Why not bike instead of run on easy days?

The Norwegian cross country 10km national championship this year I think illustrates clearly that the importance of running-specific fitness is over-estimated.

Therese Johaug, who is a top cross country skier, won the women's race (and also won the track 10km a few weeks earlier, which received some notice here) .

Didrik Tønseth, also a top cross country skier, came second in the men's race, and kept pace with Henrik Ingebrigtsen throughout until the latter put in a sprint at the end. Ingebrigtsen's preparations were not optimal, but there were some decent runners in the pack and the pace was not bad, even if he was probably slightly running within himself.

Johaug and Tønseth run a bit in their training, but not a huge amount I think; and without a doubt they cannot be considered specialist runners. Johaug at least never does track intervals, I don't know about Tønseth. Cross-country skiing is probably closer to running muscularly than cycling, but still.

Ingrid Kristiansen used to do cross-country skiing rather than easy running regularly in the winter.

If one likes to focus only on running, of course one should do that! But if one fancies doing easy days on the bike instead, one should not worry about it too much I think as long as one is doing enough quality running otherwise.

OP, nothing wrong with some easy cycling for cross training, keep the cadence high. Running for running is specific so the more the merrier. Agree that you don't want to develop massive cycling quads. One downside of substituting cycling for easy days is that every run day is hard, which can be stressful mentally. Easy running is relaxing and fun so beneficial in that way.

anonanonanon1234 wrote:

From my understanding, the purpose of easy runs is to elevate the heart rate to 60-70% of maximum for an extended period of time (45 minutes or so). If biking for 45 minutes at a speed that elevates the heart rate to 60-70% of maximum, why not just bike instead, being that it puts less stress on the legs and joints (less pounding). I've heard a lot about biking using different muscles, but assuming a runner does the rest of their work, well, running, I don't how it would make all that big a difference.

.

Stop cycling Vlad. Your quads are big enough

Mechanically xc skiing, especially classic is much more similar to running than cycling is.

I haved training with many xc skiers, triathletes and cyclists, in addition to my track team. Fro.expetience i can say top xc skiers more often than not make great runners and vise versa given a runner has good xc ski technique. Cyclists on the other hand ,aside from light weight and top GC tour type riders, tend to be rather slow at running.

Also xc skiers run ALOT in the summer. Many 2+hour runs for base training.

A former teammate of mine and low 8' 3k took a few year off running to race competitively in cycling. After a couple years he made a return for xc season and guess what. He sucked @$$!

Xc ftw wrote:

Also xc skiers run ALOT in the summer. Many 2+hour runs for base training.

I think Tønseth was asked before the race I mentioned how much of his training consists of running, and I think he said 10%, or possibly 20%. So significant volume, but not huge. I think much of it is not 'easy running' as usually conceived, I think it is typically steady-state or long.

Tønseth also referred to himself as a 'mosjonist', which one could probably reasonably translate to 'hobby jogger', though without any disparaging connotations.

After the race, although complimentary towards Tønseth, Ingebrigtsen remarked "he is not a runner".

This is what I meant by not being specialist runners; some running-specific adaptations definitely, but not quite the same as for somebody focusing on running, even if the mechanics are not worlds apart.

Johaug did 32'20" not 30'.

Zede wrote:

Johaug did 32'20" not 30'.

If you mean that it is not an elite time, that is of course true. The point is that one can do pretty well with just some but not huge amounts of running-specific fitness, and hence the claim that easy running is important rather than easy cycling seems dubious.

For elite athletes whose easy pace is near or at the aerobic threshold, things are probably different, there should be a definite benefit to running then. And there will always be some additional benefit from the easy running, even if significantly below aerobic threshold; it's just that for non-elite runners, at least those who are running 5k or less, I think the benefits will be small, and the additional rest gained by cycling instead might counter-weight those benefits, for some people at least. Probably that mostly goes for the 10km and maybe the half-marathon as well; for marathon though, where one really needs the volume and easy pace is not that much below race pace, I can believe that things are different.

yes, but the question is doing well vs doing the best. Durian Rider did sub 3h with almost only cycling.

