Caroline
Bloom just finished second at the 2020 Ultraman Florida event in the largest
field of women ever assembled there. She
put up the 8th fastest swim, 8th fastest day 1 bike, 8th
fastest day 1 combined time, 7th fastest day 2 bike, and 8th
fastest run which was all good for the 6th best combined time ever. Below is an analysis of the process we took over
the past 28 months. In the next week I
will post a separate analysis of her performance at Ultraman Florida. I’ll describe our starting point and touch
upon all the major considerations we made, that guided that process, without
going too far down the rabbit hole in any one direction.
When Caroline
and I met at Ultraman Florida in February 2017, where we were both crewing for
athletes, she was less than a year removed from her first sprint
triathlon. She had done a few running
relays and a couple running road races over the previous 2-3 years, but had
absolutely no athletic experience prior to that. Her 5k PR was 24:58; her half
marathon PR was a 1:56:10 from a couple weeks earlier. From a technical standpoint, she couldn’t
drink from a water bottle without stopping her bike. She wasn’t super comfortable in the swim, but
was proficient enough that it wasn’t a concern for the sprint tri’s she had
done or had coming up.
She was damn
determined though. In the wake of seeing
Ultraman she signed up for her first half iron.
Some of the stats from that race are below.
Kerrville
2017:
Swim: 44:45
(2:02 per 100y/2:13 per 100m)
Bike:
3:13:23 (134w avg./146NP)
Run: 2:24:58
(11:02 per mile; 6:51 per km)
We started
working together the week after that race.
Ultraman 2020 was the end goal; it had been her end goal since she had
seen the race in February – I like to encourage the athletes I work with to
dream big and to have patience with the process and let progress happen
naturally, so part of that went into setting the exact year she was aiming for
(full disclosure, and probably the biggest insight into where our starting
place was, is that with most athletes I am trying to get them to consider
taking a little more time depending on their goals, where Caroline kept asking
if 2020 gave her enough time just to be able to finish the event). What that means typically is having an A+
race or event we are building to (3-5 years down the road) and then there are A
races (true peak/taper) 1-2 times per year with other B and C priority races
sprinkled in (typically B races will involve short rest and are on the calendar
well in advance; C races can be inserted at any point and are never prioritized
with rest). So with all that in mind, we
mapped out that her schedule to get to UMFL (A races in Bold):
Kiawah
Marathon – December 2017
70.3
Galveston – April 2018
24 hours
in the Canyon - June 2018
Kerrville
Half – September 2018
Ironman
Arizona - November 2018
*Cherry
Creek Half Marathon – April 2019
*24 hours in
the Canyon - June 2019
*Kerrville
Sprint and Half – September 2019
*Denver Half
Marathon – October 2019
Ultraman
Florida February 2020
*races added
after Ironman Arizona, all B priority
In the first
month we did a few testing sessions: effort based on the run and technical
based in the pool. The bike wasn’t a
huge priority with the marathon coming up, so we just kept those sessions easy. To be honest, all was pretty easy with
recovery in mind from her first big, long race at Kerrville; her weekly volume
ranged from 4-8.5 hours that first two months prior to the marathon. In there she performed a 2-mile run time
trial. She averaged 819 pace per mile (5:10 per km); average HR
was 169bpm and max HR was 177bpm and it was even paced. On the swim I prescribed a number of easy to high
effort swims and had her track stroke count per lap. Stroke count went as low as 23-24 strokes and
up toward 29-30 depending on effort and distance.
Taking into
consideration all of the above we set the following priorities:
1.
Bike technical skills
2.
Swim efficiency (focus on distance per stroke)
3.
Aerobic base
4.
General strength and mobility
Much of
those four came from her lack of experience.
In order to train any serious volume she needed to be strong to prevent
injuries and adapt to the workload, the aerobic base was important since she
had no prior history in endurance athletics and the events she was doing were
highly aerobic, and a lack of technical skills on the swim and bike (again,
mostly due to inexperience) were already limiting her performance even before
she gained a high level of fitness. Those
four things remained priorities throughout the entire 28-month process to
Ultraman, though some of the specifics changed.
