Don Underhill wrote:
Runners, go for a 90 minute bike ride.
Cyclists, go for a 90 minute run.
Elite cyclists ride for much longer than 90 minutes. Try a 6 or 7 hour ride with several 5 to 10 mile climbs. Also, cycling is more efficient than running, so 90min run =/= 90min bike.
fit cyclists have both aerobic/anaerobic capacity as well as muscle strength
fit runners have either aerobic capacity minimal muscle strength or anaerobic capacity and muscle strength
In general, cyclists have better all-around fitness vs. runners
egad! please! wrote:
fit runners have either aerobic capacity minimal muscle strength or anaerobic capacity and muscle strength
Tell that to Geb or Kenny B.
I always wondered that, when I cycle I struggle to maintain good power output on the flats but when the roads turns upwards I'm usually up near the front, with very little cycle training per se
Nek minnut wrote:
I always wondered that, when I cycle I struggle to maintain good power output on the flats but when the roads turns upwards I'm usually up near the front, with very little cycle training per se
Because you're probably riding with Freds.
egad! please! wrote:
fit cyclists have both aerobic/anaerobic capacity as well as muscle strength
fit runners have either aerobic capacity minimal muscle strength or anaerobic capacity and muscle strength
In general, cyclists have better all-around fitness vs. runners
Really debatable. Cyclists and runners are similarily weak in the upper body, both have good aerobic engines. I can't see where I would choose a cyclist over a runner in terms of all around fitness.
egad! please! wrote:
fit cyclists have both aerobic/anaerobic capacity as well as muscle strength
fit runners have either aerobic capacity minimal muscle strength or anaerobic capacity and muscle strength
In general, cyclists have better all-around fitness vs. runners
Being superior at cycling vs. running, I wish you were right. In fact, you are way off unless you are talking about hobby runners vs. hobby cyclists. I think you need to compare elite runners vs. elite cyclists.
In that case, elite vs. elite, the cyclist are much more one dimensional. Their bones are lighter, their tendons have no elasticity, and their muscles can't handle eccentric contractions. Being an elite cyclist will generally mean you are going to feel like a pretty fit senior citizen when not on the bike, and a horse when on the bike.
Elite runners have very high general fitness and can play most non-contact sports without getting hurt. Definitely not the case for elite cyclists; they are very fragile.
nark wrote:
Don Underhill wrote:Runners, go for a 90 minute bike ride.
Cyclists, go for a 90 minute run.
Elite cyclists ride for much longer than 90 minutes. Try a 6 or 7 hour ride with several 5 to 10 mile climbs. Also, cycling is more efficient than running, so 90min run =/= 90min bike.
The amount of elite cyclists that go on 7 hour rides is dramatically less than the amount of elite runners that do 90 minute runs. Most parts of the world do not have several 10 mile climbs available either.
As for cycling being more "efficient", that is going to depend on how you define efficiency. From a physiological standpoint, cycling is about 40% less efficient than running.
How many miles a week are you riding ?
I'm cycling right now since i can't run. It sucks. I'm in very mediocre shape after biking all summer. I could be running 15:00 5ks right now with the same time commitment.
I can't keep up with the old fat guys on the flats, but am beating the best strava times on local hill segments (short and steep usually).[/quote]
Mom, I've made it. I've been mentioned in a letsrun thread. Buddy told me about it, I do enjoy some letsrun to pass the time however. I'm going to have to agree with the poster about the overall fitness of an elite runner being greater. When at my highest running shape, I felt pretty fit overall.
Greatest biking shape, I feel like a monster on the bike but lackluster without it. Sure I can walk up stairs for hours if I wanted to, but that's about it. Aerobically I consider myself equal when in either sport.
Power to weight is extremely important, so having the upper body strength is minimally important. A good core is important, but strength exercises are always body weight based. Push ups, sit ups, planks, lunges etc. during the off season.
Also- 7 hour rides is just absolutely ridiculous. It's all about the blocks. At the professional level a 4-3-3-4 hour block with varied intensity throughout the four days, down day then add a few more blocks is what is necessary. When are we racing 7 hours?
If you're interested in some cycling related questions maybe I can post some answers here.
Old Man by the Sea wrote:
How many miles a week are you riding ?
haven't really added it up before, but I probably average 75min 4 to 6 days per week. That puts me about 115 miles if I do 18mph.
The Ghost On HWY2 wrote:
The amount of elite cyclists that go on 7 hour rides is dramatically less than the amount of elite runners that do 90 minute runs. Most parts of the world do not have several 10 mile climbs available either.
As for cycling being more "efficient", that is going to depend on how you define efficiency. From a physiological standpoint, cycling is about 40% less efficient than running.
Elite road cyclists frequently ride that long. And if they're elite, they are in an area where those sorts of claims are available. Sorry to burst your bubble.
If running were more efficient, you could run longer and harder than you could riding a bike.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
Power to weight is extremely important, so having the upper body strength is minimally important. A good core is important, but strength exercises are always body weight based. Push ups, sit ups, planks, lunges etc. during the off season.
False. Elite road cyclists frequently lift weights. Squats, squats, squats.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
Also- 7 hour rides is just absolutely ridiculous. It's all about the blocks. At the professional level a 4-3-3-4 hour block with varied intensity throughout the four days, down day then add a few more blocks is what is necessary. When are we racing 7 hours?
Paris-Roubaix, for one, is 6+ hours. And if you're a stage racer (even 1-week), the cumulative stress of back-to-back long days is important.
