Cycling fitness and running

stueys

My cycling fitness has come on considerably over the summer. I've a long way still to go but I'm relatively pleased with where I've got to. As a reference point my resting heat beat is at 52, I'm hitting just over 6hrs on 100 mile sportives and am at, what I think, is a good weight (78kg on 1.88m).

So I'm feeling fitter. Dashing off the tube and hammering up the escalators to catch a train tells me I'm a lot fitter. But after going out for a run the other day, which I haven't done in ages, I was disappointed to see that better cycling fitness doesn't seem to translate into improved running fitness. I guess I was slightly better but there's a big gulf between the improvements I see in cycling and the small improvement I see in running.

So what gives? Surely the differences in muscles used, aerobic load, etc can't be that different. Or can it?

t.m.h.n.e.t

They are chalk and cheese different.

Running incorporates your whole body,the skeletal and muscular system must support all of your weight + relative forces of foot strikes and indeed stability through the core. Using more muscle groups requires higher oxygen and energy uptake to make it all work. Many new runners also suffer lots of pain, this is due to lack of bone density, something that is encouraged and built upon by impact.

A good CV base doesn't directly correlate to running ability but helps. The only way to improve either, is to apply stress to your body.

GiantMike

When I was unable to cycle for 6 months I did a lot of running and was down to 6:45 per mile for 6 miles. Got back to UK and my cycling fitness was rubbish. However, it improved quickly (presumably because I only had to make muscular changes rather than CV ones?)

t.m.h.n.e.t

GiantMike wrote:

When I was unable to cycle for 6 months I did a lot of running and was down to 6:45 per mile for 6 miles. Got back to UK and my cycling fitness was rubbish. However, it improved quickly (presumably because I only had to make muscular changes rather than CV ones?)

Pretty much.

stueys

Interesting, makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Damn, so really I need to keep some time for running as well ideally.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Stueys wrote:

Interesting, makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Damn, so really I need to keep some time for running as well ideally.

And of course bone density changes now, only serve you better later in life where bones do become more susceptible to breaking.


protip: if your knees give even the slightest bit of hassle, get them covered! Same applies to cycling

stueys

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Interesting, makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Damn, so really I need to keep some time for running as well ideally.

And of course bone density changes now, only serve you better later in life where bones do become more susceptible to breaking.

Re bone density, weight lifting is also supposed to help?

jim453

I love running but can't because it absolutely wrecks my body.

I'm pretty good on the bike and fit but running trashes my legs. I think my running form is pretty bad and not very sympathetic on the body but even so, cycling and running are chalk and cheese.

It's the impact that I don't seem to be able to cope with.

If you really want to get better at running, then do more running. If your joints can stand it.

farrina

GiantMike wrote:

When I was unable to cycle for 6 months I did a lot of running and was down to 6:45 per mile for 6 miles.

I'm impressed with that time ( especially over 6 miles) if it's not to nosey of me do you mind indicating what is your approx age ( me aged 48 and struggling to hit 7.30 over the same distance after 2.5 years of running)

Regard

Alan

chrisaonabike

farrina wrote:

me aged 48 and struggling to hit 7.30 over the same distance after 2.5 years of running)

<slap>

Seriously, if you're pushing 50 like me and can run and not get shin splints and calf strains, you can stop your moaning right there!!! :shock:

After years and years (yes, I'm officially a slow learner), I've given up running as completely the wrong sport for me. Distance over 5 miles, the shin splints creep up, till I can't walk upstairs without pain, and I have to stop - for long enough to lose fitness. Then the cycle repeats as I start to run and regain fitness and the injuries return.

And over the last couple of years, random calf tears leave me with a long walk (limp) back to the car and a lot of words that shock the deer.

I'm just grateful for the absence of pain when I get off the bike.

gavbarron

If you want to get better at running then you need to run more. I think I'm a strong runner but need to run frequently to keep that standard. That said, the bike is handy for building a good endurance base without the pounding on your legs but it will only get you so far.

