Triathletes - can someone please tell me why I suck so much on the bike?

Try slowtwitch.com

Long story short though, you're very light, new to cycling and have been running for what I assume is a somewhat long time. It takes a while for most people to get good on the bike even when they aren't running.

Have you ever tried putting on muscle while losing fat at the same time? It's very difficult to do. Likewise, trying to get strong on the bike while continuing to run is quite difficult or at the very least much slower than if you were to ride exclusively.

I rode for 2-5 hours a day nearly every day for a year and my sustainable power went up about 60%. Wasn't running at all though.

C0l0rado wrote:

The top finishers in entry level sprint tris are not on that gear. That's her category, right?

A used road bike or tri bike ans some new tires would be perfect -- so long as she gets it fitted. Prolly a $1000 investment.

You greatly underestimate how much unfit and unskilled dentists spend on tri bikes.

The OP already says she has a Boardman 8.6 road bike which is more than enough for what she needs right now. No need to waste money buying excessive gear that the bike marketing people brainwash tryathletes into believing. As long as she has some basic clipless pedals and aerobars, it will be more than what she is capable of using right now.

You simply need to ride a lot more ( minimum 10+ hours per week) and you need to put some oomph through the pedals when you ride. Most runners think that their aerobic fitness will translate to the bike - it doesn't. You have to strengthen your legs and develop the ability to put power to the cranks. Becoming quadzilla is not necessary but, you need to make your quads and glutes stronger. Fair warning - this will have a moderately negative impact on your running.

I transitioned over to cycling after my competitive running days were over. I foolishly thought that my "superior" running fitness would make me a great rider on day one. I learned very quickly that cycling is a power sport. A big heart and lungs mean nothing without the ability to generate power with the legs. I could hang on group rides until the strong legged guys decided to amp the pace and they could ditch me with just a few turns of the cranks. Cyclocross? The ability to run faster over the barriers and unrideable stretches meant next to nothing. The only place where a running background helped was on long climbs where the ability to suffer for long periods and perform past LT came in handy.

Gear? Save your money until you become competitive. The expensive gear helps at a certain level where incremental gains can make a difference. Until then, you look like a dentist or wealth manager with more money than sense trying to "buy" speed. Honestly, there is nothing that screams poser like a $10,000 frameset and $4,000 wheels being pedaled slower than 20 MPH.

bike riding pro wrote:

I already said why. Because they're old-school and antiquated. They will absolutely not help your power. How could they? Power is produced aerobically. To produce more, you need to train accordingly. All you're doing on rollers is pedaling. In fact, due to the lack of resistance on most rollers, you can't even pedal that hard! So then you're essentially spinning in z1 for an hour. Even bigger waste of time!

Clearly you're like 60 years old and probably fill your bottles with pennies to do hill workouts as well. People that actually race a bike at a decent level recognize such nonsense is just that.

At least my generation didn't create the monster that is Lance Armstrong that your generation did. Why don't you go back to your coffee shop world championship rides and let people that have watched tryathletes crash way too many times give better advice than you ever could?

You clearly have no clue about rollers if you think they have no resistance. The basic $100 ones are narrow diameter rollers that give decent resistant due to the small tire on roller contact patch and you simply lower your tire pressure if you want more resistance. Did you really think these things are perpetual motion machines?

And for even more resistance, use the old school trick of putting a folded towel underneath the rollers. And for a whopping total of $200 you can buy rollers that have a built in magnetic resistance unit good enough to sustain 200-300 watts.

Why don't you come back when you finally upgrade from Cat 5 to Cat 4?

My Advice is Better wrote:

At least my generation...

ok, boomer.

5 - OP, I thought of one other thing. If you haven't got a bike fit or an experienced cyclist to check out your position while you ride, there is a good chance your seat is too high, hampering power generation by not allowing the quads to contract enough. While you are seated and clipped into the pedals, at maximum extension, you should still have somewhat bent knees when your feet are parallel to the ground. Having the seat too high is a common problem.

bike riding pro wrote:

My Advice is Better wrote:

At least my generation...

ok, boomer.

I see Operation Aderlass is going to reveal another two cyclists caught running a blood doping ring. You might want to do a Mo Farah when the doorbell rings.

Not a triathlete just a runner wrote:

You are just training for triathlons for 3 month. That's reason no 1.

2. You probably have to train biking properly not just going to work and back for 10 miles.

You need more like 4-6 hours on the bike on weekends.

No worries, you will get there.

+1. Get those hours in on the bike. Riding to work and back isnt a workout, it's a commute. Find actual cycle training help. There are plenty of online resources for free that will give you better ideas than just a steady ride to work and back.

Cyclists dont just do workouts like runners, but they also do them at specific cadences, it's a whole new element to training that has no real running equivalent. For example, no runner will go out for a run a 9 minute pace with a cadence of 140, that would be insane. But cyclists do the equivalent to that without. Likewise, no runner would go for a run at 7 minute pace intentionally taking massive overstriding steps, but cyclists do the equivalent to that.

Also, check fit on the bike. I assume your bike isnt a total piece of junk? It doesn't have to be $5000, but fit and aerodynamics do matter. Wheels and tires are the biggest bang for the buck upgrade on an entry level road bike. Shifters and derailleurs are really nice upgrades, but do very little to make you faster for the money.

Also, you sound broke. I hate to point this out, but triathlon training is expensive, period. The bike is the biggest culprit. Any local shops that will sponsor people? You might be surprised how slow you can be and get a bike loaned to you for the season for free as long as you commit to a certain number of races per year in their uniform.

