Why the swim is important.... but not really,,,,,,,,,

Backs up what I have always heard the pros and top level age groupers say. "You cant win the race on the swim, but you can lose it". Makes sense, even to a slow guy like me.

I would agree and it depends on your training level and skill in each discipline, i had never done any athletics until I started Tri's 2 years ago and I have made way more headway taking time off my swim than off my run but have plateaud(sp) there and would not push harder to try and gain any more in swimming now I am working alot more on running faster rather than burn out pushing to swim harder.

Interesting analysis, but does heart rate during the swim really have anything to do with run performance? Or, alternatively, is muscular fatigue more important? Swimming and running mainly rely on different muscle groups. If muscular fatigue limits performance, then you should push yourself hard during the swim (as long as you don't rely too much on your kick), because your arms won't really be needed later in the race. So the issue is whether your cardiovascular system or your muscles give out first.

Here's an example to consider:

When I bike, my heart rate tops out at 60% of my max and is just slightly higher than what's required to walk up some stairs. Despite this very low heart rate, running right after the bike is relatively difficult (even without a swim). It seems like according to Gordo's argument, running should be very easy, because the bike ride was essentially a warmup as far as my cardiovascular system could tell. Even if there is a swim before the bike, the bike would represent a long period of active recovery. Gordo's argument seems to assume that there is a limited number of heartbeats we have during a race, and I'm not sure that's supported by any evidence. It makes much more sense, especially since we can feel it, that muscular fatigue mostly from the bike is what hurts run performance.

Now, if you kick a lot in the swim, maybe a case can be made for easing off the swim.

Well, yeah, you don't get much bang for your buck in the swim. I'll agree with you there.

Since top competitors use that little "the swim doesn't make your race, but it can screw it up" adage, maybe the effect is magnified for the fast guys. Who's swimming a 15:25 1,000 with a heart rate at 108 anyway? I don't think I can sprint that fast.

Well a IM it may be different but the shorter the distance the more important the swim is I believe.
In a sprint or even Olympic 1min can be tough to bring back.

This is my biggest concern over triathlon - the swim is too short. The fact is in a sprint if you push hard you can only make up a minute or two, and it will kill you on the rest of the race. If the swim were a longer (proportionally) than it is in most races, it would be worth putting out some effort.

It is not an advantage to be a good swimer. A good swimmer will save a minute, a good runner will save 5 minutes, a good cycclist will save 10 minutes.

I personally exchange bpm on the swim for the rest of the race, but i do it from 170 down to 155, not 150 down to 135.

Oh, and 1:30/100m is about 115bpm for me, and 1:17 is 150bpm... so to me going at 150bpm is worth it.

This user's post has been ignored.

I tried a wetsuit on foir the first time and minus sighting and other issues with passing I think with the suit I could be first out of water by 10 minutes compared to last couple of years finisher time. You get a 10 minute led in an Oylimpic distance I may just need to maintain on the bike and the run.

More amatuerish the division 250+ under 39 I would say is a very amatuerish division the more the swim becomes important then again the more everything is since the competitors times have a greatest range.