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

You need more distance, yes. You go faster on a bike. Time, no.

2 hours at 80% HRmax is two hours at 80% HRmax whether running or on a bike.

Distance for distance, cyclists should train no longe than runners. Although it’s a different activity, the parameters of ideal training are identical.

LM wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Read through the thread and sorry if I didn't see anyone saying the most obvious physiological reason.

Up to about 3 hrs riding, you need approximately twice the time or 4 times the distance in cycling as in running to get the same training effect...even your Garmin knows this fact.

For me a rule of thumb is to use a 30km ride as an 'alternative' to 8km run.

The effect diminishes over increasing time. So a 30km run, say in 2:15 for a particular runner will require more than a 130km in say 4:30

You need more distance, yes. You go faster on a bike. Time, no.

2 hours at 80% HRmax is two hours at 80% HRmax whether running or on a bike.

Only partially true. While the stress might be the same for your cardiovascular system, it's much higher for your joints, muscles, etc in running. 2 hours @ 80HRmax would be steady state workout for runner, for cyclist similar workout would probably be 4 to 6 hours at similar HR%.

facts and reason wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a28382640/mike-woods-tour-de-france

"Mike Woods grew up in Ottawa, Canada, and loved to run. He was only 18 when he ran his mile PR, 3:57.48".

"Through the first seven stages of the Tour, Woods was ninth in the general classification".

A sub-4 track runner was top 10 in the Tour de France.

I've never heard of a cyclist being top 10 for a major marathon.

If you think those two are equivalent, you don’t follow or understand cycling.

In 2019 Woods finished 32nd overall, down 1 hour and 21 minutes from the leader. Not a terrible result but nowhere near top ten.

OldFish. wrote:

LM wrote:

You need more distance, yes. You go faster on a bike. Time, no.

2 hours at 80% HRmax is two hours at 80% HRmax whether running or on a bike.

Only partially true. While the stress might be the same for your cardiovascular system, it's much higher for your joints, muscles, etc in running. 2 hours @ 80HRmax would be steady state workout for runner, for cyclist similar workout would probably be 4 to 6 hours at similar HR%.

Yes. This is definitely a big piece. It limits the aerobic volume runners can do.

Which is one thing that is interesting...if that extra training that cyclists or rowers can do is beneficial in metabolic fitness (raising threshold, aerobic power)...why dont we see any runners implementing alterG, pool running, or other XTraining modalities to increase their volume by 50-100%?

LM wrote:

OldFish. wrote:

Only partially true. While the stress might be the same for your cardiovascular system, it's much higher for your joints, muscles, etc in running. 2 hours @ 80HRmax would be steady state workout for runner, for cyclist similar workout would probably be 4 to 6 hours at similar HR%.

Yes. This is definitely a big piece. It limits the aerobic volume runners can do.

Which is one thing that is interesting...if that extra training that cyclists or rowers can do is beneficial in metabolic fitness (raising threshold, aerobic power)...why dont we see any runners implementing alterG, pool running, or other XTraining modalities to increase their volume by 50-100%?

Joe Jackson wrote:

facts and reason wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a28382640/mike-woods-tour-de-france

"Mike Woods grew up in Ottawa, Canada, and loved to run. He was only 18 when he ran his mile PR, 3:57.48".

"Through the first seven stages of the Tour, Woods was ninth in the general classification".

A sub-4 track runner was top 10 in the Tour de France.

I've never heard of a cyclist being top 10 for a major marathon.

If you think those two are equivalent, you don’t follow or understand cycling.

In 2019 Woods finished 32nd overall, down 1 hour and 21 minutes from the leader. Not a terrible result but nowhere near top ten.

"no where near the to 10" ... ya, after crashing hard in stage 10 (due to a crash directly in front of him), fracturing two ribs and losing a ton of time.

Your statement needs context. He would have likely finished 7-10 without the crash.

Not true at all

Lot of worthwhile answers on this thread.

However, one of the more important is that training distances reflect race distances.

I doubt that ultra runners train the same distance as marathoners. And marathoners are different than 10 k ers

Track cyclists train differently than TDF riders.

If you are going to race 160 miles, you need to get distance in your legs. And your ass has to last 6 hours in the saddle.

Joe Jackson wrote:

In 2019 Woods finished 32nd overall, down 1 hour and 21 minutes from the leader. Not a terrible result but nowhere near top ten.

https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/tour-de-france/2019/gc

He was 9th place through the first 7 stages.

“It’s been a rollercoaster of emotions, between riding top-10 on the GC at one point, crashing, cracking two ribs, feeling like I was going to have to stop at one point, to not getting the stage win I wanted but at least being active in this race again,” he said.

I was told the Tour de France is like running multiple marathons in a row.

So a sub-4 track runner was able to be in the top 10 of the Tour de France for the first few "marathons" until he crashed and broke 2 ribs. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Woods could have finished in 9th to 15th place without the setbacks.

Can you name a cyclist that ran a major marathon and then place in the top 10?

