Why are elite cyclists and triathletes so bad at running?

Because cycling and swimming are not running specific exercise.

This is the same reason elite runners aren't good cyclists.

Flip it around. Why are runners so bad at swimming? You would be hard pressed to find any elite runner that could even make a bad d1 swim team. Let alone approach international level times.

Certainly the typical/ideal body shapes for elite swimmers is quite a bit different than distance runners. So I would not expect all too much overlap between swimming and distance running.

How many elite triathletes have also exclusively and seriously trained for distance running? I don't know the details of Alistair Brownlee, but based on the numbers you provide it sounds like he simply didn't seriously train for/run a 10K when he was the same sort of shape as his triathlon. I seriously doubt he could only run 3 seconds per mile faster fresh vs at the and of triathlon.

In general, I would expect elite triathletes to mostly be sub-elite runners on their tri training with a decent percentage of those able to be elite runners if they seriously trained for it. The number of elite triathletes who have attempted this seems to be very, very small making it difficult to draw conclusions.

Cyclists don't spend enough time pounding the pavement, developing weight-bearing resistance.

Runners don't spend enough time "in the seat."

Frankly, I don't know why anyone would be a cyclist or a triathlete anyway, when you can be a successful runner spending far less time working out.

15 hours a week is plenty for world-class runners, yet cyclists and triathletes have to spend double or triple that time training. Sux for them.

Why are athletes who are elite in one sport not also elite in another sport that has some overlap?

Why do professional athletes like football players or basketball players when they retire become professional MMA fighters instead of professional boxers?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

However, out of all the elite triathletes, no one has really set the running world on fire yet. Alistair Brownlee, Olympic Champion in the Olympic Triathlon, only has a 10k PR of 28:33, and surprisingly he also split a 28:50 in a triathlon. He can barely go faster in a dedicated 10k road race than at the end of a triathlon.

Welcome to LetsRun where a 20 minute 5k person says 28:33 for the 10k time is nothing special.

Wowzers wrote:

How many elite triathletes have also exclusively and seriously trained for distance running? I don't know the details of Alistair Brownlee, but based on the numbers you provide it sounds like he simply didn't seriously train for/run a 10K when he was the same sort of shape as his triathlon. I seriously doubt he could only run 3 seconds per mile faster fresh vs at the and of triathlon.

In general, I would expect elite triathletes to mostly be sub-elite runners on their tri training with a decent percentage of those able to be elite runners if they seriously trained for it. The number of elite triathletes who have attempted this seems to be very, very small making it difficult to draw conclusions.

Triathletes are usually pure strength-runners. A good OD triathlete really runs the 10k in a triathlon close to his 10k road time. The swimming doesn't fatigue the legs, and the cycling is often tactical (drafting is allowed in OD). They also practice lots of brick running, so they are used to it.

I think there might be a self-selection here - people who realize they aren't lighting the world on fire as runners when they are young, choose to specialize in triathlon. One sport is very technical (swimming), one is just about grinding miles (cycling) and they can be a good runner in triathlon standards.

They have a superior cardiovascular system and heart compared to us runners, but might not have the genetic biomechanics required to run very fast (like a 27:xx 10k). Brownlees 28:34 was an all-out effort on the track, and he is already an exception in the world of triathlon (most triathletes can't even break 30 min on the track). Professional runners at Brownlee's level are running 12:50s and 26:40s, which is an insane difference.

It seems that triathlon is a sport where hard work can get you VERY far, whereas in running - but also swimming - genetics are much more of a limiting factor especially on the very elite level.

What is funny! I was thinking the same thing! Running is not a natural activity for some athletes. Just like Gwen Jorgensen has to activate her glutes and the East Africans don’t have to work on little things like some Americans. Some athletes are pretty good at swimming, biking, and running, but not good enough to be the absolute best in just one of the sport. Go Gwen!

It's a mystery wrote:

Why are athletes who are elite in one sport not also elite in another sport that has some overlap?

They are sometimes.

She's still training like a triathlete. She still does very long bike rides. Apparently she didn't get the memo about Lance sucking at the marathon despite being the top VO2Max aerobically conditioned guy in the world.

When you are an elite cyclist, you spend all your training time on the bike. Elite runners do very little cross training, possibly some strength training, but nothing serious. Triathletes have three disciplines, and while there are some specialists who just want a swim or bike record in a tri, most professionals train to win which requires time in each discipline. For an Ironman distance tri, a professional is out there at full tilt for five hours or so before they even start the marathon.

elite at checkers but not chess wrote:

Flip it around. Why are runners so bad at swimming? You would be hard pressed to find any elite runner that could even make a bad d1 swim team. Let alone approach international level times.

Not a huge sample size as not many people try to cross over, but there was a guy from my state who ran like a 3:53 our senior year who also could have competed for top D1 swimming programs.

