Slowing down training runs.....Point of diminishing returns? (Page 2)

Originally posted by Meulen

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by nc452010 Thanks again for all the input. Really interesting conversation. I'm not sure on crossover fitness, either. But, I keep hearing (from people I know......who should know what they're talking about) that the best way to improve your IM run..........is to bike..... a LOT. I can read between the lines on that one.

You're either misinterpreting what they're saying, or listening to the wrong people.

A high level of bike fitness combined with good pacing is needed to set up the potential for a good run, but it doesn't do anything directly for the ability to run well.

It takes a high level of swim fitness, bike fitness, and run fitness, combined with good pacing through all three legs, to have a good run.  A shortfall in any of those 4 areas will lead to a run fail.  There are no substitutes.

 

I disagree with this, but only because "no substitutes" is a big phrase. I ultimately think you and I are on the same page, but there are "some" substitutes. Mainly, to cut down on typically marathon training run volume (like the 40-45mpw discussed), and substitute some more bike time. Doesn't mean you can get away with "no" running though. Within an IM training plan more focus on the bike is much more constructive to setting up a good run for a lot of athletes. It's also true that some fitness from the bike does carry over to the run. Especially, when your talking about some climbing training on the bike. As athletes age, and recovery time becomes more of issue, it's also more constructive to use the bike more to improve the run this way because it's easier to recover from.

I mostly agree with you.  By "no substitutes", I wasn't referring to the compromises that need to be made when training for triathlon.  I was referring to the idea that substituting training in one discipline for training in another is an equal trade.

Where I disagree is the implication in your last sentence that bike training can be an equal trade for run training.  As I said above, it can have an indirect impact due to greater biochemical adaptations, and a bit of biomechanical adaptations, but it's not a 1:1 substitute for run training.  It's a compromise that's made to deal with situations like injuries or limited training time.

Good discussion guys.   For us aging athletes, we definitely need to be aware and conscious of the amount of stress we put on our bodies especially if training for something as silly ( ) as an IM, this is the kind of info i think is helpful to the OP and others (me) training for these distances.

Originally posted by nc452010

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Originally posted by nc452010 Thanks again for all the input. Really interesting conversation. I'm not sure on crossover fitness, either. But, I keep hearing (from people I know......who should know what they're talking about) that the best way to improve your IM run..........is to bike..... a LOT. I can read between the lines on that one.

You're either misinterpreting what they're saying, or listening to the wrong people.

A high level of bike fitness combined with good pacing is needed to set up the potential for a good run, but it doesn't do anything directly for the ability to run well.

It takes a high level of swim fitness, bike fitness, and run fitness, combined with good pacing through all three legs, to have a good run.  A shortfall in any of those 4 areas will lead to a run fail.  There are no substitutes.

 

I'm POSITIVE you're misinterpreting what they're saying. It's not rocket science to figure that the most likely cause of a bad IM marathon.........is being under-prepared for the IM bike (or, in many cases, over-biking one's abilities). So, if one were to bike......a LOT....they could reduce the risk of their bike fitness level (or, lack thereof).....affecting their run. You still mad about the drafting thread......lol?

Drafting thread???

That's the "good pacing" part of my post.  An inexperienced athlete can benefit from a higher level of bike fitness like you hypothesize, because they're less likely to over cook the bike if their FTP "ceiling" is higher (IME, inexperienced athletes are more likely to chase the clock instead of pacing properly based on HR, power, or RPE - their RPE frequently isn't "calibrated" well enough to permit good pacing), but regardless of bike fitness, it's still possible to ride harder than they should, and blow up on the run.

Watch the pro's at Kona this Saturday.  At that race in particular, you'll see the fastest long course athletes in the world gambling to an extent on their bike pacing, so there are always some who implode on the run, and either limp it in much slower than they'd otherwise be capable of, or pull out with a DNF.

Regardless of fitness level (assuming at least a minimal amount, and we're not talking about someone who's coming off the couch), it's possible to adjust pacing to get through most HIM and IM events without undue suffering.  I had an athlete at IMMD this past weekend who had a bad bike accident in May which cost him 2+months of training, leaving only about 8 weeks for final race prep.  Taking a DNS would have been an option, but for a variety of reasons, he and I decided he would still do the race, but with the goal of enjoying the day instead of racing for a PR.  Since he's an experienced athlete with a number of HIM's behind him, and he'd done IMMD before, we could adjust the intensity of his race so that he could go out and enjoy the event in a respectable time, even though his longest bike this year was less than 80 miles and his longest single run was about 14 (total 17 in a day by splitting the long runs into 2 parts to push both the volume and long day distance while still managing injury risk) with total weekly volume that only peaked at about 12 hours.  He uses HR and RPE, so we adjusted his bike from zone 2 / RPE 2-3 down to high zone 1 / RPE 1 to leave enough matches to still run well.

The point is that it's not bike fitness that sets up a good run.  It's something you alluded to above:  bike pacing relative to fitness.  It's not always as simple as riding at a given % of LTHR or FTP.  Depending on overall fitness levels, those targets need to be adjusted to achieve a particular athlete's best performance on a particular day.

It's the best runners who always end up having the best runs, not the best cyclists.......there is THAT.  

I'm reading your respective posts and from where I sit you guys are saying the same thing.  Overcook the bike and your run is toast (ask me how I know..   ) .   Overcooking is really just overbiking your abilities, thus if you bike more your abilities should be higher. 

If all else is constant and one is getting the proper amount of swimming and running in, then biking more is not a bad thing.   But your typical AG training for an IM with jobs families etc have limited time to balance S/B/R.   And you can't bike so much that you make your other workouts suffer due to a need to recover. 

