Why do bicyclists require so many more hours of training than runners?

"His time topped that of former cyclist Laurent Jalabert; the Frenchman ran the 2005 event in a time of 2:55'39". However, other former cyclists have gone faster in other marathon events; German Rolf Aldag ran 2:42'57" in Hamburg this April and Spaniard Abraham Olano went 2:39'19" in the San Sebastián marathon last November."

Maybe cycling is closer to ultramarathons, so they work on distance rather than speed.

Cycling has little crossover to running. Top cyclists are terrible runners, usually, and top runners terrible cyclists, usually. It is very different training.

Many track time trial cyclists only train for an hour a day.

Bikes are easier to ride a long time due to coasting and downhills etc, which is why they do that.

You can train practically forever on a bicycle without getting injured, because of low impact and not bearing your full weight. So of course the best cyclists train practically forever. So if you want to be a good cyclist, you have to at least train a very long time.

It's not so much that they "require" more training - the point is that it's less taxing on the body so you can do more without breaking down.

If everyone else is spending several hours a day on the bike, then you need to as well to be competitive.

Apart from biking uphill you might as well be riding a moped.

I surmise they don’t bike uphill for 6 hours

And before leaving the door: equipment maintenance, route/weather planning, onboard fuel preparations, clothing preparation eg lube, safety checks eg lights/spare tubes/tools. And just the warmup takes the same time as a typical complete running training session. But cycling is filled with adventure and a refreshing amount of camaraderie.

Bbggg wrote:

Apart from biking uphill you might as well be riding a moped.

I surmise they don’t bike uphill for 6 hours

Pros average 30+ mph on flat time trials. Try to maintain that speed on flat ground for even a minute. Wind resistance is massive at those speeds.

So they can have time away from their wives/family.

It's mostly two main reasons.

One, their races are long. 6+ hour races (such as the classics) demand lots of training. Not only that, but they often do 5 to 20 day stage races that see them putting in 4 to 5 hours at moderate to moderately high intensities day after day.

Two, they can. As other posters said, the bike does not beat up the body in the same way running does. Similar things can be said about Nordic skiers. They don't put in quite as much volume as cyclists, but they do put in more than most runners.

I wonder why there aren't any short bicycle races. Like a mile or less. That'd be pretty interesting.

Cleveland browns head coach wrote:

I wonder why there aren't any short bicycle races. Like a mile or less. That'd be pretty interesting.

Yeah, it would be.

Well when stage are 3-6 hrs in length... Day after day. You need the volume.

Lance Sarmstrong wrote:

Cycling has little crossover to running. Top cyclists are terrible runners, usually, and top runners terrible cyclists, usually. It is very different training.

It depends.

I rode in the Olympics as a track cyclist.

I’ve run a 400m in under 46. Good but not Olympic caliber . But not terrible.

bikers are weird wrote:

I assume that most runners spend 2 hours per day training at the most, but these bicyclist are freaking biking for 6 hours per day. I get that running is high impact and we can't really run more than that without getting injured, but what if we tacked on another 4 hours of training per day from biking, pool running, elliptical...

Would that extra non-running volume make our aerobic system even better?

1. Less impact on body. (Until you crash!)

2. Can train cardio harder for much longer.

3. Can also train longer because, generally, much funner than running.

4. If elite, this extra training also allows for bigger dividends in a sport where there is actually WAY more $$$$ available for big salaries and prizes.

5. Cyclists also ride longer because they dont waste as much time blatherring on LRC about Kenyan dopers or why Rupp is the greatest thing ever despite actually being completely mediocre.

Because they can wrote:

1. Less impact on body. (Until you crash!)

Yes, it's because cycling involves much less impact and it's not just cyclists that train more than runners. Long distance swimmers and cross country skiers also train way more than runners for the same reason.

If runners could get better doing more than two hours of training a day they would. In running, too much is counterproductive. The top athlete's in any sport do as much as they can to get better

Because they can wrote:

5. Cyclists also ride longer because they dont waste as much time blatherring on LRC about Kenyan dopers or why Rupp is the greatest thing ever despite actually being completely mediocre.

You've never been on letscycle.

Cycling is one of the only sports that requires cardio that I know of where a person can be fat, and still be fairly decent. Running not so much.