In the
beginning Caroline was practicing left, right and U turns in empty parking lots
for 10-15 minutes at the beginning of most outdoor rides as well as practicing
sipping from/removing her bottle during rides.
By December 2019 she was forcing herself to stay aero as much as
possible on the Queen K in windier conditions. And progress was not linear. There were rides right up until two weeks
before the race that were overwhelming from a conditions standpoint, but she
kept getting out there and kept increasing her experience and slowly but surely
is gaining greater and greater skills.
On many of these rides we throughout any specific effort targets and
just let the skills/conditions acquisition be the primary focus.
On the swim,
much of the first year was based on achieving technical proficiency based on
strength and distance per stroke. As
someone who was inexperienced her stroke count would often jump around 3-4
strokes per length in a workout without her being able to realize what it was
that allowed her to take fewer strokes, which was frustrating for her. As she progressed through those workouts and
gained experience the range decreased, she became more aware of what allowed
her to take fewer strokes and she cemented the movement patterns that were
efficient. As she got more efficient we
started adding pace specific work (to build specific strength), then in the
final 6 weeks we added some rate work which really allowed her to maximize her
fitness in different conditions.
We addressed
aerobic base from both an intensity and volume perspective. And important to note we did not use the
event distances to dictate what we needed to be doing with that volume. Below are some of the totals by year for the
28 months leading up to Ultraman Florida.
The majority of that was at very low intensity, based both on heart rate
and pace/power. Early on heart rate was
the primary metric we used, but as aerobic strength and efficiency increased
that was largely replaced by pace/power in the last 6-8 months.
Year 1
(Oct 1 2017-Sept 30 2018)
420 total
hours (8 hrs per week)
1.42 hrs per
day active (70 days off)
Peak week:
21 hrs (14 weeks above 10 hrs)
Swim:
185,000yds/169,000m (15% volume)
Bike:
2850 miles/4590km (50% volume)
Run:
608 miles/980km (28% volume)
Strength:
5.5% volume by time
Year 2
(Oct 1 2018-Sept 30 2019)
570 total
hours (11 hrs per week)
1.84 hrs per
day active (55 days off)
Peak
week: 20 hrs (12 weeks above 15 hrs)
Swim:
279,000yds/255,000m (15% volume)
Bike:
4000 miles/6440km (48% volume)
Run:
553 miles/890km (21% volume)
Strength:
13% volume by time
UMFL
Specific Build (Oct 1 2019-Feb 2 2020)
245 total
hours (14.4 hrs per week)
2.02 hrs per
day active (6 days off)
Peak
week: 21.5 hrs (3 weeks above 19 hrs; 6 weeks between 9-12 hrs)
Swim:
154,000yds/141,000m (19% volume)
Bike:
1700 miles/2735km (48% volume)
Run: 305
miles/491km (23% volume)
Strength:
8% volume by time
Volume only
tells a piece of the story and usually not the most important piece. We took the position that consistency is a
bigger and more important piece of success.
So, we started at a very modest weekly volume, as mentioned above. There were greater and lesser volume weeks,
but the majority of weeks were concentrated within a fairly tight range. These
numbers show that as time went on, overall volume and consistency
increased. Keep in mind there were some
mandatory off days after A races as well as those built in to the schedule at
different points in the year, that skew the yearly numbers in comparison to the
last 4 months, but a good number of those off days early on came from sickness,
oftentimes associated with travel. We
got better over time at reading the warning signs, limiting back-to-back
travel, and/or scheduling many light days on either end of that travel to limit
getting run down. We used heart rate
variability, subjective metrics, and descriptions of perceived exertion on all
workouts to help track that recovery. There
was a fairly large volume jump in her daily average (1.42hrs to 1.84 hrs) from
years 1 to 2 but that did not really increase much in the final build (2.02
hrs). Where we found the majority of the
volume increase was in the consistency of taking fewer days off, and with fewer
massive days that required excessive recovery we were able to keep progress and
fitness moving forward consistently. There
were bigger days but we took a much more gradual approach, looking at big weeks
and big blocks of training stress vs. huge single days of stress.
