just wondering, considering elites realistically can't put in 80-120 miles per week like everyone on this board says is so crucial to get fast because they have to train for 2 other sports.
just wondering, considering elites realistically can't put in 80-120 miles per week like everyone on this board says is so crucial to get fast because they have to train for 2 other sports.
Triathlons are a joke.
Well first of all 30 low is shit.
Second of all they are doing maybe 30 miles of running, 300 miles of cycling, and 10 miles of swimming.
They are probably doing the cardivascualar equivalent of two 60 min runs per day.
because all those elite guys running 26:xx and 27:xx 10ks and 2:07 marathons who train 80-120 mpw are all wrong and if they just trained like triathletes, they would be so much faster.
congratulations sherlock. you've cracked the code
Quite simple really: They're not running 30 low. This was discussed last week and no proof was provided to back up the argument that top triathletes can run near or below 30mins. And by proof I mean a certified road race or track race.
forget the sugar wrote:
because all those elite guys running 26:xx and 27:xx 10ks and 2:07 marathons who train 80-120 mpw are all wrong and if they just trained like triathletes, they would be so much faster.
congratulations sherlock. you've cracked the code
It was a simple f*cking question. I didn't post saying that triathletes have it right or that high mileage is incorrect.
I'm just wondering how/what they do because they clearly can't put in the same mileage that elite runners do. Also, I'd rather not hear a bunch of anonymous letsrun posters tell me that 30 low is slow because it isn't. Very few of you on this board can pull that peaked.
So someone enlighten me because it sure seems like they run pretty fast and aren't busting 100+ mile weeks.
Well, I know freakin' zippy about tri training, but I'll bite.
I'm assuming the 30 miles is fairly high in quality.
So, they get in that much in quality and the other 8-9 hours per week of training would be a cross-training equivalent of easy miles.
So, this isn't ideal, but it's enough to pop a decent time (I think 30 low is stout) in someone with their talent. Theoretically, they could go lower if swimming and biking were replaced w/ miles on their feet.
macker wrote:
Well, I know freakin' zippy about tri training, but I'll bite.
I'm assuming the 30 miles is fairly high in quality.
So, they get in that much in quality and the other 8-9 hours per week of training would be a cross-training equivalent of easy miles.
So, this isn't ideal, but it's enough to pop a decent time (I think 30 low is stout) in someone with their talent. Theoretically, they could go lower if swimming and biking were replaced w/ miles on their feet.
I think you are correct. I'd imagine the lower mileage is high in quality. So does that imply that biking/swimming have a significant crossover effect for running in terms of base, aerobic development?
Sure it was. Just a "simple question".
Ok, you want to play dumb so here we go. What could possibly be the reason? Let's consider the possibilities
1. The elite triathletes are just so much better athletes, much like elite runners and if they actually trained like elite runners only, they would run comparable 26:xx and 27:xx times. For some strange reason, all the guys who would be the best runners have ended up in triathlons.
2. The elite triathletes aren't really running 30 low at all
3. The elite triathletes are running the best possible 10ks they possibly can off that mileage because THAT is actually the best way to train, much better than 30 mpw.
Which one do you want to pick, I wonder?
forget the sugar wrote:
Sure it was. Just a "simple question".
Ok, you want to play dumb so here we go. What could possibly be the reason? Let's consider the possibilities
1. The elite triathletes are just so much better athletes, much like elite runners and if they actually trained like elite runners only, they would run comparable 26:xx and 27:xx times. For some strange reason, all the guys who would be the best runners have ended up in triathlons.
2. The elite triathletes aren't really running 30 low at all
3. The elite triathletes are running the best possible 10ks they possibly can off that mileage because THAT is actually the best way to train, much better than 30 mpw.
Which one do you want to pick, I wonder?
This isn't a grade school multiple choice test. Why don't you cut the crap and actual provide some meaningful input by coherently stating your opinion?
enlighten me wrote:
So does that imply that biking/swimming have a significant crossover effect for running in terms of base, aerobic development?
Depends on what you mean by significant. If you mean better than nothing, then yes. If you mean as good as running or even almost as good, then IMHO....no.
My 2 c.
enlighten me wrote:
[quote]forget the sugar wrote:
It was a simple f*cking question. I didn't post saying that triathletes have it right or that high mileage is incorrect.