People here are giving you the correct answers.

Why are elite triathletes "so bad" at running? First off, you think that a 28:33 is "so bad"? Also consider that he did this mostly in the "off season" and did not have years of run-only training to build for it. Do I think Brownlee could run 27:XX if he focused on it? Absolutely. But would Javier Gomez or the Brownlee's be competing for an Olympic medal on the track? Probably not. But would Mo Farah or Geb be competitive in triathlon? Absolutely not.

They're different sports. when roughly 60+% of your training time is spent not running, you're obviously not likely to be as good as those who spend 100% of their time on one sport (or even as good as if you were to spend 100% of your time on one sport).

Your theories that athletes are just good at triathlon because they train a lot and there is no genetic factor is just way off. Brownlees are genetic freaks. Incredible athletes. You can't run off the bike the way they do if you don't have some good genes. As someone who trained just as much as they did and couldn't touch their 10k times by 2-3 minutes, let me tell you: Genetics have a lot to do with it! Would Alistair have broken 27 if he just focused on running? Probably not, but what does that matter? He completely dominated the sport he did choose to focus on. And he did a sport where his genetics have to be just right that he can be competitive in both swimming AND running, which is likely even rarer than just being genetically gifted in one.

kartelite wrote:

elite at checkers but not chess wrote:

Flip it around. Why are runners so bad at swimming? You would be hard pressed to find any elite runner that could even make a bad d1 swim team. Let alone approach international level times.

Not a huge sample size as not many people try to cross over, but there was a guy from my state who ran like a 3:53 our senior year who also could have competed for top D1 swimming programs.

3:53 in the 1500? That's not "elite" as in "pro". If you're talking about Allen Webb, I'm not so sure that he could have made a D1 swim team.

If not Webb, what kind of swim times did he have?

Also Allen Webb is about as one in a million athlete as you're going to find.

If someone discovered early on that they were really really good at running, they would remain a runner and not become a triathlete.

Its easier and more common to test your ability than to test your tri ability. (how many grade or high school triathlons are there?) Running attracts a much deeper and more extensive world wide talent pool than tri.

So most of the top triathletes already knew they are not going to be among top runners.

Given the choice, most would choose to be a top runner rather than at top triathlete because:

-Its safer to run than ride a bike (ask Lucas V.)

-More worldwide exposure and recognition as a runner than a triathlete (how many people in Africa race bikes or swim?)

-More options for training bases (you need a swimming pool and paved roads, which eliminates most of the world as an option)

-Runners do not have to worry about uncontrollable mechanicals ruining their race

-More competitive running opportunities and races (esp considering road races).

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

They have a superior cardiovascular system and heart compared to us runners

Wait a minute. Who let you in our club?

In the old days of triathlon athletes came to the tri from one of the 3 sports. Expert cyclists and swimmers all had kind of a chunky unnatural running form due to the muscles they developed from their particular sports. Runners and cyclists who were not at least competitive high school/club swimmers were plain dead in the water - as swimming is a skill sport, it is almost impossible to get really good unless you learned as a child. Surprisingly, if a swimmer or runner has a strong aerobic motor, biking actually can be learned pretty quickly. I've never really figured this one out, but a trained cyclist will have legs like telephone poles, yet a fit runner or swimmer with spindly legs can actually hold their own on the bike. (and after a year of heavy cycling will see their legs start to thicken as well.)

Today particularly in Europe and Australia, kids like Lukas V come up through the triathlon club system, who have trained all 3 sports from a young age rather than coming to tri from a particular sport. I think some of these athletes could be elite runners, if they focused for a year or two, but I've never heard of anyone giving it a real shot.

In the current US system they are still recruiting college athletes to triathlon. The only ones who can make it work are those who were national caliber in both running and swimming either in high school, or college. Gwen J ran and swam for Wisconsin, Renee Tomlin was a high school state champ in swimming and running, before she ran at Georgetown. She also was a long time famous competitor in open water lifeguard competitions at the Jersey shore. There is an x-Colorado runner who is doing well too, Morgan Pearson (???) I think, he must have also been a competitive swimmer previously.

Around the world there are plenty of Olympic tri guys who can run 29-30 minutes in an open 10k, which is pretty amazing for the general population. Similarly there are 18 minute 1500m swimmers, and 50 minute 40k cyclists - also great efforts. The question is if they concentrated on running for a year or two, could they get down to 27-28 minutes - or the equivalent for cycling or swimming. The answer is maybe 1-2 of them, or probably not.

You can't e serious wrote:

Because cycling and swimming are not running specific exercise.

This is the same reason elite runners aren't good cyclists.

Like Mike Woods for example (pretty good cyclist) or Freddy Ovett (pro cyclist) or Jeremy Rae or...