Forums >Cross Training>TRIATHLON
Running Rev'd
As I've been incorporating tri-training, this has also been my struggle with keeping up the run. In most triathlons, you are going to be spending the bulk of the time on the bike, so conventional wisdom says you should spend most of your training time on the bike. As the bike is my weakest leg, this is all the more true for my training. I've now completed a super sprint (200 m pool swim, 10 mile bike, 2 mile run) and a sprint (.6 mile open water swim, 15 mile bike, 4 mile run) with training gearing up towards an Olympic on 8/23.
My brother (an IM Kona qualifier and finisher) and his coach recommend running volume through frequency. So that would mean, even if you were to tackle a 70.3 or 140.6, you still might be running every day or 6 days/week. Have you spent much time on the SlowTwitch forums? They can be horribly frustrating to read, but there is still some helpful training advice among the BS.
Called to Endure - Blog
"Everyone gets the sunset. Only the dedicated earn the sunrise."
Yes, lots of stuff to learn over at Slowtwitch. It's kinda like Letsrun for triathlon people. Similar to letsrun, if they all got in a race together most of them would win it and everyone is smarter than the next person. Still some good info for lurkers.
Nailed it.
1989 thru 1993 Mark Allen finished 3 world championship Ironmans in under 8:10 2007 thru 2012 there have only been 2 who have gone under 8:10.
1989 thru 1993 Mark Allen finished 3 world championship Ironmans in under 8:10
2007 thru 2012 there have only been 2 who have gone under 8:10.
A couple years ago, we talked about this subject within the SwimBikeRun user group.
Regarding the 2007 through 2012 comment... 1 of those years was quite a bit faster than the IronWar year.
Year Swim Bike Run
1980 0:51:00 5:03:00 3:30:33 Dave Scott
1985 0:55:13 4:54:07 3:01:33 Scott Tinley
1988 0:51:28 4:36:50 3:02:42 Scott Molina
1989 0:51:17 4:37.52 2:40:04 Mark Allen -- IRONWAR 8:09:15
1990 0:51:43 4:43:45 2:52:48 Mark Allen
1995 0:51:50 4:46:35 2:42:09 Mark Allen
2000 0:51:45 4:39:32 2:48:10 Peter Rid
2005 0:49:54 4:25:24 2:54:51 Faris Al-Sultan
2010 0:51:36 4:31:50 2:43:31 Chris McCormack -- 8:10:37
2011 0:51:56 4:24:05 2:44:02 Craig Alexander -- 8:03:56
2012 0:51:28 4:35:15 2:48:06 Pete Jacobs -- 8:18:37
2013 0:51:02 4:25:35 2:51:18 Frederik VanLierde -- 8:12:29
In 1989, Mark Allen ran a 2:40 marathon. His total time was 8:09:15. His bike time was 4:37:52
In 2011, Craig Alexander ran a 2:44:02 marathon. His total time was 5+ minutes faster in total time, but 12+ minutes faster in bike time.
In fact, since 2005, most years, the bike times have been faster than the IronWar race, with the "slow" years due to less than perfect weather.
In 1989, Mark Allen had the "luxury" of a running partner for 25 miles. That pushed both him and Dave Scott to an Ironman marathon race that was spectacular. Their 2:40 marathon times were incredible. Those early years had stellar triathletes pushing hard on steel frame bikes.
FWIW, 1996 Olympic swimmer Andy Potts won Ironman Coeur D'Alene last weekend in 8:25. (His bike split was 4:42, but his swim was 47:57).
MTA: On the woman's side, the winner of the 2013 race (Mirinda Carfrae) ran a 2:50:38 last year, and was the 3rd fastest runner overall!
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
Yes. The forums at SlowTwitch are awful (too many people post without any quality. The quality people are surrounded by ego posters).
However, I do like the journalistic approach to the website and having staff contributors (separate and apart from the forums). I would welcome a more formal approach to RunningAhead where staff contributors would provide 'us' with solid knowledge and strategies to races.
These statements don't really prove anything. Especially over 112 miles and a marathon to follow. ..... All of this and it just ain't showing up in the times...of the elites anyway. And I would think if it isn't showing up there then it isn't showing up in the age group amateur class.
These statements don't really prove anything. Especially over 112 miles and a marathon to follow.
All of this and it just ain't showing up in the times...of the elites anyway. And I would think if it isn't showing up there then it isn't showing up in the age group amateur class.
I wasn't trying to prove anything, just making a statement about how it feels good in the moment to know that training can trump dumping thousands of dollars into the sport.
I got exactly what you meant...coming from a different perspective, I don't have a problem getting passed by these overly outfitted high end bikes. I know that I will pass many of them when we get to the run...and I am not a particulary fast runner.
I should note that it's been over 6 years since my last Tri of any distance.
Kercan
There is no doubt that the bike splits have gotten faster and they should. As I mentioned, it's very clear when the first "tri specific" bike was introduced.
