3 amateur placing.

Here we go again…race week before a 70.3. Every year it seems like the winter may never end but then before I know it, I’m on the starting line of a half ironman. This year is no different with the inaugural New Orleans 70.3 this coming Sunday. I’m particularly excited for this event since I’ll be joined by 10+ QT2 athletes on the starting line! Everyone doing this event is in great shape and ready to rock this early season 70.3.

The venue looks to be very flat and warm which is a stark contrast to last year where I raced Oceanside and froze in the hills. I really enjoy hot racing, hence my choice to do St Croix in another 4 weeks!

Fitness: things have gone very well in training for me over the past 21 weeks since the start of the 2009 training season. Although I see myself as a coach more than an athlete these days, I still manage to throw down some decent training and then nail my nutrition on a day to day basis. This approach allows me to continue to improve from year to year somehow even as external stressors continue to increase. Here are some facts and figures from where I sit today (because god knows I love facts and figures!):

Swim-
400TT: 4:48
DUR: 12,000 yards

Bike-
20 min power: 343 watts
DUR: 319 miles

Run-
5K: 15:45
DUR: 37 miles

Body comp-
Weight: 159 pounds
Body Fat: 6.3%
BMI: 22.2

**DUR = Average of 2 highest volume training weeks during previous 6 weeks

Where does all of this put me for the race this coming weekend? Well, as most people know, I like to think of race speed potential as the combination of durability and single sport speed potential. As shown by my training volumes above, I have met critical volume for the event. This means I have the durability required to meet my speed potential curve at this race distance. Therefore, my race speed potential will be defined by my single sport speed potentials:

My 400TT is about 3 seconds faster than my best last year; my 20 min power is about 13 watts beyond my best last year; and my 5K is about equal to my best last year. Body composition wise, I’m a bit heavier at the same body fat as last year meaning I’ve put on a bit of muscle which is likely reflected in my increased power on the bike. I’m also not yet down to optimal body fat percentage since this is a depleted position not worth wasting on an early season race. Lastly, my BMI is about 22.2 which is right in the range of most top male triathletes at optimal body composition. Most pros fall between 21 and 23 at optimal body fat percentage. This range can be used as the indicator that a particular athletes has the right amount of muscle on their body to race well (not too much, not too little). It’s also a great tool to look at where limiters may be in triathletes.

So, given all of these performance indicators, and the course that is expected in New Orleans, I get the following estimate on race time using the Triathlon Calculator:

Swim: 27:00-28:00
Bike: 2:13-2:16
Run: 1:19-1:22

TOTAL: 4:05-4:10

This reflects about a 5-7 minute improvement over last year on a similar course which is always the goals from year to year (5-7 at half, and ~15 at full). Now it just comes down to executing my race fueling plan as well as the pacing recommended by the Triathlon Calculator (which is based on my current performance indicators).

For those not familiar with QT2, this is a piece of the same approach we take with all of our athletes in setting targets, tracking progress, and determining reasonable outcomes.

-Jesse

My previous post addressed goals, what they mean, and the best way to approach these from a macro perspective. This post is an add-on addressing how these same buckets can be used on race day or during tough training sessions at the micro level.

When the gun goes off on race day, many people don’t truly know what they are cable of in terms of performance. Because of that, many folks over pace the day by going out too hard, and then end up physiologically fried later in the day. This over pacing issue also interrelates to having trouble handling the nutrition required to properly fuel the body. These two issues typically combine to provide many walkers out on the course late in the day.

On race day, you may find yourself saying “I should be going faster today, Joey just past me, I’m 5th in my AG when I want to be 3rd”…this is a negative mental pattern and at the bottom of my list from my last post……”Outcomes“. If you find yourself thinking like this on race day, very quickly redirect your thoughts to the top of the list. That is, “I’m being tough, I’m following my pace plan, I’m following my fueling plan”…”Goals“. Once you establish that corrected thought process and feel solid with it, then move to your targets……”How is my wattage compared to where I expect it to be, how is my pace compared to where I expect it to be based on my training”…”Targets“. Race day (during the event) is not the time to consider the outcomes bucket unless you are at a VERY high level (top 10 at Kona) or in the closing miles of an event where you may be mono-e-mono with another racer. 95% of the time, it’s only worth considering the outcomes bucket after you cross the finish line. Even then, it should be approached with caution and really taken with a grain of salt if all of the goals and targets were met that day. As you sit down and review the successfulness of the race in your head, start with the goals (was I tough, did I execute the race fueling plan), then move to your targets (how was my wattage, how was my pace), and lastly the outcomes (where did I place, what was my time). Again, if the goals and targets were met on a particular day, it was a success…take the outcomes very lightly.

