What would distances be if triathlons(sprint, oly,half full im) were developed to equate the effort/degree of difficulty/energy expenditure of the three disciplines? For instance in an olympic distance race in my age group avg times for top 1/3 are roughly 32/78/58. I know this is generalization, but why aren’t they more equal? I thought that’s what the original ironman guys were arguing about, who’s better athlete the swimmer, biker or runner? Seems like triathlons tend to favor bikers and or runners versus swimmers. Am I all wet?
I think it actually works out pretty well, as in most (non drafting) races the time differential from say, 1st to 10th, is pretty consistent between the disciplines. maybe 2 minutes on the swim, 2 mins on the bike, 2 mins on the run.
I forget what pro was talking about the race, but he stated that the “Escape from Alcatraz” race was a very fair test as all the legs were equal in time.
1.5 mile swim, 1 mile run, 18 mile ride, 8 mile run
Hi -
It turns out that a couple of statisticians wrote a paper on this topic called “Resizing Triathlons for Fairness” which was published in a magazine for statisticians called “Chance.” You can find it here.
Jason
Thanks to you and others for response
wonder what Andy Potts would think of these ratios…he might have been in and won olympics!
wonder if usat or any other organization might consider these ratios in future…especially in draft legal seems like if swimmers get a little fairer treatement they might be able to attack more on bike to create enough separation to keep the greyhounds at bay.
Hi -
It turns out that a couple of statisticians wrote a paper on this topic called “Resizing Triathlons for Fairness” which was published in a magazine for statisticians called “Chance.” You can find it here.
Jason
Interesting read. But I disagree with the conclusion.
If you want to make an equilateral triathlon, it shoud be based on equal EFFORT not on equal time. The calories expended on a race pace one hour swim are way more than the calories expended on a one hour bike ride. Similarly, a one hour run expends more calories than a one hour bike, not not as much as a one hour swim.
I saw stats on this one time, and I am quoting from memory so I know my numbers are off, but a caloric estimator for swimming was something like 2.98 calories/pound/ mile. Running is something like .65 calories/pound/mile and biking was something like .38 calories/pound/mile. So (roughly) for 170 lbs of BW, a mile of swimming = 507 cals, a mile of running = 112 cals and a mile of biking = 65 cals. This explains why the time involved favors the bike…clearly, in order to put out as much effort, you have to go farther.
So if we used the nutritional model (or work model or whatever) to get an equivalent “sprint” tri, we might propose a 1000m swim (call it 18 mins for your MOP swimmer), a 5-mile bike ride (about 15 mins for your MOP rider) and a 2.8-mile run (call it 22 mins for that MOP runner). So we have a 55 minute sprint tri (not counting transitions of course). If you do the math, this would come out to around 312 cals expended per event for your 170 pound MOP athlete, but you have to start your model somewhere.
Obviously this number could be scaled. We can come up with a new Oly distance race. 2000m swim, 10 mi bike ride and 5.6 mile run. Of course, this will put most of the ST population into a frenzy having devoted most of their free time to making their bike lighter and more aero. Your HIM equivalent would be 3000m swim, 15 mi bike ride and 8.4 mi run. I guess your IM equivalent would be 6000m swim, 30 mi bike and 16.4 mi run. Or whatever.
Using the model above, it’s clear that the 3 distances are not equal in effort level. Approximatel 1215 cals for the swim, 7235 cals on the bike and 2895 cals on the run. And as we all know, the run feels more like 3k cals since it’s the last event. In this model, the bike is 6x the energy expended than the swim, and the run is 2.4x the energy expended. Yet the times (as the paper points out) are way disparate. Figure 1.5 hours on the swim, 6.25 hours on the bike and 4 hours on the run…again, not equivalent. Is this by design? History would lead us to think it’s by accident since these events existed before triathlon brought them all together.
So the answer? Are the legs in triathlon really “equivalent”? Clearly then anser from a time or energy perspective is NO. The real question is, does anyone care to make a change? I am going to guess that triathletes, being rather set in their ways WRT race distances would be loathe to see any kind of change. Thus races that are “non standard” distance would not be supported that well…
You forgot the most important factor of all, how long does it take to master each sport, given you did not come from that background???
