swimming does not really translate to running, no even the base. I was a 15.20 1500 LC freestyler, a 8.04 800, a 3.51 400, and I run a 2.45, (I am 150% sure i was a far superior swimmer than you). I call bs on your times.
Without all that swimming you'd have run 3:05. I call BS on any long, sustained aerobic work not translating to other aerobic endeavors
Agreed, I just don't see the logic of how it doesn't translate. Yes your muscles/tendons are not being developed for running specific use, but fitness is fitness and your organs don't care if they get aerobic stimulus from swimming or running.
You said you were in your 20s, yet u claim to have two decades of swimming training. Like I said, BS
I'm mid 20s, swam and played water polo competitively from 5-20. Threw in a couple extra years cause I was swimming since I was a toddler...slight embellishment. Hence the 'almost 2 decades'.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Waterpolo does not build base. Does not even translate to proper swimming, only some specific sprinting cases because of raw power such as JW Krumpholz who played for team USA in Beijing and was an above average hs swimmer, but not great (his father was). So your age group swimming did not create base. I know what a great base in swimming is, and I know what it takes to run a sub 2.30 (from ppl I train with), and your training, plus your 5k, 10, and half do not really add up, so if you did pull it off, it is not because of your swimmer base, that is a fact. And i also wonder your motivation in creating this thread, in comparison, when i went 15.20 which for nonswimmers to understand would prob be like running a sub 2.10, i certainly did not go and create a post saying how easy it was.
Waterpolo does not build base. Does not even translate to proper swimming, only some specific sprinting cases because of raw power such as JW Krumpholz who played for team USA in Beijing and was an above average hs swimmer, but not great (his father was). So your age group swimming did not create base. I know what a great base in swimming is, and I know what it takes to run a sub 2.30 (from ppl I train with), and your training, plus your 5k, 10, and half do not really add up, so if you did pull it off, it is not because of your swimmer base, that is a fact. And i also wonder your motivation in creating this thread, in comparison, when i went 15.20 which for nonswimmers to understand would prob be like running a sub 2.10, i certainly did not go and create a post saying how easy it was.
IT IS NOT, AND I CALL BS ON YOU KID
Fair enough, like I said believe what you want. You are definitely a more qualified swimmer than me, so well done.
As for motivation, I like running and talking about. Also, as I said previously I have benefited from the training logs and advice on here so thought I'd contribute.
I think we are at an impasse, so I'll call it here and respectfully disagree.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
Waterpolo does not build base. Does not even translate to proper swimming, only some specific sprinting cases because of raw power such as JW Krumpholz who played for team USA in Beijing and was an above average hs swimmer, but not great (his father was). So your age group swimming did not create base. I know what a great base in swimming is, and I know what it takes to run a sub 2.30 (from ppl I train with), and your training, plus your 5k, 10, and half do not really add up, so if you did pull it off, it is not because of your swimmer base, that is a fact. And i also wonder your motivation in creating this thread, in comparison, when i went 15.20 which for nonswimmers to understand would prob be like running a sub 2.10, i certainly did not go and create a post saying how easy it was.
IT IS NOT, AND I CALL BS ON YOU KID
15:20 for 1500 LCM is more like ~2:14/15 Mary. You have very good high end D1 swim times, in line with a very advanced hobby swimmer. The OP is enthusiastic about his time and probably wanted to peacock a little. Don’t be so upset that your swimming base didn’t translate to times akin to OP. You’re probably much more muscular/heavier, chill out
Yes shoes were the biggest issue for us. Races and training in waffle trainers until Nike came out with the Mariah’s in 1980. They were a game changer but still pale in comparison to today’s shoes. Although one of my friends sold his race shoes a couple of years ago (Nike Moon Shoes) for $13K. That maybe made up for the lost toenails:-)
FYI….pro triathletes run 28 minutes for 10k off the bike, 1:06 half’s and 2:26 marathons. Alex Yee Gold medal winner in triathlon just ran a 2:06 marathon.
There it is OP! 2 decades of high level swimming takes you out of the same pool as a non-talented runner who only runs who probably would struggle to get to their potential (or anywhere close to 225) off of low mileage. It's still crazy to progress past your short distance PBs in this cycle, but high quality + staying healthy + swimming background explains it a little more.
You probably have the potential to earn your pro triathlon card with 1-2 years of real biking. Mid-pack swim & run (@ pro level/would dominate local races) could keep you in the middle. Something to think about. Or finding a way to stay healthy + get in more volume to keep lowering your marathon.