A person with good talent can beat a person with non talent also without any specific sport training.

But If someone has injuries problems, cycling is an option for doing something better than doing nothing.

I think you guys have mostly summed it up. I'll chime in with my experience.

I've done some riding in the past to supplement running, but this summer I went to serious cycling training (12 hour weeks with intervals and long rides and races). I averaged a little under 25 mpw running to supplement this. I took good care of diet and sleep and was able to lose about 10 pounds. Basically when fall started I started trying to train full-time for running again (which for me is 40-50mpw) and was immediately in better aerobic shape than I ever have been. I don't think I could've PRed in the mile right off, but probably in the 3k and 5k. As I started focusing more on running I kept riding 5-7 hours per week to supplement. I also aqua jog 2-4 hours per week with a goal of hitting 14-16 total aerobic hours per week. I was in crazy shape in October, did a 10-miler at 5:58 pace and 8x200 in 30.3 avg on 50sec rest (I'm also at altitude). This after pretty light workouts and never hitting 50mpw. I got a slight injury after the 10-miler but now I'm building back up for indoor season. I expect to run at least 4:07 in the mile if I stay healthy.

Will update on my training and racing. My conclusion is that cycling helps big time. And so does weight.

I think the OP's question is interesting. I'm getting to be on the older end of the spectrum and now for my easy days I'll bike for an hour, then run three miles. I feel this gets me everything an easy run would in terms of specificity, and it also gets me more time with an elevated HR and lowers my likelihood of injury.

If I had just run 7 miles, that would be around 55 minutes with an elevated HR, instead I get roughly 85 minutes with 3/7th's the pounding.

I like running after the bike because I feel that running on "tired" legs gives the best stimulus .

Ummm...has anyone mentioned that running on tired legs is specifically beneficial? Your body recruits fresh(er) muscles which eventually translate into greater efficiency on race day.

the point isnt just to raise your heart rate

It works, ignore all the bs.

You also will have fresh legs for workout days. Deniers never tried it.

anonanonanon1234 wrote:

I only ask this because by the time I get home it's pitch black and I can't run

Thanks in advance. Please don't rip me apart.

Spend $20 and get some LED arm bands and carry some Mini LED lights with you.

specificity is key homie

Cross-Country/Nordic skiing is probably more specific and beneficial than cycling for running but you don't need to run 100mpw to get improve with adding some cross training

Billy Demong - ran 3-4 times a week and ran a 233 marathon in 2014 which had crazy headwinds (30mph at times).. he was a gold medalist Nordic skier but didn't spend a lot of time running prior to training

https://www.teamusa.org/News/2014/November/05/Billy-Demongs-Marathon-Year

in the aerobic phase - build up, you can and should do 15 to 20% of aerobic in a non running way.

you strengthen some supporting muscles that can waste away with overspecificity and you can do more volume without injury, laying the base.

you don't do more than the 20% really because you're going to start developing other muscles that are not primary.

once you move from the base work, you can cut back, should cut back down to 10% non running,

you can do 3 x 45 minute gym sessions with 3 miles relaxed before and 2 or 3 after with strides as a fantastic workout.

but in the 2 months before racing and racing you ditch most of the non specific stuff.

and that all round work, the base, is money in the bank, the energy supply goes to specific adaptation..

this is really lydiard principles, but lydiard didn't understand the cross training and over adaptation that comes with LSD...

i.e. kills longevity of speed. ...

non running aerobic can be.

cycling - wear straps working quads and hams

bounding, stairs,hurdle jumps - but if you are over trained this will be a disaster.

rowing

running in the pool

treading water "fast"

swimming

intervals of rope climbing, rock climbing

in fact, once a year, you might take off a month and just do cross training, and never over train, as a way to get the body healthy, but not very far away from returning to form.

do it.