What's the difference between pro cyclist and runners?

they are completely different sports. just look. one is sitting down clipped into a bike pushing pedals. the other is running. that's why we have 2 different names for 2 different sports. there's nothing surprising here. i hope you aren't the guy who has been posting incessantly asking why biking won't make him a faster running than running.

bike run wrote:

Why is it that pro runners and pro cyclist are often not very good at the other sport. It seems like low weight, good cardio system and leg strength are the three things most important to both. How are they so different?

A world class cyclist and runner have completely different builds. A distance cyclist has much more muscular legs(in general). Also the demands on the systems are different. That's why there really hasn't been an explosion in East African talent in cycling.

One drunk.

Wait, that's the difference between and Irish wedding and an Irish Funeral

Runners have a lot more of a chance to go from running to cycling than vice versa. That's for sure. There's about 4 ex runners in the top 20 of American professional cycling right now.

Russell westbrook on a farm wrote: There's about 4 ex runners in the top 20 of American professional cycling right now.

Who are they and what times did they run? Not doubting your claim, just curious as I am a runner 1st and cyclist 2nd, but enjoy both.

One guy ran in college at Wisconsin and was the US RR Champ a few years ago. Matthew Busche. He road for Trek for ~6 years and now he's with the Pro Contiental team United Healthcare.

My apologies he ran for Luther College in Iowa and was from Wisconsin. All American in XC but this is nowhere near D1 competition.

bike run wrote:

Why is it that pro runners and pro cyclist are often not very good at the other sport. It seems like low weight, good cardio system and leg strength are the three things most important to both. How are they so different?

Probably cause of leg strength

There are two big differences. First is that a runner must withstand the pounding from training and (for long events) racing. Second is that cyclists mostly move their mass horizontally while runners move up and down all the time. So cyclists can get away with more muscle/weight than runners.

Matthew Busche- 9:08 steeple

Jake Sitler- 9:16 steeple

Bryan Lewis- 9:01 steeple

Tom Zirbel- 14xsome 5k

No one has really answered this question. I would like to know as well. The only person who attempted to answer got it wrong because the best cyclist in the world is from Kenya. And we know that just body types don't make runners because everyone on here always says Kenyans are better because of their training and not their DNA.

Few reasons-

Recovery- recovery on a bike is a lot easier. Once you hit the redline with running, there is no coming back whatsoever. Even in cycling time trials, you can usually find a way to get a few seconds of recovery. So the people that are really good at pushing themselves over and over and over and recover quickly are some of the best cyclists.

Economics- some people's body types allow them to be economical on a bike, some people are more economical with running.

Strength- Cycling is closer to weight lifting with your legs per se, whereas running is what it is! Running.

Skill-Both require high v02's but individuals body types are affected differently because they are two completely different activities. In cycling, you have to have a lot of hand eye coordination, ability to hold wheels, descend, corner, position etc. All of these things lead to being less tired at the end, and will affect your final result.

Cyclists have overdeveloped quads due to pushing downwards all the time while in a sitting position, and underdeveloped posterior muscles (hamstrings). Runners need to have stronger hamstrings than quads, which is the exact opposite that cyclists have, because quads are just shock absorbers for joints whereas the hamstrings control all of the movement in our stride which takes more muscle. so thats why you would be weak transferring.

Another thing that isn't covered is sustained heart rate differences between the sports.

I read somewhere that the elite marathoners run at around 85-89% of max HR during their marathon. I'd assume that's around 170-180bpm.

Bikers -- Much lower. Froome's average heart rate during climbs is around 160bpm, which would probably make his average during flatter stages around 140-150.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-reveal-froomes-tour-de-france-data-from-stage-10/

Finally, cycling relies a lot more on teamwork than running does. Drafting plays a huge role in almost every cycle race (except time trials and triathlons, of course). And although drafting can make a slight difference in running events, it's not nearly to the effect of cycling.

bike run wrote:

Why is it that pro runners and pro cyclist are often not very good at the other sport. It seems like low weight, good cardio system and leg strength are the three things most important to both. How are they so different?

