A cyclist's perspective on getting into running

Cyclismo wrote:

You can recover faster from cycling and put in long 4-6 hour training sessions which create a HUGE aerobic base.

I predict that you level out pretty quickly and maybe even get slower if you stop intense cycling.

I agree with the first statement but with the note that it's specific to cycling. I don't believe that the OP will get slower. I think his worst enemy will be as others said his potential for getting injured because his good aerobic fitness can push his body to limits he is not ready for.

youthcyclist wrote:

...the only reason to switch to running training would be a lack of time.

Or money.

Fitness perspective / wrote:

xlev2 wrote:

So the second guy was pushing more watts and went slower , suggesting that aerodynamics are more important

From my perspective, of training for fitness, strength and longevity, the power output is far more important.

Power in and of itself doesn't mean much when it comes to racing. It's all about watts/kilo or watts/drag depending on if you're going uphill or flat. The prize goes to the first one across the finish line, not the one who produces the greatest power output. Yes, you always want to be training to improve your power, but in some cases you may want to put yourself in an aerodynamic position that reduces your ability to produce power, or likewise lose weight which may reduce your raw power but improve your w/kg. To make a blanket statement that either power or aerodynamics or weight is more important is simply not possible with anything but the most elementary understanding of the sport.

Watts to me means watts per kilogram.

In the example given, I'd rather be the guy who produced the most watts ~ per kilogram, does that need to be said? ~ rather than the one with the most expensive bicycle.

Be patient...it took several years for you to become a decent cyclist. My guess is at least 3 seasons.

It took me a few years to adapt from cycling to running. I was a pretty solid road biker. I think it took 2 years to really adapt. I’m in Year 5 now just running and able to run some decent mileage and some good marathons. I wasn’t able to get fast running again for the mile or 5k, but my half marathon and Marathon definitely are built on my cycling fitness.

I was a runner that migrated to triathlon post college and I'd say the injury rate for cyclists/swimmers transitioning to running was 100%. Especially if they went hard and heavy in their respective sports during their Jr years.

After some amazing early gains, some of the injuries were serious, i.e., multiple stress fractures, and some where just a whole bunch of nagging injuries that generated a significant amount of frustration.

Non gravity sports through puberty help to develop an insufficient running infrastructure that can break down if you don't take the time to build it up; bone density, stabilizer/assistor muscles, etc.

My advice would be to not get caught up in racing and spend your first year developing the running infrastructure necessary to handle the stress of running. The problem with running races is that you should see quite a bit of promise in running based solely on your cycling fitness but, and this is a big but, as you get caught up in the excitement of improvement you'll be tempted to load up miles/intensity that only years of preparation can handle.

Look to start racing if you can survive a year, plus or minus, injury free. That doesn't mean not to run fast from time to time, it's just easier to be sensible about it when the band isn't playing and the crowds aren't cheering.

Forget watts

It’s all about the power to weight ratio. Bigger guy can put out more watts but be slower than a smaller guy putting out less watts but has a bigger power to weight ratio

In what scenario? Here's one where total watts wins:

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/analyzing-road-racing-beyond-wattskg/

Most of the time w/kg is the better metric, but it won't always win the race.

Durant_runner11 wrote:

Forget watts

It’s all about the power to weight ratio. Bigger guy can put out more watts but be slower than a smaller guy putting out less watts but has a bigger power to weight ratio

The power to weight ratio is WATTS per kilogram.

There’s a difference in

130lb guy putting out 250watts for hour

200lb guy putting out 400watts for a hour

Watts on its own is just the power you produce going blindly off that you could assume that the one with higher watts is faster. But not true with my examples above.

Power to weight ratio is the calculation you mention of watts and KG’s

Just cause someone puts out a hell of a lot more watts doesn’t mean they are faster than the guy with less watts. You have to figure out the power to weight ratio.

I believe my power to weight ratio when I finally gave up cycling competitively was either 4.3 or 4.4 which I believe put me at top range of cat 3 maybe bottom cat 2.

Hey guys, thanks for taking the time to read my post. Some awesome discussion!

To answer a few questions that came up:

I just hit 30 years old, but my training age is relatively low given that I was never involved in structured training before graduating college, so I figure I have some decent life in me yet as a competitive athlete.

One of the better deals for power meters right now IMO is Stages power meters. I got mine for $400 and that's about as cheap as it gets at the moment for power. I've had all kinds of power meters and Stages is just as good as anything else IMHO.

