Lessons from Norwegian triathletes

I had not seen the following currently active thread before posting this. It is very relevant to the points I am making. You can see the standard runner responses there already, but here I am going a bit further in suggesting that it is the muscular strength which cycling leads to that is a key aspect, not just the non-specific aerobic benefits.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10047090

I disagree with you. Blummenfelt and others of the Norwegians are not your typical “running type” but there are plenty of triathletes that are. Mario Mola, Javier Gomez, and Vincent Luis, Alistair Brownlee, Alex Yee are all world class triathletes and are of smaller frame than Blummenfelt. Cycling does build muscle strength, and I’m interpreting your hypothesis as: there are runners who would get faster running because of biking. Which for the most part is true. But the key thing is specificity. Runners train to run. Triathletes train for swim, bike, and run. Building strength to help your running because of cycling will only get you so far. Almost all of the top athletes only run (and use alter-g and underwater treadmill to get more volume) because running is what makes someone better at running. Why do a run/cycle double when you can run/run double? Triathletes are able to run so fast because they’re very aerobicly conditioned. Swimming is non weight bearing, biking is much less than running so more volume can be acquired to improve general fitness

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you that for the absolute top runners (professional level), it seems necessary to almost entirely run. At least there are no counter-examples to that, though Bekele is an interesting example with regard to strength if one ignores the cycling aspect; he is not really a typical runner type either, being muscular and almost quite stocky in build. However, I am speaking mainly of inspiration for amateur runners. If someone has a goal of running say sub 15 in the 5km, one sees asserted all the time that one needs to be able to run sub 60 in the 400m, or whatever, and if one doesn't have that kind of raw speed, it is not going to be possible no matter how aerobically fit one is, because it is difficult to significantly improve raw speed. My suggestion is that this is not necessarily true; I think that if one builds strength in the leg muscles and is able to make use of that strength aerobically, one is going to be faster from the greater strength, but be just as aerobically fit, despite the extra weight. And to acquire that extra strength, I am suggesting that cycling is an excellent activity, because it will help with the aerobic conditioning at the same time. One will need running specificity as well to make that muscle fully effective for running (and obviously to build up strength in the tendons, etc, to handle the extra impact), but cycling will give a foundation. In summary, I am suggesting that one can get faster in the raw sense from appropriate aerobic training, and cycling may be an excellent ingredient in this. Actually Blummenfelt directly addresses this point in the following.https://trimtex.no/no/portrait---kristian-blummenfelt/Portrait+-+Kristian+Blummenfelt.html Quoting from the interview:

Big guy, fastest runner – how does that match?

It's not just about getting lean and skinny so you can run fast, its more complex than that. In all endurance sports, specially in triathlon, you have do to a very very high volume of training to get out your potential in the sport. So I think it's more important to build a strong engine that can pull you forward instead of striving to lose an extra kilogram.

?

Former triathlete here (not near as fast as these guys obviously, but I was a pretty fast amateur).

I agree with the majority of your premise..that building the engine etc is the key to their success and that it can be built via cycling and swimming in addition to running. However, to get the facts straight with the Norwegians - Iden and Blummenfelt post all of their training on Strava. You can go back a fair bit in both. They rarely hit 160km running in a week, it's a lot closer to 100-110km. Cycling is high volume but again, consistently lower than 570km. They subscribe to the 80/20 method that is typical in Norwegian endurance sport with XC skiers, and they accumulate huge weekly volume (consistent 35+ hour weeks during base phase - check Blu's Strava). I wouldn't call their approach to cycling the quality approach, they're definitely just huge volume guys.

If you want to know what I think is the most interesting part of their training, check out their paces day in/out. Iden routinely posts runs where he shuffles up a mountain for 2h at 10min miles, Blu has plenty of running at close to 8min pace. Blu's training history shows 45-60min runs at 9+ min/mi. They just do a TON of training, and on top of that - they've been doing huge volume for years! The quality runs and rides are the icing on a cake that they've been working on since they were 14-16yrs old. Maybe the bigger takeaway is that no matter what it takes to get the volume in (in terms of slowing down etc), if you have the time - volume is king in endurance sports.

I still routinely mix cycling into my training, even though I no longer race as a triathlete and have no plans to. I've always thought that it helps with staying leaner and lighter, and that any aerobic development is good aerobic development. Rather than take a day off training, I'll get out for an easy 1-2h of cycling, or sometimes I'll use it as a double after a run. I've only noticed positive impacts.

Seconding this again. Also, I want to bring up another point. The interference effect is very prominent in running. So we can not necessarily make the distinction between muscle size and muscle strength. For example Mo Farah being able to outkick nearly everyone, every time. Alberto has stated that a large part of Mo’s success comes from his intensive weightlifting program. He’s incredibly strong for such a skinny athlete which allows him to maximize power to weight ratio.

