Running two times a day? (Page 2)

I didn't specify very well that the 8k time was what the OP considered "standard", don't know what Pfitz does.

erik interesting points, but I think the main point is that for the average racer it is easiest to shave time off the bike.

There is just more time spent on the bike in the race, so a 10% improvement is a much bigger deal  than a 10% improvement on the swim or run. Also, if I want to improve 10% at the bike,  increasing swim volume is probably not the best approach.

But that is slightly different from the topic of whether this means 6x a week swim is good or bad, which is really what you were focusing on. This depends on what your goals are, and how many other workouts you are doing every week.

So you just fall prey to the same flawed argument, again, think ahead beyond the next race.

Say athletes A and B start with the same fitness and performance in all disciplines.

Athlete A invest X time extra first year and improve swim 10% due to better technique, next year A doesn't have to keep investing X time extra and can switch focus to the bike.

Athlete B argues as you, and spend X time extra on the bike the first year. The second year, B has to keep investing X time extra to maintain that advantage since this advantage is in physical performance and not technique. Hence B does not have time to focus on swimming.

B wins first year, A wins second year, and the years to come. B follows a loser's strategy.

AFAIK OP wants to follow the winner's strategy and get good at swimming. Spending more time in the pool, and particularly with a coach is the way forward to get good at swimming.

BR

Slow down and try reading it again. When you gain swimming ability, it takes a lot less continued work to maintain it as compared to what it does for cycling or running.

You are too much. What I said is a mathematical fact. You keep giving these weird attacks on people for being illogical or having flawed arguments, but I think you should study what those words mean because you are mutilating the English language.

What people should do with the above mathematical fact is not obvious, but that doesn't make it any less true, or flawed.

Of course there are three events, and we should train for them all, and you are right that swimming is most technique driven of all of them, and this should be taken into account when planning. We all get that, it isn't very complicated. You haven't quite earned the Nobel Prize for these platitudes.

It is possible to focus too much on the swim, if your bike is horrible. It is well known that just focusing on swimming is a bad way to get significant gains on the bike, and vice-versa. Training is complicated, individualized, and not one size fits all. For someone who simply wants to beat their friend in the next race, or get a quick bump in the standings, they should focus on the bike more. Everything else being equal, of course.

I think that this is somewhat true, really depending on your background in running or cycling. I ran in HS/college and 20 years later can still run 1 mile under 5:30 without training a ton.  

Still my point stands - for an average AGer with training time/opportunities being limited, improving bike/run is the way to go, with swimming being something of an afterthought, unless you have unlimited training opportunities of course.