if high mileage is so important, how are elite triathletes running 30 low?

Here's one source:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/triathlon/oeph1.htm

Week 4 of phase 1 reads something like this:

M: bike 3 hours, swim 40 minutes

T: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

W: run 60 min, bike 3 hours

T: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

F: run 60 min, swim 40 min

S: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

S: rest

Taken to the extreme I could see some elite guys running an hour, cycling 3 hours, and swimming half an hour a day.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Here's one source:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/triathlon/oeph1.htm

Week 4 of phase 1 reads something like this:

M: bike 3 hours, swim 40 minutes

T: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

W: run 60 min, bike 3 hours

T: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

F: run 60 min, swim 40 min

S: run 60 min, bike 3 hours, swim 40 min

S: rest

Taken to the extreme I could see some elite guys running an hour, cycling 3 hours, and swimming half an hour a day.

Alan

Thanks for the research alan. That schedule works out to 5 hours of running a week. At an average pace of 6:00 min/mi that is only 50 miles a week. So I guess what mystifies me is that fact that triathletes don't appear to lose aerobic ability (evidenced by fast 10k time) even though they clearly are not out running tons of slow, aerobic miles.

jamesey wrote:

Well first of all 30 low is shit.

Let me say this nicely - f*** you.

i am by no means a tri or running stud, and have done a 2:34 open marathon and 9:47 Ironman. for the IM, my weekly running mileage maxed at 45 miles. its all about efficiency. running 7:10-7:30 miles in an IM marathon wasn't at all the hard part for me. I spent more energy in my training on swimming and biking which are my far weaker disciplines.

That doesn't mean actual triathletes don't run more. That's just the "elite" schedule on Brainmac. I haven't looked, but I'm sure their "elite" schedule for runners is something like 60 miles. That's why I took what Brainmac has to say and concluded that actual triathletes might partake in a 60 minute run every day, which would bring their total up to 63 miles a week. We could then guess that they'll be doing either a long run or a long ride on the weekends, so that bumps the running total up another hour and gets them over 70 miles. You could also guess that some will only cycle for 2 hours instead of 3. Three hours is a long way, like 60-75 miles. If you're training for a race that includes an hour of cycling I'd say knock your cycling down to 2 hours a day. Now, you can raise your running to 60-90 minutes a day. Those are my thoughts.

Alan

You don't have to do high mileage running, but you do have to do large amounts of endurance activities like biking, swimming, aquajogging, or ellitpical. I think biking & swimming do the most for you.

To run fast you still have to consistently do moderate quantities of fast running though.

Example: Right now I bike 150mi+ per week and wun 3 5mi tempo runs per week and ran a 15:38 5k last week. I haven't run more than 20mi/wk in 6 months. The biking is quality too.

in the book i read of some sportsman (see other topic) i saw van lierde training most of the year 45 kilometers or exacctly 30miles a week as base training at heart rate 130 or 14 km/hour. And yes those guys are talented every guy at the top of his talented. He was swimming exceptional already before he went to triathlon. He wasnt to far of an olympic ticket in the 200 IM (so the one switching styles). That shows talent already.

not a tri geek wrote:

some guys are sub 30 and some are sub 29

http://www.latriathlon.com/Results/04LATResults/olympic.htm

The part about the results that I found interesting was that somehow according to someone who can't do math, 28:46 is 4:48 pace, when it's actually 69's or 4:36 pace. 70's, or 4:40 pace is 29:10, so something here is screwed up.

There's a lot of BS going on in this thread.

I personally know 2 elite triathletes, and they both train in the neighborhood of 120-150k a week of RUNNING. Combined with 30k of swimming and 300k of cycling. It's a time consuming sport.

The faith of the less talented (i am sure there are many other cyclists doeing the hours of work lance did) and the ones who arent getting a follow up every month or so. + because some only run 30 miles a week doesnt mean they arent doeing a thing van lierde also went on the bike 300 - 350 km/week and swam 20 - 25 km/week at 1:42 pace so that i almost 90 minutes swimming every day with some breaks in it. Then a 2 hour bike ride followed by a 42 minute run.