To expand on
what was mentioned above, the majority of her work was done at very low aerobic
intensities (approximately 90% of volume by HR and 80% of volume based on pace
and power). For Caroline that meant approximately 80% of her volume was below
138bpm on the bike, 10% between 139-147bpm and 10% over 148bpm. On the run she was approximately 80% below
150bpm, 10% between 150-159bpm, and 10% above 160bpm. Paces and powers changed throughout so that
is a bit more difficult to pinpoint here, without making this article more
unwieldy than it is. We emphasized these
intensities because they were key for metabolic and aerobic development, and
that targeting those areas, at this time, were what would lead to the greatest
success not only at Ultraman but also for any distance and future race she
wished to pursue post-Ultraman.
Following
her marathon in December 2017, we shifted the focus to the bike. This was due to her cycling only A race, but
also worked with the bigger picture because it allowed us to ramp up volume
with lower impact exercise. Volume and
frequency remained high until 24 hours in the Canyon. She had done the race in 2017 and had slept
through a good portion of the night, but still had gone just over 200
miles. In the leadup we had identified a
couple simple goals to improve cycling efficiency: one was to keep pedaling
(limiting time at zero power and zero cadence), and then to produce a moderate
amount of power at all times when pedaling.
There were rides early on where 15-20% were at 0-20rpm and 0-20w, due to
weather conditions and discomfort with traffic.
The stated goals for Canyon were to pedal when on the bike and to ride
for 24 hours (limiting time off the bike to under 90 minutes, as opposed to 7
hrs the previous year). These goals were
met, but Caroline was still unhappy with the 224-mile result (360 km). We discussed the mental side of endurance
athletics regularly in training, regarding how she approached some workouts or
conditions. We explored her mental state
a great deal in the analysis of the effort in Canyon: we discussed the
differences in conditions she faced between the two years (much more difficult
that year), how she mentally approached the tough points in the middle of the
night, and why she was feeling the way she was when she’d technically
accomplished the goals we had set forth.
This conversation evolved into what her goals truly were, beyond what
were stated; it was a conversation that frustrated both of us, was
uncomfortable at times, and took quite a bit of time. These are conversations that can’t happen
without significant investment of time and energy and require a deep level of
respect and trust in each other because growth isn’t easy. This conversation continued and evolved over
the next year, particularly through the following races:
Kerrville –
September 2018:
Swim: 37:17
(1:37 per 100y/1:47 per 100m, 139 avg HR/149 max)
Bike: 3:09:16
(138w avg./146NP, 143 avg HR/164max)
Run: 2:20:40
(10:42 per mile/6:38 per km, 158 avg HR/173 max)
Ironman
Arizona – November 2018:
Swim:
1:16:59 (1:42 per 100y/1:52 per 100m, 140 avg HR/154 max)
Bike:
6:32:19 (121w avg/127 NP, 143 avg HR/158 max)
Run: 5:07:10
(11:42 per mile/7:16 per km, 150 avg HR/169 max) 2:38-2:29 negative split
We
approached Kerrville with the goal of a negative split on both the bike and
run. We discussed executing a solid race
with a PR, but also wanted to ensure a quicker recovery so we could keep the
build going to Ironman Arizona. Overall,
the race was a giant success and was significantly faster than the year prior
in all disciplines. After we looked at
the race it was obvious that she would be able to race close to those numbers
at Ironman Arizona. Part of what helped
us make that determination was the continuation of conversations we had about
her perceived effort during the race and the difference between her motivation
and ability to go harder, and why she made the choices she did.