The Ghost On HWY2 wrote:Being superior at cycling vs. running, I wish you were right. In fact, you are way off unless you are talking about hobby runners vs. hobby cyclists. I think you need to compare elite runners vs. elite cyclists.
In that case, elite vs. elite, the cyclist are much more one dimensional. Their bones are lighter, their tendons have no elasticity, and their muscles can't handle eccentric contractions. Being an elite cyclist will generally mean you are going to feel like a pretty fit senior citizen when not on the bike, and a horse when on the bike.
Elite runners have very high general fitness and can play most non-contact sports without getting hurt. Definitely not the case for elite cyclists; they are very fragile.
Why compare elite runners vs. elite cyclists-
Why compare elite runners vs. elite cyclists- less than 1% of the general population? The fact remains that cycling requires good aerobic and anaerobic conditioning on top of good muscle strength. Even as it relates to upper body strength, cyclists are generally more muscular and stronger (serious cyclists spend substantial time building core strength). In addition, cycling is more ergonomic vs. running and provides better all-around exercise from the standpoint of damage-inducing effects. I suspect that cyclists probably engage in their sport longer over the course of their lifetime vs. runners and hence retain more of their youthfulness and vigor.
So, while I personally prefer running to cycling, cycling is probably a better form of exercise than running.
Nark wrote:
Bugging and Bucking wrote:Power to weight is extremely important, so having the upper body strength is minimally important. A good core is important, but strength exercises are always body weight based. Push ups, sit ups, planks, lunges etc. during the off season.
False. Elite road cyclists frequently lift weights. Squats, squats, squats.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
Also- 7 hour rides is just absolutely ridiculous. It's all about the blocks. At the professional level a 4-3-3-4 hour block with varied intensity throughout the four days, down day then add a few more blocks is what is necessary. When are we racing 7 hours?
Paris-Roubaix, for one, is 6+ hours. And if you're a stage racer (even 1-week), the cumulative stress of back-to-back long days is important.
Should have clarified upper body weight lifting. And correct Paris Roubaix is over a 6 hour race. But the cumulative 6 hour days is not that often. You're acting like we go out and ride 6 hours like I used to run 90 minutes. Let's talk about my training for a stage race. 4-5 hours on a Sunday, 3.5 Monday, 3 Tuesday, 4 Weds, 3 hour recovery, 4 hours saturday- All varied intensity. It's all about the CTL and ATL build up. You don't need the stress of six hours, when you can get it with varying intensities at 4 to 5 hours. Generally I'll hit around 1300 TSS during a stage race week. I'll train for that with a few blocks of 1000+, 900, 1000+, 900 etc. Usually about 3-4 hard weeks in a row then throw in a recovery week.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
If you're interested in some cycling related questions maybe I can post some answers here.
How long would you say it takes to develop the muscles necessary for cycling? Or to rephrase, how long will the initial rapid improvement last? I was previously a decent runner, 14s 5k blah blah. I've been riding about 4-5 months and while I've made decent improvement i'm still pretty terrible. Hoping I can get a lot better. Although all I have time for is 7-8 hours/wk.
The cumulative 6+ hour days depends on the rider, their goals, and the time of year. For me, I was a stage racer (a pure climber) and frequently did 6+ hour days in the off-season (and even early season). Personally, I did do them as frequently as runners to 90min runs... but I handle volume very well (high-intensity not so much). And often I'd take a second "base" mid-season between big goals. In-season, it was all built around my racing schedule and how I was feeling from week to week. Your blocks mentioned resembled what I did during the season.
But everyone I knew did at least two 6+ hour rides per week in the off-season. I rarely did a race that was less that 4 hours. It was fairly common to hit 5... 6 was not very common. But my (and my coach's) philosophy was that you should hit well above your race duration in training; and somewhat frequently.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
If you're interested in some cycling related questions maybe I can post some answers here.
just a question on climbing. When I am riding inclines of 6%+, I have to go up nearly 4 gears when out of the saddle to stop over-cadencing and when I sit down I have to drop back down the gears again. I am a high cadence rider who averages about 103rpm on the flat and 91rpm on steep climbs. Why is there such a variation in my gear selection between sitting and standing?
dreamin wrote:
Bugging and Bucking wrote:If you're interested in some cycling related questions maybe I can post some answers here.
How long would you say it takes to develop the muscles necessary for cycling? Or to rephrase, how long will the initial rapid improvement last? I was previously a decent runner, 14s 5k blah blah. I've been riding about 4-5 months and while I've made decent improvement i'm still pretty terrible. Hoping I can get a lot better. Although all I have time for is 7-8 hours/wk.
Good question. I think it depends on the body type. A lot has been aforementioned about anaerobic and aerobic strengths. Sure running has the two, to a point, but cycling the two are very important. Hard effort recover, Hard effort recover, long climb, descent recover. Really depends on the style of the race. With that being said, sounds like you're potentially an aerobic based type runner? Better at the distance? For some, you'll hop on the bike and have the talent. You won't have the tactics but you'll be relatively strong. Within the course of a year you will probably be noticing changes to your legs. Running will become a lot more difficult haha.
You will continuously be improving- however, by a year on the bike with consistent training, you'll probably have an idea of what type of cyclist you can be. 7-8 hours a week for me would be enough to make me competitive at the category 1 level. I hate saying a lot has to do with talent, but sadly it does.
Why do you say you're terrible? Maybe it's possible you aren't fueling yourself properly on the bike? A lot of cyclists- can ride for hours at a time at a steady level, but the aerobic and anaerobic strengths necessary during a race are much much different. Cycling is just like running- the more work you put in over time ( if done correctly ) the more improvements you will see!