I feel like you were just trying to single me out...

But for real- I know i'm a crappy runner. Do I try to improve that? Yes. But I also know that if we bike the same bike, you'll catch me. But if I put a gap on you going into the run, I might hold you off. I'm like a way slower and less successful Starky :)

As my title states, I am doing nothing more than asking a what if.

I see posts all the time about working on improving bike times. I just do not see many about improving on run times.

Now, is it possible that one reason for this is very few fast runners are carrying extra weight? It is NOT easy to stay on a diet all year long and be skinny.
From where I sit, I am at a huge disadvantage against many top racers I race against. Compared to them, I am fat. Many are like 30 pounds less than me.
No fun being tall and weighing more.

Again, I have no idea the answer, just wondering. I know I seem to put more focus on run stuff than many I talk to.

And I am not saying what is right or wrong. I just love to hear others thoughts to see if for me, there are things I can change.

Why the 3 times per 90? I do not believe in running back to back days, so that is why I do 3 days a week long. I used to run an hour, but I went to 90 minutes when I was
training for IMLT in 2013. I seemed to do better on the run while doing this so I just stayed with it. It does make racing the run not to mentally feel as hard since I just
say a 40 minute run is nothing compared to my 90 minute workouts.

Because lack of bike fitness will sink your run. I didn't completely believe it myself until I did a 70.3 recently, having not ridden as much as usual the last 6 months. FTP down, overall endurance down. I adjusted my power accordingly to FTP and still, based off of just feel, rode 82% instead of closer to 85%. I was well rested, so that wasn;t the issue. I felt good the last 15 miles on the bike and put in some of my best power, but when I left T2, the legs just weren't there at all.

Fast forward 1 week later, having done that race and put in some quality rides, but dialing back the intersity a little (relative to the distance) and I ran great off the bike. Less rested. I expected to run a lot slower, but my legs felt great and I ran much faster than my training paces, zones, etc. would have suggested.

You might say it's jsut an on day vs and off day, but I really don;t have off days. But I haven;t raced out of shape in the last 2+ years.

Point being, that how well I run off the bike has a lot more to do with how fit I am on the bike than how much I've been running. That might just be me, and cycling has become my clear strength, but I think it applies well. When I've had athletes not perform well, they just lacked the fitness, or their target output was simply too high for their fitness. A 20' FTP test can fool you if its' a basis for a 2, 3 or 5 hour bike pacing. IF we'll trained, it's pretty accurate. Why? Different adaptations.

I surmise that a lot of triathletes are just under-trained on the bike. It takes a lot of fitness to sustain power for long duration in a 4, 6, 9, 10+ hour race.

If I were even good enough, and there was every anyone around me on the bike, who knows. I know when folks pass me on the bike I do not have the skills to even
consider trying to stay with them :(

I also believe that your typical triathlete can more easily achieve a top-50/20/10/whatever bike split, or something that is relatively closer to the AG winners / Pros, than the same on the run just by burying himself while the eventual winners are theoretically pacing it. "Wow, I had a top-whatever bike split (even though I had a horrible run that was way below my capability) and was only X minutes behind Joe Blow...I must be a cyclist! I'm going to keep burying myself in races to see how close I can get to a top split!"

That kind of thinking is likely too common and I would guess deludes a number of triathletes into thinking they are better at cycling than running, all based off of a pretty skewed perception of reality. I know I started out this way myself and it took me years to figure out how stupid (not to mention, counterproductive) that that ultimately was for my finish times.

Also, it's the longstanding ST mentality: who cares that you walked the mary/half-mary if you absolutely crushed the bike split . . . .right?.....

In which case shouldn't you concentrate on improving your bike as opposed to criticising everyone else's run?

Just asking questions, not criticizing anyone.

The thing is, David, you have asked this exact question many times - in fact you use basically the same words each time - and you never get an answer to your satisfaction. Isn't one definition of insanity repeating an action over and over and hoping to get a different result?

This is totally the discussion I have been having with my friend. His first goal is to always have the fastest bike split, no matter what it does to his run and finish time.
I think he is starting to look at stuff when I have been kicking his butt on the run, and the last aquathlon race. Makes no difference if he has the fastest bike split at Nationals
if he sucks on the run after the bike. Thats why our sport is called triathlon, and not bike racing. :)

I do not remember asking the question. I assume you will find all the places that show my memory is getting bad. :)

Surprised you read my posts. :)

So because your friend has a flawed race strategy, you have extrapolated that to everyone who passes you on the bike?

