Swimming

[Brooke]

Hey.. just wanted to start a topic about the aerobic benefits of swimming as a type of non impact cross training for running. How much aerobic benefit do you actually get? Are there other types of benefits you get from swimming like core strength? What type of lap swimming is best?

[Sasha Pachev]

Probably not a whole lot. Because your legs are not pushing as hard. The aerobic component of fitness is not just the cardiovascular system. It is primarily in the muscle that you use for the sport.

[Marion McClellan]

Swimming is an excellent form of cross training.  It will not do the same things for you that running does, but that is the point of cross training, to give the running legs a break while still working hard   If you are swimming laps, continually, you will get an excellent work out.  Now, one word of caution, as my arms have gotten stronger with swimming, I some times catch my legs just coasting along for the ride   I change strokes frequently, to avoid this.
Swimming is also a great way to increase lung capacity and teach you to relax while putting forth great effort.  With swimming, breathing only can happen at certain times, so as you are getting more fatigued and are working harder and NEEDING MORE AIR, you have to relax and control your breathing.
As for aerobic fitness, I am quite sure that competitive swimmers have equally excellent aerobic fitness as their competitive running counterparts
For us non-competitive, cross training swimmers, if we concentrate on form and spend some doing laps, we will increase our fitness.  Swimming uses MANY many muscle groups while giving our joints a break, prolonging our running careers.

[Sasha Pachev]

A good runner is not necessarily a good swimmer. A good swimmer is not necessarily a good runner. All of the lung capacity from running does not save the day when swimming. All of the lung capacity from swimming does not save the day when running. This is because you run primarily with your legs, and swim primarily with your arms. Lungs and heart are a slave support system, they can be pushed into the red zone if needed, and you will still perform. You might die young if the heart is weak and is constantly pushed into the red zone, but you will perform in an endurance event while you are alive if the muscles are up to the task. However, if the muscle or the ability to control it fail, you will not perform no matter how strong your cardio support system might be.

Even more interesting comparison - running vs biking. Look at Lance Armstrong. Untouchable on a bike by any man in the world. Will not make top 100 list among US women when running. His VO2 Max of 92 does not save him. His leg strength does not save him. Even though both events involve the use of leg muscles. The conditioning is not just about which muscle you are using but also the way you use it!

[Marion McClellan]

You are 100% right about athletes crossing over into other sports and NOT being any good at it.  BUT, if you take a great runner, who spends time learning or improving his swimming, he will benefit from the swimming.  Now, I understand that the elite runner/swimmer/biker may not want to take time from their sport to develop the skills required to do the other sports well, but the average, even above average, runner/biker/swimmer will benefit from spending some time with other sports.  Our bodies were made to do many things, in many different directions and motions.  For most people, there are GREAT benefits to spending a portion of their time, even just a few months of the year, doing some other activities along with their sport of choice.
Funny thing, every time I swim, I think- RUNNING IS SO MUCH EASIER!!!   My lane partner today thought I was nuts and that biking is easier (I agree- biking is easy).

[Sasha Pachev]

There is a reason an elite athlete in one sport is rarely elite in another. All the training he did in his sport did very little to prepare him for a different sport! Swimming is a good recreational activity, but aside from a mental break and possibly weight control it does next to nothing for your running regardless of your level of running or swimming ability. You will improve your running by swimming almost as much as you will improve your running by playing chess! That is why triathlon is such a challenge - you have to be good in three rather unrelated sports at the same time.

[Marion McClellan]

Playing chess??? Really???  So runners who do core workouts or push ups or any form of strength training are wasting their time?  I was always under the impression that keeping/making the whole body stronger would help any athlete be better at their chosen sport, even elites.

[Cheryl Keith]

Sasha--I just want to clarify.  You told me that you thought biking helped with running, right?  So are you saying basically you think swimming isn't helpful at all, but biking might be somewhat helpful?

Marion--in the latest issue of Running Times (Sept. 09) they quote Steve Spence, apparently a former elite runner, saying:  "Every major breakthrough I had followed a dedicated period of strength training and I believe in it strongly for distance runners, with leg exercises being the most important."  So apparently strength training is considered important in making a runner better.

[Marion McClellan]

Cheryl- I am quite sure that strength training is very important for the runner   I bet that article is full of great information.  Thanks   My point is that swimming strengthens many parts of our body and that it is more beneficial than just as "recreational" outlet.

[Sasha Pachev]

Non-running strengthening exercising are helpful in what I call  "I need a reboot" cases. You have a muscle that is not activated in running, but not because you do not need to activate it, but because you have learned to run wrong for some odd reason. So you strengthen that muscle, and then your brain accidentally activates in when running, and you say, wow that felt good, I will do it again. So then you start using that muscle and can run faster. That is why core and leg strengthening sometimes works.

In a general case, however, if a muscle is not being strengthened by running it is because your body does not need it for running. Or maybe does not need it as much. If your core is not as strong as you would like it to be, there is a reason for it. You need only that much core strength to run, you do not need to be a sit-up champion. When you run with proper form, that strength will come from running. When you do not, you can do core strength all day long, and you will have a strong core, but when you run you  will still not be able to use that strength. Your form will stay the same.  Unless you accidentally trigger a reboot that will fix the form. Or you may just bulk up the core and end up with extra 5-10lb of weight that is dead for running purposes. Or you may trigger a reverse reboot that will shift the muscle balance and make your form worse.