Also, whoever you’re listening to that says 400 speed is required to run a fast 5k, I would ask them why they say that. Things like vVO2 and LT are much more important when it comes to 5k performance than raw 400 speed.

And you’re example of amateur runners using cycling to aid their running. Like I said before: of course it would work, but most cycling benefits are aerobic from long rides and the way you use your muscles are not the same while running. If a low mileage athlete needs to add volume by cross training it makes sense, but why not just run more if you can?

cheesewiz wrote:

Also, whoever you’re listening to that says 400 speed is required to run a fast 5k, I would ask them why they say that. Things like vVO2 and LT are much more important when it comes to 5k performance than raw 400 speed.

Sure. But without enough 400m speed, it is impossible to have a vVO2 or LT that is fast enough. Nobody is breaking 14 mins for the 5k with a 60s 400m PR.

There may be another common link between all the athletes you discuss ...

cheesewiz wrote:

Triathletes are able to run so fast because they’re very aerobicly conditioned.

But they aren't fast. We are talking about times that are ~1 min slower than what top level runners do. Using the exact same evidence that the OP used, adding muscle and bike training slow you down by 10-20s/mile. As far as not being limited by raw speed, point me to a single person who has broken 14 who hasn't broken say 57.

That being said, if you can't get 10+hours/week of training in by running, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that cycling and swimming would help you out. There is a lot to be said for more training. But to suggest that the reason is that those activities encourage muscle gain isn't likely to be true.

The OP is talking about amateur runners, which is why I say “so fast”. I guess you are so fast that 28 minute 10k is slow. But I bring up examples like Alex Yee earlier who has run 13:29. I wouldn’t say that is slow. The point of this thread is not discussing raw speed vs aerobic conditioning. You are coming off as very aggressive for no reason sir.

Drugs

You lost me when I saw the pics of those silly men in those silly skin suits. Imagine if Tri actually found a way for the athletes to change into reasonable running apparel for the runs in these races without losing time. The sport would instantly become more popular.

They should consider same when it comes to the biking portion. WAY too many 'aero' elements that make the sport seem silly. How is it that TdF riders can ride hard, fast, for weeks at a time without the silly aero rigs that are ubiquitous in Tri?

cheesewiz wrote:

The OP is talking about amateur runners, which is why I say “so fast”. I guess you are so fast that 28 minute 10k is slow. But I bring up examples like Alex Yee earlier who has run 13:29. I wouldn’t say that is slow. The point of this thread is not discussing raw speed vs aerobic conditioning. You are coming off as very aggressive for no reason sir.

. I am simply pointing out they aren't fast when compared to their single sport peers. Galen Rupp runs like a 50s 400m. In the absolute sense that is blistering fast. Not many people can do that. But line him up against a 400m specialist and he is a slug. If you wanted to be a 400m person, would you train like Galen (after all 50s is fast) or would you train more like the guys running 45s?

You are coming off as defensive for no reason. I am just pointing out that this is the common case of people making up sh*t. Humans have a great ability to find patterns where there are none

Say whatever you want I suppose, but you’re missing the point about how triathletes compare to running, and especially if biking can help runners become quicker through increasing power output. I could call you defensive as well for your last post, but we could argue this forever. Yes speed is relative, but from the OP’s perspective, no “amateur” runner is running 28 minute 10km.

Xc-skieers are just as good

cheesewiz wrote:

Say whatever you want I suppose, but you’re missing the point about how triathletes compare to running, and especially if biking can help runners become quicker through increasing power output. I could call you defensive as well for your last post, but we could argue this forever. Yes speed is relative, but from the OP’s perspective, no “amateur” runner is running 28 minute 10km.

If there was an advantage to being large, the elites would be doing it. The only thing an amateur who bulks up is going to do is fail to reach their potential.

You don't need a bike to build the muscle to run at 4min30/mile pace. Any reasonably trained amateur already has that sort of speed over a short distance. It's the aerobic conditioning they need to work on. And that's what triathletes do a lot of on their bikes/swimming.

Yeah, that’s what I was saying in above posts.

You forget one thing. Genetics. People who have actn3 xx can gain muscles without losing much endurance. 16-18% of Europeans got it but only 1% of Africans. That's why you don't see many muscular runners. In Japan it's more common with about 30% having it

The Nordic countries, as well as northern Europeans, have a long culture of aerobic exercise. Walking is very common and is regularly practiced by a large part of the population. In fact many high school students during their summer break go on a 500 mile walk! This is voluntary; they want to do it! Imagine forcing American kids to walk 500 miles during their summer vacation? They riot! That part of the world is very conducive for aerobic exercise and you see the results on the world-class level. If you go to this part of the world and see it first hand it's amazing.