Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Originally posted by Marlow
    ...but never above 140 on the bike, unless I'm climbing a long steep hill.
    The highest point in FL is 345' and in Jacksonville it's 40'. Do you head up the coast to the mountains to ride at the weekend?

    I recently took up mountain biking as my knees no longer permit me to hike downhill for any length of time. I'm finding going up significant hills (actually, even ones that look insignificant) to be incredibly difficult, much harder than I anticipated. My goal is to ride up a 2800' one near my house by May. I'm not at all confident of succeeding, especially on a mountain bike.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

      Originally posted by lonewolf

      Question: Was my low max bpm a function of a low resting bpm or did I just not run hard enough to get it higher?
      220 - your age=Max HR. is a very good approximation. (A and R)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

        Thanks, Conor.
        220-50 =170, so at 180, I was in the ballpark
        220-81= 139, now I have to go out and see what it is now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

          If you were still getting to 180 into your 50's my guess is that your current max HR is greater than 139.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

            Originally posted by Conor Dary
            Originally posted by lonewolf

            Question: Was my low max bpm a function of a low resting bpm or did I just not run hard enough to get it higher?
            220 - your age=Max HR. is a very good approximation. (A and R)
            A better one is probably 210 - k * Age, where k = 0.8 or so which yields 170 at 50 but declines more slowly.

            When I was in marathon training my hardest workout was a 4-mile warmup (running to the location), then 3 x 3000m rolling terrain, with an uphill finish (not steep). The last time I did it I got (very noisy, hard to take pulse) 200 after the first, 210 after the second and 220++ after the third (I guess I was zero years old :lol: ). That was the highest HR I ever recorded, but it is hard to take it at that rate (in part because I could hardly see straight).

            They had a running race up Mt Baldy (first 600m downhill to ~6000+ then 7.5miles up to 10,064) with a rather steep last 800m (I think everyone but Chuck Smead walked some up that steep pitch). At the finish I would fell as stressed as I ever felt. However, a couple minutes later after catching my breath I did not feel all that fatigued (which is a good thing because you have 8 miles to get back to the base!) because the work rate was not really that high due to the oxygen limitation.

            jazz's sprints on the track are of a different sort; I am not sure that he could hold that level of HR for a much longer effort. (I was not crazy, I never raced on the track, to fast/dangerous and not enough hills)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

              Originally posted by 26mi235
              When I was in marathon training my hardest workout was a 4-mile warmup (running to the location), then 3 x 3000m rolling terrain, with an uphill finish (not steep). The last time I did it I got (very noisy, hard to take pulse) 200 after the first, 210 after the second and 220++ after the third (I guess I was zero years old :lol: ). That was the highest HR I ever recorded, but it is hard to take it at that rate (in part because I could hardly see straight).
              Whenever I checked my HR it was always with a HR monitor but I didn't always wear it. The workout that you described above where you could hardly see straight, reminds me of a really hard interval workout that I did with a friend one time that I wasn't wearing a HR monitor and that I suspect I might have hit the 200's, because at the end of it, I literally couldn't see straight, and keep in mind that this was on a pancake flat road that runs next to the Mississippi River and which is literally a few feet below sea level.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                Is it universal that HR correlates to the RPM of pedalling? From many personal experiences I've always learned that it's perhaps highest at climbing very steep moutains with relatively low RPM; incidentally, the "difficulty to see straight" thing happened to me only once, also during mountain climbing, but it was more like the dimmer was gradually off.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                  Originally posted by Vielleicht
                  Is it universal that HR correlates to the RPM of pedalling?
                  If your power output remains constant, your HR will decrease as your cadence decreases. Think of it as a car going 60 m.p.h. in fourth gear vs 60 m.p.h. in fifth gear or overdrive.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                    Originally posted by Vielleicht
                    Is it universal that HR correlates to the RPM of pedalling? From many personal experiences I've always learned that it's perhaps highest at climbing very steep moutains with relatively low RPM; incidentally, the "difficulty to see straight" thing happened to me only once, also during mountain climbing, but it was more like the dimmer was gradually off.
                    Armstrong took the approach of high turnover and lower force at each revolution. The muscles do 'more reps' at a 'lower weight'. In weightlifting if you lift a given weight until you cannot lift anymore the total lifting (reps x weight) is higher for lower weights.