Approaching
IM Arizona I had an idea that her aerobic training zones were slightly low and
that her potential was slightly above some of the targets, but without reliable
data to the contrary was happy to keep zones slightly lower. We compensated for
this by expanding her target zones for the race, and then leaving an option to
push as hard as perceived exertion allowed last loop of the bike and second
half of the run. She spent most of the
bike and run at the upper end of her target HR ranges. Power faded a bit through the 3 loop course
and then she negative split the run.
Between this field data and the lab testing she would have done in
August 2019, we confirmed that during that first year her zones were set
approximately 5bpm low, which I think actually proved to be an advantage, as
she absolutely never drifted above her aerobic targets (easy was truly easy all
the time). Again, some of what helped us
draw some of those conclusions, prior to the lab results, were the
conversations regarding her decision making: when she chose to push and to what
extent. We approached it not from a
point of criticism on the race (it was a huge success on all fronts) but as a
learning process for how we could structure the next year of training, both
from a mental and physical perspective, and allow her to race even stronger at
Ultraman.
As mentioned
above, in August 2019 she was able to get some metabolic testing done. We had a pretty good nutrition plan dialed in
by this point, but the data provided some great information to cement exactly
how she was burning fat and carbohydrate at different effort levels. This allowed us to have greater confidence in
the nutrition plan as well as confidence in the effort we thought she could
push as well as how hard she could surge (and for how long). And we took that information into her third run
at Kerrville. Because Ultraman is a
stage race, we decided to use the whole weekend: she would race the sprint
distance on Saturday and the Half Iron on Sunday.
Kerrville
2019
Sprint Split
|
Power/Pace
|
HR
|
Half Split
|
Power/Pace
|
HR
|
|
Swim
|
N/A
|
1:34/100y
1:44/100m |
137 avg
145 max
|
42:00
|
1:47/100y
1:57/100m |
Didn’t record
|
Bike
|
N/A
|
170 avg
177 NP
|
147 avg
156 max
|
2:55:45
|
174 avg
182 NP
|
148 avg
159 max
|
Run
|
N/A
|
10:16/mile
6:22/km |
157 avg
166 max
|
2:59:10
|
2 miles @
10:16/mile
6:22/km |
2 miles @
150 avg
157 max
|
The plan was
to execute the sprint at goal Half effort and then hit the same power and paces
the second day in the Half. I’m not
including splits for the Sprint since they are random distances. The HR data and pace for the Half run only
includes the first 2 miles/ 3 km because the remainder included a large amount of
walking due to extreme abdominal pain.
We explored a variety of possibilities for this occurrence but was tough
to definitively say. It did make us
cautious about over hydrating on the bike (Caroline took in some extra, and
very quickly early in the bike), and second-guess a few things we thought we
knew about the nutrition plan.
Ultimately, we drew confidence from having executed the plan in workouts
prior to this and then re-affirming that in workouts following Kerrville. We also considered that at different points
in her menstrual cycle hydration needs change.
We thought we had some of those things figured out, but ultimately
decreased fluid intake even further when she was in the high hormone phase of
her cycle.
For over a
year we had structured Caroline’s training around her menstrual cycle, using
the research to create a situation that would lead to the greatest adaptations.
We had identified from a year out that
Ultraman was likely to coincide with the final week of her cycle. Beginning with Kerrville, we structured her
training so that her more intense session were early in her cycle, then more
aerobic and race-like in nature during the last 10 days of her cycle. We played a bit with some intensity in those
later sessions to simulate any potential surges or race moves she might want to
make. What we found is that there were
really no limitations on intensity of those surges in an aerobic situation. Building on what we had learned earlier in
the year, as long as her body gradually acclimated then she could build to
moderate and high intensity. We never tried anything super intense, above
threshold, but she was able to perform well on longer threshold intervals
following a long easy start to the ride.
Since
running had not been a high priority in 2018, we added half marathon races in
April and October. These would provide
good long hard runs in a race setting and provide a good comparison to see how
fitness was improving. Overall, it
showed exactly what we wanted to see.
