Okay, I guess what I was saying is relative to race distances, I have adapted to the swim much faster as it relates to race distances. I don't believe swimming for 5 or 6 hours can at all be comparable to riding for 5 or 6 hours however. Different muscles have different capabilities. I can't imagine how long I would last if I tried to pedal my bike with my tongue!

To Fleck's point, I definitely am new to the sport. I pissed around for 5 years, but in terms of consistent training, I have about 1 year under my belt.

Forgive me, but I am still confused, if I can run 26 miles at a 9 minute pace, but only 4 miles at a 7 minute pace. Am I lacking speed or endurance? Ignoring the nuerological component.

Re: your faster pace at shorter distances, you are lacking endurance. It is obvious that you have the speed necessary to run 7 minute pace, as you can maintain it for nearly half an hour. What you don't have is the endurance to keep doing it for 2 1/2 more hours.

Maybe you lack the endurance to run a faster pace for the 4 mile race too.

And adding the modifer "muscular" to the descriptor "endurance" helps convey this fact how?

Sorry, but "muscular endurance" is wasted verbiage: either you get more specific about the mechanisms contributing to fatigue, or you just say "endurance" and be done with it. (I will say this, however: it isn't as bad as "strength endurance".)

hmmm.....I think Paulo's logic is all starting to make sense now. Assuming that it is the aerobic engine that drives all race distances we are referring to. Since there is no way possible I can hold a 3:30 minute pace for 26 miles, but I can for 100m.

Anyway, so then is endurance almost exclusively training or is their a genetic component to endurance?

Both.

I'd like to hear clarification of the idea of "muscular" endurance compared to "cardiac" endurance.

I did a long mountainous climb with a group of other cycists. After we all struggled to the top, some of us complained of our legs burning, and feeling like we couldn't turn the pedal another revolution (I was in this group), basically it was tired, burning muscles that were limiting our effort and our HRs were not that high. The 2nd group was saying it was the their HR skyrocketing, and their lungs burning that was what was stopping them; there leg muscles were not burning.

This type of story leads people to use the term "muscular" endurance for the first type of limiter compared to "aerobic" endurance for the 2nd.

Thoughts?

---

----
Suffering on the the bike is always more fun than suffering on the run.

let me rephrase, would it be accurate to say that most of us will never reach or genetic limiter?

I wouldn't really know the relative influence of Nature vs Nurture with regard to endurance. I mean, most of us will never find our limits in triathlon or any other sport. The nature of the game is that we can always train a little harder, stretch a little more, roll a little faster, and push a little farther. But how long will we keep doing it, how careful will we be about injury, how much do we really want to spend on a bicycle wheel? Furthermore, will the weather be good? So I don't know. I don't like to speculate about the relative importance of genes though :-)

Re: your comment that the aerobic engine drives all race distances, I think you have it almost right. I would bump your bottom distance to 800m though. Put simply: Any distance that you cannot run while holding your breath is 99% aerobic.

If world records keep falling, and the guys who posted the previous times spent their entire lives in the pursuit of those times, only to be bested a year or so later, then yes, I think all of us will never reach our genetic limiter.

Is that a run-on?

My lunch break is up, so I'll be quick.......


Andrew, can you please enlighten us with a little more detail. You have the most experience of us in the field AND have a strong cycling background which is where this term *appears* to have come from.

What the heck is Friel talking about? Why does he use this term?


Thanks in advance!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Sorry, but I really have no idea.

Sorry, but I really have no idea.
________________________

Those 7 words speak volumes. My guess is I won't get any slower by not understanding either ; ^ )

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Forgive me, but I am still confused, if I can run 26 miles at a 9 minute pace, but only 4 miles at a 7 minute pace. Am I lacking speed or endurance? Ignoring the nuerological component.
__________________

I'll answer that....give me a couple hours. I'm stuck in training right now.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Actually, assuming that there is a reasonable degree of similarity between the courses (without which your comment would be meaningless), this person is truly mythical. What's more, it would be straightforward (if a little dull and time-consuming) to calculate the statistical certainty behind their mythical status by going through archives of UK time trial results.

i don't need to check the UK time trial records. i know of several cyclists locally who fit precisely this description. a 40km tt is about the upper bound of the distance they can ride fast at; when they go out on "long rides", its unclear if they can make it to the end. i'm not going to name names on a forum like this.

"i know of several cyclists locally who fit precisely this description. a 40km tt is about the upper bound of the distance they can ride fast at; when they go out on "long rides", its unclear if they can make it to the end."


I would suggest that these riders invest in the services of a qualified sports pyschologist.



.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Put them on their race bike in a proper situation - i.e. 100 mile TT with decent course (like the course they've gone under 52 mins) with adequate support - and they'll go a whole lot faster than 6 hours. If you don't fulfil these conditions then the comparison is meaningless.

How do I know this? I am one of those people.

I agree with you; it would seem that these riders are either dogging it on long rides, sitting in radically different positions, forgetting to eat, or some other not-really-fitness-related reason. However, if we look at the question from a slightly less extreme point of view:

Why is it that two athletes who are roughly equivalent in one longish endurance event (say a 10k) might not be so close together at all over a longer or shorter distance (say, 5k or 20k)? I mean, we sort of accept that people have race distances that they are best at, relatively speaking. But if all race performance is limited by endurance, what gives? Someone is going to answer "fueling" but I know that can't be the whole story for the difference between, say, 10 and 20 kilometers.

What is the deal with individual differences in shape of power-duration curves?

I would hope so given the conditions you laid out. It would seem to me someone that can go 52 minutes over 40K should be able to go under 6 hours on a bmx bike!

Well, yes. But if Dawhead is comparing someone's performance in a well-prepared-for, flat 40 km TT to their performance when going out ill-equipped on a road bike for a variable-pace, hilly, 100 mile group ride, then the comparison is meaningless.

What do you mean by "what is the deal"? That they exist? Obviously, the answer to that question is yes...

I think that what MuffinTop is asking is the difference between changing the slope of the curve, or moving the curve up or down (hopefully up!).

Perhaps you could remind the good people here of what happens with the curve, a lot of floks still see the slope changing significantly.

Just because someone writes a book does not mean that they are correct or that the book should be followed. Mein Kampf comes to mind as an example.

Ric