Powa wrote:

David S wrote:

I know you're not the OP, but I think you should see if you can borrow a power meter for a ride. It'll help you judge things like whether the gearing actually helps -- separate the mental from the physical.

Can you do that? I thought a power meter was integrated into the pedals or crank. How can you borrow one?

There are several different kinds of power meters. Powertaps are just a wheel (and a head unit). There are some that are just a pedal. You might have a friend who could lend you one for a week.

Back to the OP, I wanted to point out a couple of really tiny women who have been great cyclists. I've ridden with Emma Pooley and Flavia Oliveira, and they're both tiny but super fast. I guess you can't count Flavia since she got busted for doping twice, but Emma Pooley is tiny and was a very good time trialist.

Ultimately you just need to do more mileage and get used to the positioning if you want to be a good time trialist. I also got more power standing than sitting, and I hated time trials because I hated being hunched over like that, but you have to comfort against aerodynamics.

You lack strength, and cycling well requires strength. Ride more.

By the way, I already have a strength/gym routine for my legs and although I do gain the actual strength (my lifts have gone up) but not the size, basically whenever I hit the weights I always end up getting “ripped” instead of more “big”. I have always had a super light gymnast/ballet sort of body, I eat quite a lot for me size too, between 3k and 4k cals on weekdays and occasionally at weekends my intake can be 5-6k cals. My friends are always super shocked lol. So to the person who said that competitive female cyclists are between 160-180, not only do I not really believe that they’re that heavy, but hitting that sort of weight for me is extremely unrealistic.

I’m also not going to spend absolutely loads of things that don’t really matter, the way I see it, I will know whether my power/watts are increasing just by how I’m feeling on the bike, how my muscles are engaging and how fast I am going.

I have just been out for a ride, 35 minutes was all I could manage. Because I’ve only ever been used to sitting upright, I tried to do this entire ride in a more aerodynamic position. I did 5 x 500m hills without standing (I always stand on hills) and holy hell, I had no idea how much easier it was to climb in an aerodynamic position, I also went faster. But I don’t want to do too much because my back obviously needs time to adjust to this riding position, and in fact, if I rode any longer, I don’t think I would have been able to hold form without my form breaking down.

I’m going to go to the local cycle shop and see how well my bike actually fits so yes, I’m going to get a fit. This bike feels a little big for me, and also, the seat is as low as I could get it for this ride.

It's often swimming that many runners struggle - running fitness usually translates well to the bike.

It would help, but isn't crucial, to have a bike with a Tri / Time Trial geometry and aerobars.

What's absolutely key is proper seat position. Incorrect seat position can greatly reduce power/efficiency and lead to injury.

You should also have shoes which clip in for best performance.

Yezzy wrote:

So to the person who said that competitive female cyclists are between 160-180, not only do I not really believe that they’re that heavy, but hitting that sort of weight for me is extremely unrealistic.

Competitive female cyclists are not usually that heavy because there are a lot more Hills in pure bike racing. Triathlons are typically flat courses, which is why the women there will be noticeably heavier. It's gravitational and aerodynamic physics. At 100 pounds, you are just too light and I agree that I don't think you would be able to get up to 160 pounds on your frame. But adding something like 10 pounds of muscles to your quads and hamstrings is definitely possible and would give you a big power boost.

While you are at the bike shop, have them show you one of the rollers and if they can show you how to ride them. You simply must learn how to ride them so you don't injure yourself from poor technique or crash while trying to maintain an aero tuck.

Yezzy wrote:

... This bike feels a little big for me, and also, the seat is as low as I could get it for this ride.

^^^ This right here says that your bike is too big, by at least 2 sizes!!!

Real Cici wrote:

Get a trainer and join zwift. Learn how to ride hard. End of thread. I speak from experience. You don't need 4 hour rides to do a sprint triathlon.

Agree with this. I used to do a 2x per week 8 mile time trial and no other rides, just running. After a few months my sprint speed (what his tri distance is) greatly improved. You recover so fast from a short, hard effort on a bike that it hardly affected my running the next day.

Seriously, try it. If you already suck at riding, what can it hurt? Worked for me, I got hella fast on short bike rides.

My eyes are bleeding reading this thread, yet I can’t help myself.

Some of my favorites so far:

“professionals are usually 160-180lbs” I don’t think Tuetenberg even weighs that much and she’s pretty big.

“You have to apply force around the entire pedal stroke” Comedy central here.

As someone else suggested, try slowtwitch instead. This place is a total mess with so much bad info being thrown around.

Former pro cyclist wrote:

My eyes are bleeding reading this thread, yet I can’t help myself.

Some of my favorites so far:

“professionals are usually 160-180lbs” I don’t think Tuetenberg even weighs that much and she’s pretty big.

“You have to apply force around the entire pedal stroke”

Best women tri cyclists based on Kona bike splits:

Mirinda Carfrae, 115 lbs

Lucy Charles, 127 lbs

Anne Haug, 115 lbs

Sarah Crowley, 117 lbs

And there was a GCN video posted earlier that optimizing pedal strong thing is a myth, it doesn't matter.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Gear? Save your money until you become competitive. The expensive gear helps at a certain level where incremental gains can make a difference. Until then, you look like a dentist or wealth manager with more money than sense trying to "buy" speed. Honestly, there is nothing that screams poser like a $10,000 frameset and $4,000 wheels being pedaled slower than 20 MPH.

My bike cost less than a fancy pair of cycling shoes, but if I had piles of money I might buy a $15,000 bike just because I liked it, pour my fat butt into lycra, pedal 12 mph, and not care who judges me for being a poser and buying speed.

Former world champion cyclist Marianne Berglund may have been smaller than the OP. I can't find height weight info, but she was tiny.