What if you Just cycle instead of easy / recovery days?

Unless you are old or injury prone- don't do it. Run slowly, it is much better than cross-training if you want to maximize your performance.

But i would assume that slow-twitch muscle fibers are capable of being trained every day and need to be trained every day to be optimized and you are not training some of your running fibers by biking. Capillaries maybe too have something to do with it. Making stuff up but If I had time to do a well-controlled study I'd bet I am right.

100% quality running only wrote:

Hypothetically, if I did all my easy runs for time anyways say like 45-60 minutes or so, what if I just cycled instead at a similar HR. Then all my running would only be for quality? Would this is theory work just as well as running full time?

Might this even be better? Since cycling is easier on body than the pounding of running?

Cycling is easier until you crash and then it isn't.

Fixerer wrote:

Cycling is easier until you crash and then it isn't.

Then just don't crash.

No. The best training for running is running.

But you would be running quality, say 2 workouts and a long run. Why can't the easy just be XT stuff? You still would have enough running stimulus and same cardio benefits

yeah, but wrote:

But you would be running quality, say 2 workouts and a long run. Why can't the easy just be XT stuff? You still would have enough running stimulus and same cardio benefits

Why do you think you have enough running stimulus? Those thousand of miles of easy running are training your brain on how to run. Thousand of bike miles don't.

"Silence is music too." Also applies to rest and "easy" runs. Biking doesn't make you more comfortable running an easy pace.

Your running economy would decrease because you would have less time to adapt to running.

This would be okay if you are injured or severely injury prone.

No, running easy is all about injury prevention also. It's a different range of motion, change in forces, loading rates, muscle contractile velocities, etc. It exposes your body to multiple stimuli aiding in making your overall stronger.

100% quality running only wrote:

Hypothetically, if I did all my easy runs for time anyways say like 45-60 minutes or so, what if I just cycled instead at a similar HR. Then all my running would only be for quality? Would this is theory work just as well as running full time?

Might this even be better? Since cycling is easier on body than the pounding of running?

Funnily enough, being injury prone, I did this. I was surprised with the results.

HardLoper wrote:

No. The best training for running is running.

Yeah, but to me 6:30 pace is shuffling. I get aerobic work by swimming, which doesn't entrain bad jogger habits.

I replaced all of my easy days with cross-fit.

What were you results?

Metric Miler wrote:

100% quality running only wrote:

Hypothetically, if I did all my easy runs for time anyways say like 45-60 minutes or so, what if I just cycled instead at a similar HR. Then all my running would only be for quality? Would this is theory work just as well as running full time?

Might this even be better? Since cycling is easier on body than the pounding of running?

Funnily enough, being injury prone, I did this. I was surprised with the results.

fast 800 wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

No. The best training for running is running.

Yeah, but to me 6:30 pace is shuffling. I get aerobic work by swimming, which doesn't entrain bad jogger habits.

Good thinking. Shuffling on easy days is why all of the Kenyans have bad jogger habits. I watch those guys struggling to run 4:45 pace in marathons and and laugh at their bad jogger habits.

real answer: no one knows because almost no one has tried it.

anyone who has tried it will be doubted, etc.

I did it. after 5 years of college running ranging from 70-90 miles per week most weeks...I began taking one day off per week in my last yr of college. First year out of college I struggled, but ran ok - a little less mileage but with some cross training added in.

2nd year out of college things really started turning. Pr'ed just about every race for 9 months. Ran 4 days per week about 40 miles per week. Light cross-training on the off days (for me that was rowing mostly but only about 10 minutes fairly hard). stretching and light weights.

sun - longer day after a race: 10 miles at 6:00 pace very controlled pace

Tues - long tempo up to 12 miles but fairly quick 5:20-5:30 sometimes faster

Thur - pre-meet day: 6 miles total short tempo with 1 fast mile all out

Sat - race

my 8k went from 25:30 to 23:45. problem for me was after experiencing such amazing results from high quality low volume training - didn't go back to base building but instead tried to hammer out 10 milers at 5:30 pace and never got back to that level. Reason 1) no base Reason 2) starting out each season too fast trying to replicate what I did the year before vs. just running for feel. Too many runner now days try to run based on some formula or % of HR that someone else tells them they should be able to hit. The only person who can tell you how hard to run and how you feel is you. The best runners don't follow form charts - they follow their gut (their breathing)...if is controlled then the pace is right.

the exercise scientist have not invented the best training plans - they have simply looked at what those who have ran fast did and tired to explain why it worked. There is no right way to train. Be your own experimenter - that's the only way you will find what works best for you...

fast 800 wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

No. The best training for running is running.

Yeah, but to me 6:30 pace is shuffling. I get aerobic work by swimming, which doesn't entrain bad jogger habits.

Running 6:30 pace doesn't entrain "bad jogger habits," you just don't feel like doing it.

Someone should write a book about this...

That's great, what cross training type stuff did you do? You mention rowing, did you cycle a lot too? I had a feeling this type of thing would work, metric miler said he did it too but has yet to respond as to what his results were.Thanks for the detailed results though. Glad some one has already put this type of thing to the test, and even gotten better for it.