Why don't elite runners do more aerobic work?

Or, why don't they swim, cycle, row, etc. I understand that the principle of sport specificity means that your best results come from training in the sport for which you plan to compete, but isn't something better than nothing, expecially several hours of additional aerobic exercise per week? If a cyclist or swimmer can work out for several hours per day, then why can't a runner run for an hour and swim/bike for three more to maximize aerobic development?

Good question. I hope there are some authoritative answers in addition to the inevitable smart-alecks and flamers'

it's called specificity and overtraining.

Specificity: bike races are long (sometimes up to 4-5 hours in length) and swimming is the most impact free exercise out there.

pool running is not land running, you're more likely to overtrain then actually get benefit from it.

I'm no physiologist, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that you're limited more by your weakness than by your strong points, so training one system or ability far beyond the others wouldn't be helpful because your performance is still limited by those abilities that you haven't been training to as great an extent. I think it would be like putting a new carburetor in your car that is capable of providing twice as much oxidized fuel as the old one and expecting that change to make your car go faster even though you haven't changed anything else and the cylinders are still only big enough to handle the original amount. You just end up going the same speed with a carburetor that is working at half capacity rather than a car that can go faster.

Can you really overtrain from pool running? It just seems absurd to me. If you got enough rest (perhaps took a nap during the day) and ate enough food, I just can't see one overtraining from pool running. And anyone who knows someone who's been injured knows that, at the very LEAST, it prevents de-training when injured...so it may help as a "supplement" to your main base training.

Any other input? Has anyone actually tried adding pool running while healthy on a regular basis to improve your aerobic base?

Harry Kooter wrote:

I'm no physiologist, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that you're limited more by your weakness than by your strong points, so training one system or ability far beyond the others wouldn't be helpful because your performance is still limited by those abilities that you haven't been training to as great an extent.

I understand what you're saying - if we were to suddenly put Lagat's cardiovascular system into my body, what good would it do? My muscles, tendons, joints, and ligaments can't handle easy runs at 5:30 pace. I'd break down or be forced to train at my old pace.

But if we were careful to only push it during races...I think I could hold up structurally no matter what the pace in a 1500 meter race.

14&23 wrote:Can you really overtrain from pool running? It just seems absurd to me.

Have you ever pool-run hard? It can lead to overtraining as easily as, well, running at a comparable intensity.

If your idea of pool-running is splashing around comfortably while moving your legs in a running motion, then you won't overtrain, but you won't get much aerobic benefit either. On the other hand, if you're pool running hard enough to get aerobic benefit (which generally requires doing it in fartlek form and absolutely focusing on the task), then it can be just as taxing as running.

The original question is interesting. My guess would be that, due to the principle of specificity of training, you want to do as much running as you can tolerate. And once you've done that, you need every bit of recovery you can get. So even if adding an hour of swimming would only add body stress equivalent to five minutes of running, that's still too much. (Or conversely, if you could handle five more minutes of running, you'd do that instead of the hour of swimming.)

Of course, there are lots of examples of top runners who do a fair amount of cross training because they're injury prone. But they're replacing running rather than adding to it.

Because they are elites and they know better.

Now do you have any financial tips for Warren Buffet?

Smart Aleck wrote:

Because they are elites and they know better.

Now do you have any financial tips for Warren Buffet?

It wasn't a tip dumbass. He was asking a question. I'm pretty sure it is a very legit question. F-OFF.

i'd say as long as you aren't running so much that you're on that thin line that sits between healthy and injured then cross training can do nothing but help. thing is most elite runners are already doing all they can handle so that when they aren't running they are resting and healing. if you can't run that high mileage or are injury prone though then i believe cross training would make a huge difference. i'm gonna try to do as much cross training as i can (pool running, biking, elliptical) while running in the coming months cuz i'm injury prone and so can only do real low mileage these days. i'm hoping to beat my college PR's off mostly cross training.

impact forces wrote:

The recent thread about swimmers go me thinking. Elite cyclists can spend 6 hours a day on the bike. Elite swimmers can be in the pool for 4 hours and do intervals almost daily.

We obviously can't run this much because of the impact forces, but why don't elite runners try to pick up the slack with daily pool running?

impact forces wrote:

The recent thread about swimmers go me thinking. Elite cyclists can spend 6 hours a day on the bike. Elite swimmers can be in the pool for 4 hours and do intervals almost daily.

We obviously can't run this much because of the impact forces, but why don't elite runners try to pick up the slack with daily pool running?

Wish there was an edit/delete button (excuse the above post!).

