Cyclists need to have a level of skill too while skills in running are minimal (yeah, mid-d can be tricky, but it isn't that hard to keep from tripping unless you happen to be an elite female).
I have no desire to speed around in a large pack at speeds approaching and exceeding 30 mph, but in up for about any type of foot race.
Luther college is D3, so he's a baby All-American. That really illustrate the level of running talent needed to become a world class cyclist.
Interesting- 4 gears is a lot. Generally I down shift when I begin to stand, but only one or two cogs. Do you have the gearing backwards? Or do you mean literally as in, you are going from say your 21t to a 28t cog?
Regardless, you should do some cadence drills- seems like you're very dependent on your aerobic abilities. 103 isn't awful but it definitely seems high. Potentially your seat height is incorrect and that is causing you to lose some power and therefore slowing down your cadence? That's a tough question, but generally your cadence slows down the second you stand.
Nark wrote:
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.
Interesting insight. If you don't mind me asking. What era did you race, also for who? Thanks!
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
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!
Thanks that's helpful. I was really more of a 15/5k guy. 6'1 155 so not the typical tiny runner. Had good speed. I say I'm terrible cause the old men with bellies ride away from me on the flats lol. Just have no power.
I was a semi-professional MTB rider with a sponsorship in the 90s up in Vancouver, Canada. I never thought I was a good runner.Last year I took up running and really regret not starting earlier. Ran a 1:13 half this year on 35 miles a week.
Near the border wrote:
The never ending letsrun discussions about how runners would make great climbers- followed by the counter argument. Well it seems to be a good year for runner's turned cyclists. The world championships team was recently selected for Canada and guess who was on it- Michael Woods!
http://pedalmag.com/team-canada-announced-for-2014-uci-road-cycling-world-championships/Following the sport, and being from Canada- I remember him setting the junior record at 18- running 3.57 in the mile and a 7.58 3000 meter. I'm a big fan of Woods, he switched from an Italian team to 5 hour energy mid season. I really hope he makes a huge impression this world championships, and can land a good deal for the 2015 season.
Matt Busche- also had a decent year. He ran for Luther College and took up cycling in 2005 as a form of cross-training during a running injury. He was a two-time NCAA All-American cross country athlete- who definitely lit up some mountain finishes this year in France and finished 11th at this years tour of Utah.
From there- looks like another runner turned cyclist had some success in 2014, Jake Sitler. My buddy told me about this kid who was guest riding for a Canadian team not too far from where I'm from- He was a collegiate runner so I looked him up. Guess he ran at Shipensburg under Steve Spence. His results weren't like Woods on the track, I saw he had some decent steeple and 3k times, but his cycling results were good on the American scene, not pro tour or anything like that, but looking at his results page- he's just getting started. Looks like he recently won the King of the mountains classification in a UCI road race.
http://pedalmag.com/bucks-county-classic-full-results-canadas-bell-wins/
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
Interesting- 4 gears is a lot. Generally I down shift when I begin to stand, but only one or two cogs. Do you have the gearing backwards? Or do you mean literally as in, you are going from say your 21t to a 28t cog?
Regardless, you should do some cadence drills- seems like you're very dependent on your aerobic abilities. 103 isn't awful but it definitely seems high. Potentially your seat height is incorrect and that is causing you to lose some power and therefore slowing down your cadence? That's a tough question, but generally your cadence slows down the second you stand.
No, the gearing isn't backwards. I have to upshift 4, not downshift to get out of the saddle to get any power into the pedals. I am under a lot less pressure standing and going way faster than when I am seated. When seated, The top of my quads burn if I am not spinning up a climb. I can't push a big gear when seated but I can ride long steep climbs without ever sitting down. I had a professional bike fit so I don't think this is a fit problem.
I seem to be the opposite of every other cyclist I have ever met.
Like the other poster I spin at high cadence. Depending on my aerobic system suppose. My legs give out quickly otherwise.
Cyclo-cross to the other side wrote:
No, the gearing isn't backwards. I have to upshift 4, not downshift to get out of the saddle to get any power into the pedals. I am under a lot less pressure standing and going way faster than when I am seated. When seated, The top of my quads burn if I am not spinning up a climb. I can't push a big gear when seated but I can ride long steep climbs without ever sitting down. I had a professional bike fit so I don't think this is a fit problem.
I seem to be the opposite of every other cyclist I have ever met.
Same here. Although I haven't had a pro fit.
.[/quote]
No, the gearing isn't backwards. I have to upshift 4, not downshift to get out of the saddle to get any power into the pedals. I am under a lot less pressure standing and going way faster than when I am seated. When seated, The top of my quads burn if I am not spinning up a climb. I can't push a big gear when seated but I can ride long steep climbs without ever sitting down. I had a professional bike fit so I don't think this is a fit problem.
I seem to be the opposite of every other cyclist I have ever met.[/quote]
Wow, that is extremely bizarre and unlike anything I have ever heard. Like I said previously, when I stand- I automatically will down shift once or twice. There's a few professionals I know that are actually faster and better climbers when they stand. Joe Dombrowski comes to mind, he has this weird thing in his hip that actually lets him climb faster and more efficiently when he is standing.