Coordination. Running is a SKILL. You can have the engine and the build, but if you don't have a smooth, powerful, efficient stride, you're screwed. Thus best to hop on a bike where an efficient path of motion for your legs is set by the constraints of the machine.

> pro runners and pro cyclist are often not very good at the other sport

To be a pro runner or cyclist, you need singular focus on the respective sport. So of course you're not going to see many people who are great at both.

As in running, there are specialties in cycling, and different specialties favor different body types. Usain Bolt and Mo Farah are built far differently. Except when climbing, the #1 enemy in cycling is air resistance. In sprinting, the physics of acceleration also comes into play. The best track sprinters will be *very* muscular as there's no climbing on the track and ability to accelerate is king; the best road sprinters are muscular but less so, as they still need to hang with the pack over the rolling hills between the start and finish - in mountain stages they ride together with the goal of making the time cut; the best time trialists still tend to be larger to generate the watts required on relatively flat courses as the cross-section you present to the wind doesn't increase as fast as the power you gain by being larger and stronger; the best climbers tend to be thin and light. Stage racers (the GC contenders in the grand tours) have to be compromises - big enough to time trial well but small enough to climb well. Triathletes have to compromise even more.

Aside from body type, bike racing is different than running racing. In the vast majority of cases, people start with pack style races (track racers might be an exception ... but track racing is relatively rare due to facility availability). In a pack style race you are going far faster for an extended time than even the fastest runners can sprint for a few meters at their peak, and you will be inches from other riders. Tactical and bike handling skills are more important and have a higher cost of mistakes. Also, bike racing requires the ability to deal with frequent variations in heart rate and effort. Attacks are a part of life, as there's a major strategic advantage of being in a small group with a gap with the main group. So you need to be able to regularly go anaerobic for brief periods even in multi-hour races. That's different than a surge in a marathon.Getting good at all of these things takes years of practice; years when the best runners are running (and vice versa). So you're not going to have great cyclists become great runners and vice versa.

no answer wrote:

No one has really answered this question. I would like to know as well. The only person who attempted to answer got it wrong because the best cyclist in the world is from Kenya. And we know that just body types don't make runners because everyone on here always says Kenyans are better because of their training and not their DNA.

This is a stupid statement. Froome is from Kenya. But has no Kenyan heritage or experience in the east african running scene. The only thing that Chris Froome did gain from being born in Kenya, is being born at altitude. Which some studies say that being born at altitude will improve chances of being a stronger endurance athlete.

Cycling - Less activation of the glutes, hip flexors, ankles. Requires MUCH more strength (and muscle mass of the legs) to beat the high wind resistance once you can sustain 22+mph solo on a 50mi ride.

Running - Impact sport. Hamstring, quad, hip flexors, achilles, etc. Everything is used to make you move forward. Series of tiny lightweight falls/lifts of the legs.

I'm not a Ross Tucker. He would be able to thoroughly break this all down. I'm sure searching google will provide a solid answer.

$$$. Cyclists make a lot more. Peter Sagan draws a $5 million salary

Cyclists who win get free shirts and get to kiss pretty girls in yellow, green and polka dot dresses. Runners get a blanket from Mary Wittenberg.

This.

Emphasis on the ability to handle attacks and surges in cycling. Once you get dropped from the pack, your race is over. So if you're in a group with a few guys and they take off sprinting, you need to stick with them, even if it takes a maximum effort and you're not even halfway done with the race. This is because 5 cyclists rotating out of the draft are going to average a lot faster than 1 cyclist trying to catch up with a 50m gap.

Being able to make maximum effort sprints off an already hard pace and then recovering enough before the next one is what racing is about. Imagine that there was an absolutely massive headwind in a road 10K, and every 600m or so someone would drop a 13 second 100m. Those that didn't keep up with the ridiculous surges would not be able to slowly catch up later. It's something that doesn't really work with running since once you go all out, that's it, but you can sprint maximally for short periods dozens of times in a cycling road race.