Yeah, but that just renders it entirely pointless - you might as just well say you need to go sub 10 hours, run a 3:15 marathon or whatever it is, that’s absolutely no point complicating it by introducing another thing that just averages out the average kona qualifier being a 70kg male with a 170 max heart rate etc.
He’s not really saying that.
He’s saying that in athletes who qualified for Kona, their annual EF in the year leading up to qualification was x.xx
Not that you need to run at EF x.xx to get a slot.
He also mentions that if you train 1000+ hours in a year, you’ll probably qualify.
But you can do it off “just” 628 hours.
Failing to recognise that the people coming to him are on the cusp of qualification anyhow, so it’s somewhat skewed.
1 Like
1000 hours is crazy training volume, almost 3 hours per day. Last year, I manages 867 hours, and that was a big step up from 605 hours in 2019 and 577 hours in 2018. So far in 2021 I am pretty similar to 2020 training volume.
2 Likes
He does say that for many getting to those of hours involves training camps that elevated their annual volume.
ETA: I know I couldn’t get anywhere near that and stay married.
3 Likes
He is playing a bit fast and loose with his numbers, and something doesn’t stack up
Training 1000 hours per year is approx 3 hourse per day
He says that people train with an IF of 0.7
If this were true, the KQ athletes would have a CSS of around 210… This is way higher than one would expect. I read a TP article last year, about a Pro Cyclists, preparing for TdF, who reached a peak CSS of 170
It’s basically a metric for what we’re already doing in this thread.
If we can run 10km quicker, at a lower heart rate (personal HR factors included), our “efficiency factor” goes up. Except that TP might take into account the gradient of our various routes.
1 Like
Just had a look at my EF numbers, not looked at them before
Bike indoors EF: 2.14, 2.21, 2.09, 2.34
Bike Outdoors EF: 2.01, 1.90, 1.71, 1.89
Run Indoors EF: 1.65, 1.69, 1.57, 1.66
Run Outdoors EF: 1.69, 1.58, 1.5, 1.67
So what can I conclude from this? My indoor riding seems to have a slightly higher EF than out door riding. This maybe because my outdoor rides are much longer and tend to be at a lower intensity. My running EF is pretty much the same indoors or outdoors, I guess because I run a similar distance, and run at a similar intensity
All of my EF nunbers are well above those quoted by Alan Couzens, so I am probably in the right ballpark where I need to be
1 Like
I suspect not so much from the absolute values because you already know your triathlon performance, but more from the trend as per the TP article: as the number increases it indicates improving fitness.
Mine is 1.67-1.78 on the bike but a miserly ~1.03 on the run 
@joex I got good on the bike first, then run followed, I suspect you will see the same.
The game changer for me with running was building up a level of run fitness to the point that I can put in decent mileage. 2 years ago I struggled to run consistently much more than 30-40km, otherwise I would get injured. Last year I was up to 45-55km regularly, this year I am maintaining 70km per week
However, you can still run a very respectable Marathon off running 40km per week.
1 Like
Still on garden leave then 
1 Like
Just waiting for new contract
1 Like
You ride at low cadence indoors don’t you? If so that would lead to a lower HR for the same Watts IIRC.
Running Hills also screws your Run EF because it is based on Yards per Minute. When I run outdoors I often run hills
What’s CSS?
I assume you mean CTL?
Training for 1000hrs per year is 9856secs per day, on average.
Which at an IF of 0.7 would equate to a TSS of 191 daily.
CTL is just really the average of the last 42 days of TSS, so probably be 191.
BUT he also mentions that a lot of the training is achieved via Training Camps.
So that’s where the “extra” hours are coming from 
For his “average” qualifiers
71 hours per month
850 hours per year
That’s 8377seconds per day, at an IF of 0.72 (which is what he quotes for qualifiers) gives a TSS of 168, which isn’t a million miles away from yours. Add a taper into that and you can see how they’d be going into Kona with a CTL of around the 150 mark.
1 Like
Me too, although different sorts of hills to you, here in West Yorkshire the only flat to run on is the canal tow paths.
Terrain as well. These things are all geared up for flat tarmac pounding.
Nah, it’s based on the Normalised Graded Pace yards/minute, so if NGP is accurate, hills are irrelevant to it.
1 Like
Too many TLAs, yes, I mean CTL
1 Like
Thanks, the definition I found was just average pace, not NGP, but makes more sense