Totally agree NER. Anyone who built a base from a different sport in their youth has a humongous advantage. Gjert Ingebrigtsen also thinks this is the case (attached).
I have done some biking in the past and my FTP was ~4.1 W/kg. The swimming would be trivial. I am being cocky here, but really for anyone who has a swimming background the swim paces for 70.3 or full ironman are easy (this is not true for Olympic distance, much more competitive).
The main thing holding me back from triathlon training is the time commitment. Much easier to dedicate comparatively less time to running than adding swim + bike with a full time job. Triathlon is also much more expensive.
Like much of this thread, would give some light push back (as a back of pack pro swimmer with no swimming background) that 70.3/140.6 racing isn't whatever the old stereotypes tell you it is. Connor Weaver is a good athlete to look up. Swim background. High level college runner. Swims mid-pack, & I would argue that's the reason his run doesn't matter much even on the domestic circuit. Swimming would not be trivial if you can't make the front pack & then bleed more time on the bike. Everyone thinks it's easy until they try it. Even guys like Simon Shi don't lead out every swim & probably work a little too hard to stay up there, affecting their bike/run. Totally agree about the time commitment, but part of what led me to triathlon was trying to get through running injuries that wouldn't go away. You can still run at a very high level on 3-5 runs/week if you're willing to train properly in all 3 disciplines.
swimming does not really translate to running, no even the base. I was a 15.20 1500 LC freestyler, a 8.04 800, a 3.51 400, and I run a 2.45, (I am 150% sure i was a far superior swimmer than you). I call bs on your times.
Without all that swimming you'd have run 3:05. I call BS on any long, sustained aerobic work not translating to other aerobic endeavors
Yeah I tend to agree. We know nothing about your run training & how optimized the 2:45 was. In a vacuum, 2:45 is a great time for a swimmer, and pretty much anyone for that matter. You look like a D1 swimmer. A lot of D1 swimmers try triathlon after college because they're looking for something to keep them going. Plus it feels good to lead out a local tri. 2:45 doesn't really tell me if you could've been decent at short course or long course. Maybe it would've been easier to train speed than run an open marathon. Maybe you just needed to train more or train differently. Maybe you could've put together enough of a swim/bike that a 1:20ish 70.3 run would still get you your pro card. I would say 2:45, if done off of limited training/leaning on your swim background, shows some level of decent endurance. I agree that the sports are different. Swimming is crazy technical. I'm impressed with Mantz swimming 1:30s/1:40s without a swim background, but real swimmers would laugh at that, & Mantz might find out if he did 10x100 w./ full rest he really wouldn't be able to go much faster. Kind of the reverse example of yours. 1:30s/40s isn't bad off of nothing. If Mantz trained for it he could probably get to mid-pack level. Could be true to your situation too, without knowing a lot more.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
Obviously your talent does not run to common sense, intelligence or indeed modesty.
This is one sentence on this thread that I agree with. I've been reading this thread from early on, and I've found virtually everything that the original poster has said -- including his heading for the thread -- incredibly annoying.
FYI….pro triathletes run 28 minutes for 10k off the bike, 1:06 half’s and 2:26 marathons. Alex Yee Gold medal winner in triathlon just ran a 2:06 marathon.
And? OP could snag his pro card in two months if he wanted to train 15 hours a week to do it. I'm not saying he's going to beat Alex Yee, but he could certainly be a pro triathlete if he wanted to. And he would be a lot better at triathlon than he is at running. No women would beat him, and certainly no 40-something women. But he doesn't want to, so it's a moot point.
Obviously your talent does not run to common sense, intelligence or indeed modesty.
This is one sentence on this thread that I agree with. I've been reading this thread from early on, and I've found virtually everything that the original poster has said -- including his heading for the thread -- incredibly annoying.
Haha. 15 hours per week might get you on an age group podium if you find a weak field but is a long ways from getting a pro card. Even the back of the pack pros are training 25 to 30 hours, can swim 1:05 per 100m reps, bike close to 28 miles per hour for 56 miles and run a sub 1:20 half off the bike. And oh BTW….that’s the women:-)
You're obviously very talented. That's a great time with such low volume.
I get the impression you didn't run in HS or college. You've got enough talent you would have likely been competing for a state title in HS, possibly all-American in college.
The improvement curve gets extremely steep as you approach the US OTQ standard. You'll likely need to work your way above 100 miles/wk to sniff that mark.