Of course, if you are faced with a limit on how much running your body can take, then it is better to bike than to swim, and it is better to swim than to play chess. Because of the exercise discipline, weight control, cardio maintenance, etc. But the best value for your time is to run if you can without being injured. Professional runners do waste a lot of time in the gym because they have already run their miles, they have done their sleep, and need something to do with their time. It does not need to be exceptionally productive, if it has a 1% chance of improving their 5 K performance by 10 seconds, 2 hours of gym time 3 times a week is worth it, beats watching TV. Assuming the goal is to be a better runner, somebody who has an hour or less of exercise time a day should just run.

[Cheryl Keith]

Sasha--I'm always interested in how you get your information.  Have there been scientific studies?  How do we know how much strength training helps or doesn't help?  Are the rules different for women than for men?  I once read that the one group of runners really helped by strength training are older females.  I know I run better when my overall strength is better.  Last year when I concentrated on mileage and cut out the cross training things, I ran one of my slowest St. George marathons.  Every running magazine talks about the importance of core training and strength training.  Most of the elites talk about it too.  I hear of studies where runners who cut back 10% of their running and replace it with plyometric exercises improve their 5K time more than those that just do running alone.  But then you seem to suggest that this stuff doesn't really help that much.   So how do we know how best to use our time?  Is it an experiment of one, if you feel it works for you, stick with it, and don't worry if others say it doesn't really help?

[Marion McClellan]

Aside from the running aspect of cross training, for women over forty, strength training is very important to retain muscle mass.  As we have all heard over the years, that as we age, our metabolism decreases.  The current school of thought is that the loss of metabolism is from the loss of muscle mass, not from aging, but from being sedentary.  So, build up those muscles baby

[Sasha Pachev]

Cheryl:

I get it from the intuition developed from observation of myself and other runners. I have made breakthroughs when I increased the mileage. I have not made breakthroughs when I did strength training without the mileage. I have been left in the dust by people that could not touch me when they increased the mileage or when I decreased it to 50 a week. I have left those I could not touch in the dust when they decreased the mileage. I do not recall ever being beat by somebody who could not beat me before who attributed his success to increased cross-training. I have also observed lots of runners on the blog of all levels, and the pattern is if you increase the mileage from 30 to 60+ you get faster.

Your case is an exception because you are unable to increase the mileage safely. You still had the fitness to run fast, you just did not have the health to do it. In your case you just need to do what it takes to be able to run the mileage without being injured. Certain forms of cross-training, maybe replace some of the running with the bike or elliptical for a while, cross-country ski, certain strategic stretches and strengthening drills for your specific weakness. Maybe even run barefoot on grass. Improve the diet, increase the sleep. You'll have to listen to your body and see what works. But all of those drills just get your ready for the mileage. The check is cashed when you are able to run the miles.

[bencrozier]

Just like most things in life, when it comes to running there are no short-cuts and there are no substitutes.  If you want to be a better runner, you need to run.  Period.  There is a certain level of confidence that can be gained from mileage.  When you show up at the starting line of a race and you've put in the training, you know you've "done your homework."  It's like showing up for a test at school that you've studied plenty for.  Before you even take the test, you know you "own" the material.

I've tried, in vain, to become a better runner by also being a cyclist.  While the carry-over is significant, it only goes so far.  Two years ago, I could do 100 miles (century ride) in 4 hours on a flat course.  That is about like doing a 2:30 marathon.  While training for cycling I would also run (about 20 miles a week while cycling about 80), but at this fitness level I could only do a 1:29 half marathon on a flat course, which is by no way a comparable performance.  My running suffered because I was way more of a cyclist than a runner. 

Right now I'm going back to running, and I know the only way to do it is to put on the miles.....  Although, I really don't believe in "just doing miles."  I strongly believe that there should be a purpose behind every run and that it should be kept fun, interesting, and challenging.  This means running in creative places and doing different types of training runs so that they don't get stale.  I totally agree with Sasha's concept of doing of 60 miles/week+ to see massive improvement.  I also believe that those shouldn't be junk miles and should include some speed, some tempo, and some long runs!  Gotta keep in fun and interesting!

[Cheryl Keith]

What you guys are saying makes sense.  All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to work for me.  The one year I put in the mileage and just ran, I had a poor running year.  Maybe other things were at play, I don't know, so maybe my experience isn't the best example.  The years when I've worked on strength training, I've run better, while putting in less mileage.  Ben, you say you "only" ran a 1:29 half marathon on 20 miles a week of running and 80 biking.  I think that is pretty good.  I know guys who put in close to 50 miles a week running and still have never run a 1:29 half.  And how fast would you have run that half if you hadn't been biking so much and had just put in 20 miles of running a week?  I bet it would have been a lot slower, so biking must have helped your running.  That's all I'm saying, I think certain kinds of cross-training can improve your running.  At least that has been my experience.