How long for competitive cyclist who doesn't run to run 38 min 10k

Actually run that 44 minute 10k with no running at all and get back to us.

it depends completely on your natural talent for running.

There's probably some cyclists who could run a 35 minute 10k today, while others (like yourself) probably couldn't break 50.

As the other poster stated, give us an actual race time and we can try to make an educated guess.

I'm really surprised that the first two posters actually acknowledged that running 38min was hard. Of course, it is only because they're trying to say that running is harder than cycling, but whatever.

Anyways, go out and run a 10k, let us know how it goes and we might be able to give you a better idea.

38 minutes isn't a joke, especially on the road, despite what anyone might tell you. If you truly can run 44 right now off of no running training, you could probably hit 38 in a year. That's dropping a minute per mile off your time, which is significant. I normally would say most people can't do that in a year, but you'll see some early improvements as you get used to running.

No Way wrote:

I'm really surprised that the first two posters actually acknowledged that running 38min was hard. Of course, it is only because they're trying to say that running is harder than cycling, but whatever.

.

Where are you getting any of this?

Gary Oldman wrote:

No Way wrote:

I'm really surprised that the first two posters actually acknowledged that running 38min was hard. Of course, it is only because they're trying to say that running is harder than cycling, but whatever.

.

Where are you getting any of this?

9 years of frequenting letsrun

No Way wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

Where are you getting any of this?

9 years of frequenting letsrun

You shouldn't admit that it's driving your intellect down.

same as it would take a runner - 38 mins

Define competitive. Cat 1? 2?...4?

If you are under 35 (and actually a good cyclist) I would not be surprised if you could do it within a month. It's possible I guess that you could never do it, but I say your chances are good. Run 4-5 days week for 4 weeks and try a 10k or even 5k. Mostly easy 4ish mile runs, a short tempo, and a 6 m run mixed in occasionally.

What does 'in shape' mean? 60 minutes for a 40km time trial using a very good road bike? 57 minutes, 65 minutes, 52 minutes? Those are very different levels. Is this a good climber, light or a heavier sprinter type. 6-8% body fat is lower than most cyclists, I think. Several others have raised useful questions.

It is hard to say with cyclists, some of whom just do not transition well to running. I was very surprised that Armstrong to a number of months running training to barely crack 3:00 (although it was NYC, difficult for a novice attempt), since I ran somewhat faster on four months training in my mid-20s and I was mediocre high school runner (7th man JV squad by senior year) and had run and ridden sporadically through college with no competition.

It took me no time at all to transition from running to cycling after hurting my plantar fascia in a way that would not go away if I ran high mileage even though I was 30. However, I mainly did hill climbs in southern California (won two-thirds [6/9 -- 6 Cat III/ 3 Cat IV] of my races the first year or so).

Since you progressed so quickly- what are you doing in cycling now?

hey cycling experts - this guy just ran a legitimate 6:30 5k - I found his cycling results but not any running records.

How good a cyclist is he? I don't know nothing about cycling results.

but I do know that he is extraordinarily talented - at age 43, runnign 16:30 off apparently no other foot racing.

http://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=124782

...er 16:30 5k

and I did just find a few slower running results for him - 39 minute 10ks, that sort of thing. Maybe he just decided to focus on running for a while.

How did you find a guy's cycling results off a post where he provides no name? Real weird.

What!??!! wrote:

How did you find a guy's cycling results off a post where he provides no name? Real weird.

no - I wasn't referring to the OP at all - different guys. I just happened to be a at a race yesterday where 43 year old guy I've never heard of ran 16:30 - so I tried to find his previous results and found 90% cycling, not running.

A 7 time tour winner and previous traithlete just managed to break 3h for the marathon on his first attempt. In Chris Froome's autobiography he says that he went for a run when he was away without his bike, and he could hardly walk the day after.

A good cyclist who doesn't run at all would take a while to get to 38 min 10k, if they ever manage it. I would definitely predict injuries a plenty if they tried to train for it in a short time frame.

I'm doing a few runs before a turkey trot. I was a decent collegiate runner. D2 level, and will be lucky to break 19 off of my cycling fitness, probably will be 5 mins off my PR. First run and I could barely walk the next day. It's been three year since I ran competitively. As of recent I've found, it is extremely difficult to translate cycling fitness into running fitness.

I am the top level with cycling so have a good engine, but now I'll be lucky to run 6 minute pace for a measly 3 miles. It's amazing how aerobically taxing running feels. Overall I just feel out of place, and rigid running six minute pace. I'm okay doing 7.30-8.00 but the fluidity of racing at a fast pace is completely gone.

I think if the OP had running talent in the past it could only take him a few months to get to that pace. But if he didn't have that talent in the past, the chance of him getting to 38 mins is unknown. There's a chance 38 mins is out of his tool shed, and rather his body adapts better to cycling. I know for a fact if I trained I could be a sub 15 guy. But if I was going into running with no past experience at this point, I would think there's no way I'll ever be that fast.

I'm a cat 2 roadie. Ran xc in high school but was always mediocre at best (19min 5k). 2 years ago I started running in mid august (about 25mi a week on top of a little biking) and ran a 1:38 half marathon in late September... Thinking about transitioning into triathlon cus the last few years I've made less than 2% increases in power tests. I did the bike leg of a half ironman in 2:12 (290 watt average), which was a minute faster than the winners time, but he ran the half marathon in 1:19 which to me is ridiculously fast coming off that kind of ride.

So I guess I'm asking how long (if ever) it would take for someone like me who has average natural running ability to become a respectable runner. I'd consider sub 87 minute half marathon or 37-38 minute 10k very respectable.

I know a cyclocrosser who enters a yearly 10k for funand does around 34-35min. He almost never runs otherwise.You can either run or you can't.

sub4onek wrote:

How long (months, weekly mileage) would it take for a cyclist (in shape ~ 6-8% body fat) to run a 37 minute 10k? Can probably run around 44 minutes right now on no running.

You're asking a question that is super relative to yourself. That would be like asking why you've only increased your power 2% but not providing any details about training.

You shouldn't be making the switch to running for that reason. Run if you enjoy it, even if you do run 37 minutes, is it going to be different than if you ran 38 minutes?

Who knows, maybe you'll take to it quickly and be the next master's record holder.