I'm just wondering how/what they do because they clearly can't put in the same mileage that elite runners do. Also, I'd rather not hear a bunch of anonymous letsrun posters tell me that 30 low is slow because it isn't. Very few of you on this board can pull that peaked.
So someone enlighten me because it sure seems like they run pretty fast and aren't busting 100+ mile weeks.
Yeah, that response was sophomoric. The reality is that the elite triathletes do manage 60-80 miles/week of running, and yes, some of them can break 30:00 for the open 10k. If they focused exclusively on running, they would no doubt be faster due to the training specificity. I believe I read somewhere about ten years ago that top duathlete Kenny Souza cycled roughly 500 miles/week and ran about 60. But I also believe I read that triathletes like Dave Scott and Scott Tinley ran 75 miles/week.
some guys are sub 30 and some are sub 29
Whoa! Did anyone check out the run split for the first place woman? I don't know who she is, but I wonder how low she could get if she concentrated on running. 33 and change is nice for the running leg of a tri.
enlighten me wrote:
This isn't a grade school multiple choice test. Why don't you cut the crap and actual provide some meaningful input by coherently stating your opinion?
You are so full of crap. You start the thread off with: "considering elites realistically can't put in 80-120 miles per week like everyone on this board says is so crucial to get fast"
And for pointing out that you are obviously making a point (not "asking a question") that it's NOT crucial to do that mileage get fast, then I'm a big bad meanie.
But now look, apparently they ARE doing 60, 70, 80 miles per week if other posts are to be believed.
Well I guess that answers that. You still need to run the mileage if you want to maximize your performance. Sorry. no excuses.
I'm sure there are many triathletes putting in at least 60-80 miles of running. I used to cycle to and from college, 20 miles roundtrip, on top of 100+ miles of running and didn't have any problems. So we're talking 100 miles of cycling and 100 miles of running. The running is the harder on the body of the two. You don't have any impact stress with cycling so I could see someone putting in 150-200 miles of cycling a week plus running 60-80. Anyone have Tim Noekes book on hand? It has Mark Allen's training in there. Your Olympic Triathlete is only going 40k on a bike. He doesn't have to put in these 2-3 hour or 6 hour rides like Lance does. I'd guess about 1 one hour of running plus 2 hours of cycling a day, less a couple days a week to work on the swimming. I dunno though, just my best guess. Any pro triathletes out there?
Alan
I was curious, so I looked around a little, and the closest I could get to the kind of verification you want of an elite triathlete's 10K time is this about Greg Welch, who has long been acknowledged as one of the best runners ever to race triathlon:
"One of the sport's best runners (he ran a 29-minute, 10-second 10K, a 4:42/mile pace), Welch quickly stamped his name on the sport. He won four world championships at four distances, from the sprint (about 15 miles total) to the Ironman (140.6 miles)."
It came from this article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050207/news_1s7welch.html
You may believe it as you wish, but that's all I found, since race results are hard to come by from Welchy's heyday.
alan -
I see your point. The biking mileage isn't HUGE for oly distance so they probably are able to put in 60-70 miles per week. However, with all the people here who just run worrying they are overtrained, don't you think the combo of the running with biking and swimming would trash their glycogen stores and leave them overtrained?
I was hardly an elite triathlete with PRs of 1:57:50 for Olympic distance (on a course where the bike was about 1:00 short but the run was accurate) and 9:49:14 for IM on a course with a 115 mile bike.
However, I can tell you that even someone with my ability trained quite a bit. I regularly ran 40-60 mpw with one track workout and a long run, rode 300mpw (sometimes more) with long ride and one tt day, and swam 10-12,000 yds/week. I could have gotten away with a bit less, I think, and I could have done faster workouts with less mileage. But I know that's what I did and I remember thinking that surely the pros could not do much more than that--even when I read that Tinley did 75/350/25,000 per week. Of course, his body betrayed him, too, by the time he retired.
s-s,b
m-r,s
t-b,r
w-s,b
t-r,s
f-b,r
s-off
2 disciplines in a 3hr session daily, 6 days a week. Usually 4-5hrs of running a week, totalling 60-80km.
sw