Folks who focus on the outcomes right off the starting line set themselves up for over pacing which leads to trouble in race fueling, and typically a disappointing race day where they do not meet their performance potential. It also produces inconsistent race performances.

The race season is upon us and I hope this series of “goals” posts hit home with all those folks on IM race day that have high hopes and over pace the early portion of the event…they end up disappointed even after making tremendous sacrifices in training and after spending time away from their families. Remember, training is just one of 4 tires on the car (training, nutrition, race fueling, race pacing). If any one of those tires is missing, it won’t go forward so well…

-Jesse

“Goals”. What are they? You hear them all the time in training circles and forums throughout the triathlon community. I like to use the following “buckets” to better describe what we are talking about here:

“Goals” - examples under this bucket are: I am going to be tough, I’m not going to give up no matter how hard things get, I’m going to follow my pacing plan, I’m going to follow my fueling plan. These are better described as those items in which you have 100 percent control over.

“Targets” - examples here are: I’m going to average 250 watts, I’m going to run 7:45 pace on the run. These are items you have a bit less control over but are directly related to your training and therefore can be predicted very closely. Running pace and swim pace obviously have the course specifics factored in as well and are therefore a bit less tangible.

“Outcomes” - examples here are: age group or overall placing, race time, kona slot qualification, etc. These items are those items that you have the least control over and are really just an outcome of the previous two buckets.

What you start to see when you look at “goals” like this is that priority should be given at the top and reduce as you work toward the bottom. Another way to look at this thought is in series like this: Goals->Targets->Outcomes. Unfortunately most people tend to think about this topic opposite to that which tends to create improper pacing strategies, missed “goals”, and disappointment. Ultimately, these people have a much tougher time reaching their race objectives and spend half of there season disappointed in themselves because they “didn’t beat Mary Jane on the bike”. This is an unhealthy mental pattern for athletes of all abilities.

Athletes tend to be the most upset about the bottom (outcome) going wrong when they should more displeased when the top goes wrong. When focus is given to the top, what you find is that the outcomes are there as a result. Most athletes need to begin with focus at the top and slowly move toward the bottom as they develop as an athlete and have mastered the top. The top items are those that you have complete control over; if those can’t be mastered, there is really no basis to give the bottom much thought.

Unfortunately, most people start by saying “I want to qualify for Kona this season, what do I have to do” without even knowing if this is a reasonable outcome. That is, do they have the ability to be tough, can they execute their race plan time and time again, and do they have the “targets” required to make that goal outcome (qualify for Kona) a reality.

-Jesse

Another indoor TT and another ~20 minute bout of pain. This one was at Landry’s Cycling Shop in Boston….a great venue for such an event with plenty of space for warm-ups and spectating.

The day started with my wife Chrissie in an early heat. Our goal for her going in was to hold 240 watts which she started out having no problem with. Unfortunately they had forgotten to enter her weight into the set up program and she was asked to stop the TT about 10 minutes into it which she refused. When she was finished with her heat, her time was too fast due to no weight being entered (although her power was dead on at 242 watts). Due to that, they discounted her time. Her being who she is was not happy with this and after some minimal convincing decided to DO IT AGAIN. Now, for anyone who has done one of these, the thought of having to go twice is absolutely absurd. After a gel, and a few sips of Power Bar Endurance, she was off in the next heat. Going in, I had instructed her to hold just 2-4 watts less than the last round which she was able to do averaging 241 watts (just 1 less than the 1st go!). Having the weight entered correctly the 2nd time, she placed 2nd overall in the woman’s group just 1 second ahead of Cait Snow who also had a spot-on day. Cait’s power was dead in-line with expectations and shows the bike focus we are running is doing its job….going to be a great season for her.