You do realize that running is probably the second most cardiovascularly demanding sport (other than cross country skiing)? Thus, there is no need to go running 4-8 hours a day like swimmers and cyclists. There is a concept called rest. As Jan Olbrecht says in his book "Science of Winning", "Rest or regeneration is the most essential part of training for inducing optimal biological adaptations."

On the other hand, you do hear of the Japanese runners putting in 250+ mpw, but maybe their smaller, efficient body's can handle it (?).

One of the runners that ran our sunday long runs had a VO2max of 85. He ran about 15hrs per week and ran many sub 2.09s with a best of sub 2.08. I suspect he had just about got his aerobic function maxed out and further training volume from xtraining/pool running etc would not have increased his aerobic capacity.

Harry Kooter wrote:

I'm no physiologist, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that you're limited more by your weakness than by your strong points, so training one system or ability far beyond the others wouldn't be helpful because your performance is still limited by those abilities that you haven't been training to as great an extent. I think it would be like putting a new carburetor in your car that is capable of providing twice as much oxidized fuel as the old one and expecting that change to make your car go faster even though you haven't changed anything else and the cylinders are still only big enough to handle the original amount. You just end up going the same speed with a carburetor that is working at half capacity rather than a car that can go faster.

True. Aerobic capacity is just one component of running, and probably the easiest one to train. It only takes a few weeks at most for most runners to reach their maximum aerobic capacity. Beyond that though, the contractile component of muscles, the elastic component of tendons and muscle fascia, and the component of running economy all have a huge influence on how fast we can run, and how long we can hold a certain pace. These three components take much longer to train than the cardiovascular system.

good notion wrote:

Harry Kooter wrote:

I'm no physiologist, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that you're limited more by your weakness than by your strong points, so training one system or ability far beyond the others wouldn't be helpful because your performance is still limited by those abilities that you haven't been training to as great an extent.

I understand what you're saying - if we were to suddenly put Lagat's cardiovascular system into my body, what good would it do? My muscles, tendons, joints, and ligaments can't handle easy runs at 5:30 pace. I'd break down or be forced to train at my old pace.

But if we were careful to only push it during races...I think I could hold up structurally no matter what the pace in a 1500 meter race.

What you are saying seems perfectly logical. But I would suggest that you may already have or have had a cardiovascular system as well developed as Lagat. It is very common for ordinary runners to have the same oxygen uptake as elite runners.

I like some of your logic, Wellnow, but you cannot tell me that ordinary runners have the same maximum oxygen uptakes as elite runners. (I am assuming that in saying oxygen uptake, you are referring to VO2max.) There are several ordinary runners that do, but they are a rarity. I think most good recreational runners have VO2maxes between 60-70 ml/kg min, whereas most elites have maxes between 70-80 ml/kg min. Now, these are certainly generalizations and not exact figures, and of course, there are always exceptions.

Now can some of these recreational runners improve their maximum oxygen uptake through increased training volumes + quality? Definitely. But this is where the genetic component comes in. Some of these ordinary runners may not be able to raise their maximum oxygen uptakes past a certain level, and thus, they will need to rely on improvements in economy, etc. to improve race performances. Which goes right back to your train of thought.

I think that VO2max reading for elites can sometimes be exaggerated. It depends if the equipment is calibrated properly.

How many elites really have a VO2max over 84? not many if any. Yes some of them are supposed to have a very high reading high 80's and low 90's but I don't believe in the accuracy of those readings.

Jack Daniels is the man to ask on this.

Now there are other points to consider. Elite runners have much lower bodyfat than slower runners. This drastically alters the VO2max reading because if a runner weighs 70kg and his VO2max is 60ml/kg/minute and he loses 10kg then his VO2max goes up to 70ml/kg/min, but his actual oxygen uptake hasn't increased.

So what we need to measure is oxygen uptake in terms of liters per minute. Then you will find that it is common for ordianry runners to have the same oxygen uptake as elites.

The other point is that you don't actually need a super high oxygen uptake to be the fastest in your event, because the factor of running economy comes into play whereby a runner can be incredibly quick without a high oxygen uptake.

It only takes a few weeks of good quality distance training for an experienced runner to go from unfit to attaining maximum mitochondrial mass. And this determines your aerobic capacity. At that time, your true oxygen uptake also reaches its maximum.

I will venture out and say that it takes more than a few weeks to obtain "maximal mitochondrial mass". After a few weeks, there is certainly a big increase. Of course it depends on how one defines "a few" as well.