Elite Triathletes, how much do you run?

BLAH wrote:

I don't understand why most pro triathletes do only 40-50 miles/week but bike 300-500 miles a week, when the run leg is more important. Any elite triathletes have the answer to this conundrum?

The answer is that the run is not more important. The bike is. You spend more than half the time at the triathlon on the bike. It is by far the most important leg

I'm not an elite but I find that bike miles replace recovery miles. When peaking for a race, I get rid of long runs since I do a couple of four hour rides each week during the last 8 weeks.

My running focus becomes quality based. Track workouts and tempo runs to get ready for competition. Since the bike exercises the aerobic system without pounding, I just don't do the "junk miles" any longer.

not true, in ITU it goes 1. run 2. swim 3. bike

It depends on what style of triathlon the focus is. Ironman guys are not training to run fast, but to not slow down, a top 5 run split at any ironman is ~2:50. Most of those guys do huge bike volume and maybe 50-60 miles running.

ITU guys train like real runners, some up to 100 mile weeks. Unless you are running sub 32 off the bike, you will never get a paycheck. But, because the bike you can draft, they can get away with maybe 150 miles on the bike.

So, the total volume is pretty similar between ironman/itu, but the distribution between running and riding is different for the style of tri.

Consider the marginal product of labor for each activity.

An extra 10 miles/week for running would make for fitness gains (especially in the important running-specific area), however, it really increases the chance for injury.

An extra 40 miles/week on the bike is much less risky.

Its all about the pounding.

don't think that just because the bike leg is drafting that it's easy. the ride is still really fast! the main key is being able to run hard right away after a hard bike. i run around 50-60 mpw and have run sub 32 (barely) on a legit course...sub 31 on a very questionable course. my best open 10k on the track in college was 30:22. adding the bike and swim did a ton for my overall strength too which i think has helped my run

The bike wins it or loses it for you.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. biking is the least importan aspect of triathloning

elite = sub 2hrs?

You would get rid of your long run? Only do 40-50mpw?

Triatholon sucks, its a gimmick. You got some fat girls and rich kids w/ expensive bikes. A bunch of penguins doing the races.

I agree that anyone and everyone is now doing the triathlon/Ironman thing. I think they need to make it more difficult and cut the time limit down to 13 hours instead of 17 hours. This would eliminate some of the "penguins". I think the same thing about marathons. I think they out to put a time limit of at least 4:30 for all running marathons. The walkers can have their own 7-8 hour marathon. Of course special cirrcumstances could be made for challenged athletes.

it is only among US elites that the real truth has not sunk in. in Europe the athletes know the run is where its really at. that is why they are dominating the Hawaii race these days.

stunning wrote:

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. biking is the least importan aspect of triathloning

elite = sub 2hrs?

Do the math. Since the biking takes the most time, if you calculate a 1% difference in any of the three, the greatest time difference would be from the bike.

Here are results of some tri I found on the Web.

Actual Results 54:05 4:18:23 2:55:03

1% slower 54:37 4:20:48 2:55:48

Now you tell me where you'd least like to lose 1%.

It will never happen. The race would make no money or profit. Plus how BORING would that be to watch a bunch of fast runners and triathletes? The slow pokes are what make triathlon and marathoning interesting. Who would we make rip on and make fun of?

Where are you going to find a fancy bicycle out in the wilderness?

The answer is that the triathlon should consist of swimming, running, get rid of the bicycle and call it a biathlon.

A 2 1/2 mile swim and marathon would be cool.

totally... I'd do it if I didn't have to operate one of those peddling machines. A long run, that just happens to have an impassable lake in it. Run 10k - swim 2k - Run 10k

nature buff wrote:

Where are you going to find a fancy bicycle out in the wilderness?

The answer is that the triathlon should consist of swimming, running, get rid of the bicycle and call it a biathlon.

A 2 1/2 mile swim and marathon would be cool.

you can blame it on the Navy SEALs who 'invented' ironman for including the 112 mile bike leg. what the heck do they know about surviving in the wilderness.

You know nothing about triathlons , to be one of the best you must run 90+ miles a week swim 55-60K meters and bike 350-400 miles. And as for the run swim run that is a sport it is called an aquathlon, but no one likes it because it is lame. You are just some low muscle mass runner who could never cut it on a bike and hold a grudge towards those who can do more than one sport well.

nature buff wrote:

The answer is that the triathlon should consist of swimming, running, get rid of the bicycle and call it a biathlon.

Except the biathlon is an Olympic event featuring cross country skiing and shooting...

nature buff wrote:

get rid of the bicycle and call it a biathlon.

ever heard of a duathalon?