Joe Jackson wrote:

facts and reason wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a28382640/mike-woods-tour-de-france

"Mike Woods grew up in Ottawa, Canada, and loved to run. He was only 18 when he ran his mile PR, 3:57.48".

"Through the first seven stages of the Tour, Woods was ninth in the general classification".

A sub-4 track runner was top 10 in the Tour de France.

I've never heard of a cyclist being top 10 for a major marathon.

If you think those two are equivalent, you don’t follow or understand cycling.

In 2019 Woods finished 32nd overall, down 1 hour and 21 minutes from the leader. Not a terrible result but nowhere near top ten.

https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/tour-de-france/2019/gc

Okay. Sure....

But Woods has finished top 3 at the World Championships road race before (7+ hours) event.

The bottom line here is that most strong runners can convert to being strong cyclists. Not necessarily the other way. Gross Mechancial Efficiency is usually between 21-25% on the bike, so everyone is somewhat similar.

In running, efficiency is all over the map. and much of that is often built young, and if you don't do much running them you generally don't have the stride to cross over. Additionally, weight. Lots of cyclist are bigger guys which moderate amounts of muscle: a 6'0 165lb guy is pretty rare in running, but common in cycling, with a decent number bigger than that. This almost doesn't lend itself to a running crossover, and few cyclists will lean out in such a way as to be a favorable runner.

If you are only trying to replicate the aerobic workout then the heart doesn’t know the difference between running and cycling at the same HR intensity.. 130 bpm is 130 bpm regardless of the method to get it there

Pro cyclists are the toughest athletes out there.

from "Lance Armstrong's War" by Daniel Coyle

"When Eki was fourteen and living at a sports club in St. Petersburg, he rode 38,000 kilometers in one year, an average of 450 miles a week. In 1996, as a professional, he nearly doubled it ("That's not possible for a human," Landis said incredulously). But it was true -- Eki had twenty-five notebooks full of training logs to prove it. Eki had ridden thirteen tours and finished every one. Eki never missed a training day. Eki was never late or unprepared. Eki coached himself. Eki was Eki."

When you run you have to use your legs and arms to drive yourself forward.

A bike uses a machine where your legs drive pedals down in a motion which is more mechanical.

Running is more natural

Biking not so much, but still a decent form of excercise

Greg wrote:

When you run you have to use your legs and arms to drive yourself forward.

A bike uses a machine where your legs drive pedals down in a motion which is more mechanical.

Running is more natural

Biking not so much, but still a decent form of excercise

Both running and cycling use every muscle in the body. In a bike race you have to be able to get into a low crouch position for long periods. But going downhill is usually (but not always) much easier in cycling. It's like a recovery, whereas in running downhill, although your hear rate drops, you legs are taking more of a hammering, so there is no recovery for the legs.

But it's true that going from running to cycling is easier than the reverse,

Most climbers would have been elite runners if they had chosen running over cycling at a young age.

I am Sam wrote:

Up to about 3 hrs riding, you need approximately twice the time or 4 times the distance in cycling as in running to get the same training effect...even your Garmin knows this fact.

For me a rule of thumb is to use a 30km ride as an 'alternative' to 8km run.

The effect diminishes over increasing time. So a 30km run, say in 2:15 for a particular runner will require more than a 130km in say 4:30

Not even remotely close, bro. The truth is that it is too easy to go easy on the bike. For example, I might warm up for 30 minutes on the bike. If I look at my heart rate, I may hit 50%-60% of my max. That is WAYYYYY easier than I ever warm up while running. On my runs, I may warm up 15 minutes, but my heart rate is 70%-75% max. So the running warm up is a greater stimulus to my body than the longer cycling warm up even though the cycling took longer.

Most cyclist who aren't really monitoring their efforts go WAYYYYYY too easy while riding. However, if you monitor your efforts, you can get a great workout on the bike. But you have to push. Hard. And that is difficult for most people.

Running: 15 min at 70%, 15 min at 90%, 15 min at 70%.

Cycling: 60 min at 50%, 15 min at 90%, 45 min at 50%.

Both of these are typical tempo workouts for me. Which one is a better stimulus? Which one is more difficult? Which one takes longer to complete?

I’ve always understood that there is roughly a 3:1 ratio between swimming effort -> running effort -> cycling effort.

Good college distance swimmers put in around 40,000 to 50,000 yards a week. That is about 25 to 30 miles a week. Good college distance runners put in between 75 to 90 miles a week. An equivalent amount of training for a cyclist would be 220 to 270 miles per week.

Yaz ya wrote:

I’ve always understood that there is roughly a 3:1 ratio between swimming effort -> running effort -> cycling effort.

Good college distance swimmers put in around 40,000 to 50,000 yards a week. That is about 25 to 30 miles a week. Good college distance runners put in between 75 to 90 miles a week. An equivalent amount of training for a cyclist would be 220 to 270 miles per week.

Good cyclist do way more than that. Try 400+ miles per week.