Ashley Madison wrote:
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.
Not when any hills are involved.
Ashley Madison wrote:
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.
Not when any hills are involved.
Ashley Madison wrote:
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.
Maybe at a low level; the pros are skin and bones, and so are most club riders.
You should see swimmers. They're pretty lean come competition season, but a swimmer can be a surprising amount overweight and still come close to personal bests. Ryan Lochte showed up at US Nationals a few months ago 20 pounds overweight (and after serving a doping ban), and put down one of the fastest times in the country in 2019.
Professional cyclists are not riding 42 hours a week (6 hours a day).
Running is a form of plyometrics. There is a very large eccentric component upon impact. Cycling has no repetitive impact, nor does swimming, rowing, xc skiing, skating, etc.
Non-impact endurance athletes can handle about 2.5x the volume that a runner can due to how much energy is being transmitted through the body.
Joe Jackson wrote:
Ashley Madison wrote:
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.
Not when any hills are involved.
+1
It's easy to look like a rockstar cyclists on the flats. Once the roads go up, it's a lot like running when it comes to size.
They don't need to do that wrote:
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.
None of that is true...
Cyclists are more fit than runners. You can't train at the same intensity and duration on your feet as you can on a bike. Your body can't recover from the impact of running as fast as it does from the stresses of cycling, so you can continue to train at a high intensity level on the bike vs having to recover while running. If runners could continuously train at high intensity and/or long duration without injury, they would (but very few can). Different limiters in training for the two sports.
Bike races are twice as long (in hours) as running races, hence it makes perfect sense that you would train a lot more.
And to the person who said you can be fat and good at cycling, you are just wrong and clearly have no experience with any competitive level of the sport. Not only can you not be fast and fat, but it would also be nearly impossible to train at any elite level and not lose fat. Not even sprinters can be "fat" at any high level of the sport.
excycle wrote:
Cyclists are more fit than runners.
Let's take 100 decent cyclists and have them train to be runners, and 100 decent runners and train them to be cyclists, and guess which group performs better.
SashaK wrote:
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.
Standing up in the saddle for sprint racing and track sprints are similar.
The long rides where you are in a more seated position does not translate to running, so much.
SashaK wrote:
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.
I'm surprised no-one's picked this up. You're an Olympian - that's awesome. Which country, event, year, etc.? And 46 is pretty awesome by anyone's standards.
..... wrote:
SashaK wrote:
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.
I'm surprised no-one's picked this up. You're an Olympian - that's awesome. Which country, event, year, etc.? And 46 is pretty awesome by anyone's standards.
The best runners to convert to cyclists are former milers, see Mike Woods career after being a sub 4 miler.
And the best milers have pretty good 400m speed, so no surprise that Sasha could run a good 400.
Casual marathoners usually make terrible cyclists, at first, they just don't have the leg power, takes years of training.
Running a mile is about 50:50 an/aeorbic, try cycling in a peloton of type A riders who are constantly trying breakaways and you'll quickly feel how valuable it is to have that sudden leg power!
i sometimes bike with a guy who used to be semi-pro rider, their goal was 30hrs a week, they didn't track distance. Armstrong was riding at typically 35 hrs/week in his base phase. I've heard of pros riding 40, but burnout is a problem.
Couple suggestions:
1. You can go a lot easier on the bike than you can running. 200 watts is a pretty reasonable power to average for an easy ride and that's only 600 calories/hour, which is like 10 mins/mile. It's hard to run that slow.
2. This may be a crackpot opinion but I think it matters that cycling focuses more on your quad muscles, which are very large and can be trained to take a longer time to fatigue.
David S wrote:
Couple suggestions:
1. You can go a lot easier on the bike than you can running. 200 watts is a pretty reasonable power to average for an easy ride and that's only 600 calories/hour, which is like 10 mins/mile. It's hard to run that slow.
2. This may be a crackpot opinion but I think it matters that cycling focuses more on your quad muscles, which are very large and can be trained to take a longer time to fatigue.
Quads and glutes, not much hams. And pretty much zero eccentric contraction to cause muscle soreness like running downhill in Boston.
The long training hours is so important to develop this leg strength, that you're still a "young rider" until you reach age 23, yet we have 18-20 yr old runners winning big races.
hill climbing wrote:
SashaK wrote:
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.
Standing up in the saddle for sprint racing and track sprints are similar.
The long rides where you are in a more seated position does not translate to running, so much.
“Standing up in the saddle” said no cyclist ever.
isthatafact? wrote:
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.
You got a laugh out of me.
hill climbing wrote:
Standing up in the saddle for sprint racing and track sprints are similar.
How do you stand up in the saddle?
Cuz they can.
If this is a real question, standing in the saddle means coming up out of hte seat and standing while you pedal- usually done up hills to generate more force while riding.
This is a running board. No surprise people think that cyclists are not as fit. But elite cyclists are among the fittest people on the planet. You are looking at people who are extremely lean, ride 25000+ miles per year, have resting heart rates under 40bpm and BP of 100/60. They can generate huge wattage during rides, as power meters show. And Tour rider is fit beyond belief. I know top distance runners and they come nowhere close to elite riders in terms of fitness- taking nothing away from either, who are both at the top of their sport.
https://www.seeker.com/are-tour-riders-the-fittest-athletes-in-the-world-1765861117.html
greenliner wrote:
If this is a real question, standing in the saddle means coming up out of hte seat and standing while you pedal- usually done up hills to generate more force while riding.
This is a running board. No surprise people think that cyclists are not as fit. But elite cyclists are among the fittest people on the planet. You are looking at people who are extremely lean, ride 25000+ miles per year, have resting heart rates under 40bpm and BP of 100/60. They can generate huge wattage during rides, as power meters show. And Tour rider is fit beyond belief. I know top distance runners and they come nowhere close to elite riders in terms of fitness- taking nothing away from either, who are both at the top of their sport.
https://www.seeker.com/are-tour-riders-the-fittest-athletes-in-the-world-1765861117.html
The point was cyclists don’t say “stand in the saddle”. You say “out of the saddle” which means standing.
Quality is the key. Tacking on miles in the strength faze of running is money, but in tempo or steady state leading in speed its not viable to add when not needed.. 120 miles in strength, 100 miles in strength, and 80 in race mode. It really all depends on the athletes. Cycling takes time because most of the races are 4 hours plus on a national level. Do the math.
More fit than runners, ha ha. run a marathon in 2 hours then call me? will talk.