Aerodynamics vs power: It totally depends on the race. The thing is, it's a lot easier to make aerodynamic gains than power gains, so the focus of the athlete should be on power. This comes with the caveat of time trialing, which is a specific form of bike racing that demands special equipment and training. A regular competitive cyclist that doesn't participate in stage races (multi-day races with a General Classification) will never need to train for time trialing if they just want to road race. I had worked pretty hard to improve my time trialing position and it's a balancing act between power output and getting into the most pretzel-like position possible. For normal road racing, aerodynamics are kind of a thing but generally you're in the peloton unless you're a breakaway guy, and I've been wrecked by dudes that are not as low as me but their FTP is +50 watts.

Power to weight: I'm a little guy. 130 pounds. My power to weight is pretty dang good. Guess what? Doesn't matter too much. In the upper levels of the sport, everybody puts out reasonably good power to weight and there are guys that are just massive power houses, such that even if my power to weight is better, their raw power will win. Even on a climb. Unless the gradient is > 8% you're going to have a hard time beating people that can do 400w for 20 minutes. Also, the vast majority of races in the US don't have summit finishes, so there's even less chance for climbers to shine. I literally had to travel to Vermont (from California) to participate in a stage race there that had a big climb at the end in order to get a result based on my climbing ability.

Typical training week:

In season:

M: Off or 30 minutes on rollers easy (

Ran out of room.

In-season:

M: Off or recovery 30 minutes

T: 2.5 hours 4x4' VO2 up a climb with 2:1 work/rest ratio

W: 2 hours steady endurance, work on some technique stuff

Th: 2.5 hours 4x15' tempo (85% FTP)

F: Off or openers if racing Sa

S: Race or 5 hours with threshold efforts on climbs

Su: Race or 3 hours steady endurance

Well you didn't have to travel all the way to Vermont for climbing. Could have done Cascade or Gila, which are much closer, or gone to Joe Martin, Johnson City, or River Gorge.

As far as Stages, it's probably the best option if you're set on running Shimano cranks, but if you're not, Power2Max at only $100 more gives you actual power instead of just doubling your left leg (unless you get the new dual sided Stages which is much more expensive). I've also had much better experience with my Power2Max than my Stages.

> Could have done Cascade or Gila

I have raced both those races, too. =) They indeed have some nice climbing in them, although Cascade never really gets that steep. I did podium the hilly circuit race a few years ago. Gila I didn't get a proper go at - wasn't really on form the season I tried it.

I ran the quarq Riken powermeter. Very reliable and not the 3000 price tag of SRM.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

I was a runner that migrated to triathlon post college and I'd say the injury rate for cyclists/swimmers transitioning to running was 100%. Especially if they went hard and heavy in their respective sports during their Jr years.

I went from cycling to running at age 16. Maybe it was my being younger, or that I was just injury proof, but no injuries during the transition for me. I started out at 60+ mpw from week one as a runner. I was basically injury free as a runner for the first 20+ years of running except for a badly sprained ankle at some point, despite often running very high mileage 100-145 mpw. Being injury proof eventually changed with age, but that's a different topic, and not too bad.

Ummm.

Cat 2 cycling is a whole lot of trying to be good....

Way too much trying to be good.

Now , and quite honestly son, you are running girl times....

Cycling you can buy your race with good equipment.

Ahhh, running you just can't.

Maybe you can get lean and run a 15:45 five minute pace 5k, but it will take you 24 months and you'll get wickedly injured pounding out the slog.

Maybe go back to MTB....

For running, performance plateaus, particularly at distances under 10k, happen much much sooner. Many Cat II cyclists with a an injury free running program could probably get down to a 16 low 5k within a year or so.

After that, improving gets really tough.

A sub 15 5k requires about 4:30 mile ability which in turn requires around sub 60 quarter mile ability. If you dont have a highschool track background or simply incredible genes those marks are tough to hit as a 30 something amateur athlete.

If you really want to get FAST, find a legit track club and sit in on a few interval workouts. After that find a summer track series and work on getting your mile and 400 meter times down. Without respectable marks at those shorter distances, you will be like the dude who can suck wheel all the way through every Tuesday Night World Championship but gets dropped in the first break every crit.

Good luck-

Fred's Mirror wrote:

Many Cat II cyclists with a an injury free running program could probably get down to a 16 low 5k within a year or so.

Those who have a runner's build, yes, Bet there are an awful lot of Cat 2 cyclists who could never cut it as a runner (and vice versa).