Good at swim and bike but terrible at run (Page 2)

Honestly, I think a lot always has to do with background.  Unlike what others in the thread have experienced, I haven't gotten any slower as a runner since I started doing tri's (which meant dropping my average weekly run volume from 35-40 mpw down to 20-30 mpw)...quite the opposite, in fact.  As someone with a competitive running background, I feel like I have not only the run base to train effectively, but I know how to prioritize my run sessions to maximize the speed benefit.  I'm certainly not training to be the best marathoner I can be, but I am training in a way that keeps me highly competitive in my AG at 5K and 10K and that translates into solid tri runs.  I rely on the aerobic benefit of my 4 rides and 2 swims per week to contribute to my fitness and pay close attention to getting in quality weekend long runs and tempo/hill/interval sessions.  For me, that's what pays off in racing speed.

When I look at the other two disciplines, I had only bought a bike 9 months before my first tri and hadn't been in the pool in over 30 years.  But because I used to swim in HS, I found that I moved up in my AG rankings there much faster than on the bike once I started getting in some yardage and got the rust off my form.  It's on the bike...like on the run for the OP...where I really struggle to get above MOP.  Don't have the training insights and habits that others have from years of cycling before doing tri's.  Don't have the money for some gear that might shave a little time off.  Just generally have had to evolve into a cyclist to do triathlons, which I didn't have to do as a runner or swimmer, and it has not been a fast process, even when I've tried to do a cycling focus at times.

I know where you're coming from OP.

The running is the hardest part.  But you've just gotta compare yourself to your own times.  If you are getting faster, eventually you will move from bop/mop to the front.  I wouldn't worry about what other people are doing.  Just be glad you aren't BOP in all 3 disciplines!

Thanks for all the comments, everyone. I guess I just have to stop comparing myself to others on the run, and focus on improving my own times.

I am seriously considering taking a year or two out of triathlon and doing nothing but running. As part of tri training I don't have time to do more than 20-25mpw. If I gave up swimming and biking, I could easily build up to 40mpw. Once I started swimming and biking again, obviously that would have to decrease again, but the base I had gained may stand me in good stead.

And I know I could get my swimming and biking back to where they are now with about 6 months of decent training.

There are plenty of scientific studies going into human physiology and biomechanics, including the dynamics of the foot strike, for example studies by the Harward Skeletal Bio Lab of the department of human evolutionary biology. They've done impact analysis of different foot strikes, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/.

There are also plenty of non-scientific video analysis of elite runners running style and foot strike, that seems to indicate that winners prefer for- or midfoot strike.

Whether you find this convincing is up to you, and which style you prefer and enjoy is a personal issue. Regardless of scientific evidence for a particular running style, my point was:

It's easy, in particular if you don't have a background in running for competition, to think that anyone can run, after all we've been doing it since we made our first step. There's no particular technique or trick to fast or efficient running. I think this is wrong, technique matters, and working on your running  technique can improve your performance. 

If you've come to a plateau in your running performance and progress seems to have stopped, try looking at your running technique and see how you can improve it. Get a coach and/or try video analysis of your running style paired with actual performance and personal perception of what feels good to find what works best for you.

In my case I found that foot strike did make a difference. Pose-running is more than just foot strike, but the foot strike is an important part. 

BR, Erik

Hi Erik,

It is this statement you made:

Practising mid- or forefoot strike, also known as pose-running, gives a smoother run, saves energy so you can run faster longer.

which lacks any solid evidence.  There are running 'techniques' that can help one run faster or more efficiently.  There is just no evidence that footstrike is one of those aspects.  I know some people belive it is true and that's fine.  It still doesn't make it a fact.

BR, John

Do you know for a 'fact' that there is absolutely zero evidence to back up the above statement?

You win.  I should have said I am unaware of any evidence that is true.  Can you show me otherwise, though?

No, I admit I was just being facetious....to some extent, anyway. I have no idea whether there is any scientific evidence or not. If anyone knows of any studies that show this, however, I would be interested to read them. I have recently bought some 'barefoot' shoes and they genuinely do feel faster, and my times in training also seem to have got faster. This could all be psychological, so I would be interested to see any evidence backing up physical improvements as a result of barefoot running and/or midfoot striking.