                    I found that you really had to work to train yourself to pedal fast and efficiently. I was not really good at doing this, maybe because I was in my 30s when starting it and partly because I was not a sprinter (see jazz on high turnover on the track - I would not have been able to touch him even if I could out-climb him in a sprint).

                    I always had trouble with HR monitors; often they would not work or would give screwy readings (e.g., what looked like half my true HR, but other times no real pattern other than it clearly was no my HR). It might be because I am really thin and monitors back a ways were not that good (unless you paid top dollar).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                      Originally posted by 26mi235
                      Armstrong took the approach of high turnover and lower force at each revolution. The muscles do 'more reps' at a 'lower weight'. In weightlifting if you lift a given weight until you cannot lift anymore the total lifting (reps x weight) is higher for lower weights.
                      It has definitely been my experience that I don't fatigue as quickly when I push smaller gears at higher revs.
                      Originally posted by 26mi235
                      I found that you really had to work to train yourself to pedal fast and efficiently. I was not really good at doing this, maybe because I was in my 30s when starting it and partly because I was not a sprinter (see jazz on high turnover on the track - I would not have been able to touch him even if I could out-climb him in a sprint).
                      One thing to keep in mind is that track bikes have shorter cranks than road and mountain bikes to make it easier to pedal at higher cadences. I'm 5'11" and my road bike (Cannondale) came with 175mm cranks while my track bike (also Cannondale) came with 167.5mm cranks. When I was racing on the track, I changed my 175mm road bike cranks out for 170mm cranks, to minimize the difference in feel when switching from one bike to the other. In theory, I've reduced my power at the bottom bracket by ~3% by going to the shorter cranks, but since I spin the shorter cranks 10-15 r.p.m. faster than I used to spin the longer crank, I feel that the loss in torque is worth it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                        Fascinating tech insight here!

                        But in terms of the basic question, even though I don't claim any particular knowledge of cycling—and let's add swimming to the mix—the key seems to be one of fluid motion vs. pounding the substrate.

                        Moving through a fluid (be it air or water) just isn't the same thing as fighting gravity with every step.

                        I mean, if you want to talk exertion, then "looks on faces" etc., makes cycling a pussy sport compared to boxing or wrestling, neh? Ascribing wondrous power to cyclists simply becuase it takes longer for them to look on death's door makes no sense if you stop to think about it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                          Originally posted by 26mi235
                          Armstrong took the approach of high turnover and lower force at each revolution. The muscles do 'more reps' at a 'lower weight'. In weightlifting if you lift a given weight until you cannot lift anymore the total lifting (reps x weight) is higher for lower weights.
                          Interestingly that was only Armstrong in his second career, after the cancer. Prior to his cancer he was known as a hammerer, somebody who pushed big gears a lot, and pretty successfully. But that can wear you out in a multi-day stage race. Bernard Hinault maybe only really successful stage racer known to push monster gears. Some say he did it mostly to intimidate other riders. Read a pretty good big recently on the 1986 Tour de France about the competition between him and LeMond.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                            One thing to keep in mind is that track bikes have shorter cranks than road and mountain bikes to make it easier to pedal at higher cadences.
                            That is true but the other reason that track bikes have shorter cranks is so you don't hit the pedal on the banked turns if you're not tilted enough. Track bikes also have a higher bottom bracket to protect against this problem.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                              Originally posted by gh
                              I mean, if you want to talk exertion, then "looks on faces" etc., makes cycling a pussy sport compared to boxing or wrestling, neh? Ascribing wondrous power to cyclists simply becuase it takes longer for them to look on death's door makes no sense if you stop to think about it.
                              The editor is correct. Boxing and wrestling are brutal sports for conditioning. Another one to consider for efforts of only 5-8 minutes is rowing. Those guys are brutes.

                              For boxing witness the Thrilla in Manila and Ali's quote "Fighting Joe Frazier was the closest thing to death I could ever imagine."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

                                Originally posted by bambam
                                Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                                One thing to keep in mind is that track bikes have shorter cranks than road and mountain bikes to make it easier to pedal at higher cadences.
                                That is true but the other reason that track bikes have shorter cranks is so you don't hit the pedal on the banked turns if you're not tilted enough. Track bikes also have a higher bottom bracket to protect against this problem.
                                That is true, but mainly on 45 degree tracks. On 33 degree tracks, I've seen guys ride their road bikes without bottoming out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X