Aerobic strength and efficiency improving and pace improving
dramatically. The October race also
provided a nice confidence boost following Kerrville.
Time
|
Avg. HR
|
Max HR
|
Pace
|
|
April 6
|
2:09:36
|
156bpm
|
166bpm
|
9:03/mile 5:37/km
|
October 20
|
1:57:07
|
155bpm
|
170bpm
|
8:40/mile
5:23/km |
*both races
had 300 ft/ 91m of elevation gain/loss
At this
point, I think it is important to note that the original plan was to ramp up
volume between August and November, through this entire time frame. There would have been a recovery block
leading into both Kerrville and the half marathon but overall the volume was
planned to trend up towards 17-19 hours per week, setting up a three week
training block in Hawaii in December.
That did not happen. For 8 weeks
from mid-August to mid-October all weeks were between 8.75 hours and 13.5
hours. This turned out to be a high
stress time for Caroline, and without going into detail, we backed off the
training stress to accommodate the additional life and work stress. As things began to stabilize we gradually
ramped up toward where we wanted to be training. We didn’t try and jump up to any preconceived
workouts of what we should have had her performing in November, but gradually
added stress and ended up stabilizing at 15 hrs per week for most of late
October and November, with an emphasis on strength (both sport specific and gym-based
sessions).
In late
November Caroline traveled to Hawaii and crewed at Ultraman World
Championships. Taking into consideration
what we had learned over the previous years, and the high stress period she had
just come off, the week prior to travel was a deload week of 10 hrs (with no
complete off days), and the week of travel/crewing was super light with 5 hrs
of volume (3 complete off days while crewing).
She came off this rested, and with only training and recovery to pay
attention to was able to put up weeks of 21.5, 18.5, and 20 hours. The longest ride of the block was 7 hrs (85
miles/137km with 8000 feet/2400m of gain and 4500 feet/1300m of loss) on the third day. Originally I had planned 3 longer rides
targeting harder climbing sessions to really start to take Caroline out of her
comfort zone on longer sustained intervals, but early in the second week we
were out on the Queen K and the winds and traffic rattled her to the point that
effort was not the limiting factor. The biggest reason we instituted this change to the plan is because it shifted the focus from a secondary priority (energy system/threshold development) back to a primary priority (cycling skills acquisition). We were still able to attempt the energy system development out on the Queen K, though it was more difficult for her to sustain that speed and effort amid uncomfortable surroundings, but that was a trade-off we were comfortable making in the context of long-term development. Taking into account there may be winds in Florida, and there would
certainly be traffic, we made the decision to change the plan and gain exposure
in those conditions as much as possible, so she ended up doing 7 x 3-4 hr rides
out on the Queen K over the final 15 days.
We operated under the assumption that the volume of aerobic work was
what was important and not necessarily getting up to 7-8 hrs frequently, and
that her muscular endurance came from that weekly and monthly volume more than
from any specific extremely long ride.
Speaking to her mental toughness, she got frustrated with me multiple
times through this process and each time she would take her space and quietly
get tougher on the highway, staying aero more and more and pushing at
intensities she had the fitness for more and more.
Following
her block in Hawaii, and just before New Year she went to Arizona. While she was there she did a 10k swim on
Saturday and her longest ride of the buildup to Ultraman (an 8hr, 120 mile/195 km aerobic effort), on Sunday. The only
reason this is of note is because of the conditions in the lake. The water was 54 degrees (12 Celsius) and the wind was
super strong which created a ton of waves the second half of the swim. Caroline really struggled in the waves at
first. Eventually she settled but was
far from effective with a low stroke rate.
It wasn’t that it was terrible, but significantly slower than if
conditions were different. We took that
information and decided to combine some rate work to her remaining
training. With all the experience she
had in the water (and experience thinking about what she was doing), she took
to these changes quickly and was able to operate at a higher or lower stroke rate
without spiking her effort.