So except for the running those numbers match with those (recreational?) triathletes.

the difference as i told

* raw talent

* great follow up.Luc gets lactate tests done.He has docters

as any otehr top triathlete. Maybe he doesnt run as much because he might get injurred whn doeing more?? But his approach seems right on him dont you think.

There aren't any triathletes who are turning in world class running times. They're not unlike decathletes who put in a tremendous amount of training but who spread it over ten events. If a decathlete spent all of his training time on the discus or the high hurdles, he'd turn in performances that are much, much, better than what he does off of decathlon training. The same holds for your 50 mile a week triathlete. He may be running very nicely off of that mileage, but in almost every case, his running times would be faster if he spent the time he spends swimming and biking on running.

Like I said earlier, I don't know much about tri training. However, I'm wondering if running might not be the best thing for a triathlete to focus on. I'm basing this on a study done in the late '80's by Art Weltman's lab that showed that running improved LT for running and cycling but cycling training only improved LT for cycling. In terms of applying those results you could err on the side of running, sort of like Alan seemed to be suggesting and you'd still be getting some benefit for cycling. Swimming volume probably depends on how good you are already.

the amount an elite triathlete runs is going to depend on his/her strength. most top level elites have a strong swimming background and therefore need to develop their running. the few elite guys..jarrod shoemaker, darin shearer, derek kite, with strong running backgrounds (darin is probably the best example of an triathlete who can run world class times) during base training don't necessarily need to log tons of mileage because they have the years of high mileage in their background.

It's hard for me to believe that a triathlete at the UPPER echelon of the sport is doing less than 300 miles/week cycling and 60 miles/week running. Too much more is probably not required and may be counterproductive, but those seem like the baselines.

not a tri geek wrote:

some guys are sub 30 and some are sub 29

http://www.latriathlon.com/Results/04LATResults/olympic.htm

No way was this a genuine 10km course. Has anyone heard of any triathlete in the history of the sport, who could pull a 28.46 10km time in a one-off race, never mind at the end of a triathlon ?

not a tri geek wrote:

some guys are sub 30 and some are sub 29

http://www.latriathlon.com/Results/04LATResults/olympic.htm

common cents wrote:

The part about the results that I found interesting was that somehow according to someone who can't do math, 28:46 is 4:48 pace, when it's actually 69's or 4:36 pace. 70's, or 4:40 pace is 29:10, so something here is screwed up.

Yeah, take Tri split times with a grain of salt. I am not saying that they are NEVER accurate, but I would say, even for BIG races, they are often very off. I've seen big pro races where the "10K" distance was at leas 1k off. Seriously, I've seen pro race results where they had the winners doing 10k's in 27:xx. And I am sure that some fans out there actually bought that shit.

So, never, never, never read a 10k split time in a Tri and assume its accurate, because probably isn't.

why dont we focus on the point of this thread rather than go into the silly "all triathlons are short" discussion again...

I think the 28:46 proves that at least some tri's are short. These guys are great at what they do and no runner could do what they do but still they do not run as fast as they think. Back when duathlons were big this guy Kenny Souza was winning all the races with ridiculous splits like 29 minute 10k's and then he shows up at Carlsbad one year and gets DFL in the elite race running like 14:36 which is really good but not nearly as good as some of his splits in the run bike run events. Sorry to be silly but the courses are short, short, short.

most oly distance pro's..

swim = 20-25k/week - roughly 1 1/2 h/day 7 days/week..

bike - 5 days/week - 1-4 h..

run - 5/6 days/week - probably 60 min/day.. (avg)

I know the Can national center elites train 7 days/week, with one legs off day, so no biking or running. The simple reason they can run so fast is a) either from a running background (Jarrod S, Simon W, Hunter K) or they do enough biking that the running they do put in is fairly high quality, and biking 300-400k/week takes care of the rest of the aerobic development.