Nothing scientific, but this article is interesting in it's perspective of looking at both sides of it, while stating outright there is no scientific data to back up claims of either.  Kinda plays devil's advocate with it.  

First statement, "smoother run":

The Harward lab I referred to have made impact analysis and measurements of different foot strikes with and without running shoes. These clearly show that running barefoot heel strike has a very steep impact curve compared to barefoot for- or midfoot strike. I think that we can agree  that the steeper the impact curve the less smooth the run. Now, modern running shoes are designed to absorb the impact of heel strike. Hence, running barefoot with a for- or midfoot strike or running in traditional running shoes with a heel strike may be about equally smooth. But comparing apples to apples, I think there is scientific basis for the "smoother run"-claim.

The scientists at Harward have also done fiels research in Africa recording running techniques of people who have never worn shoes. They clearly show a preference for for- or midfoot strike. They conclude that heel strike is not the natural strike we have evolved to use when running.

Second statement, "save energy and run faster longer":

One of the ideas in pose running is to strike under your body, not in front of your body. If you do a simple vector analysis of the forces at impact, when the foot strike in front of your body, you can decompose the impact force into a vertical component and a horizontal component against the direction of motion. Hence, every strike slows you down. This has two effects, you run slower and you have to use more energy to move forward. If you do the vector analysis for strike right under your body there is only a vertical component and no force against your line of movement. Hence, you save energy (and thus can run longer), and run faster because you're not slowed down with every step. This is simple newtonean mechanical analysis. 

Heel strike implies strike in front of your body: I think that we can safely agree that runners do not flex their ankle to less than 90 degrees making a sharp angle. Assuming this, by pure geometry, you can only do heel strike if you strike in front of your body. This does not imply that focusing on for- or mid foot strike you will automatically strike right under your body, only that if you do heel strike you will strike in front, and if you strike right under your body you will strike for- or midfoot.

I admit I lack references to experimental evidence or any detailed analysis quantifying the effect, the effect may be minimal or insignificant compared to other factors. But the basic argument is based on well established science, newtonean physics and geometry. 

BR, Erik

If you want to go faster, you need to train faster. Just adding miles to your weekly bike, run, swim totals will help...but ultimately if you don't start putting some strength and speed work in, your gains will be limited. (I'm not as sure on the swim part here as this is my weak link...technique plays such a role in the swim...and mine has lots of room for improvement!)

Running was my thing...of course I'll never be as fast as I was in high school now that I'm early 40's...but...I have improved my run, swim and bike times by a good margin the past 8+ months by putting in both strength (bike - working hills in big gears and slower cadence / run - hill repeats) and speed (bike and run - doing 30 sec to 5 min intervals hard x 5 to 10 reps / swim - 100 intervals or ladder intervals) 

Just putting in more miles can help if you are still working to lose extra weight as weight is the enemy of speed (except downhill on the bike!!). Add a day of speed/strength to each discipline, being careful to avoid an injury...but push yourself. If you're not hurting, if you're not completely out of breath, if your muscles are not screaming at you...you're effort is not enough. After 4 to 6 weeks of this you WILL see improvement in your times.

As has been mentioned before, not everyone will be able to become an exceptional AG swimmer/cyclist/runner...but to improve your speed and endurance, you can't just churn out a few more miles at a modest pace and expect to see much in the way of gains. I'll never be in the top 10% or 20% coming out of the water...and that's OK, but I do expect to continue to work hard and claw my way into the top 1/3! 

Story of my life. With a decent swim background I easily pass many in the water. During my first tris last year (sprints) was  consistantly top 10%...during the bike was comfortable, passed fewer than in the swim and several  (usually but not always on better bikes) passed me and usually placed top 25-33% but the run was a diffent story as most of these people who I passed got their last laughs at me (I placed usually near the middle or worse)...

Since most people come to tri from a running background I think it's more of an advantage to be a better runner than swimmer (since swimming is such a small part).