The muscles used between the two activities differ though and so you need to train those muscles to condition them and get the best from them:

Running on the flat uses the adductors, the gracilis and the hamstrings, which consists of the semitendinosus, semimembranosus and biceps femoris. These muscles assist with knee flexion, hip extension and stabilizing the pelvis during single limb support, push-off and leg swing. The abdominals are active when running at all times to help stabilize the pelvis and maintain balance during the different stages.

Cycling uses all the muscles in the legs, but at different times during the power, or crank, phase. the top of the pedal stroke, the vastus lateralis and biceps femoris are working the hardest. At around 90 degrees of the pedal stroke, the gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, gastrocnemius and vastus medialis increase activity. Toward the bottom of the pedal stroke the semimebranosus -- a hamstring muscle -- is activated the most to begin knee flexion of the recovery phase.

farrina

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

farrina wrote:

me aged 48 and struggling to hit 7.30 over the same distance after 2.5 years of running)

<slap>

Seriously, if you're pushing 50 like me and can run and not get shin splints and calf strains, you can stop your moaning right there!!! :shock:
I'm just grateful for the absence of pain when I get off the bike.

Now I had not thought about it that way!

I guess I still think of myself of being in my twenties not withstanding I am not. Of course recovery times are longer and I take a couple of days off each week from exercise.

My twin sister used to run a fair bit but eventually gave it up because of shin splints. She is a physiotherapist and self diagnosed that it was caused by an uncorrectable skeletal imbalance so maybe you are unlucky in this regard

Having been a cyclist since I was 14 running was quite a shock - I certainly find it more cardiovascular taxing than cycling but very much helps my cycling fitness and is time efficient. Fed up with the dogs chasing me through the park though (and their ignorant owners).

Regards

Alan

t.m.h.n.e.t

gavbarron wrote:

If you want to get better at running then you need to run more. I think I'm a strong runner but need to run frequently to keep that standard. That said, the bike is handy for building a good endurance base without the pounding on your legs but it will only get you so far.

The muscles used between the two activities differ though and so you need to train those muscles to condition them and get the best from them:

Running on the flat uses the adductors, the gracilis and the hamstrings, which consists of the semitendinosus, semimembranosus and biceps femoris. These muscles assist with knee flexion, hip extension and stabilizing the pelvis during single limb support, push-off and leg swing. The abdominals are active when running at all times to help stabilize the pelvis and maintain balance during the different stages.

Cycling uses all the muscles in the legs, but at different times during the power, or crank, phase. the top of the pedal stroke, the vastus lateralis and biceps femoris are working the hardest. At around 90 degrees of the pedal stroke, the gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, gastrocnemius and vastus medialis increase activity. Toward the bottom of the pedal stroke the semimebranosus -- a hamstring muscle -- is activated the most to begin knee flexion of the recovery phase.

Don't mean to be rude but 99% of the users here won't have a clue what most of those are. Common names are always best.

(First thing I was taught was to keep jargon to clients at minimum. They don't need to know they are going to stretch their gastrocs or soleus'. They need to know they are going to stretch their calves.)

dw300

No body has mentioned weight. You can get away with being fat on a bike far better than on foot.

t.m.h.n.e.t

dw300 wrote:

No body has mentioned weight. You can get away with being fat on a bike far better than on foot.

I did

Herbsman

If you get injured often, try running for a much smaller distance and lower intensity, but more frequently

Mr cyclist

I find the same thing after not running for a while while still cycling. I'm not sure why but after running again for a week or two my running improves dramatically. Possibly because the muscles becoming used to running again.

dw300

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

dw300 wrote:

No body has mentioned weight. You can get away with being fat on a bike far better than on foot.

I did

Ooops .. ok, I missed that!

TakeTurns

Much like OP. I've also recently started running. I was never good at running and wouldn't be able to maintain 2-3 miles without a small stop (before I started cycling).

Now that I'm at a decent fitness with cycling after 1.5years, I still find that I'm not good at running!

It's not the legs, its the breathing. Like mentioned, more muscles are engaged so more oxygen needs to be transported, therefore your breathing is far more intense. Also being a tall guy, carrying the weight doesn't make me an ideal runner. So I just prefer doing hill runs instead of long runs in order to get the same if not better benefit.