Swimming hands down takes the longest, that is why swimmers have dominated triathlon in general for the entire history of our sport…And for every biker and runner that made it to the top that you can name, there are 10 swimmers to counteract those names. Someone asked what Potts would think about longer swims, of course he would like that, but he rose to the top of the sport regardless, and can be considered one of the best all round draft/non draft, acrosss varying distances triathlete today…WHat world class runner or biker, ever got into the swim area where Potts, or Hunter, or DeBoom, or any of the top triathlete swimmers reside??? Might be a couple names, I just cannot think of them right now… But if you go and look at the top 20 of most big races, you will find a lot of swimming backgrounds that began their sporting careers…
I guess what I’m saying is, that the swim is long enough to be fair, and a better case could be made to shorten it, to offer a more equitable entry to top atheltes from running and cycling…
But as a swimmer myself, I’m quite happy with how the distances evolved…(-;
excellent points, but i wonder in draft legal races how do you break up such a large bike pack or otherwise it just seems to turn into a running race?
There has been a whole thread dedicated to this ITU pack riding topic…But in short, the bike breaks up all the time, just like in bike racing. It takes attacks, breaks in the swim, tough courses, ect. And if it doesn’t, just a developement of ITU racing, just like a flat field sprint in cycling. You have to be prepared for all circumstances if you want to be great at ITU, a more versitle athlete to be sure. People act as if the bike should be broken up for some reason, but every race will just play itself as the daycourse presents itself. DO not judge all ITU races from the one you just happen to have watched. It is just one scenario of many that can happen on any given day…
back to the swimming part of tris anyone can get to the olympics in the swim, see this:
I’d love to sign up for a more rounded event.
That’s a lot of work looking into the caloric cost of each leg - I would have settled for an event that takes equal time. You argument for equal effort is valid, but way more complicated than I expected.
I’m not sure those caloric rules of thumb will apply at all to highly trained cyclists and swimmers though.
A novice cyclist will not burn that many calories because they don’t have the legs to get their heart rate up. With training though, you get there. When you bike at race pace, with an elite level cyclist, I imagine the caloric burn rate per time is pretty similar to running, or swimming.
Anyone know for sure?
The calories expended on a race pace one hour swim are way more than the calories expended on a one hour bike ride. …
The math doesn’t look right to me on the caloric expenditure side… I doubt that a 2.8 mile run burn the same cals as a 5 mile bike… probably a lot more.
I doubt that a 2.8 mile run burn the same cals as a 5 mile bike… probably a lot more. \
I don’t know about that. You have to think in terms of all out efforts at any distance. Look at the guys doing the 5k pursuit, I bet they are burning huge amounts of calories. A 5 mile bike would be more like a 2 mile run in time, so I can see that they would burn close to the same calories. Swimming is probably a little more, because of restricted breathing, and body temp control, but I wouldn’t think too many more. ANd the swim race to match those would be around the 800m or so…
If you figure that the 4000 pursuit guys are probably burning a little more than the 1500 guys (relative to body mass and all that), given that running uses a greater percentage of lean body mass than cycling does… then I’d put the ratio at about 2.5 to 1, so yeah, your numbers look closer. 2.8 mile is 40% greater than 2 miles, that’s “a lot” in my book.
"These are numbers nutritionists use to estimate caloric burn. They are pretty close to accurate most of the time, assuming that the workout is done at moderate intensity.
Swim: 2.93 calories per lb per mile
Bike: .28 calories per lb per mile
Run: .653 calories per lb per mile "
170# guy, one mile of each sport = 503 cals, 48 cals and 111 cals.
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Then there is this one: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
Using this calculator, I came up with 2.24 cals/lb/mil swimming, .363 cals/lb/mile biking and .670 cals/lb/mile running, not too far from the numbers posted above (from a previous ST post). Clearly, the numbers support that PER MILE, you burn more calories per pound while swimming (by a significant margin) over running and biking. And running has an energy cost more than double biking.
Not advocating that we move to an “equivalent” type triathlon…it’s just interesting to look at.
So for equal calories per event (using your numbers) with a race ending in a 10K run the distances would be:
1.37 mile / 2200 meter swim
14.3 mile / 23 km bike
6.2 mile / 10 km run
My fantasy race results would be:
31 minute swim split (1:40/100m)
36 minute bike split (24 mph)
42 minute run split (6:50/mi)
Total w/ 1minute T1+T2= 1:50:00
I’m usually about a 2:10 - 2:20 over olympic distance, this is comparable - but a little short. Would be a fun event to think about.