Really poor logic.

My bike remains my strength and my run continues to be a work-in-progress. Building up the run base to match the uber-runners takes time. I have the engine, but not the body. 4 years ago, I ran 9:00 / mile in Racine for my first 70.3. Two years ago, I ran 8:30's. Yesterday (in an admittedly altered race format) I ran 7:37's. In each of my two previous attempts, I passed a LOT of people on the bike, some of which undoubtedly passed me on the run. Doesn't mean that I wasn't paying attention to my run, or more attention to my bike....just the realities of my abilities at the time.

Incidentally, the few people in my AG that ran faster than me weren't able to make up the time gap from the bike. Using your flawed logic, I should be asking "why don't more people pay attention to their bikes / equipment?"

Changes in your bike position / equipment have an immediate impact on your times. Immediate. Building sufficient run volume takes time. "Want to ride faster? Here are a bunch of quick options to improve your times. Want to run faster? Run more, come back in a year or two and let us know how you did. "

Seems over the years I see all this focus on the bike segment of our races. But thinking about my races, I have seen very few where the bike won the race.
But I have seen many folks losing their race because their run is so poor.

Over the last few years I look at the results and just do not understand why so many folks, no matter what the age, are just slow on the run. When they fly by me on the
bike, I just smile and think I just wait my time, and pass them on the run. So do folks just not train enough, correctly, for the run off the bike?

So, are all the race results wrong, or ?? And if I just focus on folks around my age group age, it really gets interesting to see how slow most folks run. If you can swim and bike,
but cannot run, well, it is only the finish time that matters.

Also, it's the longstanding ST mentality: who cares that you walked the mary/half-mary if you absolutely crushed the bike split . . . .right?.....

No question that in my experience, the long course racing needs a much stronger biker to do well. This is why I do not race long course. I cannot make up the difference on the run. But on short course stuff, .... My 6:30 pace seems to do my okay.

If I were even good enough, and there was every anyone around me on the bike, who knows. I know when folks pass me on the bike I do not have the skills to even
consider trying to stay with them :(

I can answer only for myself...

When I did sprints years back, I began as a better cyclist. I started to become faster on the run, although doing speed work and what not, I always seem to suffer some sort of injury. Even more crazy, I started placing better in the swim on the overall than I would the run! Later, when I changed distances, I know I just can't be competitive at the half-iron and ironman distance. I am ok with that and it is reality. Although, I enjoy the sport for many reasons. I have yet to get to a 20 mile training run without injury when I did ironman twice. Recently for the half ironman at Door county yesterday, I was lucky enough to get 2 10 mile runs in before the race. I developed pain again in my calf when trying to get past 6-8 mile runs. (I posted a month ago about it). Tuned out to be my shoes. I just bought some Nike Odyssey 2 shoes and they seem to be working.

I am going to try and build in some long runs and get in the distance and see how it goes. As for the bike, it is easier to train and not be injured, but more than that- I just do my thing. Heart rate is in line with where it should be. I am not trying to crush it. It just ends up on the overall I am faster on the bike than the run. It is what it is.

I should add that I envy runners that can stack miles, fly by me on the run. Trust me, it isn't like I am trying to get a gap and hope I can hang on.... I am just doing my thing. If that means the runners are upset they get passed on the bike, I guess that means get faster on the bike.... Or, just be glad your a fast runner. It's not an issue for me because I know why I am passing people on the bike and getting passed back on the run. Question is, are the runners ok getting passed on the bike?

I believe that Thorsten with Trirating analyzed Ironman results and found that statistically, the first person off the bike and into T2 is the most likely continue on to win the whole race. So... your assumption seems to be wrong. But there is a difference between passing everybody early in the bike and blowing up vs. gradually passing everybody so that you hit T2 first, just in time.

And interestingly, first out of the swim was strongly correlated with not winning overall. People that got that good at swimming lack the bike and run training of their competition or simply burned up too soon.

There are just a lot more ways to improve on the bike: training, position, equipment; so more to focus on.

With running, it basically just comes down to training.

Also, as others have mentioned, you lose less bike speed with age, weight gain, etc. so it's easier to gravitate there.