Literally no idea if that’s good 
Had 2.03 for a hard 5km and 2.04 for today’s heavy leg run 
Alan Couzens references that you need at least 1.5 for the IM marathon for a KQ.
Imagine how well you would do with light legs?
1 Like
Interesting.
I’ve had a look back to lockdown 1 and can’t find a steady run with anything less than 1.80
Christmas Day 1:32 HM was 1.96
This year have all been 2.00 +/- 5
3 Likes
I just took a look at my EF and all this week is above 3. What does it actually mean?
Edit: I read the TP article and it talks about using NGP. I noticed im more around 1.75 if im not wearing my HRM so I wonder if its does something weird with running power when using the HRM?
Just reading the blog from Couzens
Had to chuckle at the EF for the bike
1.69
I had 2.46 for the TTT yesterday and 2.16 for an easy hour today, so I’m gonna take it with a piece of salt
2 Likes
Found it!
You need to have the running set on RUN TSS and not HR TSS, so I’ve now got some EF values.
Seem to be around 1.6 for me. Bike is around 1.8.
Is it Pretty meaningless and just another number to ignore?
Normalised Graded Pace = NGP
Normalized Graded Speed = NGS
- NGP = 7.5 min per mile
- NGS = 60 ÷ 7.5
- NGS = 8 mph
- Yards/Minute = 234.7 (1760 yards x 8 ÷ 60)
- Avg HR = 150
- EF = 234.7 ÷ 150
- EF = 1.56
So, people with a lower operating HR will naturally have a higher EF.
For @itom150 to have an EF of ~3 would mean his runs this week at 7:30/mile would be done at a HR of 79bpm 
Couzens KQ blog here:
Think I’ve read that before, but once again there a good few standouts in that article (for me!)
The “you can’t starve yourself to a slot” and the sheer amount of hours required
2 Likes
I’d say so, yes. It clearly leans towards a particular physiology. Mine were mostly below 1.5, granted I’m nowhere near a KQ athlete (!), but as a solo runner I’m OK (when fit). It doesn’t take terrain or hills into account properly either. Those gap things are terribly rough as well.
2 Likes
I think it might be meaningful, if it’s trainable? Which I guess is the same as the 10km challenge in this thread.
So if Alan Couzens reckons you need an efficiency factor of at least 1.5 for an IM marathon to qualify for Kona, and your last couple of IM marathons were run at an efficiency factor of 1.3, you know you have some work to do
I guess then the question would be how to develop a higher efficiency factor- how much is just a set part of your physiology like your height or hair colour (although that said I’m currently working hard on changing hair colour from mouse to white & doing ok)
I am with @fruit_thief. Currently I am at around 1.1 to 1.15 for my running as I have been back running 5-6 wks having barely ran since May last year. When doing ‘normal’ ticking over running I am about 1.2 to 1.25 but then as I start training for something it goes up and I nudged 1.4 in build up to the Outlaw but that run was 1.3x. On the bike too the fitter I get the more Watts per bpm I can push. Whether getting to those specific values mean you KQ I have no idea but he will be looking at the athletes he coaches that do.
3 Likes
It’s just something that will have an obvious correlation, but the causation is somewhere else.
No-one can run a fast enough IM marathon to qualify without having a high efficiency, since the max heart rates across the population are pretty fixed - there’s not someone who can a marathon at 200bpm to make up, and anyone doing it at a low heart rate in a normal range with a low efficiency won’t run it fast enough.
And of course it’s trainable (run faster for the same heart rate, your efficiency improves!) but there’s absolutely no point looking at efficiency for that, your pace alone has answered the question of if you’re fitter…
3 Likes
I stopped paying for TP as I felt the advanced metrics weren’t worth it or tell you anything meaningful
Take the decoupling number
Had -1.69% last night
1 Like
Sheet updated with efficiency factor
2 Likes
It does seem a weird metric
Just done an interval session with very hard 1 minute efforts
Still gives me 1.88
1 Like
I don’t think it is of value for intervals session as a whole, especially for short intervals. For longer intervals, maybe for the intervals themselves to see how efficient you are at that intensity.
Yards per minute? 
bloody Americans…
I guess this is similar to the cycling power to HR calculation. Performance divided by effort?
1 Like
Maryka age group win and KQ with 1.38 - in the lab she is a very inefficient runner.
(efficiency defined there as pace per oxygen consumption)
She is a very strong cyclist though isn’t she? Alan suggests you want a bike leg of 1.7 to go with the 1.5 run.
She very much won it on the run, fastest age group run split, and was quite down to others on the bike. Now obviously it’s an IM so it’s about putting everything together and relative intensity on the bike I’m sure would have played a part, but you don’t win it on the bike at 52kg’s unless you’re a training partner of Spooner’s.
Is bike efficiency:
We get this number by dividing your output (power or pace) by your input (your heart rate).
In which case Maryka had 1.07 (but I struggle a bit to see how you can say 1.7 when it’s so dominated by weight, training peaks says you can’t compare it?
Did a capped half marathon today with 1000mtrs climb, it meant running up & down a hill 5 times. I did the same run in June last year when I was 5 mins faster overall & my ave HR was 131 compared to today’s 137, so work to do 
21/02 64:31 @ 136 with 560mtrs climb & 63:12 @ 139 with 440mtrs climb, good conds
5 Likes
Just checked and the numbers quoted are for average male so unlikely to fit light female. In fairness to Alan he’s saying have these values and you will but they are just one metric to add to the picture. I agree, you wouldn’t compare run efficiency with that of the bike but I don’t think anyone did.