I just did an FTP test and got some of the best numbers i have seen in a long time, and that got me thinking a little bit about triathlon training vs bike-specific training.
Right now, a lot of the plans i have seen basically train bike and run as separate disciplines (with event-specific training outcomes in mind), with some bricks thrown in for good measure. What I dont see, however, is bike training that takes into account the carryover effect from running, and vice versa /
Eg, I’ve noticed that it has had a carryover effect on my bike - it has improved my muscular endurance and TTE. So it seems that I can reduce my ME work on the bike and focus on other areas (top end speed, FTP, endurance, whatever). I am sure there are similar benefits from cycling on running as well.
Does it make sense to think of training in this manner - ie, factoring in the benefit of training in one sport on the other, and modifying the training for the second accordingly? If so, are there any books or resources where I can learn more about it?
(To be clear, I am not a coach or an expert. I am reasonably well attuned to my body and how it is doing, however, and do like to dig into seeing how to adapt standard training approaches in a way that works best for me)
I’m pretty sure the main book plans by the big tri coaches out there all taken into account SBR on each other, which is the uniqueness of tri.
In Fitzgerald’s 80/20 book plans, his bricks have a weird format if you choose to do them - like Run 10’ Bike 15’ Run 10’ Bike 15’ (alternating short R vs B). That’s clearly a tri-specific focus.
Matt Dixon in Fast-Track triathlete regularly throws in off-the-bike runs on the longer weekend bike.
Both coaches and others definitely alter their training load to accomodate SBR, meaning they won’t just hammer you to death in one and then the other. Sometimes when you read the training plans of the above two, some weeks seem ‘too easy’ in one discipline, but then you realize he’s focusing more on one or both of the other. (Dixon in particular will do single-focus type weeks where you almost overload the discipline that week, but do less of the others.)
Both coaches and others definitely alter their training load to accomodate SBR, meaning they won’t just hammer you to death in one and then the other. Sometimes when you read the training plans of the above two, some weeks seem ‘too easy’ in one discipline, but then you realize he’s focusing more on one or both of the other. (Dixon in particular will do single-focus type weeks where you almost overload the discipline that week, but do less of the others.)
Question about this - is this level of inter-dependency limited to just overall volume/intensity balancing, or does it actually go down to the level of accounting for specific area being trained?
Eg, I get that some plans may have a run-intensive week followed by a bike-intensive week, or do specific multi-sport workouts like bricks to simulate race day.
But do these plans actually take into account specific training effects? For example, even if run volume is constant at, say, 3.5 hours, does anyone go “well, 2 of this week’s runs involve hill repeats, so that is going to help with muscular endurance on the bike as well, so let’s have the bike sessions focus on leg speed or endurance or something else”? Or during another block, the bike workouts are focused on building the aerobic engine, so the run segments focus on a different area.
This is different from “we are doing 5 hours on the run this week, so let’s reduce the bike to 4 hours”, you know? Not sure if i am making my question clear…
Yes, Dixon aplans specifically say things like “this week will be a focus on running muscular endurance, so the volume of running this week will be higher”. It might not be drilled down to the micro like I suspect you want, but for sure, it’s not just 'minus one running hour, so then plus 1 bike hour."
The 80/20 plans don’t say it specifically, but he talks about such workout-specific purposes and balance in the overview chapters of building plans, and the way he has specific workout codes (for specific workout goals) for each workout shows it’s built into the plan.
Yes, Dixon aplans specifically say things like “this week will be a focus on running muscular endurance, so the volume of running this week will be higher”. It might not be drilled down to the micro like I suspect you want, but for sure, it’s not just 'minus one running hour, so then plus 1 bike hour."
The 80/20 plans don’t say it specifically, but he talks about such workout-specific purposes and balance in the overview chapters of building plans, and the way he has specific workout codes (for specific workout goals) for each workout shows it’s built into the plan.
Ah cool, good to know, thanks!
Would be interesting to hear from some of the coaches or other experts on the science/thinking behind structuring this sort of stuff (mainly for my own knowledge, and not because i want to start a coaching gig on the side). Anyone? Bueller?
As a cyclist, I’ll run to make sure I don’t dry up and waste away without impact exercise. I always take it though as actually “hurting” my ambitions on the bike. Not helping. It helps long term prevent problems, but it will NOT make more power for me on the bike. Ignore Froome running up the mountain.
But, listen to those guys posting above. They know much better.
Multisport is unique in that you can try to feed them into each other if done by people who know how.
Yes, Dixon aplans specifically say things like “this week will be a focus on running muscular endurance, so the volume of running this week will be higher”. It might not be drilled down to the micro like I suspect you want, but for sure, it’s not just 'minus one running hour, so then plus 1 bike hour."
The 80/20 plans don’t say it specifically, but he talks about such workout-specific purposes and balance in the overview chapters of building plans, and the way he has specific workout codes (for specific workout goals) for each workout shows it’s built into the plan.
Ah cool, good to know, thanks!
Would be interesting to hear from some of the coaches or other experts on the science/thinking behind structuring this sort of stuff (mainly for my own knowledge, and not because i want to start a coaching gig on the side). Anyone? Bueller?
Just to add, Matt Dixon, both in his book and his podcasts, is a big believer of using swimming and cycling to lessen run impact stress. He’s pretty outspoken about using swimming for cardio gains, and cycling for leg endurance and overall endurance which will then x-over to running gains.
