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 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vielleicht
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • marknhj
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Your maximum heart rate decreases as you get older, and it's also a affaected by your genetics. Mo Farah's max HR might be significantly higher or lower than Kenesia Bekele's or Galen Rupp's max HR.

    Leave a comment:


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

    When I was a for real runner, sixty years ago, I don't recall ever taking my pulse or even considering heart rate. I was a sprinter and only started running occasional 5K and 10K as a Master. Distance was/is not my thing.

    Thirty years ago, at age 50ish when I could still run and had a 38-40 bpm resting pulse, I did start taking my pulse during runs and discovered I could not seem to get it above 180 bpm, even if I was staggering spraddle legged and had blood half way up my eyeballs.

    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Conor Dary
    Originally posted by Marlow
    I'm biking more these days and even on the days when I'm going as hard as I can for as long as I can, it's nowhere near as exhausting (total body weariness) as running is for me. My pulse scoots up to 160 easily on a hard run, but never above 140 on the bike, unless I'm climbing a long steep hill.
    Using a heart monitor it is amazing how hard you have to work on a stationary bike to get your heart rate above 150. While running on a treadmill, it takes nothing at all.
    Try using less resistance and increasing your cadence, and you should have no problem getting higher heart rate. My heart rate when I'm mashing a big gear is never as high as when I'm spinning a small gear, and I don't fatigued as quickly either. The more you pedal with a higher cadence, the more natural it will feel.

    Also try to increase the efficiency of your pedal stroke if you aren't already doing so. I used to do drills to increase my pedal stroke efficiency when I raced on the track, such as pedal with one leg with a low resistance and high cadence for a few minutes on each leg. If you're not clipped into or strapped onto the pedals and you're only using your quads and gluts, it's been my anecdotal experience that your power output is 15 -20% less than it could be with clips/straps.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Isnt this like the question "what weighs more a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers?"

    This isn't about recovery time, it is about pushing yourself to the limit and, including a number of sports, running, biking, or swimming, if you truly gave "100%" then it must be a tie.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Conor Dary
    Using a heart monitor it is amazing how hard you have to work on a stationary bike to get your heart rate above 150. While running on a treadmill, it takes nothing at all.
    For me it's not hard on both equipments - could I have cranked the resistance of the stationary bike too high?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X