From my own personal experience, I am going with a consistency and quality approach this time, over a quantity approach (much as it freaks me out).   We'll see if it works.

IMO

#rinny

For an experienced long course athlete who understands how to train and pace properly?  Yes, I completely disagree with that statement.  All that's going to happen when an experienced athlete achieves a higher level of bike fitness is they're going to bike at a higher % of FTP, LTHR, or RPE, and still be able to run well.  If they trained less, they're going to decrease the bike intensity to still set up a good run.  Unless they haven't trained the run adequately.  In that case, they're screwed regardless.

For an inexperienced long course athlete who opts to chase a time or pace instead of implementing a valid pacing strategy?  Sure, it it improves their odds of not screwing up so badly that their marathon turns into the ironman death march.  That doesn't mean it's a smart way to view training, because they're not running better because they biked more.  They're running better because the greater bike fitness provided more margin of error in selecting bike intensity, so they kept the ride within their abilities.

All other things being equal, biking more does not equate to less run suffering.  Adequate training in the swim, bike, and run, and learning how to execute the race well are what it takes for a good race.  It's not as simple as saying "bike more, and the run won't be unpleasant."

Everyone wants simple answers regarding one variable to complex questions that contain many variables.

Here's the simplest advice I can provide the athlete approaching their first IM whose goal is a solid time and enjoyable experience:

1. Train as many hours per week as your body can recover from, and your schedule allows.
2. Focus more on total weekly volume through greater session frequency than on the distance of the long bike or run.  The long bike and run are probably the most overrated aspects of IM training.
3. Do the long bike sessions at slightly higher than planned race intensity to practice fueling strategies.  Race day should be the easiest long ride you've done all year.
4. Prepare well for all 3 disciplines, and don't neglect the swim just because it's the shortest time leg of the race.  Over cooking the swim can come back to bite you in the butt during the run.
5. If you're not working with a coach to guide you, take the time to learn how to properly pace your race.  The single biggest mistake that first time IM triathletes make is racing too hard, and blowing up on the run.  Good pacing for the average AGer requires a lot of patience on race day.  If at any time you question whether you may be going too hard on the bike, you almost certainly are.

I suspect you'll be happy with the results on race day, Chris.  You're experienced, and work with a great coach.

My unqualified 2 cents...

For shorter races...where an athlete is most likely to run the entire run course...run fitness is very important.

For longer races like IM, paired with an AG athlete who is very unlikely to run the entire 26.2 miles, run fitness is not as important as bike fitness.  Yes, you still need to do a good share of run training to be prepared, but I don't think 40-50 mpw is a good use of an AGer's time considering that they also need time to recover and do other things in life besides train and sleep.  If an AG athlete does have time to run 40-50 mpw, while building up their bike fitness, and recovering properly...that's great.  Just usually not reality.

We could look at examples from the best IM runners in the world, but it's not an apples to apples comparison to an AGer.  As others already mentioned, run fitness is usually not the limiter for most AGers who simply don't have the overall fitness level to run the whole IM marathon even close to their open marathon pace.  For those cases (someone like me when I was doing tris), a good use of time is to focus slightly more on the bike as compared to shorter distance tris.  With the theory being that the fresher you start the run, then less walking you have to do.  Even if you have less than ideal run fitness, if you start the IM marathon "fresh", you can shuffle your way to a decent IM run split.  But even if you have really good run fitness, if you come off the bike tired (even if you paced the bike decently) simply because your bike fitness was lacking...you probably end up walking a lot more.  And walking the IM marathon is when you bleed HUGE amounts of time.  Don't ask me how I know.

But that's just my 2 cents.  "Not a coach" and "The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it"

Ben,

Yes, it can vary so let me elaborate.  I would consider speed work in the vein of doing track workouts.  Balls out 200, 300. 400 repeats and stuff like that.  There's no need for that in a 52 year old focusing on IM or HIM.  I don't mean it in terms of faster longer running like running 90 seconds faster than race pace for longer intervals.

Curtis,

I've read your theories before and the issue is that they apply more to short course where, I kind of hate to say this but... people can easily fake their way through races.  Tons of people can look like superstars for a sprint race that lasts for a little more than an hour.  Pacing, nutrition, hydration, and all that play such a minor role as compared to long course.  Your own race results tell that story.  Not trying to be rude with that comment but it is what it is.  You got some running talent, probably FOP running talent, but it hasn't translated to good 70.3 times.  You got skills and the right coaching and training would make you a stud.  Just my opinion.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  I know plenty of people that kick my butt when it comes to sprint and oly races but I beat them by 45 minutes to an hour in a 70.3 or two+ hours in an IM.

If one were to run 75 miles a week and do zero bike training, one would not finish the 112 mile bike ride.  I can almost guarantee that.  Running has the least amount of crossover benefit of the three disciplines.  You can get through the 26.2 miles on zero to little run training.  It might be real slow and real ugly but it can be done.  I've done it.  You can't get through a 2.4 mile swim on zero swim training or 112 miles on zero bike training.

I agree that it's often the lost in translation approach to "track" workouts.  You're right.  Most people go into track workouts like they were 15-20 years old and just run as fast as they can.  When our tri club first started there was a decent sized group of people that would go to a local school to do track workouts.  I'm not sure anyone made it out of there injury free and it didn't last long.  It was a lot of newbies being lead by a contingent of people from running backgrounds and not tri backgrounds.  The stereotypical running workout mentality being wedged into tri training always makes me cringe.  It never works but I'll be darned if people don't try to do it anyway.