On to me….my bike strength has really come along in the past 2-4 weeks due to a slight focus in that area. Going in I had hoped to show a 20 minute power of about 330 watts. This course was not setup the best for me total time wise being a climb from start to finish. Due to that, those riders with superior power/weight ratios clearly had the advantage. Never-the-less, I gave it my all. After correcting the results for what appears as errors, I believe I came in 6th overall with 354 watts (equal to about 336 real world 20-minute watts). This power is about 10 watts beyond my best last year which I can hardly believe since a typical increase from year-to-year is about 7 watts at my level (maybe 10-12 with a bike focus). I was bested by two fellow teammates Chris Casey and Tim snow whom also I coach which is always a good feeling. These guys are getting very strong on the bike and setting themselves up for a solid season (really, really, looking forward to seeing what they can do). Our other QT2 athletes had solid days too with 10-15 athletes racing. A couple of other’s with stand-out strong performances that I haven’t already mentioned were Lauren Scafidi, and Michelle Joaquin….keep up the great work guys.

Next up: New Orleans 70.3 where a flat fast course could mean PR’s for many QT2 athletes. My goal outcome is sub 4:10 which will be dictated by the course

Sunday was the Hyannis half marathon. This is typically a great weekend where we run the race and then ride 3-4 hours down in Hyannis where it’s typically a bit warmer. Unfortunately, Mother Nature had different plans this year and a cold rain began following the race ….no ride outside! Of course this didn’t slow us down much, as we rode 3:30 inside on the trainers in a basement.

As for the race itself, this was the first test of the season which proved to be very successful for all of our athletes. Going in my goal was to head out the first mile at 5:43 and then settle into 5:48 and average that through the finish. This pacing was based on output from www.runcalculator.com and my most recent zone 1 paces. It seemed quite fast considering I hadn’t run below 6:50 in over 8 weeks since the 5K I did in December! However, I trusted the calculator and hit the first 2 miles in 5:43 which actually felt VERY comfortable. I ended up holding this pace on the Garmin through mile 10 at which point it began to slide a bit as we hit the hills and head winds. The last 2-3 miles is always a grind and this proved to be no different. I hit the finish line with a 5:48 average on the Garmin which was dead in line with my current performance indicators from training. This was good enough for a PR and 4th place finish and also shows how aerobically driven this sport is (no running even within 1 minute of race pace in training for the last 8 weeks). On a side note, this was my 5th half marathon and 5th PR. I’ve never run a half marathon and not PR’d which is of course always the focus and a good indicator that what you are doing is producing the intended development of the aerobic system. Given the bike and run durability I will have at IMLP, and my current run speed potential, I’m in a good spot this year to run 3:05 off the bike I believe.

On another note, we had many QT2 athletes race who produced multiple PRs and great races overall….it was great to see everyone! The standouts were Tim and Cait with their overall wins, Chrissie and Michelle with 1:30 performances, Pat with a 2 minute PR, and Mark who had a ~20 minute PR. On the elite side, Cait is on track for the season goals we have set with a sub 1:20 performance as well as Pat. Tim had a slower day than last year which was expected and shows he’s finally becoming cyclist given the need he has in that area, and the focus we have devoted to it.

Next Up: BTT Indoor TT next weekend!

I know this writing is a bit late……but better late than never. Two Sunday’s ago was the first decent test of the season on the bike at the annual Team Psycho indoor time trial. This event has become a popular staple in the New England area and is held at the team QT2 sponsoring shop of Fast:Splits multisport in Newton, MA.

The course is a heart pumping 15k which for anyone who has never done one of these is very, very hard. Somehow it’s more painful than a 5k road race if that’s possible. Going into the event I figured I was bit stronger than last year (by about 3-4 watts based on recent training indicators for a 317W 20 min power) which proved to be correct as I rode a few seconds faster. My wife Chrissie was the real story though as she finally rode to her potential and came in 4th overall in the woman’s field just 22 seconds behind Karen Smyers. She is very strong on the bike and has been training hard so it’s nice to see her take care of the mental aspect and perform to her potential given her current fitness level (which has been proved in training).

