A cyclist's perspective on getting into running

If you're 130, then you have much more potential as a runner. Because of the weight bearing aspect of running, it's basically all "climbing."

Regarding power and zones, runners use pace more than anything. On a 400 meter track, your pace is just as reliable an indicator of how hard you're working as watts in cycling. Runners typically do their quality sessions (fewer per week than cyclists of course) either on the track or on measured courses.

Very few serious runners train to HR, for the reasons you mentioned. Many will track it, but it's a grain of salt metric. If someone trains seriously by HR, they're probably a beginner or a triathlete. There may be a few edge cases (speed limit on easy days, pulling the plug on an interval workout because you're redlining way too early).

The stryd "power meter" is a useful tool for hilly terrain. Most runners go way too hard uphill. It isn't really power, but it's close enough. On flat terrain, it's basically just a more accurate way of getting instant pace.

Regarding CTL, Trainingpeaks will give you a running TSS and CTL, but the formula is a joke--the same as cycling. The problem is that running stress is exponential. Stryd's website calculates an exponential TSS, but I can't comment on its accuracy.

For what it's worth, I think that if you just think of watts as pace and CTL as miles per week, you'll see that the sports are pretty similar.

Thanks for the observations. It's pretty fun to start at zero again at a sport so I look forward to learning how to get used to running-specific efforts and how fatigue and fitness feels over a longer stretch of training time.

One thing I forgot to mention is the use of the term "tempo" and associated training intensities. You're right that it usually means LT for runners, mostly because of the influence of Daniels. Obviously it's just a label, but I do think that a major shortcoming of a lot of Daniels influenced running training is a neglect of "high aerobic" training closer to marathon pace, what cyclists, triathletes, and Friel disciples call tempo. It is a great aerobic stimulus that's less stressful than LT and allows you to go longer without having to dig too deep. The only danger is that runners can't take the same volume of this training as cyclists, so you have to be careful. I like to make it my easy third workout of the week or hit the pace for the last 10-15 minutes of an otherwise easy run.

Post a Reply

In response to:

RE: A cyclist's perspective on getting into running

It's Egun

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....

++++++++++++

So welcoming.

historically CAT 2 from California or Arizona where the density of cyclists and road races is high, has meant something.

If you live in Ohio maybe a CAT 2 is a just trying to be good

800 dude wrote:

Regarding power and zones, runners use pace more than anything. On a 400 meter track, your pace is just as reliable an indicator of how hard you're working as watts in cycling. Runners typically do their quality sessions (fewer per week than cyclists of course) either on the track or on measured courses.

Nice observation. Thus a watt meter is not useful or necessary for an indoor trainer, as the pace for a given resistance is always the same.

xlev2 wrote:

Cycling you can buy your race with good equipment.

Ahhh, running you just can't.

Ummm, ever heard of Vaporfly 4% ?

This is a very interesting thread, always interesting to make comparisons between cycling and running, even if they are less similar then we might hope.

We often want to know what sort of workouts or performance levels equate to in the other sport. Based on little more than my own personal experience and a few casual observances it seems the converting athlete will experience the most success if they are a 800-Mile-(maybe)3k runner converting to a cyclist. Runners will have a fine aerobic base but there is such a huge demand for power as a cyclist if you want to be worth anything (i.e. competitive not just good at logging kilometers). Cyclist to runner can be difficult, aerobic base is there and so is the ability to suffer, but the body is often not ready. As others have mentioned runners need much more than a strong posterior chain and good endurance. In addition to all the stabilizers etc a runner will need good form, flexibilty, and a sufficient amount of snap in the muscles (different from power). I have also noticed hanging around club rides and club runs, that older runners are much more durable and sprightly than older cyclists, who seem to creak around before gingerly mounting the bike. Maybe this is because if you can be old and still run you are probably doing something right. If it is not clear, I am not a phsyio and am certainly not informed about any of this.

However the other comparison between cycling and running that interests me most is the reception by people on the street. I lived in a mid-large city in the northeast, kind of beat down area. If I was running, summer or winter, tights or split shorts, fast or slow, I would always get such positive feedback from the people on the sidewalk. Women would hit on me, men would cheer me on, kids stop and watch. It was all very good for the ego. Now when I would get all kitted up and go ride the same roads on the bike, I would get mostly the opposite reaction, confused laughter, insults from children, etc. Although the ladies still liked me on the bike. The average person just does not have much respect for someone on a bike, while it seems that running evokes some sort of capitalist, bootstrap-pulling, self-made man ideals about grit, success, etc. Many here and elsewhere echo this when we talk of the work, of lacing up some shoes and hitting the road. Don't we all love the blue collar runner, but in America we do not have the blue collar cyclist. Maybe in Belgium, France, or Colombia.

Good point ... wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Regarding power and zones, runners use pace more than anything. On a 400 meter track, your pace is just as reliable an indicator of how hard you're working as watts in cycling. Runners typically do their quality sessions (fewer per week than cyclists of course) either on the track or on measured courses.

Nice observation. Thus a watt meter is not useful or necessary for an indoor trainer, as the pace for a given resistance is always the same.

What are you referring to? an indoor bike trainer? If that's the case, you NEED a power meter. Trainers don't have the same resistance curve even at 5 degrees difference in ambient temperature. My trainer still drifts in resistance after 40 minutes of a workout.

