Cycle Cross-training?

No worries man. But from someone who has done both worlds I strongly recommend you focusing more on your running. I mean, if you love to just do both and want to be a versatile athlete then knock your socks off.

But if you legit are looking into running a fast 5k or be competitive at a collegiate level I would drop the cycling.

I can't stress enough how much my muscular system has changed since I started racing professionally.

To the 16 year old OP- I think a lot of your summer training would be about what can get you through the summers. If you are really dreading running that day then go for a bike ride. It's not going to hurt you. But if you get to thinking that cycling 3 times a week is going to set you up well for XC it's not. Stick to your mileage like you have been doing.

In my opinion, I think that a weekend ride for fun would be okay, say 2-3 hours. But Monday through Friday you should stick to your running. Here in lies the problem with giving you conversions and all of that. I have absolutely no idea about where you live and what your terrain is like. For example, if you live in a hilly area- like myself. Easy rides without working your cycling muscles is going to be extremely difficult. But if you live in a flat area, say a 45 min to 1 hour recovery run, could be simulated by a 2 hour easy ride at high rpms. Cadence of 95 or above. Say you do live in a hilly area, it would be difficult for you to actually bike and consider it a recovery- because the climbing will be working your muscles even if you don't want it to!

In my area, even on my 2 hour recovery rides, I can climb up to 4000 feet easily, so I have to be very careful with how slow I take those hills. And really focus on spinning on the descents and flats. Send over what you were thinking and maybe I could give post some rides and ideas.

All of this is nonsense wrote:

Sorry for not reading thoroughly. I just believe that it is possible to run enough without having to add in the cycling. That's just my opinion.

Here ya go for USAC results page.

http://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=217193

Haha first guy in letsrun history to claim to be a professional at something, gets called out, then proves it. Great stuff.

Yes, that was awesome!

Now that actually is gold wrote:

All of this is nonsense wrote:

Sorry for not reading thoroughly. I just believe that it is possible to run enough without having to add in the cycling. That's just my opinion.

Here ya go for USAC results page.

http://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=217193

Haha first guy in letsrun history to claim to be a professional at something, gets called out, then proves it. Great stuff.

Haha yeah I was proved wrong. the guy's for real.

I am going to go for my second run now. And yeah, I do spin around 100rpm when I cycle, kind of hilly to me at least (50-100ft/mi) so not all dead flat

I'm confused. You're 16 and ran 54 miles and you're complaining about the time commitment? That's only about an hour per day. What other commitments do you have?

Now that actually is gold wrote:

All of this is nonsense wrote:

Sorry for not reading thoroughly. I just believe that it is possible to run enough without having to add in the cycling. That's just my opinion.

Here ya go for USAC results page.

http://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=217193

Haha first guy in letsrun history to claim to be a professional at something, gets called out, then proves it. Great stuff.

I always hope for stuff like this and it never happens. Monumental. As an amateur cyclist and runner-some good advice has been given by that pro guy. Personally, I don't see much of a correlation between the two. If any one affects the other more, I would say my running helps my cycling. While my cycling doesn't really help my running. If that makes any sense.

I used to ride bikes. Then I turned 16!.

Speaking from my personal experience; I was a decent HS runner (PA state medalist in XC) who was injured in my freshman year of college. Prior to injury I ran high 26 for 8k, but was only a 2:02/4:30 guy on the track. I took two years before coming back to running as a senior. Two years of training and racing USCF and NORBA packed on about 10 pounds of muscle. I averaged between 200 and 250 miles per week during that timeframe, and went from 147 pounds to between 157 and 160 (5'11" tall).

When I came back, I was clearly stronger but the weight hurt me in XC. I could only do 27:30 on a flat course, and times fell off as things went vertical. However, when track rolled around I was much faster at 800/1500; like 1:55/3:58.

I'm definitely a proponent of cycling, but know what you're getting into. I was a fast spinner, and I climbed well, but it also took speed work on the bike to build the power that improved my track times. I thought 22 mph was fast before racing; it's not. And I traded XC performance for middle distance. If you are building base for XC, I think you need to run more and bike less. If your goal is middle distance on the track, then biking might have a bigger role in your training.

Great insight sir. I do find it interesting though how you put ON weight with cycling. I was a competetive cyclist back in my times and I just remember how skinny I got. I was classified as underweight. Rode about 250-320 mpw, give or take within that range

I also find that interesting. When I was running up to 90 mile weeks I did get down to around 135-136 but I stayed pretty consistent at 139. With cycling I'm consistent around 138 but when I'm training 18-20 hour weeks for a few weeks in a row I'm low 130's.

How tall are you

This is fantastic. As a runner who dabbled in tris I have to agree that running helps cycling but not much vice versa. I always found it helpful for maintaining some fitness during down periods but found it much better to run and swim supplement than replace actual runs with rides.

It's also worth noting that Lance, who started as a triathlete and has a running background, only ran a 2:59 in New York. If cycling really carried over well, you'd think he'd be able to knock out faster than 6:51's.

I'm 5 foot 11. Aka- I look like a 12 year old boy from the waist up during hard training.

jameson1011 wrote:

You guys are full of BS. Professional? Really? Then you should put yourself out there and tell us who you are. I mean, if you are professional, it would only make sense for us to see your USAC stats, etc. unless, like many of the posters here, you are full of BS

MIC ITW...you are professional too?? LOL This is why I love letsrun. You get so many wannabe's and fakes here, it is just funny to watch.. Dude you never acknowledged that you were pro apparently, in your original post. I am not trying to "one up" you with my training man, hell no. I am out of college for the summer and have nothing better to do. I love training and riding my bike and running.

I figured Jake did it, what the hell. He's gotten himself into a few higher profile NRC races than I did (don't start cycling when you're 25, there are major age discrimination rules), but based on our Joe Martin TT results (he was slightly faster, although I did it in the evening after a 100 mile stage in the morning) we had very similar fitness levels and so likely both have a good handle on how cycling and running correlate.

What you have to realize with cycling is that there are more "pros" than in running. The term "pro" gets used loosely because most people consider a CAT1 that races with pros on the national circuit and gets paid by their team to do so, but isn't technically on a UCI Conti, Pro Conti or Pro Tour team still a pro. If you try to explain the technicalities to friends/family they always say, "so basically you're a pro, you get paid to race." Yes, but not with a UCI contract.

Anyway...yeah, this isn't Runnersworld man, there are a lot more high level athletes that post here.

Cool of you to admit you were wrongish, though, very unletsrunnish! If you're young enough that you are still learning to use your body, cycling, or any sport can indirectly make you a better runner, but probably not for the reason you feel it does. Cycling will mess up your eccentric contraction capacities, make your tendons less resilient, make your bones lighter, put more mitochondria in muscles that don't work very hard during running, etc. etc. etc.

If you want to cross train with high specificity for running, and want to avoid impact, steep incline walking is the best I've found. Around 4mph and 15+%, depending on your fitness level, will get the job done.

Riding your bike outside is a hell of a lot more fun than walking on a steep incline on a treadmill, though!

Riding doesn't take any longer than running. Just wear a HRM. A 80:00 run at 7:15 pace (in Colorado) is a HR in the mid to high 120s for me. A 80:00 ride on my trainer at 250ish watts at a high cadence of 97-98 rpm is the same HR. For aerobic purposes, they are the same.

Now, riding outdoors with all that downhill shit and traffic light shit, maybe, but I just do my outdoor rides on nice flat loops with no traffic worries or on my trainer.