Why Do Distance Runners Hate Triathletes?

And you somehow have less respect for those who lack natural talent and put in the proper training to compensate?

That's so sad.

good thread wrote:

the swimming part requires the most time spent being learned. Does that mean it's the toughest? I dunno. Therefore, those who spend their entire childhood/high school/college swimming and then pick up biking and running later on have the upper hand over those of us who are runners or bikers first and then attempt to swim competitively.

True. I was a swimmer from 8-18, and getting into running has been a LOT easier for me than it would be for a runner to get into swimming at this age.

But proportionately, swimming takes up very little of a triathlon, relative to the bike and run. The race is almost never won/lost in the water.

So why do swimmers dominate? It's not swimming skill that makes a swimming background advantageous. It's the fitness. The average high school swimmer is miles ahead of the average high school runner in terms of aerobic development.

I'm not so sure if swimming takes up less time relative to the bike & run in the tri's. I mean these things have been around a while and have evolved into what most people agree are equal sections. And I've seen tri's that were won in the swim for sure.

In fact, the point of my opinion was that the biking and running tend to be a skill that is mastered easier. That is, good athletes can learn to do them efficiently in much less time than they can with swimming. So I'm saying swimming is a skill sport where the other two are purely endurance-oriented.

Therefore, in tri's it's so common that guys lose lots of time in the swim due to mechanics and things of that nature. Probably having very little to do with aerobic fitness, moreso just having trouble adapting to being an efficient swimmer. Whereas in the run and biking, there really isn't any "skill" advantages remaining after guys learn the gears of a bike and get a few months of running in...

High school swimmers miles ahead of high school runners aerobically? psssh. No way. The AVERAGE high school swimmer is fat and couldn't run for 2 miles without stopping. They aren't strong aerobically, they just have a skill mastered.

"So why do swimmers dominate? It's not swimming skill that makes a swimming background advantageous. It's the fitness. The average high school swimmer is miles ahead of the average high school runner in terms of aerobic development."

Unreal. Most of the swimmers at my high school couldn't break 6:30 in the mile (males). They are not more aerobically fit and plus, running, physiologically is a harder stress on the aerobic system than swimming. In fact, according Tinley, at the same HR, swimming burns HALF the calories than running, if done the same amount of time for exercise.

lance chose cycling over triathlon because of the $$$ in cycling. he won $1 million back in the 90s for winning a race series in cycling before his cancer. he is smart enough to know that cycling had much more lucrative opportunities than triathlon ever will.

... wrote:

Only one name needs to be mentioned in this debate: Lance Armstrong! Lance could have dominated triathlons for decades (any distance) but left the sport when he was already making money and was a pro at 16. Why? Because, he recognized that doing one sport was more prestigious and difficult than doing three. He didn't even pick his best sport. Face it triathletes are lesser athletes, everyone knows Lance is the greatest endurance athlete ever and he didn't choose triathlon! Now Lance is a global superstar on the level of Michael Jordan. That would never happen for a triathlete!!!!!!!! Never ever ever. Triathletes are second citizens in the world of sport.

I have to admit that in high school I was too busy playing hockey, getting laid an beating up runners AND swimmers to give two turds about this kind of argument.

But now that I'm a jogger let me put my two cents in Mr. Physiology. Have you ever looked at the differences in weight distribution in your average swimmer and runner? What does Tinley have to say about the differences in %BF. They are two very different sports, one is not innately better than the other.

Just for fun, a shitty HS runner should be able to break 5:15 in the mile? I bet I could find a swimmer that could do this at any HS in my county. Actually, on just about any local competitive age group swim team there would be at least one.

Now pick any HS runner (your choice, but never a competative swimmer) in the country and see if you can get him to do a 1:05 off the wall. A good HS swimmer could do the off the wall all day. No? I didn't think so. They are two different sports, there is no comparison.

To me, the % of body fat differences add to the proof that running is a much more demanding sport, and requires more physically and cardiovascularly. I mean if swimmers were buff studs or something then you could argue they're demanding in different ways. But as it is, the majority of swimmers I've seen (good ones included) are chubby for sure.

I highly doubt that you could find many (if any) swimmers around that could go 5:15 in the mile run, whether that's high school, college, pro, whatever. Unless they run for a team or something also. But off of swimming alone, no way in hell could one come close to that. You obviously don't know mile times. (In high school 5:15 may suck for a senior but it's pretty decent for a freshman, and is unheard of for those not on the track team except for your occasional freak).

Runners can't swim well cos of SKILL. Swimmers can't run well cos of FITNESS.

good thread wrote:

I'm not so sure if swimming takes up less time relative to the bike & run in the tri's. I mean these things have been around a while and have evolved into what most people agree are equal sections. And I've seen tri's that were won in the swim for sure.

Look, I don't care if you're "not so sure." just read the splits from an Olympic or Ironman distance triathlon. The swim is barely ONE EIGHTH of the total time. One CAN NOT win on just that. If you saw someone win on the swim, you saw someone who one on the rest, too.

good thread wrote:

High school swimmers miles ahead of high school runners aerobically? psssh. No way. The AVERAGE high school swimmer is fat and couldn't run for 2 miles without stopping. They aren't strong aerobically, they just have a skill mastered.

Fat? I don't know what swim clubs you're talking about.

If you think swimmers aren't strong aerobically, you don't know one thing about the sport and shouldn't talk about it. Swimmers routinely spend >10 hours per week in practice from the age of 11 onward. If you're not doing 20 per week by 15, you're not serious. I don't see the same of young runners. And swimming, by the nature of it's low impact on the body, allows for MUCH more aerobically difficult training.