A couple of things to keep in mind...In the early years of the sport most of the athletes came from a strong competitive running back ground. Cycling was pretty new to a lot of these guys. many of them raced on borrowed bikes. Today people coming into the sport have built a bike base of years...I would also venture a guess that most of the people entering tri's today are coming from a cycling background.(I'm speaking on the elite and pro level...not general population)
My main argument is that if you take the aggregate of the top 10 finishing times from 15 years ago and compare it to todays we are only seeing a marginal difference in overall finishing times. Take that same aggregate data and compare just marathon times and it's basically equal. Where are these big gains that keep getting promised?
I like the sport, I really do...the turn off for me is when the discussions turn into equipment. Or I have to listen to my office neighbor go on and on about having the 20th fastest bike split. Just don't ask him what his overall finishing place was. It's a Triathlon...3 events, one finishing time. So you trained for the bike...great!
Ah, I should have never opened this thread.
This would be most unwelcome. We already basically have our staff experts here that provide us with infinite amounts of running wisdom. There are other places where one can find candy to rot their teeth.
Kercan ...In the early years of the sport most of the athletes came from a strong competitive running back ground. My main argument is that if you take the aggregate of the top 10 finishing times from 15 years ago and compare it to todays we are only seeing a marginal difference in overall finishing times. Take that same aggregate data and compare just marathon times and it's basically equal. Where are these big gains that keep getting promised? Ah, I should have never opened this thread.
...In the early years of the sport most of the athletes came from a strong competitive running back ground.
I believe that most of the pioneers of the sport came from swimming (ie. Mark Allen and Dave Scott in particular).
I agree with the comment about the aggregate times from 15 years ago vs. today. It's quite amazing that the elite's times are unchanged. I believe that the woman's side has had significant improvement over the past 5 - 8 years due to 1 or 2 dominant women.
I agree that I also shouldn't have opened this thread. I nearly weaned myself off of this forum addiction, only to be sucked back in over the weekend thanks to a relaxing weekend away from work.
I've just sacrificed a running season for tri. I shot my mouth off in a pub and called an old school friend a fat shire horse. He threw down the gauntlet and I had to take the challenge.
my observations:
-Average Joe's like me should learn to swim. Maybe 10 percent of the field swam 1500m in 20 mins (national championships, so some quick swimmers). Maybe 50 percent of the field took over 30 minutes. Guilty as charged - I didn't put the time into it because the scenery when you're training is crap. Looks like I'm not the only one.
-The cycling distorts the competition. The whole bike technology thing makes the sport elitist. I don't know how much time a £10,000 bike would have saved me versus my £1,000 bike. It annoys me that it isn't a level playing field though.
-The running is agony! It takes two miles to get going and your form is shot to pieces. The only positive is that the last discipline is the one I enjoy the most. If it was swimming I'd probably drown!
It's been an interesting experience, but I remain a runner who enjoys cross-training on a bike.
. The only positive is that the last discipline is the one I enjoy the most. If it was swimming I'd probably drown! It's been an interesting experience, but I remain a runner who enjoys cross-training on a bike.
. The only positive is that the last discipline is the one I enjoy the most. If it was swimming I'd probably drown!
That's the reason why swimming is first!
Out there running since dinosaurs roamed the earth
CT JEFF
Agreed. It makes more sense for the ARMS to be sandwiched between two LEGS sports, but more people would probably drown.
I think too much emphasis / excuses are made about the price of a bike. Sure, there is a huge jump up from a borrowed, rusted, ill-fitting road bike to an entry level bike, but the jump isnt that huge going from entry level aluminum to top of the line carbon. If my livelihood depended on a few seconds over a 6 hour bike ride, Id probably invest in it, but for the average joe, price isnt really an issue.
I heard about a guy who would dump his water at the bottom of hills so he would have a lighter ride. Ive seen big out of shape fat guys, I mean, really fat, on bikes that cost more than my car. A faster bike will make anyone faster, but Id rather focus on getting my body into shape than my wallet out of shape.
RUN SAFE. Barefoot 1st: 6/9/13. PR: 5k=22:50 10k=47:46 HM 1:51. FM 4:28 Oct 2015 joined RUN 169!
Regarding the price of a bike. A very important thing is that the bike fits you properly. You'll do much better on a $500 bike that fits well than you will on a $5000 bike that doesn't.
for crying out loud arca, what happened with the challenge?
Sure, there is a huge jump up from a borrowed, rusted, ill-fitting road bike to an entry level bike, but the jump isnt that huge going from entry level aluminum to top of the line carbon. If my livelihood depended on a few seconds over a 6 hour bike ride, Id probably invest in it, but for the average joe, price isnt really an issue.
I'd disagree with this...a used entry level Tri Bike is going to run you $1000 on average. A middle of the line bike will run you $3000 and a top of the line will start around a $5000 price point. I realize it's realitive to your expendable cash but for me, even $2k is pretty significant.
Now if you mean the price difference between an entry level Aluminum and entry level Carbon then yes, the price isn't that much different but Carbon alone does not justify "top of the line".
I do believe someone running an entry level bike against a high end bike fully outfitted that the outcome will hinge more on the rider and not the bike.