Why does bike help run but run not help bike??
184
Member
358 days
psychosyd posted 35 weeks ago.
Any endurance activity (aerobic) helps the other. I'm not sure of the context of the statement. The only thing that I can think of is that biking is low impact compared to running. So if you are a runner, cycling would be a good cross training activity, but as a cyclist, running may not be the best option.? My 2 cents
2346
Member
1243 days
Triguy98 posted 35 weeks ago.
You cycling workouts will be longer than your running workouts, giving you a greater aerobic base/ workout. The level of impact of running certainly is a component of this. Two hour runs really breakdown the body. The same 2 hours and the same heart rate is pretty easy. Try going for a 5 hour run. Ouch.
Life is short. Play hard and get dirty doing it.
2726
Member
1280 days
Anton posted 35 weeks ago.
Biking helps running through improving aerobic capacity. It also helps to build overall leg strength.
Running however uses a different set of muscles than biking...so while it helps with your aerobic capacity it doesn't build muscles necessary for biking.
And Triguy, what is wrong with a five hour run? Huh? Ever done it, huh? (total kidding around)
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" - Vincent Van Gogh
My Blog: http://anton.trifuel.net
1659
Member
1452 days
PrinceofClydes posted 35 weeks ago.
As I said in another thread some time ago: it is easier to make a runner out of a good biker than to make a biker out of a good runner.
Some reasons for this assertion arise from the following:
- length of workouts (mentioned by others above)
- muscle groups employed vary from each activity (mentioned above)
- biking develops strong quads, which will aid a weight bearing exercise like running. However, running long distances, unlike sprinting, doesn't build quad strength. I've never seen a top class marathoner with big quads.
- injuries: running training seems to produce more injuries than biking (not including crashes) whereas you may not be able to run because of an injury: hamstring, knee, ankle, foot, but you can still ride a bike.
Mickey Mantle rode a bike daily after retiring from baseball - which he had to quit because his knees wouldn't let him run.
and we note that Lance became a sub-3 hour marathon runner, but do we think we could train Haile Gebrselassie or Paul Tergat into cyclists who could ride Mont Ventoux in under an hour?
PoC
"Pain doesn't last, chicks dig scars, glory is forever!"
- Shane Falco.
2726
Member
1280 days
Anton posted 35 weeks ago.
Considering the size of many pro cyclists, could you take Geberselassie and Tergat and train them to ride the White Hell in under an hour? Yes. Over time, but yes. Small and/or light folks make the best climbers.
As to Lance...could you take him and train him to run a 2:08 Marathon? No.
Would any of them be able to ride the Ventoux AND run a 2:08...No.
(please, lets not get into this "Lance is God" argument...the reply to which is one word. Merckx)
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" - Vincent Van Gogh
My Blog: http://anton.trifuel.net
649
Member
1064 days
deepbluex posted 35 weeks ago.
Is it possible for one's legs to be too big? I have really big calves. I'm a skinny guy with giant calves. Sort of the leg equivalent of Popeye. I can climb hills on the bike really well and I'm consistently in the top 1/3 of the bike leg in my races.
On the other hand, I finish bottom 1/3 of the run leg consistently. All the lead I build up in the bike is lost in the run.
Just can't seem to get speed. I can run the distance but I'mjust plain slow at it. Tried intervals and fartleks and just running fast.
I blame my big huge calves.
366
Member
372 days
Leroy Bonkers posted 35 weeks ago.
Having been previously over weight I'm also a "big calf" person. I think it hurts the run. Even though I'm a top 10% runner I think I would be faster with skinny calves.
now for my 1/2 baked, over generalized theory: You can ride hard and use a high cadence and tax your cardiovascular system. But you can never run hard enough to tax your quads the way hill repeats on a bike can, because you can never exert more force than your body weight provides.
427
Member
351 days
Sully800 posted 35 weeks ago.
PrinceofClydes wrote:
biking develops strong quads, which will aid a weight bearing exercise like running. However, running long distances, unlike sprinting, doesn't build quad strength. I've never seen a top class marathoner with big quads.
That argument doesn't make much sense to me. In the same phrase you point out that no top distance runners have big quads, but you also state that strong quads will aid in running because it is weight bearing. It's true that cyclists will generally have larger quads than runners...but that won't make them better runners. Big quads aren't good for running and small quads aren't good for cycling, so neither athlete has an advantage in that regard. Mentioning Armstrong's 3 hour marathon is meaningless since that does not even approach an elite level in running.
I agree that the main benefit of cycling is the ability to get longer aerobic workouts with less stress on the body. Other than that, I think the statement that "its easier to make a cyclist into a runner" carries little weight. Overall biking will not make you a good runner, and running won't make you a good cyclist.
2302
Member
2338 days
Tribro posted 34 weeks ago.
i think if you look at it from an elite level, then yes either sport will hinder the performance of the other. if you want to excel at one discipline, do more of that discipline. that said, in talking about triathletes, I think the cycling helps running is true. if you look at the volume of training, cycling is normally the highest for elite triathletes. it does build fitness and strength without being as taxing on the body. cycling does build muscle the larger muscles and running tends to lean you out.
the armstrong example shows that you can take an elite cyclist and he can perform a descent marathon. I'm not sure the winner of the new york marathon would be able to throw down an acceptable performance in a cycling race. perhaps someone has? anyone? would be interesting to compare.
another exmaple are cyclists that move to triathlon, i think there are more cyclist with triathlon success, than marathoners. i remember steve larsen winner Placid his first year, ya? then he said he ran more his second year which really hurt his cycling and his performances. he went back to riding more.
anyway. my understanding is yes it helps because of muscles endurance, fitness development, and recovery time. while running takes more recovery time and breaks down the cycling muscles.
427
Member
351 days
Sully800 posted 34 weeks ago.
I definitely agree that cyclists are more suited for triathlons than runners. Cycling takes up the largest part of triathlons so they are better suited in the first place, and the additional aerobic fitness that can be achieved through long bike sessions is quite valuable.
I don't know of any examples of runners turned into cyclists, but I bet you could take a guy like Alan Webb and have him doing some respectable TT's or mountain climbs after 2 years of cycling training (as Armstrong did with running a marathon).
It's off topic, but Webb started as a swimmer, and Armstrong was of course a triathlete in his younger days. The triathlon community missed on a two great prospective athletes!
I just read the recent article on the 3 key run workouts. What I don't understand is why biking helps running, but running doesn't help biking. I have heard this before but I haven't ever heard a great reason why. Seems to me added strength and endurance would help across the board. Your thoughts?