When she
returned from all her travel, the plan was to recover a week and then hit one
last solid training block with three longer 5-6 hr rides. Her recovery metrics and perceived exertion
were a little off over that week, so I put some restrictions on the first long
ride – if the power targets couldn’t be hit, rather than fighting it out or
turning it into a long slog on the trainer that still felt difficult, we’d take
it that she needed more recovery and just call it a day. That is exactly what happened, and that
turned into a 96-minute ride that failed halfway through the first hard
interval. Three days later she performed
a 3-hour ride with less perceived exertion and at similar intensity, and the
remainder of the block went exceptionally well.
The last
piece of the build that I will speak to is the progression of long runs, or
rather absence of super long runs. In
the last four months Caroline performed 13 runs between 90-125 minutes. Basically, this broke down as three per
month, and four in January (3 of those were between 120-126 minutes). We approached those runs with the same
perspective that we approached most of the other volume, that consistency was
more desirable than excessive length, especially due to the longer volume. Over that time the runs gradually increased
from more near the 90-minute end and entirely aerobic, to more at the 2 hr end
as well as including more intensity. As
much as the long runs I look at two 5k races that we added last minute, on
fatigued legs. Both were PRs and both showed a high degree of fitness, pacing
and strength, all of which led to some good run confidence without pounding her
with excessive mileage that may or may not have been difficult to recover from.
Time
|
Avg HR
|
Max HR
|
Pace
|
|
December 22
|
23:48
|
162bpm
|
178bpm
|
7:39/mile
4:45/km |
February 1
|
22:45
|
168bpm
|
178bpm
|
7:16/mile
4:30/km |
RACE
ANALYSIS
For all
disciplines there is a simple equation for how fast you go:
force
(distance per stroke, stride length or gearing) x rate (stroke rate or cadence)
= speed.
I’m of the
philosophy that if you really want to make a change you have to really focus on
one (maybe 2) thing(s). For Caroline, in
the swim, as mentioned above, that was on the force she applied and for new or
inexperienced swimmers oftentimes that can be accomplished with a reduction of
effort. Over two years it was obvious
that she was making gains in her efficiency and maintaining stroke count and
that she had translated this well to longer aerobic swims both in the pool and
open water. With her aerobic base from
her work in other disciplines, combined with a lower stroke rate she was
oftentimes unable to raise her heart rate in the pool. Following her metabolic testing, a couple of
max effort time trials, and knowing where we wanted her heart rate on the bike
it became obvious that she could swim as hard as she wanted and she would not
be going too hard, and we discussed that.
Then she
swam the 10k in Arizona and we decided to work a bit on her rate to give her
the better tools to swim in any condition.
A week and a half after that her shoulder started bothering her so we
largely backed off the swim. We kept in
a few short swims and focused on swimming easy at higher rate. Since nothing was long and nor super hard we
didn’t have a good idea about how this translated to the race, though I was
skeptical that there would be a massive change based on a few thousand yards
spread out over a month.
I misjudged. There were signs based on her subjective
feedback (lower RPE combined with slightly higher speed) but it was mostly on
very short intervals (20 seconds) with almost 1:1 work to rest, so I dismissed
the impact it could have. She entered
the race motivated and thinking she could go as hard as she wanted. The data from the three 10k swims she did
over the last 5 months are below:
Time
|
Pace per 100y/100m
|
Stroke Rate
|
Avg. HR
|
Max HR
|
|
September 8
|
3:55:25
|
2:07/2:18
|
30
|
128
|
139
|
December 28
|
3:55:39
|
2:08/2:19
|
29
|
121
|
141
|
February 14
|
3:13:47
|
1:43/1:53
|
34
|
138
|
150
|
If we break
down the swim even further some things pop out.