If you're referring to an indoor track for running, then I agree. On a track, pace is most important.

I started racing Duathlon along with my running and I think all the cycling helps my running. Especially for mountain running. Some people say you mess up your legs and surely they get more muscular. But I always think I get a nice pop in my legs from hard riding and thus I feel stronger on the run.

On the one hand I want to find out how fast I can run. On the other hand it is good fun to race Duathlons and I like 5+ hour training days.

ToBeasy wrote:

On the one hand I want to find out how fast I can run. On the other hand it is good fun to race Duathlons and I like 5+ hour training days.

Ha! I believe this is the one of the two biggest draws for cycling over running. You go faster, and suffer longer.

800 dude wrote:

Regarding power and zones, runners use pace more than anything. On a 400 meter track, your pace is just as reliable an indicator of how hard you're working as watts in cycling. Runners typically do their quality sessions (fewer per week than cyclists of course) either on the track or on measured courses.

Good point ... wrote:

Nice observation. Thus a watt meter is not useful or necessary for an indoor trainer, as the pace for a given resistance is always the same.

Huh?! wrote:

What are you referring to? an indoor bike trainer? If that's the case, you NEED a power meter. Trainers don't have the same resistance curve even at 5 degrees difference in ambient temperature. My trainer still drifts in resistance after 40 minutes of a workout.

I'm referring to an indoor wind trainer, which has exponential resistance, and doesn't drift in the least.

You must be using one of the fluid or magnetic types, none of which are reliable.

In your case, you could use a $500 power meter to gauge pace, or change to an $80 wind trainer.

crosscounts wrote:

I lived in a mid-large city in the northeast, kind of beat down area. If I was running, summer or winter, tights or split shorts, fast or slow, I would always get such positive feedback from the people on the sidewalk. Women would hit on me, men would cheer me on, kids stop and watch. It was all very good for the ego. Now when I would get all kitted up and go ride the same roads on the bike, I would get mostly the opposite reaction, confused laughter, insults from children, etc. Although the ladies still liked me on the bike. The average person just does not have much respect for someone on a bike, while it seems that running evokes some sort of capitalist, bootstrap-pulling, self-made man ideals about grit, success, etc.

You've got to be kidding, right? ?

I'm using fluid, it provides more resistance than wind. And a $500 power meter is a good investment over a wind trainer. Most people ride outside and would like to compare efforts.

I'm now an old-ish woman and I've been running all my adult life in many different areas in the U.S. I also go through periods of doing a fair amount of cycling when injured. My observations largely agree with yours. Non-athletes view cyclists on the road as impediments to their driving at best, while they are often friendly and encouraging to runners. And I've dealt with a lot more outright harassment of various forms on the bike than I ever have when running, despite having spent far more time out on the roads as a runner.

Good point ... wrote:

You must be using one of the fluid or magnetic types, none of which are reliable.

In your case, you could use a $500 power meter to gauge pace, or change to an $80 wind trainer.

Huh?! wrote:

I'm using fluid, it provides more resistance than wind. And a $500 power meter is a good investment over a wind trainer. Most people ride outside and would like to compare efforts.

I can pick a gear, spin at 95 rpm for an hour and the resistance stays the same.

You can't do this, even with a power meter, because the fluid resistance keeps changing.

You'd be better off looking for advice on a triathlon forum. Runners get freaked out about anyone comparing their sport to anything else, and, despite what you'll hear on LR, their are a ton of tri-dorks who can flat-out run.

Cue the "the run courses are all short" comments.

welcome mr. cyclist, I'm way slower than you so have nothing to offer on advice just to welcome you in general

for comparison's sake I follow a tri schedule of about 6-8k yds/week in the pool, about 20mpw running, and 50 mpw biking and a few more hours of lifting, am 6'2/193# or so, and test out at 340w/20-min FTP [yes, a powermeter not vpower] and usually pound an oly 40kTT at/about 1:08 without too many hills after a 21/22 minute 1500m swim [100m I can still sneak under 58 or so, I was a college swimmer]. Then usually followed by a sad 48 minute 10k lol

my standalone 5k is right around 20 minutes and you sound a bajillion times faster than me on the bike and I want to ask... why not swim too? Were it not for the swim leg I would never beat anybody nor podium, but a 2:22-ish oly tri is enough for nationals where I live lol. Without that sweet 10 minute or something boost I get because triathletes cant swim I'd never be on the podium :p

So why be mediocre at 1, or only 2 things when you can be mediocre at 4,5 or more? Eg add lifting to a tri training schedule and maybe bouldering. You'll get tormented for days by AHKTUAL participants in the individual sports sometimes--but those guys are just jealous/d*cks

Baker City Cycling Classic

Way more of a climbers race than Cascade. Hardest finishing climb of any amateur stage race in the US.

> why not swim too?

For me, the racing I enjoy most is, for lack of a better term, "direct competition" style racing. Races where you're either in the field or off the back and out of the race. A race where people focus more on their own individual pace is rewarding in its own way, I'm sure, but for me I need the intensity of more adversarial competition. Probably why I'm more interested in shorter distance running events right now, too - it gets less blown apart.