Heart or Legs, which is most important?
Cycling News makes mention of Lance Armstrong's run in the NYC Marathon yesterday here. Now there is an interesting quote from Alberto Salazar:
However, Salazar noted that Armstrong may not have lost much of his fitness since retiring from cycling, saying that "for him, cardiovascularly, it was very easy. He could talk much better than I could during the race."
Now this is a rather curious observation and it raises several questions in my mind. Lance would appear to have the ability to easily do a marathon from the point of view of cardiovascular ability. But obviously, his leg adaptation to running is a big limitor. So does this mean the training required to be a competitive runner would be minimal in terms of getting up to pro level running capability for Lance? Now extrapolate, in terms of training for cycling, does running have it's place? Can running be included in a training program to some positive effect in terms of improved cardiac endurance for a competitive cyclist?
Run Forest Run
This is funny. You see just a few weeks ago I ran for the first time since high school. Now granted I am only 19 and have been out of school for a few years I was still able to push out three miles without stopping. This was the furthest I think I've ever run. I did it in like 33 minutes I think. It's all thanks to cycling but I will definitely be putting running into my training for my next year MTB racing.
running certainly is less efficient...
There is no substitute for cycling when training for cycling, but bikes are so dang efficient that you need to cover a lot of distance and time to get a good workout in.
I think if a person wants to stay in shape, running is probably one of the least time consuming ways to do this. You raise an interresting question....I just hate running...and training.
A Place to Train
The efficiency thing does have interesting effects. For one thing, if you are riding outdoors, you have to find a place where you can sustain long periods of time at threshold. This can be difficult. If your time is limited, you have to factor in getting to the location which often times is not close by. This adds to the time. But with running, you can do a threshold workout just about anywhere. But there may be a point of diminishing returns for sure where you are getting good at running but not improving at cycling. Where is that point and how does age effect it? And what about the starting point? I mean, given a certain level of fitness (beginner to advance for example), is there a starting point where some running will help the person develop into a more competitive bike racer faster than if they just rode the bike given their limitations of time?
running for cycling
I run every once in a while and it helps my cycling. There is some cross over effect to be sure. If you don't do this, run or some other kind of cardio for cross training, then you should.
Agree
I think you are correct and I think I have seen some benefit (see my reply above). But again, it may depend on time available and circumstances. If you have the time to plug in 1.5 to 2 hours without stopping every day to cycling then this would probably be ideal.
How do you see the cross over effect and how has it helped your cycling?
Positive effect?
I think the possibility of a positive effect from any kind of physical activity always exists. Whether that effect is beneficial to one's cycling is debatable.
Personally I don't think running will do much, if anything, to improve your cycling fitness.
Can you increase VO2max by running? Possibly, but if you can then why not do it by cycling? At least then you're going about increasing it in a way that's sure to be useful when you're actually cycling.
You didn't ask about muscular adaptations, but I would add that the muscular adaptations from running will not benefit your cycling. Not only that but the training stress "spent" on running would not be available to your cycling. In effect, you'd be sub-optimizing your cycling training.
Mark Ewers
I may not be fast, but I'm 2 old 2 go slow
Beware of Generalization
I think it is important to beware of over-generalizing. I agree that, in general, if you can ride the bike, then do that. But circumstances might dictate different approaches based on your needs and available time. This time of year, I have about an hour of trainer time every morning to do some bike work. Doing anything at night is impossible. However, I do have about 40 minutes in the afternoon to do something. Compare using those 40 minutes on the bike or on the feet, which would be most effective?
Especially with regard to cyclocross which imparts more body buffeting than pure road events, running seems to help. Last year I did a lot more running to prepare for the cross season and I seemed to have more endurance. I had worked up to doing 2x15 intervals at a moderately hard pace, running a couple times per week before the start of the season and once per week during the season.
In terms of general fitness which you hinted at, running definitly has some benefit. More of your body is effected. Arms, feet, and even abs are developed more than riding a bike. How important is achieving a good overall level of fitness as a base of extending cycling performance? And how does age figure into this? Could cross training like this be of more benefit to a person as they get older? There are lots of parameters to consider here that may not be taken into account by an over-generalization.
yeah, also consider
I like to take it a step even further. You mention the other muscles (abs, arms, etc), and this is a good point (I think).
While riding a trainer or stationary bike is often considered supperior to running (for most cyclists). A trainer does very little for core muscles, and balance, and when you are riding a rigid MTB you become keenly aware how important core strength and balance are.
I am no physiologist, but I think the answer is likely to be as individualized as the person asking (and their needs, state of training, limiters to training, and chosen discipline must be considered separately).
Sure, what I say might be golden (I doubt it), but for the guy that lives out of a suitcase and travels nonstop, a trainer, or a pair of running shoes are probably the best option. He may not be a tour hopeful, but at least he is doing the best he can with the limitations his life imposes.
In general, you could be right
Well sure, I sort of messed up that comment by not saying I meant it in the context of either cycling or running. There is no question running is beneficial.
What I really meant was that cycling will do your cycling more good than running will (do for your cycling).
In light of my recent struggles to overcome my back problems, I've become more and more a fan of cross-training. Do other physical activities make me faster on my bike? I think you could say that, but it's not a directly beneficial. I think the argument is that they make my core strong and in balance, thereby enabling me to train longer or harder and achieve higher levels of cycling fitness.
Mark Ewers
I may not be fast, but I'm 2 old 2 go slow
How can it hurt?
When talking about this debate ask yourself this one question, how can it hurt? Running is obviously good for you, minus the extra stress on the knees but thats another story. People who run on a consitant basis are obviously in shape. I can run 3 miles in 30 minutes and thats a great workout. I can ride a trainer for 30 minutes and barely break a sweat, granted I ride a moderate pace. If you only have thirty minutes what will a short run hurt? Gradually you will become a better runner and gradually you'll be able to run harder longer. How can this not help you in cycling?
It's in the question
The discussion points are in the question: Heart or Legs? A cyclists who runs will definitly exercise his heart and our hearts have no idea what is causing the added demand on our systems. It simply responds to whatever that demand is. But the muscles in our legs respond differently. There are different muscle groups used for running than in cycling. And there is the pounding (on our joints and knees as you mention). So if we ask the question only in relation to legs, the answer appears to be obvious: if you want to get better at cycling, go ride a bike. But since heart fitness appears to be part of the equation (of what makes up a good endurance cyclists), then running might also help. And since certain types of cycling might require some upper body strength and fitness, running might help there too. Can we put a number on it and give a very measurable answer to satisfy everyone? It may not be that easy.
Post new comment