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

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Originally posted by Conor Dary
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Bill Koch, the most successful US cross country skier of my era, use to ride in the summer for training -- he would do 100-mile rides (this is in Vermont, so hilly) and he would remove the seat post/saddle from the bike!
    Very interesting. Never thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. I might even try it sometime soon.

    I remember Koch very well, the first to use the skating style. I wonder how he came up with this not using a seat post.
    I understand the rationale for riding out of the saddle during training rides, but I don't see the point of removing the seat post unless he felt that he lacked the self-discipline to stay off the saddle if it was on the bike.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Bill Koch, the most successful US cross country skier of my era, use to ride in the summer for training -- he would do 100-mile rides (this is in Vermont, so hilly) and he would remove the seat post/saddle from the bike!
    Very interesting. Never thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. I might even try it sometime soon.

    I remember Koch very well, the first to use the skating style. I wonder how he came up with this not using a seat post.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Bill Koch, the most successful US cross country skier of my era, use to ride in the summer for training -- he would do 100-mile rides (this is in Vermont, so hilly) and he would remove the seat post/saddle from the bike!

    In fact, when you are standing (i.e., out of the saddle) your motion is more similar to a running motion and hence standing some might be a thing to work at. When I was training for marathons I would often incorporate both supplemental rides (4 miles to and from the track/university in addition to the running). I also did long rides fairly hard because I never had running workouts that lasted for three hours but regularly rode for that long, which helped my body adapt to the long duration of a marathon without over-doing the legs too much. I was my general sense that the muscles were more susceptible to to injury when fatigued and riding would get me there both more often (i.e., sometimes running 19-23 miles and sometimes riding 50-65 miles) without as much injury.

    After I had prolonged plantar fascia problems so that I could not run enough to improve at the marathon I took up bike racing for several years. I mainly did hilly races and hilly time trials. The running physique (which got even leaner riding) was an advantage on the climbs, as was the runners mindset of staying with a continued hard effort without the drafting of the pack.

    Leave a comment:


  • TN1965
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Thanks for all the feedback. I did not realize the saddle height would make such a difference. My gym has some spinning bikes, but I have never used them. I should try it the next time. And doing "interval" on a bike makes sense, too.

    Although I hope I will never have to go through "rehab" like that, incorporating cross training on a regular basis might be a good idea to avoid overuse injury. I am not running a high mileage, but my body might be more fragile than other people's.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    26mi makes some good points. There are three things that I can think of that would make it hard to get high heart rates on a bike and all of them have to do with not generating enough power:

    1) Having the seat to low will make you mechanically inefficient and unable to generate optimum power.
    2) Not being clipped into the pedals in some fashion (straps or clipless pedals) will make it impossible for you to generate power throughout the pedal stroke. It's a bike, not a stair stepper. And as stated above, the ball of you foot should be directly over the pedal axle.
    3) Pedaling in too big a gear (bike)/too much resistance (stationary bike) with too low a cadence will make it hard to generate optimum power. I would recommend that you always keep your cadence at 90 rpm's or above.

    By the way, I remember reading a story about 1996 Olympic Marathon Trials winner Bob Kempainen getting hurt less than two months before the trials and being forced to do only aqua running for two weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cooter Brown
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Originally posted by 26mi235
    YYou might also have a problem with the saddle height -- errors can be on both sides but my guess is that you were too low or you would have gotten a bit more of the calf into it if you were too high.
    Anyone riding a bike should go get fitted at a real bike shop. Frame size, seat shape, crank length, stem length, etc all work together to make cycling comfortable. Most knee or back pain associated with cycling will go away with a proper fitting.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    You should have been on a road bike for part of it. That would have worked your calves but a stationary bike has your arch over the pedal, not the ball of your foot -- major difference for some of the muscles. You probably need clip-in (clipless, etc) pedals to get the most from the riding and you will not get that in most exercise bikes (some spinning classes maybe). You might also have a problem with the saddle height -- errors can be on both sides but my guess is that you were too low or you would have gotten a bit more of the calf into it if you were too high.

    If you are not going high enough on the HR on the bike, try this. After warm up, do some version of X seconds hard, X seconds easy, X seconds at 'steady-state'. I often do it with a break down starting at maybe 90 seconds and making each one 5-10 seconds shorter. The hard should be that; you should be ready to be done and the easy will be a huge relief. At first, you will be ready for the 'steady-state' part way through the X seconds of Easy, but that will slowly disappear and 'steady-state' will slow down eventually. If these things are not happening you are not working the Hard hard enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • TN1965
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    After suffering a hamstring injury in a 10K race in late October, I went through an interesting experiment on cross training for the last five weeks.

    I could not run for nine days, and stayed on stationary bike and elliptical machine. My daily routine was 30 minutes on bike and 30 minutes on elliptical. It was hard for me to get my heart rate over 140 on bike, but I managed to push it around 140-150 on elliptical.

    On the 10th day, I managed to run 2 miles -- in 18 minutes. For the next six days, I continued to run a little longer each day, while continuing my cross training (30 minutes of either bike or elliptical).

    By the end of the third week, I was back to running 10 miles, in about 79 minutes. The problem was that it was 13 days before I was to run a marathon. There was not enough time left to squeeze a longer run (I did a 20 miler on Oct. 14, and a 16 miler on Oct. 21). So I went to the race grossly underprepared, and not knowing what to expect.

    After 17 miles, my calves started to have some issues, and I had the biggest blow-up in five marathons that I have run (1:42-1:58). Surprisingly, my quad and hamstring held up, and they are feeling better than other times right after my previous four marathons (I guess they were not pushed to the limit during the race). I was breathing comfortably throughout the race, even to the last mile.

    So my conclusion is that the cross training I did preserved my cardiovascular fitness. But it was not good enough to preserve my leg strength. And retaining the calf strength was harder than retaining the hamstring and quad strength.

    What could I have done differently? Longer time on bike and elliptical? Aqua running to supplement other forms of cross training? Anyway, I hope I will never have to go through this again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vielleicht
    replied
    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.
    Boxing and wrestling are without any doubts heavily taxing sports, but neither is an endurance sport, that's the point I made by specifically choosing the approximately one-hour half-marathon to compare with the one-hour cycling time trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: Level of exertion, cycling vs. distance running?

    Originally posted by bambam
    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."
    It's been my experience that you achieve much higher heart rates during short races (<5:00) than longer races (>1 hour), even if you sprint at the end of the longer race. I routinely hit HR's in the high 190's for short races but rarely got out of the 180's for longer races. This leads me to believe that my body was a lot more flush with lactic acid at the end of the short races than the long races. Also, the pain and discomfort that I felt after a short race was a lot more intense than the longer races though it didn't last long, while it took me a lot longer to recover after longer races, presumably because of elevated body temperature and dehydration.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X