CYCLING'S effect on RUNNING

I remember it differently. Hadd said that good bikers can get off the bike and be good runners very quickly, but NOT vice versa. Those who have only ever trained for running need a lot of training to become (anywhere near) good bikers.

FWIW, I agree.

Bicycle training is bad for running stride improvement. It entails training with the opposite resistance. Running involves pushing off the calf muscle and bringing the leg up from the straight leg position from 90 degrees open away from gravity whereas bike riding involves pushing down towards gravity from the 90 degree angle to an open position.

However, it is great for calf muscle training as the resistance is still correlated.

The best way to bike training in consistency with running is to simply place your feet UNDER the pedals and push up on the pedals as you bike instead of pushing down. Engaging your athletes in this type of training might is the difference between World Class training and generic training.

Don't disagree. I've found that it takes about six weeks to "run the cycling" out of one's legs if you've been doing only cycling. The muscle coordination is different. But adding some biking into a running schedule does seem more benefits than simply injury prevention.

Question about cycling:

I have a cheap department store mountain bike with dual suspension and big fat knobby tires. I have no idea about gear ratios or whatnot. It's an 18 speed and if I'm trying I can get in a good aero position on this thing (helps to have short arms..:) ). Anyway, the front is on the largest cog (3) and the back is usually on the smallest or next to smallest (6 or 7). So how would I figure out what gear it is? (as you say 39 x 15?). I get up to a good 90rpm and when the speedometer worked it was easily up to 20 mph and closer to 30 on a slight downhill. This was when I was cycling due to injury and I don't cycle much at all right now. I always wondered what I could do on a decent road bike with the slick narrow tires.

Alan

I only have one mountain bike and never really paid attention to its gearing. A quick eyeball of it suggests that the big gear is 38 or 39 and the small sprocket on the back is 12 or 13. These numbers represent the number of teeth on the gear. 39=39 teeth. Most high-end components will have their size stamped into them (or on the small space between two gears). If you can't see them cleanly then you aren't cleaning your drive train frequently enough.

On a road bike a 39x15 is the small ring in front (usually only two rings on a racing bike) and about middle of the cluster in the back. For most uses I ride and 11-21 in the back which has gears 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21.

In the alps or in the rockies, you'd want to swap out a couple low gears and put a 23 and a 25 on the back. I go with a 12-25. If you want pictures, check out

www.shimano.com

Tire width makes a difference. Aero bars help as well although my statement about going 20-22 with ease meant while riding in a normal position (on the hoods or in the drops).

Armstrong also says that he has to weigh out everything he eats and stays pretty hungry during those months. In my experience, running makes me slightly nautious due to the bouncing up and down of my digestive organs, but after a ride, I feel ravenous. The point is you have to be more careful.

When someone says "a x b," "a" refers to the number of teeth on the front chainring, and "b" refers to number of teeth on the back cog. Road racing bikes typically have two front chainrings, a 55-tooth, and a 39 tooth, and a back cogset ranging from 11-21 for pros to 12-25 for recreational cyclists. 39 x 15 would be small chainring in the front, and one of the midle cogs in the back the one on the back. Mountain bike gears are lower, usually 42-32-22 up front, and something like 12-28 or 12-32 in back. In my opinion, the mountain bike's gear selection is better for cyclists, because you are better able to spin at a high cadence.

patio wrote:

Cycling makes you impotent. Forget how it may affect your running and think how it will affect your love life!

Yep .. certainly does ... imagine how many kids Lance Armstrong would have by now if he wasn't impotent

trainer wrote:

thanks for all the input, fellows.

You're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

15 min. 5K, holy shit, when? where? do you know him or are you assuming (notice that I'm assuming you're wrong)

Pay your bills

billsby

I have made the experience that biking is a whole lot easier than running. Even if you bike for 4 hours, it's still no big deal cardiovascularly. It gives you [power, yes, but that's about it. If you really want a similar effect as running, it seems like you have to bike uphill permanently.

I don't know, but I have been biking a little more recently, and I am losing some respect for pro cyclists. I am really not sure if the Tour de France is as tough as everybody thinks it is... I mean, biking flat is NEVER very exhausting, uphill yes, but then they always roll down the hill and by the time it goes up again, they had been able to recover almost fully during the downroll part.

actually Lance is impotent but its not bc of cycling...when he had cancer he had one of his testicles removed and that combined with the cancer rendered him impotent. the reason he has kids right now is he saved some of his sperm before he underwent cancer therapy.

btw some of lance's competitors think that he has an advantage on the bike by only having one ball...

Impotency and infertility are two different things. Lance is infertile because the chemo he underwent permanently destroys sperm production. Impotency is when you can't get it up. Although there is some anecdotal science that suggests that cycling can lead to impotency, the number of pro cyclists with super-babe girlfriends suggests they CAN deliver the goods. You are all a bunch of idiots.

biking wrote:

I have made the experience that biking is a whole lot easier than running.

I think it is hard for runners to get their heart rates up when they first start cycling, because cardiovascularly they are very strong, but they often lack the leg power required to get their heart rates up on the bike.

Lance can ride time trials (of roughly one hour) at 190 bpm, and sometimes climb mountain passes (of over 10 miles) at 180 or so (his max is 201). Those are pretty solid, sustained efforts, comparable to a runner competing in a half-marathon.

Are you joking? Cycling at the professional level and even the top amatures are extremely fast. It is true that some stages in the TdF are over 6 hours long and ov course no one can go at 100% effort that whole time but when they do go, they go to their max and beyond. They can do this because they have the ability to recover, they can stop pedeling, or shift to a lower gear. But that doesn't mean that they dont go just as hard as top international runners. Cycling is fundamentally different because they can recover.

I have raced at a high level of both running and cycling and the most pain I ever felt came from cycling. Recently I did a 70 mile race, and for 90% of the race the pace was pretty moderate and the pack stayed, but the final hill climb seperated everyone. This is where serious pain is felt.

smarterthanu wrote:

btw some of lance's competitors think that he has an advantage on the bike by only having one ball...

Makes sense, his are so big if he had two he's never make it up a hill.

in the late 80s early 90s before Lance got picked up he was racing triathlon and road running races. He ran a couple 32 minute 10ks at the end of triathlons. earlier this season he did an off-road duathlon (3m-12m-3m) and won the race...on the final run leg: www.runontexas.com/Results/Fall2002/DirtyDuRockyHill2002/DirtyDuOverall2.htm