How are non-running background Ironman guys running 2:45?

Say I run 17:00 for a 5k and 2:45 for a full marathon, jack Daniels' tables would say my VDOT is 60, but my lab tested VO2max is in mL of o2 per kg body weight and may range from like 50-70 probably

thejeff wrote:

With the built in cross training, probably much lower than the injury rate of runners.

Maybe so, but I'n still amazed at the size of some these guys and the high volume running they do with little or no injury development. And the 10k times they run coming off the bike in the sprint distance is freaken unbelievable!

Look at the size of the currently ranked #5 triathlete; Kristian Blummenfelt. The dude runs 75 mpw on top of 240 miles of biking & 24 miles of swimming per week. That's freaking crazy!!! 😨.

I just watched a video last week where Lionel was doing numerous 5k repeats at 16:05-16:20 pace AT THE END of a long training day. The guy is a monster, in those repeats he even had that atrociously ugly form, it works for HIM though somehow.

Not Buying It wrote:

feldman wrote:

They paid me. That's how university studies work.

What university? When did you have the test? What's the name of the physiologist(s) that conducted the test? You can still provide some info while keeping your anonymity. FWIW, don’t mention something as ridiculous as running a 2:30 with a 51 VO2max on a forum and "not" be expected to be called out on the carpet. 😉

I'm all about the high VO2 for top performances but why don't you think 2:30 is possible with a 51?

If this debate is going to continue I said mid 2:30's, and specifically 2:36.

HUGE aerobic engines is how they do it.

Your heart doesn't know the difference between the three sports. All it knows is that you are asking it to work at 70% or higher for long periods of time. The top tri pros are training the equivalent of 150-200 running miles per week. That said, they don't go as fast as pure runners due to specificity and power-to-weight issues. Triathletes carry a lot more muscle than elite distance runners but some of that is in the wrong places (glutes, quads, shoulders). A 160 pound triathlete simply won't beat a 120 pound runner all things being equal.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

HUGE aerobic engines is how they do it.

Your heart doesn't know the difference between the three sports. All it knows is that you are asking it to work at 70% or higher for long periods of time. The top tri pros are training the equivalent of 150-200 running miles per week. That said, they don't go as fast as pure runners due to specificity and power-to-weight issues. Triathletes carry a lot more muscle than elite distance runners but some of that is in the wrong places (glutes, quads, shoulders). A 160 pound triathlete simply won't beat a 120 pound runner all things being equal.

+1. Now finally this is a sensible post and explains the importance of cardiovascular strength in endurance sports. This nonsense of VO2max not being a very important factor is getting ridiculous. And I agree....huge aerobic engines are the foundations of success in endurance sports.

Good point on the power to weight ratio. Another example using cycling is 3xWC & classics specialist Peter Sagan with a VO2max of 85, but a monster at 6-1, 180 will never beat 4xTdF champion Chris Froome with a comparable VO2max of 88, but a skinny 6-1, 145, in the high mountain climbs of the Grand Tours.

Cardiovascular strength? I am not sure what you mean.

If it's general endurance, I might agree. If it's stroke volume of the heart, I might somehow agree, although, heart function is different under water and in horizontal position of the body, and also different to a lesser degree in seated position on the bike, as compared to running. Muscles function very differently in each of the three sports, and there is not much overlap strength-wise, neither in neuromuscular terms. Swimming is the most difficult technique-wise, cycling requires most time to get the specific strength and strength-endurance, and running ... well, you either have it in you, or not. 80mpw should be more than enough to get you in 2:20s shape, if your talent is at least in the upper 5%. And you don't become an elite without exceptional talent. In IM tris you have to be first a good cyclist and good or above average swimmer (among specialists), and lastly at least an average runner - among specialists, and I would consider average serious runner to be able to run in 2:20s for the marathon (without cycling and swimming leg). Anything worse than that is just a hobby pursuit (I am not saying slow, but not worth talking about in terms of professional sports; it's just a hobby, albeit time consuming and requiring lot of effort for below average, or untalented runner).

In shorter tris, running leg becomes more important and only very talented runners are in the top five. I would guess, that none of the top triathletes in Olympic triathlon are slower than 29:30 for flat 10km. That is quite exceptional for somebody that "wastes" 2/3 of his energy on non-running, thus unspecific, activity.

Now back to OP - these guys are very talented for the endurance sport in general. Some are exceptional swimmers, some cyclists, but they have to be at least above average in two remaining sports - again, among specialists. Get it in your head - those guys ARE TALENTED. Like it or not, more talented than 99% of runners on these boards. They just chose to excel in something else, and quite wisely. What would get you to have an OT qualifier in marathon, or 10.000m as your lifetime achievement? A few pats on the back. Top 20-30 IM guys would almost certainly be able to get there, if their focus would be just running. Some of them might be at the same level in cycling, or swimming as well, all of them at least very close to that level in all three sports. The term is talent, first and foremost. Then hard work, of course.

facticityofdasitchiashun wrote:

Juicy juice.

How about the plain old hot sauce?