I have a friend. He ran 400m and later went to cycling. Now he can easily ride 100km at good speed and is getting medals in amateur races, but he still struggles to run 5km under 25min.
I have a friend. He ran 400m and later went to cycling. Now he can easily ride 100km at good speed and is getting medals in amateur races, but he still struggles to run 5km under 25min.
because wrote:
just pointing out the obvious here wrote:
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. You have obviously never done any bike racing.
1. That's an unwarranted assumption.
2. 4 miles on bike is considered roughly equivalent to a mile of running by some people but 4 HOURS of cycling is drastically more than running for one. You can ride 70 or 80 miles in that time. That's worth far beyond a 7-10 mile run.
Experiment626 wrote:
Talent.
yes Talent but i think you gotta put the definition of "so fast" in perspective. a one-size-fits-all approach to volume training will surely benefit a large percentage of above-average athletes up to say the "fast" definition. but to get to "so fast" i think volume takes a second level of importance, but rather is the internal ability and talent for an athlete to convert a specific higher-level training into higher-level performance (fastest within their elite training group)
lvrhs1992 wrote:
I have a friend. He ran 400m and later went to cycling. Now he can easily ride 100km at good speed and is getting medals in amateur races, but he still struggles to run 5km under 25min.
Height to weight ratio is important both cycling and running.
Percentage of body fat is important both cycling and running.
Strength to weight ratio is important both cycling and running.
I don't know if inseam to height ratio is as important in cycling as in running.
Legs need to be straight up and down, running. Is that important in cycling?
A cyclist gets used to aerobic discomfort near max aerobic state. A cyclist may not be able to relax when running while near max aerobic state.
Pounding of gravity slows runners down as much or more than any other factor. Once an athlete gets used to cycling, pounding of running is difficult.
Sounds like your friend never trained for a 5K
lvrhs1992 wrote:
I have a friend. He ran 400m and later went to cycling. Now he can easily ride 100km at good speed and is getting medals in amateur races, but he still struggles to run 5km under 25min.
Fluid G wrote:
Sounds like your friend never trained for a 5K
lvrhs1992 wrote:
I have a friend. He ran 400m and later went to cycling. Now he can easily ride 100km at good speed and is getting medals in amateur races, but he still struggles to run 5km under 25min.
I can point you at a guy who was running high-18 minute 5K cross country times in high school, but was also competing on world championship teams in junior cycling categories. Running and cycling don't completely correlate.
Yes, he trained for 400m hurdles. But now he has very good endurance when cycling. But when running longer, he is still as bad as before when he was sprinter.
Talent
Few are getting the point of OP's post.
I'm very ignorant about physiology, but I suspect the reasons are as follows:
1. Limited general aerobic fitness crossover between endurance sports. Ex: Most overestimate the importance of general aerobic fitness in their respective sport.
2. Runners are simply less aerobically fit than cyclists or other high volume aerobic sports.
3. Running impact breaks down the body, so optimal training is much less.
Empirically, you see triathletes getting fairly close to elite long distance runners. It may turn out to be that some amount of cross-training is very slightly better than 100% running for long distance running performance, in some people.
tribike wrote:
I was watching the coffee club episode with Ben Flanagan, and he said that he ran a 61:48 off of 70mpw. That's probably under 8 hours of aerobic work a week. In any other endurance sport, that low of volume would be unthinkable! E.g. in XC skiing in the US, you need 600-700 hours to be competitive at the college level (and that is an extremely low level relative to the world stage).
How does one achieve aerobic development on such low volume? Do you substitute with a lot more threshold runs / intervals?
You can't train genetics.
Also, if you don't have perfect form, the more you run the more you're lock in that bad form.
Running 100 miles a week is a basically a waste of time if your form isn't on point.
Maybe Ben Flanagan understands the importance of week-after-week of 70 miles is way more important than a few 100 mile weeks and getting injured? Even the runners who top out at 100-120 miles per week build to that many miles. They are not running full seasons at that mileage. Some runners can also take the mileage easier than others.
Keys to success:
1. Run a lot.
2. Stay consistent.
3. Listen to your body.
4. Avoid injury.
5. Hit key workouts.
General aerobic fitness mostly crosses over (that's what general means) but the mechanics of the movement does not.