When I climb, I generally will stay seated- putting out the power. I only stand when it pitches. From there I'll stand for a few strokes until I'll either a) sit back down or b) crest over the top. Everyone is different, and has different physiology, but yours is unique. Rule of thumb is that 15+ mph- aero dynamics is key. So it's important to be seated. Generally I'm climbing 15-18mph on 3-6% if it isn't longer than 10 minutes. So staying seated is very important. As for your quads burning- that could because you are relatively new? When I first started cycling (still runner build)- standing was always my go to, when trying to get over a climb.
Bugging and Bucking wrote:
.
No, the gearing isn't backwards. I have to upshift 4, not downshift to get out of the saddle to get any power into the pedals. I am under a lot less pressure standing and going way faster than when I am seated. When seated, The top of my quads burn if I am not spinning up a climb. I can't push a big gear when seated but I can ride long steep climbs without ever sitting down. I had a professional bike fit so I don't think this is a fit problem.
I seem to be the opposite of every other cyclist I have ever met.[/quote]
Wow, that is extremely bizarre and unlike anything I have ever heard. Like I said previously, when I stand- I automatically will down shift once or twice. There's a few professionals I know that are actually faster and better climbers when they stand. Joe Dombrowski comes to mind, he has this weird thing in his hip that actually lets him climb faster and more efficiently when he is standing.
When I climb, I generally will stay seated- putting out the power. I only stand when it pitches. From there I'll stand for a few strokes until I'll either a) sit back down or b) crest over the top. Everyone is different, and has different physiology, but yours is unique. Rule of thumb is that 15+ mph- aero dynamics is key. So it's important to be seated. Generally I'm climbing 15-18mph on 3-6% if it isn't longer than 10 minutes. So staying seated is very important. As for your quads burning- that could because you are relatively new? When I first started cycling (still runner build)- standing was always my go to, when trying to get over a climb.[/quote]
Thanks! Could the reason for being stronger standing be because I am using more of my developed running muscle groups?
The higher the grade, the better I seem to get. I dropped two cat 3 riders on an 11%avg climb that lasted 1 1/2km but they just ride away from me on small ramps even though I am drafting. They are boggled with my riding style too.
If we are going to measure efficiency, I suggest we look at world class cross-country skiers. In terms of sheer VO2, they usually outclass runners and bikers by a decent margin.
Nark wrote:
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.
What continent were you racing on primarily? Certainly not the US.
I know plenty of high level runners that have become exceptional cyclists.
I think runners have an excellent ability to transition into great cyclists.
I'm a bit confused why some are saying that riding in a "harder" gear while standing is unusual.
With everything equal (speed, steepness of the hill, etc.), you will be in a harder gear (smaller cog) when standing and an easier gear while sitting (bigger cog).
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
I'm a bit confused why some are saying that riding in a "harder" gear while standing is unusual.
With everything equal (speed, steepness of the hill, etc.), you will be in a harder gear (smaller cog) when standing and an easier gear while sitting (bigger cog).
That's because he says he has to upshift i.e. "go into an easier gear", so he can stand to put the power down.
observer of these things wrote:
Bring Back the 880 wrote:I'm a bit confused why some are saying that riding in a "harder" gear while standing is unusual.
With everything equal (speed, steepness of the hill, etc.), you will be in a harder gear (smaller cog) when standing and an easier gear while sitting (bigger cog).
That's because he says he has to upshift i.e. "go into an easier gear", so he can stand to put the power down.
there can be problem with upshift and downshift as terminology since people might interpret them differently. I think of downshift as going into an easier gear (think cars...first gear is the easiest). I guess you are visualizing down as the chain moving down to a smaller cog.
He was asked if he meant that for standing he would go into a bigger cog (21 to 28 was the example) and he said no.
yeah, I think it's getting up/downshift terminology backwards. I say downshift when I mean moving to a larger cog & higher cadence. Same as I would say for a car.
observer of these things wrote:
Bring Back the 880 wrote:I'm a bit confused why some are saying that riding in a "harder" gear while standing is unusual.
With everything equal (speed, steepness of the hill, etc.), you will be in a harder gear (smaller cog) when standing and an easier gear while sitting (bigger cog).
That's because he says he has to upshift i.e. "go into an easier gear", so he can stand to put the power down.
I think he is mixing up downshift and upshift. From what I read, he can't push a small cog (hard gear) while sitting but can push a hard gear while out of the saddle like everyone else. He said he is over-spinning when he stands using the same cog as he is seated and he has to use a harder gear. He is confusing upshift with downshift. Everything else he said points to him using a harder gear while standing.
Moving down four cogs is a lot though. His quads are underdeveloped and that's why there is a big difference in the cog he uses between positions. The more he works on climbing in the saddle, the stronger his quads will get and his variation in gears will get between the two positions. Standing on a bike is the closest you will get to using your running muscles and delivers similar fatigue. Cyclo poster is going to be stronger in that position at the start.
Yeah- I misunderstood what the original poster was stating. 4 cogs is definitely way too many, but as the other posters stated; most likely because standing closest resembles the running activity. As I said before, it took a solid year to be more comfortable seated. This was without running, and focusing specifically on the bike.