Her peak stroke rate for 10 minutes was 36rpm was before the conditions
got rough, and her peak HR was hit 20 and 60 minutes into the swim (both before
the conditions got rough). What this
shows is that we did not teach her to raise her stroke rate based on
conditions, we raised it overall, which also led to an increase in effort. It did however, have the intended effect of
making her much stronger when the conditions got worse. Her peak pace for 10 minutes, with a big
current and tailwind, was 1:32 per 100y (1:42 per 100m).
Her slowest pace, into the wind and waves, again for 10 minutes, was 1:56
per 100y (2:06 per 100m), and her peak pace immediately followed her slowest pace, in and out
of the 4th turn buoy. We did
not anticipate that and got lucky that her effort didn’t spike too high to
affect the rest of her race. As it
turned out the effort she was able to exert was optimal for the distance she
was racing and translated well to her effort out onto the bike as well as for
the first day of a three day race, and put her in second place woman, coming
out of the water.
The plan
each day was to finish stronger than she started and to get relatively stronger
each day, so that the real “racing” was done in the last 30km of the run. From her cycling training her top 18 peak
60-minute power marks were set since the beginning of August. The other two top-20 marks were threshold
effort workouts that were both 162w for 60-minutes, set in March of 2019. Her peak 3 hour power all time was set at
157w during a 70.3 relay on August 3, 2019.
This didn’t end up being a total max effort because the course was
crowded and she didn’t always feel comfortable passing, but it was still a high
end effort (141 avg. HR/164 max), though if she was maxing out her HR likely
could have been 12-15 bpm higher (peak 60-minute HR was 151bpm, was also her
peak for the year at that point, and which corresponded to a new 60-minute max
power at the time).
Time
|
Avg. Power
|
Normalized power
|
Variability
Index
|
Avg. HR
|
Max HR
|
|
Day 1 Bike
|
4:49:13
|
173w
|
179w
|
1.03
|
138bpm
|
155bpm
|
Day 2 Bike
|
9:21:37
|
175w
|
185w
|
1.06
|
134bpm
|
159bpm
|
Peak Power
|
1 minute
|
5 minute
|
20 minute
|
60 minute
|
3 hour
|
Day 1 Bike
|
222w
|
194w
|
186w
|
180w
|
177w
|
Day 2 Bike
|
274w
|
216w
|
194w
|
188w
|
182w
|
Those peak
powers represent 10th best all-time 1-minute power, 7th
best all-time 5-minute power, 16th and 6th all-time
20-minute power, 7th and 4th all-time 60-minute power,
and 1st and 2nd all-time 3-hour power.
On day 1 all
of those peak powers happened in the middle of the bike, while on the second
day there was a split. The 1 and
5-minute max powers came in the second hour of the day on two of the biggest
hills on the course. The 20-minute,
60-minute, and 3-hour peaks all happened in the second half of the day once the
terrain flattened out. If we break down
her ride on day 2 further we can see how the hills on the first half compare to
the flatter terrain in the second half, and further compare to the first day’s
ride.
Time
|
Avg. Power
|
Normalized power
|
Variability
Index
|
Avg. HR
|
Max HR
|
|
First
81 miles 130 km |
4:38:37
|
174w
|
186w
|
1.07
|
130bpm
|
155bpm
|
Last
91 miles 146 km |
4:43:00
|
178w
|
183w
|
1.03
|
138bpm
|
159bpm
|
While it was
always part of the plan to push harder in the second half, one of the things we
discussed after the first night was while her power numbers on day 1 were
better than she’d ever done, she had stayed in the effort (heart rate) range
that we were targeting and her efficiency factor was lower than it had been in
many of her training rides. So, with the
assumption that the harder swim had negatively affected her ride to some extent,
we discussed that day 2 could likely be ridden as strong or stronger than day 1
and sure enough that panned out. Caroline’s
Efficiency Factor was 1.30 on day 1 and was 1.38 on Day 2 (1.43/1.33 by
half).
