Fast Running Blog

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?

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.

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 ;D  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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

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!

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.

Cheryl, no doubt that cycling can help your running.  It all comes down to "opportunity cost" to borrow from the science of economics.  There is definitely a "highest and best use of your time" to be taken into consideration here.  Cycling mileage will have a certain percentage of correlation with running mileage, but only a certain percentage (I dunno, maybe 20-30% of cycling mileage will help out with running?).  My main point is that running miles will directly help with faster running while cycling mileage will have a much smaller effect, but will still have an effect.  It's like eating a cheeseburger and cutting out the cheese because you want to eat healthier.  Yes, you are eating healthier but perhaps not as healthy as if you were eating a salad.  I really enjoy cycling, but when taking into consideration time and energy that must be expended to run a faster marathon it is much more economical to spend my time running. 

It all comes down to what your own goals are.  If you want to be a tri-athlete, then you must cycle, but if you want to be a faster runner, the highest and best use of your time is to run. BTW, I honestly think running has much greater benefits for cycling than vice versa if cycling better is your goal.

Ben's ability is around 1:10 half. In high school he was the state cross country champion in Kansas with the time of 16:06. Before he went on a mission we trained together and competed roughly on par.  Then both of us went on a mission, he went a few months after I did. Shortly before his mission he trained with the BYU team and got into even better shape. He ran a 5 K on the road in 15:45, who knows if it was accurate, but he did the workouts with the team and could hang on, so 15:45 sounds reasonable.

When I returned, I followed the rule from the White Handbook "when transferred to a new area find your companion without delay" literally, so I was already married when he got back. I was out with Sarah for a run, she was on a bike, when we saw Ben. She recognized him, and I did not, he was so fat. He ate too much meat in Argentina, and could not shake the fat off by walking all day in the heat. When somebody says he is going to get fit by walking, I always think of post-mission Ben.

So we started training together again, and pretty soon he got in some sort of decent shape. He was running certified 5 Ks  on hilly courses around 17:00, I believe sometimes even a little under. He could do 3x1 mile down the Provo Canyon (1% grade) in 5:05. And I believe he did run a 1:18 half, if he did not he definitely could have. Then he moved and we lost contact. I did not have the blog then to harass him long distance. So he got fat and lazy again.

In 2007 he reappeared in Provo in a state of disrepair.  He could not hold 6:00 pace for more than half a mile. That was around the time he ran 1:29. I was in shock. Then he disappeared and reappeared again in 2009, this time in even worse condition. I was in shock again because I did not believe it could possibly get worse. But at least now he is fixing it with proper diet and training.

Cheryl -

I was frustrated by running related injuries for a couple years in a row while trying for a BQ.  My first marathon was a 3:41 using a running and cycling approach (called the FIRST method, you've probably heard of it).  After completely that race I promptly bought the Pfitz book "Advanced Marathoning" and started to run exclusively in preparation for my next marathon.  What happened?  I improved my time by approx. 20 min (still not enough for a BQ), but was up to my ears in injuries.  I continued to only run, but when a persistent injury threatened to hobble me for another marathon I decided to switch to the FIRST method and ended up with a BQ by 9 min.  As it was stated, it depends on your goals and what your body can handle.  You can become a very solid runner incorporating cross training, but the cross training has to be fairly intense.  However, as it has also been stated, if you want to achieve your full running potential and reach for something special then there are "no secrets" and only running more distance will provide the proper stimulus.  I've now reached the point of being able to run all the time without a serious injury always looming, but that came from slowing down my daily pace by about 1-1.5 min (even slower some days) and moving to 2 a day workouts.  I also dropped dedicated speed workouts every week and practice my speed just a little when I'm in the mood or in a race.  I've been happy with my progress and have learned to enjoy running again by dropping the watch (running loops on a track just isn't for me) and taking it easy.  People can bash LSD and "junk miles" all they want, but it works for me and I've been able to reach weekly mileage I didn't think was even possible.  Please don't think I'm tooting my horn here.  My point is to find what works best for you and go for your goals with all gusto.  If you grow tired of x-training then simple move to more running by dropping the speed work, really slowing down your daily pace, and focusing on your running form.  Be patient with your running and give the body all the time it needs to adjust.  Run a short race once and while, but don't force things, take it really easy most days, and remain consistent.  Over time you'll be running more and your daily pace will improve as well.   