Who cares? Ok, cool. But the point, and the ONLY point I was making, is that running builds endurance and the aerobic system faster and better than swimming, all things equal. If you want to burn the same number of calories at an intensity, you must swim double the duration than running. Period.

brettman10k wrote:

In fact, according Tinley, at the same HR, swimming burns HALF the calories than running, if done the same amount of time for exercise.

Haha. Thanks for basically proving my point. This is exactly why swimmers can be as fit as they are, without having to look skinny as death, as I have becoming since the switch to running.

In swimming, it's not at all uncommon to do set like 12 * 200 at 400 pace with <30s rest. (In fact, that was a staple from my teenage days -- nothing at all special for university swimmers). That would represent maybe 1/5 of the daily distance for a given swimmer. Any distance swimmer here will confirm this.

You let me know how many runners you know who are doing 12x800 at mile pace with 30s rest (with that representing only about 1/3 of a single workout), every single day.

I actually prefer running to swimming, by far, but swimmers can put in work that simply wouldn't be feasible in running, because that much running at lactic and anaerobic thresholds is next to impossible without injury.

good thread wrote:

(In high school 5:15 may suck for a senior but it's pretty decent for a freshman, and is unheard of for those not on the track team except for your occasional freak).

Runners can't swim well cos of SKILL. Swimmers can't run well cos of FITNESS.

Wrong. I was a pretty middle-of-the-pack swimmer in high school, and I did a 5:20 in Grade 9, in freaking Airwalk skateboarding shoes, without even knowing how many laps I had to do until the marshall told us on the start line. Fitness was no barrier to me at all, and I have known many swimmers who switched into running and found that to be no problem. See the above post. Really, it's just all of the impact that is hard to get used to.

brettman10k wrote:

running builds endurance and the aerobic system faster and better than swimming, all things equal. If you want to burn the same number of calories at an intensity, you must swim double the duration than running. Period.

STOP EQUATING CALORIE BURNING WITH AEROBIC DEVLOPMENT!

STOP EQUATING CALORIE BURNING WITH AEROBIC DEVLOPMENT!

I'm not. Running for an equal amount of time vs. swimming develops you more aerobically. AND the calorie thing. Clear?

If you did that then you're a freak.

The typical middle school/high school might have one guy who's not on the track team that can go below 6 minute pace, maybe even a couple.

Obviously you're biased some way or another or else you'd admit that swimmers (even the very best) with very few exceptions are chubby. Sure it requires endurance, but it's not the aerobic strength that can automatically be carried over to a run. You keep listing all these workouts. Go do a 20 mile run at 6 min pace or 20 x 400m or 8 x mile or something. Then we'll talk about what's more difficult.

I went to high school with a number of All State swimmers, and a university where the women won the national title multiple years, and the men were consistently top 4 or 5. VAST majority were chubby and absolutely none could do a 5:15 mile, not even close.

webb was a stud swimmer before he ever ran...

Wrong. I was a pretty middle-of-the-pack swimmer in high school, and I did a 5:20 in Grade 9, in freaking Airwalk skateboarding shoes, without even knowing how many laps I had to do until the marshall told us on the start line. Fitness was no barrier to me at all, and I have known many swimmers who switched into running and found that to be no problem. See the above post. Really, it's just all of the impact that is hard to get used to.[/quote]

I just graduated High school. I go to a high school with a decent xc/track program. Won a state title in xc a few years back, and usually have a few low 4:20's mile types. Anyway, we have a stand out swimming program that wins state every 4-5 years and has multiple all-americans who have swam for DI progrmas such as Air force. The guy who went to air force definetly had a little gut. I watched him absolutely bust his balls to get a 6:10 mile in gym class(he wanted the 90%). Another guy, a junior, who was 2nd in the state in the butterfly i believe, apparently tried his best to keep up with one of our slower team members in his gym class this year but couldnt quite manage, and came home right at six minutes. Sorry, but despite how outstanding our swim team is, none of these guys have ever broken 6 minutes(there are many more stories, but i've told enough). Could they be good runners? Maybe. But these all-state, all-american swimmers cant hop on the track and break 6, let alone 5 even as juniors and seniors. Maybe the whole swim team at my schools are exceptions to your rule, but i think your off on this one. PS soccer players are even worse. We won the national high school soccer title a while back, and demolishing the soccer team in the gym class mile was great fun!

good thread wrote:

I went to high school with a number of All State swimmers, and a university where the women won the national title multiple years, and the men were consistently top 4 or 5. VAST majority were chubby and absolutely none could do a 5:15 mile, not even close.

What a moron. Chubby? Are you kidding? Do they weight more than runners? Sure. Your average swimmer could kick a distance's butt into the next zip code, but Chubby? That little statement alone means you're either ignorant or simply lying.

As far as workouts I've done a 20 miler, 20x400, 8xmile (actually it was a 12xmile from the first Book of Running).

I've also done a 2000 warm-up, 20x100 on the 1:30, 500 easy, 10x200 on the 3:15, 500 easy, 10x25 underwater, 500 kick, 2000 cool-down in the pool.

The running workouts were a piece of cake by comparison.

I can also say that if you put a bevy of bodacious women in the middle of a room and put the distance runners on one side and the swimmers on the other, the women would head to the swimmers, except for the few that like little guys to beat up during sex and of course, the lesbians.

... wrote:

...everyone knows Lance is the greatest endurance athlete ever and he didn't choose triathlon!

That's certainly worthy of debate.

thanks for correcting me on what I saw everyday for 5 years. I don't know what I'd do without you.

You're talking with your ego, not your brain.