Haha. 15 hours per week might get you on an age group podium if you find a weak field but is a long ways from getting a pro card. Even the back of the pack pros are training 25 to 30 hours, can swim 1:05 per 100m reps, bike close to 28 miles per hour for 56 miles and run a sub 1:20 half off the bike. And oh BTW….that’s the women:-)
I've qualified for my pro license multiple times at no more than 15 hours per week and I'm not nearly as good at running or experienced in swimming as the OP. Of course I would be pack fodder in the pro ranks, but still, it's not that hard for a 2:25 marathoner with a swimming background, I assure you.
You're obviously very talented. That's a great time with such low volume.
I get the impression you didn't run in HS or college. You've got enough talent you would have likely been competing for a state title in HS, possibly all-American in college.
The improvement curve gets extremely steep as you approach the US OTQ standard. You'll likely need to work your way above 100 miles/wk to sniff that mark.
Thanks!
No running in HS or college. Played some field sports though, rugby for example. I also recall doing one XC race in elementary school when I was around 10 years old, but that's it. Went on my first run (as an adult) during the pandemic.
Yes for sure, I do not expect improvements to come nearly as easily in the future. Can absolutely guarantee I will never improve even close to 16 min again.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
So NERunner you think volume is the best way to improve in my case?
I am doing a 5/10k block first half of 2026 to get my PRs to match my marathon PR, then a Fall marathon block.
Not necessarily. If you've had injury problems in the past then there's an argument that this training works well for you. I could easily have someone running 100mpw going for the same or a slightly faster time doing less quality than you did. I just think 2:25 off of 70ish mpw (not 1:1 because you said you've done more in the past) leaves plenty of room for improvement. That improvement could come from the same structure. It could come by adding in more volume. I'm training for triathlon now & I had coaching in 23/24 from a top-end pro & I could say the training looked similar enough, in triathlon terms, to your run block. I was doing 12-15 hours/week, down from my 18-22+ norm, but the quality was through the roof -- hard stuff in almost every session. I'm back to self-coaching & am working through more of a hybrid approach. I find I do better off of higher volume. I'm keeping in workouts I like. The high intensity was wearing me down & I always felt cooked heading into races. Taper weeks were hard, always with shorter, but even higher, intensity. I was fit but didn't feel like I could put it together for races. I wouldn't consider myself talented. I had better results this past season, but, again, who knows maybe I'm still getting the benefits of all the quality I got in the prior 2 years. Maybe that's right for you.
Fwiw I think CIM is 100% legit. Honest front half. Runnable last 10k if you get there with legs. It's not the kind of course where you get 5-10min by showing up. Maybe 1-2min if it's a good weather day & you nail pacing/hydration. You seem to have something figured out. 2:25 is crazy fast compared to everything else. Bold to go after 2:30 & then negative split off of 1:14 to a half PB. Your 2:25 is worth 15-flat/31-flat to mid. Kind of wild to outperform at the marathon by 1+ min to your 5k. So I would say you have talent/can keep going in the sport. Just be smart with whatever you pick. If you want to add mileage think about reducing intensity. If health has been a problem think about cross training 1-2 times/week to add in an easy double. You don't just have to start running 120mpw, but if you can get to 100+ mpw healthy over the next few years I wouldn't limit yourself with what is possible. Why not chase down an OTQ. I like focusing on your speed now. Get even faster than 15/31 & you can continue knocking down your marathon PB.
& I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. Your result is super strong. I don't think the lesson/framing is for everyone on threads like this, & it sounds like that wasn't the intent anyways.
Agree here with what NER said. I was pretty close to OPs mileage when I ran 2:28 at Boston but that was due to my injury history and staying fairly conservative. I got up to 80-90 for about the next year and a half and got my PR down to 2:19 at CIM.
The thing I found most trouble with up until that Boston 22 was reeling things in. After a big breakthrough the next thought was well 5 minutes more and it let to overdoing it and setbacks. Only reason I chased an OTQ the following year was I closed Chicago in sub 70, otherwise I would've continued to keep it a little safe. Post 2:19 I've learned that my body doesn't react well to high intensity but is okay with volume.
100+ Miles a week doesn't have to come right away (heck I did my first 100 mile week this block). Make adjustments, not massive changes and see how the body reacts. I think at the very least a sub 2:20 is there. Who knows how fast you can go, especially with your swimming background and taking to running fairly easy.