Another great story was Pat Wheeler who we worked hard with over the winter to gain strength and some muscle through diet and focused weight routines in the gym. The good news is that the hard work paid off and he rode a few seconds faster than I did which last year would have been impossible.

We had many other QT2 athletes’ race who showed they have been working hard over the winter and are busting at the seams to get outdoors. Time for some of the sacrifices made over the winter to pay off!

It’s shaping up to be a great season again……

-Jesse

Durability, or peripheral system toughness as QT2 calls it is defined by three main things as it relates to the QT2 protocol. These are the concepts that the volume/experience input of the triathlon calculator tries to capture:

1) Aerobic efficiency…..the ability to maintain primarily aerobic fat oxidation at a high pace relative to vo2 max pace. This is built through fairly high volume at very aerobic paces. High volume is defined by critical volume for your race distance. Essentially this says how robust your aerobic system must be for a particular race distance before its worth doing speed work. Any volume less than this cause’s significant race speed loss (degradation).

2) Soft tissue toughness. This is built through strength work in the gym, volume (repetition of force), and experience racing the distance we are discussing.

3) Mental ability. This defines the ability to meet your speed potentials on race day. This is built through getting the training done and experience racing the distance we are discussing.

This is a simple no magic approach to training. The key is “durability” must be met before anything else since this will be the primary loss of time in any race where critical volume is not met.

-Jesse

For those of you interested, I will be leading an Ironman training/nutrition workshop at the New England Multisport Expo on March 22. This 90 minute workshop will literally cover (at a summary level) all of the major QT2 training/nutrition protocols. For those of you that have expressed interest in our methods, this workshop will be a fantastic opportunity to get a more in depth look at what we (QT2) do. Be warned though, if you do decide to come, come prepared! I plan to cover A LOT of information within the 90 minute period. I also plan to treat the session informally to provide a great opportunity for participants to ask questions.

I am excited about this work session!

MORE INFORMATION HERE

This is another one of those topics which you constantly hear people rumbling about and again it’s another one of those topics in which people look for ONE answer. The purpose of this writing is to clear up some of the confusion surrounding this discussion. The bottom line is that you don’t know if so called “Junk Miles” are actually junk miles unless you learn about an athlete’s race objectives (which help put a frame work around the need for extra miles). Here are the two scenarios:

1) An athlete who is training for the Olympic distance who is doing 15 hours of training per week. This athlete is just above critical volume for his event. With that, he has the durability required to meet his speed potential at that distance. If he now decided to go out and spend another 2-3 hours at a very low intensity just rolling around on his bike, those would be junk miles. See, in this situation the extra volume which is not required for durability really just impedes recovery from his quality workouts and dulls his speed potential development through increased catabolic hormones, soft tissue damage, etc. A better approach to adding stress for adaptation (improved speed potential) would be additional intensity work within the same volume range.

2) Next, we have an athlete who is training for the IM doing 20 hours per week. He is training at about 2/3 critical volume and therefore does not have the required to meet his speed potential at that distance. If he now decided to go out and spend another 2-3 hours at a very low intensity on his bike, that would be extremely valuable durability training. What we find is that the major limiter in IM racing (especially in the AG ranks) is the lack of durability. Here, every mile that gets you closer to critical volume will get you to the finish line faster. That is, these extra miles while training for the IM actually target the area where most athletes are limited…..durability. The addition of intensity in this situation although may improve speed potential, really just increases the risk of injury. Unfortunately, any increase in speed potential is very small relative to the a gain in durability which would come with extra miles……the intensity work is just not worth the risk. Long term progress is all about consistency; particularly in IM racing.

In summary, never train too far beyond critical volume since this will begin to impact speed potential development. A better path to added race speed is intensity work within the same volume (at critical). Conversely, since durability is a major limiter in longer distance racing where critical volume is typically not met, every mile is valuable so another 2-3 hours of low intensity work will help race speed. With these clarifications on a cloudy topic, it’s now easy to see what junk miles are and how they can impede progress if they are miles beyond what’s needed for your race distance.

-Jesse