He definitely is not a proponent of megarun volume, although to be honest, he also doesn’t seem to shy away from run volume in his Fast-track triathlete book plans, which have plenty of legit run volume.
Just to add, Matt Dixon, both in his book and his podcasts, is a big believer of using swimming and cycling to lessen run impact stress. He’s pretty outspoken about using swimming for cardio gains, and cycling for leg endurance and overall endurance which will then x-over to running gains.
I’ve always thought this is an interesting idea for running training. For example, especially for someone with reasonably good aerobic development at baseline, could you train well for a marathon (or whatever) by running only 2-3 times per week, with every run being “hard” e.g. a long run and a workout or two, then skip all “easy/recovery” runs and replace them with lots of long, slow cycling and swimming? It would certainly be less boring than running 5-10+ hours/week, probably less injury-prone, and you could maybe get away with a weekly bike workout too for some extra intensity. Maybe I’m underestimating how important the sheer volume of running is long-distance running fitness.
Yeah, I’ve thought about that a lot too, as an ex-marathon runner before tri.
I think Dixon is right on the money for tri, but remember than in tri, you are run racing not at peak run speed as compared to a pure running race. Running at your maximum velocity (with no bike fatigue) is definitely more demanding on the body and leg speed and impact than running at submaximal race pace in a triathlon.
At least in my n=1, I don’t think I would run as fast in a marathon with IM/tri training compared to pure marathon training, even with the added risks. I will add as a caveat that if you are training tri like a pro, and running upwards 45+ mpw, you likely have enough run-mileage in your legs, especially if you are run-talented, to run great near-max marathons on that alone even without tri training.
For mortals like myself though, tri training with 45mpw is simply out of the question unless I’m super slacking on bike/run.
There’s a thread recently where some guys were running 2:45 and below on exactly this regimen - IM training with about 45-55 mpw. I would actually argue that it’s not the tri training that’s making them so fast - I’ll bet those same guys might run even faster in the marathon had they just run the same exact volume (faster) and not tri-trained at all. 45mpw is still legit for marathon training even if it’s slightly on the lower end. If those guys are running 2:45s on 20-25mpw with no big hx of run training, then I’ll be more impressed with how effective tri training is in lieu of running for pure run races.
Just to add, Matt Dixon, both in his book and his podcasts, is a big believer of using swimming and cycling to lessen run impact stress. He’s pretty outspoken about using swimming for cardio gains, and cycling for leg endurance and overall endurance which will then x-over to running gains.
He definitely is not a proponent of megarun volume, although to be honest, he also doesn’t seem to shy away from run volume in his Fast-track triathlete book plans, which have plenty of legit run volume.
Seiler talked about run-to-bike (and bike-to-run) crossover in the last talk I watched. He claimed that there is about a 2/3rds cross-over effect between the running and biking. Ie, 1 hour of bike/run provides the same run/bike benefit as 40 minutes of running/biking. However, IIRC he also said there was nearly zero with between swim and bike/run.
I have noticed this too. I did a big block of heavy focus on bike, with just enough running to maintain (or so I thought), and then ended up setting my fastest 5k, 13.1 and 26.2 shortly after. I think it really depends on the individual athlete, but for me, putting a lot of the high intensity stuff (VO2 intervals, etc, etc) on the bike only saved a lot of stress on my legs. Then I could keep up the specific running muscles just by doing Z2 runs of medium distance (6-10mi). Not sure if this is adding anything to your question, but this has been my experience.
I have noticed this too. I did a big block of heavy focus on bike, with just enough running to maintain (or so I thought), and then ended up setting my fastest 5k, 13.1 and 26.2 shortly after. I think it really depends on the individual athlete, but for me, putting a lot of the high intensity stuff (VO2 intervals, etc, etc) on the bike only saved a lot of stress on my legs. Then I could keep up the specific running muscles just by doing Z2 runs of medium distance (6-10mi). Not sure if this is adding anything to your question, but this has been my experience.
Interesting that you say that - for me, it has more been the other way around: running has helped my cycling TTE, but i havent seen a big increase in my running ability due to cycling.
To some extent, that could be my limiters. I am a relatively new runner and at 180lb, not quite a lean endurance whippet either: so and perhaps i need more running-specific endurance development before i get to the stage where i can see more benefits from cycling. However, your experience does give me something to try - focusing my running mainly on developing endurance and hoping the cycling gives me the speed boost. Certainly, right now, my 21k speed is abysmally slower than what one would predict based on 5k pace.
Yeah, I think for me, I was in a slightly different situation. I came from a running background, but not only that, a low intensity running background (Lots of volume, low heartrate, no speedwork). So my “low hanging fruit” was most definitely my VO2 max, and my Lactate threshold. As soon as cycling gave me both of those, the results showed up in my running.
That is a great article. I have not been able to find much info on this in the past. I try to race mtb and cyclocross in the winter and triathlon in the summer. Most of the info I see relates to how triathletes can juggle swim, run and bike to maximise all at the same time time. But I am trying to have a bike focus and get away with a small amount of running. Some issues I have faced are run injuries when you have the aerobic conditioning from cycling but not the run specific strength. Also gettting enough recovery from the running to hit bike sessions hard, especially as I get older. Swimming is much easier to add to cycling from both the above.