I find i can get to within about 2 minutes of my 5k potential by just doing easy runs of maybe 60mpw. This is about 6 and a half hours of work per week.
Is there an equivalent for cycling?
Likewise, adding in a tempo and long strides each week can cut that 2 minutes gap into maybe 1 minute. Is there an equivalent to this for cycling?
The equivalent would require more hours of training. Eg maybe you would have to train 8-9 hours a week versus 6 and a half. If you did all of this cycling at an easy pace you would suck as badly at cycling as you do at running, and if you added an FTP ride and some shorter stuff at this volume you would suck slightly less.
As far as energy expenditure:
3 to 4 miles on the bike = a mile running
Winning wrote:
As far as energy expenditure:
3 to 4 miles on the bike = a mile running
That isn't what i meant. I meant that 6ish hours a week of easy work gets me 70% to my max. Switching in a tempo and strides gets me 85% of they way.
My question is, can a bunch of easy riding get somebody to the same level? Is it still 6ish hours of work? Or does it take 9 or 10? Or is a bunch of easy riding not enough, and it would take some specific workouts to get that close to your best?
By "easy" runs, I mean for a typical 15 flat 5k guy, runs at maybe 6:40 pace.
Carmichael will get you about 90% of the way there in 6-7 hours per week.
Sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:
My question is, can a bunch of easy riding get somebody to the same level?
No.
Cycling will benefit your aerobic fitness only.