The main points here seem to be 1) that running is most intense and hardest on the body. Thus alternative training etc. for some injury prone runners. 2) that the long hours or low impact sports like cycling and swimming are mostly spend completely aerobic whereas runners (especially for track as opposed to marathon) use quite a bit of threshold and anaerobic training.
3) mechanics, form and anatomy (slim lanky build) is more important for runners. Or to put it the other way round, swimmers, cyclists, skiers can afford to be heavier because there weight is supported, they are gliding etc.
just pointing out the obvious here wrote:
because wrote:
Yes it does. You have obviously never done any bike racing.
1. That's an unwarranted assumption.
2. 4 miles on bike is considered roughly equivalent to a mile of running by some people but 4 HOURS of cycling is drastically more than running for one. You can ride 70 or 80 miles in that time. That's worth far beyond a 7-10 mile run.
Honestly it's really not. I've trained and raced both cycling and running and running. I can ride for much longer than 70 or 80 miles and really push myself and do it again next day and the next. It's really not harder than running 70 to 100 miles per week.
What he probably means is that he ran 100+ mpw during his base period but during his racing season he was at 70 mpw.
JBaller33 wrote:
Maybe Ben Flanagan understands the importance of week-after-week of 70 miles is way more important than a few 100 mile weeks and getting injured? Even the runners who top out at 100-120 miles per week build to that many miles. They are not running full seasons at that mileage. Some runners can also take the mileage easier than others.
Keys to success:
1. Run a lot.
2. Stay consistent.
3. Listen to your body.
4. Avoid injury.
5. Hit key workouts.
Genetics. That's literally it. Every superstar runner has parents or relatives that were also extremely talented athletes, or would've been if had become involved in sport.
Speed/quality over volume. More than one way to get to the target. What did Lagat run per week?
Oh yeah, and talent.
JBaller33 wrote:
Maybe Ben Flanagan understands the importance of week-after-week of 70 miles is way more important than a few 100 mile weeks and getting injured? Even the runners who top out at 100-120 miles per week build to that many miles. They are not running full seasons at that mileage. Some runners can also take the mileage easier than others.
Keys to success:
1. Run a lot.
2. Stay consistent.
3. Listen to your body.
4. Avoid injury.
5. Hit key workouts.
Well gosh golly! You're hired!
Avoid injury......injuries aren't cars driving towards you and you just jump out of the way. 2 and 4 intersect waaaay too much. I really hope you don't coach people.
No his highest week in recent time was 89 or so
Dr. Rick. wrote:
JBaller33 wrote:
Maybe Ben Flanagan understands the importance of week-after-week of 70 miles is way more important than a few 100 mile weeks and getting injured? Even the runners who top out at 100-120 miles per week build to that many miles. They are not running full seasons at that mileage. Some runners can also take the mileage easier than others.
Keys to success:
1. Run a lot.
2. Stay consistent.
3. Listen to your body.
4. Avoid injury.
5. Hit key workouts.
Well gosh golly! You're hired!
Avoid injury......injuries aren't cars driving towards you and you just jump out of the way. 2 and 4 intersect waaaay too much. I really hope you don't coach people.
To be honest, it's amazing what injuries or pain some athletes will push themselves through, only to make it worse. Avoiding injuries takes conscious decisions to ease off, which is actually pretty hard to do.
cramister wrote:
https://www.strava.com/pros/41161380#interval?interval=202202&interval_type=week&chart_type=miles&year_offset=0No his highest week in recent time was 89 or so
QFE.
Looking at his Strava he was in the 75-80 mpw range with several weeks over 80. On the podcast he said "75-80 miles per week." Another key point that he said was that he had run higher mileage at Michigan earlier but either got hurt or didn't run to his potential. Lowering his mileage allowed him to be consistent and allow his talent to show. There are a ton of top distance runners that are running "only" 80-90 miles per week these days. It's a lot easier to crank 80+ miles per week each week than it is to do 100's. Mileage in the 80's also keeps you a bit fresher and I think there is something to this that allows you to better absorb the training.