Thanks, everyone.  It's been an interesting discussion and what you guys say makes sense.  I think I'll increase my miles some (what I can handle without injury) and see what happens.

I think alot of it depends on what stage you are at.  Furthermore, I think alot of what is discussed on these forums really depends on where you currently exist in your running-life-cycle.

Consider the case of a professional golfer.  Some of those guys/gals have large bellies and appear to be quite out of shape.  Doing additional strength work or exercising will not improve his/her game that much as they are already "professional".  They are already near their peak performance!

Then take the recreational golfer.  This golfer may improve his/her game dramatically by building some strength, becoming more limber, etc. because there is more room to improve!  Of course, more golf will help the recreational golfer, but so too will other items that may have an affect on his/her swing.

I think the same rationale holds true for running.  The top level runners, many of which are on this blog, can only "improve" so much as they are already near their peak performance.  As you move down the scale of running ability to the more recreational/average runner, there is a greater margin for possible improvement.  Therefore, incorporating other aspects into the program that may have an affect on overall fitness and cardiovascular strength makes some sense.  Just my $.02.

Have a great weekend!

Scott--that makes sense also and it is kind of the way I feel about the matter.  Maybe cross-training seems to help me because I'm stil at the recreational running stage.

Do not know much about golf. However, in running I believe there is not a whole lot of difference between training a "pro" and a "jogger". I put those in quotes because there is really no hard boundary, also because there is really not a whole lot of difference in the fundamental principles of training. There might be some specialty consideration, e.g somebody who takes longer than 3 hours to run a marathon due to insurmountable Quality X limitations is running more of an ultra, while somebody who takes less than 2:10 is running a long half.  But overall I do not see that much difference, and the blog proves some evidence that this approach is correct. We have seen numerous times that when a "jogger" starts training like a "pro" would under the same time constraints and the starting level of fitness, almost without exception there is substantial improvement.

So I see every runner, including "joggers", pretty much the same. If somebody cannot run a mile under 5:00 off consistent 30 miles a week, he has a Quality X restriction. If somebody's marathon to 5 K time ratio is greater than 10, he is just plain out of shape. But I see every runner as a possibly handicapped and/or possibly undeveloped "pro" rather than somebody who is cursed to be a perpetual "jogger". That is why the name of the site is Fast Running Blog. I do hope to find at least a partial solution to the Quality X problem at some point. This would certainly help reduce the gap between a hard working "jogger" and a not so hard working "pro".

Sasha--is Quality X another term for "athleticism?"  Are some people just born with more athletic ability and will always be ahead of the person not born with as much talent?  In other words, could I run for two or three hours every day and still not catch the person with more innate running athletic ability who only trains one hour a day?  If this is the case, how can you solve the Quality X problem when it may be unsolvable?  It doesn't seem like you can make somebody more "athletic."  Maybe they can improve somewhat with hard work, but they will never beat the person with more innate athleticism who also works hard, but maybe not quite as hard.  What do you think?

Lots of great discussion! I agree that only running will make you faster, but I have found some muscle development/definition gains from swimming. I also think that it has helped my concentration and relaxation when I run. I usually swim for about an hour to an hour and a half on days when I do a hard running workout later, because it does utilize very different muscles. However, I do feel that swimming has some injury prevention benefits. This is just my personal opinion and may be all in my head, but I feel stronger on my runs when I am swimming regularly. Also, I enjoy swimming a lot as an individual exercise so why not fit some laps in when I can? This seems unique to me but I have not felt the same gains from cycling as a cross training activity.

Cheryl:

Quality X is the ability to run fast that is independent of traditional endurance training. E.g. Ryan Hall beats me in the marathon by a lot  because beats me in 100 meters by a lot. So we say he has more Quality X. Quality X does not respond to traditional endurance training, but it does not mean it is not trainable. We just do not know how to train it because of improper understanding of what it takes to succeed in distance running. We think of distance running as an endurance event. Thus 99% of research is focused on endurance without taking into account that if you have no speed, you can develop exceptional endurance, and you will still be no good.

We say, the guy is fast, he must be a sprinter. The guy is slow he must be a marathoner. Wrong! We almost condemned Ryan Hall to remain a kind-of-good miler this way. No! The guy is fast, he might be just a good sprinter, or he might be a marathoner in middle-distance runner's clothing. We must learn not say "Wow, you are a miler" when somebody runs a 3:59 mile. We should say, 3:59 is good, but you won't rock the boat on the world class level with this, but you have the leg power to run a world-class marathon, why don't you train right and try a longer distance?

