Alistair proves he can run with 28:32 effort at Stanford! Did anyone think triathletes were that fast!
Alistair proves he can run with 28:32 effort at Stanford! Did anyone think triathletes were that fast!
Yes.
He ran 29:07 in the Olympics, that's only 2% better.
Pardon me while I briefly beat my chest, but I had gone on the record last week to predict 28:30 out of Brownlee at PJ.
Here's the thing though, "triathletes" as a group are demonstrably not this fast. Brownlee is the best runner on the triathlon circuit, as he demonstrated at the Olympics, so the more accurate thing to say is that there are MAYBE a handful of triathletes who can run under 29:00 in a bona fide track 10,000m. This race was evidence that the commentators at the Olympic triathlon were off their rockers drinking the coolaid when they claimed directly the Brownlee brothers would look right at home running in the 10,000m final in track and field in the Olympic stadium.
yeah it's ridiculous how commentators keep saying 'he's ran 1 minute 30 slower than Mo did in the final during a tri' yeah that's outstanding but fast times aren't going to happen in the final of an Olympics.
Good on him. Respect.
People don't get how much power you need to generate to bike at the speeds the tri guys do. I always figured (before i began cycling) that since I'm good at running, I'd crush it on the bike. NOT SO. totally different.
I'm amazed at how slow elite triathletes run the run portion of their triathlons. I often pass dozens of these pros.
There is no way the Olympic tri run was a complete 10000 meters. Road vs Track, Hills vs Flat, 1 hr 15 min of intense competition before the run vs single event.
With that said it is still an amazing time for a triathlete. I have been saying for years that an all american cross runner would do awesome in the tri event especially at the olympic and world championship level where you are allowed to draft of the bike which takes little to no effort.
agreed, but he is pretty damn fast nonetheless for a tri guy
cougrun wrote:
There is no way the Olympic tri run was a complete 10000 meters. Road vs Track, Hills vs Flat, 1 hr 15 min of intense competition before the run vs single event.
He ran 10,000m in the Oly Tri. However, T1 and T2 are included in the total meter count. In the splits, you only see the last running portion which is of course shorter than 10,000m .... roughly 9.5k. Still a great time though.
General Saou wrote:
People don't get how much power you need to generate to bike at the speeds the tri guys do. I always figured (before i began cycling) that since I'm good at running, I'd crush it on the bike. NOT SO. totally different.
That's weird it was the exact opposite for me. I wasn't a very good runner 15:mid 5k and was having knee issues so I quit and started cycling. My first TT I rode I won by a few minutes and have competed well in everything I've done cycling related.
Too bad he wasn't a few minutes faster. Maybe he could race on the track instead of relegating himself to an easier level of competition.
cougrun wrote:
There is no way the Olympic tri run was a complete 10000 meters. Road vs Track, Hills vs Flat, 1 hr 15 min of intense competition before the run vs single event.
With that said it is still an amazing time for a triathlete. I have been saying for years that an all american cross runner would do awesome in the tri event especially at the olympic and world championship level where you are allowed to draft of the bike which takes little to no effort.
It was the Olympics - you think they just mismeasured the course? There's no way the pool was 50 meters long; people swam too fast! ;-) I suspect if there's ever going to be an accurate course, it's at the Olympics.
A few random facts. Brownlee was in much better shape in London. He had his appendix out in October and couldn't train for about 3 months (see recent interview on slowtwitch.com for confirmation). He also won an ITU race in San Diego a week before this 10K, running the 10K portion in 29:30 (again, I have a pretty high degree of confidence in the measurement accuracy / professionalism of ITU in San Diego). Point being he did a very hard almost 2 hour race a week prior and he had months of sub optimal / no training over the winter. It's somewhat reasonable to expect he'd have run faster when in the condition (tapered and more fit) he was in at London. Also somewhat reasonable to expect the folks running close to his time in London could have put in a similar sort of 10K when tapered, fit, and not having to do that pesky swim & bike.
Regarding the part about draft legal cycling taking little to no effort, that is demonstrably false. You really need to look at a power file from one of these races. Here's an example:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Matt_Chrabot_s_power_file_2762.htmlI certainly don't burn approximately 1000 calories an hour with little to no effort. And the ride is not a steady state effort. Putting out 8 watts per kilo for 20 seconds is not trivial. Think of this as comparable to an elite marathoner surging repeatedly from marathon pace to 10K / 5K / and even mile race pace. Chrabot (the guy who's power file I reference above) compares it to stopping in the middle of a running workout and doing plyometrics, then starting to run again.
As a runner first, my illusions about how easy it would be to add in cycling were shattered by the attempt to actually do so.
As for the post that says transition distance is included in run distance, I'd love to see a reference for that. Transition TIME is included in OVERALL TIME, but the distances are distinct (1.5K swim / 40K bike / 10K run) as far as I know.
TriDude wrote:
cougrun wrote:There is no way the Olympic tri run was a complete 10000 meters. Road vs Track, Hills vs Flat, 1 hr 15 min of intense competition before the run vs single event.
He ran 10,000m in the Oly Tri. However, T1 and T2 are included in the total meter count. In the splits, you only see the last running portion which is of course shorter than 10,000m .... roughly 9.5k. Still a great time though.
no t1 and t2 are not included in the 10000m count. that was back in the 80's and we are not in the 80s anymore. the olympic was legit, san diego was short. how can he run 29:07 at the olympics and "only" 28:32 at stanford? well
#1 he isn't in great shape yet. he did 6 weeks of good training up until san diego and he didn't have a big winter of training like his usually does.
#2 he is a phenomenal triathlete and like david rudisha running close to his best 400 times twice over, alistair can run close to his best 10000m time off a hard swim/bike.
most of you runner dudes will give him some respect for the 28:32 as that is incredible off the training he does.
but you should be giving him even more respect by being able to swim at the level he swims at and still be able to run like that. i don't think you guys fathom how fast he is in the water. like he's gotta be ~16:00 for 1500m long course. stupid fast.
third brownlee wrote:
no t1 and t2 are not included in the 10000m count. that was back in the 80's and we are not in the 80s anymore. the olympic was legit, san diego was short. how can he run 29:07 at the olympics and "only" 28:32 at stanford? well
#1 he isn't in great shape yet.
Right, and in good shape he can run 27 flat. Dream on.
Yes, T1 and T2 can still be included in the total run distance.
cougrun wrote:
There is no way the Olympic tri run was a complete 10000 meters.
Could someone estimate how far it was?
no in good shape he could run ~28:20 ish, after 6-10 months of only running i bet he could be close to 28:10 or so.
and yes t1 and t2 are NOT included in the run distance you chav. you've had two different people correct you on this thread. look it up.
Can someone point out where in the governing body rules it says that transitions can be included in the run? All they say is that the run is 10K. Without a specific clause mentioning the inclusion of the transitions in the run, I don't see how one would come to that conclusion. Why wouldn't the transition be included in the bike? Or why wouldn't the first transition be included in the swim or the bike? Hell, why wouldn't the drive to the venue in the morning be included in the swim?
Without any citation in the rules, this is a suspect claim.
Tri Coach wrote:
Yes.
He ran 29:07 in the Olympics, that's only 2% better.
2%, plus or minus 10%.
squeakypieces wrote:
Or why wouldn't the first transition be included in the swim?
Because once you're out of the water, you can't swim anymore.