On the run
the plan was to start relaxed, keep HR low, and then be able to push the last
30km. After the first two days we knew
that Caroline was in contention for second place, as she was only 16 minutes
behind. Knowing how much the increasing
heat of the day combined with the cumulative pounding of hours on your feet
factors into the difficulty of the second marathon, it was super important to
keep the perceived exertion low in particular.
It’s
impossible to give exact splits for the half marathons, but they were fairly
even and all between 2:19:30-2:22:30; the other statistics by quarter are
listed below as well as peak pace data:
Avg/max HR
|
Cadence
|
Pace
|
Elevation +/-
|
|
First 13.1 miles
21 km |
131/147
|
84
|
10:39 per mile
6:37 per km |
350/360 feet
106/109m |
Second 13.1 miles
21 km |
138/154
|
84
|
10:41 per mile
6:38 per km |
450/460 feet
137/140m |
Third 13.1 miles
21 km |
143/158
|
84
|
10:48 per mile
6:42 per km |
300/330 feet
91/100m |
Fourth 13.1 miles
21 km |
142/166
|
83
|
10:54 per mile
6:46 per km |
190/130 feet
58/40m |
1/2 mile
800m |
1 mile
1600m |
5km
|
Half marathon
|
Marathon
|
50km
|
|
Peak Pace
|
8:56/mile
5:33/km |
9:13/mile
5:43/km |
9:50/mile
6:06/km |
10:18/mile
6:24/km |
10:40/mile
6:37/km |
10:39/mile
6:36/km |
Location
|
Finish
|
mile 39
km 63 |
mile 14-17
km 22-27 |
mile 5-18
km 8-29 |
mile 0-26
km 0-42 |
mile 10-41
km 16-66 |
Those peak
paces include the third faster all-time Half marathon, best ever marathon, and
only 50km. What is interesting to note
is the faster pace for the 50km split vs. the marathon, and that there is a
significant separation between where the two occurred. There were walk breaks throughout, by design,
except for near the end when outside factors started to become
overwhelming. Caroline had been
experiencing patella pain starting 5 miles into the Day 2 bike and ½ mile into
the run. We got her a strap to put on
her knee around 3 hours into the day, and that helped for a while. By the time the effort of the day and a
blister situation developed in the last hour of the run, motivation waned and
walking became a bit more frequent. But
this was really relegated to miles 47.5-51.5.
If we look at the run a little differently, we can see how the day
really developed:
Avg/max HR
|
Cadence
|
Pace
|
|
First 34 miles/
First 55km |
136/154
|
84
|
10:47 per mile
6:42 per km |
Miles 34-47.5
Km's 55-76 |
146/158
|
84
|
10:26 per mile
6:28 per km |
Miles 47.5-51.5
Km's 76-83 |
136/147
|
80
|
11:54 per mile
7:23 per km |
Last .9 miles
Last 1500m |
150/166
|
88
|
9:03 per mile
5:37 per km |
Breaking
things down that way, really shows how well she executed the plan. The first 34 miles/55 km is relatively relaxed by
HR, and based on her feedback throughout her perceived exertion was low for at
least 25 miles but certainly rose following that mark. However, as we discussed when I started
pacing at mile 34, her HR was low, she wasn’t overheating, and her leg muscles
felt good enough to push – I reminded her that perceived exertion was higher
simply because she was at a point she had never been before. She didn’t necessarily feel like she could go
harder but recognized she could based on the metrics. So we broke things up into smaller chunks
(1/2 mile/800m to 2 mile/3km intervals at 915-945 per mile/ 545-6:00 per km pace with 60 second walk breaks) and
that worked for a long time. It’s not
easy to push from that far out – it takes extreme mental strength and
confidence. And she accumulated a lot of
mileage in that last 30km at that faster pace.
Because she was willing to push like that and because she was willing to
push again over the final mile we can really see how things could have been
different over miles 47.5-51.5/ Km's 76-83, and how she can probably maintain that as a
steady effort the next time, which will inform our training strategy and goals
when that time comes around.