A better approach is to view distance running as a combination of speed and endurance in equal proportions. Or more precisely, when we talk about speed, we should say the speed component with sustainable potential. E.g you could have to men than run 100 meters in 12.0. One could be endurance-trainable to run a 2:05 marathon, while the other will never break 2:50.  Both have the same speed, but the second one is cheating - he is using the power without the sustainable potential to run his 12.0. But a 14.0 guy will not run 2:05. He does not have the leg power period, sustainable or not. If we want him to run 2:05, we would need to give him more leg power with sustainable potential, and it will show itself in a sub-12.5 100 even before the sustainable potential is realized.

So for Quality X to improve we need to increase two things - slow twitch fiber recruitment, and slow twitch fiber power. Actually, I do not like the word "slow-twitch". Because 49.9 quarter, while not as fast as 43.3, is still not slow. Better term - fibers with aerobic potential. So we want to increase the power of the muscle fibers that have the aerobic potential. Quality X training would focus on the power of the fibers with aerobic potential. Endurance training would focus on realizing the aerobic potential. We know a whole lot about the endurance training. But we hardly know anything about the Quality X training.

But in order for the research to go into Quality X, there needs to be a motivation. Currently there is none. There are guys with natural Quality X. So we just throw away everybody else, and focus on the ones that have it. We tell the guys without Quality X - just run high mileage. So they run high mileage. And then they run 2:35, maybe 2:25, maybe even 2:23. And it is still no good for anything important. So they give up. And we never learn about how to improve Quality X.

Sasha,

Your concept of "Quality X" would be mostly genetic.  The saying, "Sprinters are born, endurance runners are made" only goes so far.  Obviously, someone born with no legs would have zero genetic ability to run or zero "Quality X".  A 7 foot tall man weighing 300 pounds (lean) would never be able to run a sub 2:30 marathon.  He would have a very low "Quality X".

Hard work in training will take a person a long, long way, however.  You are fantastic example of what hard work will do for a runner.  You weren't born with a whole lot of natural talent in running (Quality X), yet I've seen you improve drastically over time due to hard work be able to become an "elite runner".  Unfortunately, due to a lack of superior genetic ability, I wouldn't bet money on your chances for Olympic Gold or a world record.

There are, of course, diminishing returns when putting on more and more miles as a runner.  I could train 200 miles a week if I wanted to, but why?  What would that do for me?  There are more important things in life than running (not many haha.)  Would I rather run a 2:20 marathon, or spend time working on my interpersonal relationships, business, education, or other fulfillment?  These are important questions that any serious runner must ask at some point.

When I was younger I used to want to be an elite runner, yet when confronted with the hard, cold reality that there are people with a lot more "Quality X" than I have, I realized that the sacrifices required of me to compete at an elite level, while possible, would mean an enormous amount of sacrifice in other areas of my life.  While I am happy to say that I will be a runner for the rest of my life, my un-balanced personality (which most driven runners have) has made peace with the fact that I run for myself and no one else. I've also made peace with the idea that there is a trade-off between elite running and a balanced life.... although who is to say that living out of balance once in a while in order to push your physical limits is such a bad thing?

Looking forward to running some faster times and a lot more mileage,

Ben

Ben:

For a while we did not realize that endurance was trainable. Then Lydiard demonstrated that it was. So Quality X might be trainable as well. We just have not figured out how. It is an interesting challenge. We know a lot about training the absolute power of a muscle. But we do not know a whole lot about how to train the power that has sustainable potential.

I do know that Quality X can be lost. So that perhaps is a good sign - it means it is not a permanent quality that you are given at birth that never changes. The question is - is it like the legs, once you cut them off you never get them back? Or is it like the soles of your feet - if you run barefoot they get tougher, we just need to figure out how to run barefoot? Can it only change for the worse, or can it also change for the better? If so, how can we make it change for the better?

I have some thoughts on how it can be trained.  You need to max out your aerobic potential. So you have the freedom to recruit your aerobically capable fibers to non-aerobic failure. Then you need to do something about your nervous system so it will not go into overload as you are constantly recruiting those fibers to failure. Then you need to recruit those fibers to failure as often as you can handle. The big question is to figure out the right frequency of such efforts and the right intervals for recovery.