Benefits of cycling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Theres a difference though.Famous athletes can tell you what works for them(pragmaticism), but many(not all) don't know WHY it works.

Its the job of science to tell us why.

---

I think most top athletes DO know why. No one gets to the top simply by bashing out training as and when they feel like it without a plan. I think it's more a case of (like we've BOTH said - agree :) ) top athletes usually have greater work capacities and make the error of assuming everyone else can do the same. "I only got where I did through hard work" you hear said, implying lesser runners must all be lazy.

Mind you, I did hear that Billy Bland deliberately ran his record BGR a week before his Wasdale record, just to prove that all the rules could be broken! I'm assuming this is true and apologise if just hearsay, but sometimes things like that CAN work. Fine tuning isn't all about putting on the knife edge, speedwork and all that. It can be about building endurance up to a peak, I would argue. Risky strategy though! Did HE know why it worked? I can see your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

Did HE know why it worked? I can see your point.

---

But then my point was who cares why, it DID work and it's in the history books!

Maybe it's case of do you want to take risks? Or is it better to go for a safe, tried and tested method?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

But then my point was who cares why, it DID work and it's in the history books!

Maybe it's case of do you want to take risks? Or is it better to go for a safe, tried and tested method?

---

Think about all the people who failed though!The legions who fail and don't go into the history books. If those people had the information available to them, and they cared enough to seek it out they may have succeeded.

Years ago people used plants for curing ailments.Sometimes they'd cure one illness with one chemical in the plant, and create another illness(one that wasn't as bad as the original one) with a different chemical, that was in the same plant.Sometimes the plant would cure the disease without any side-effects.

These remedies worked, but it didn't become science until they knew how it worked.Chemistry can now separate the good chemicals from the bad chemicals in the same plant, making them comparatively safe.

As human beings we need to know how to improve ourselves.Philosophy is the first step to that goal, science is the next!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

I think most top athletes DO know why. No one gets to the top simply by bashing out training as and when they feel like it without a plan. I think it's more a case of (like we've BOTH said - agree :) ) top athletes usually have greater work capacities and make the error of assuming everyone else can do the same. "I only got where I did through hard work" you hear said, implying lesser runners must all be lazy.

Mind you, I did hear that Billy Bland deliberately ran his record BGR a week before his Wasdale record, just to prove that all the rules could be broken! I'm assuming this is true and apologise if just hearsay, but sometimes things like that CAN work. Fine tuning isn't all about putting on the knife edge, speedwork and all that. It can be about building endurance up to a peak, I would argue. Risky strategy though! Did HE know why it worked? I can see your point.

---

I wonder how many times his hard work went against him though.Lets say he ran 100miles a week at his peak.Now lets say 50 miles of that training only had a negative effect on him.That would mean he wasted 5hours a week on something, not only worthless in terms of physical improvement, but that would additionally drain his recovery ability for the 50 good miles.

If science had the answers to this scenario, he wouldn't have wasted so much of his life. Assuming of course the above is true.

Over two decades ago, Seb Coe was running 50 miles a week.Arthur Lydiard was questioned by Runners World about this. He said he didn't believe it. It was impossible to achieve Coe's fitness on such a low mileage, according to Lydiard.

A few years later after realising Coe was weight training, Lydiard changed his mind.He now said that Coe's ability to achieve his results on such low mileage, was because his weight-training gave him the muscular endurance of the longer runs.

Approx 15 years on, Lydiard was interviewed again.He was asked if weights training had any effect on running.He said it had no effect at all, and was a waste of time!

The point is if weight training was worthless, then running must be worthless.Running is a form of weight training.When we run we move our body weight.This wasn't even a scientific error on Lydiard's part, it was a philosophical one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I wonder how many times his hard work went against him though.Lets say he ran 100miles a week at his peak.Now lets say 50 miles of that training only had a negative effect on him.That would mean he wasted 5hours a week on something, not only worthless in terms of physical improvement, but that would additionally drain his recovery ability for the 50 good miles.

If science had the answers to this scenario, he wouldn't have wasted so much of his life. Assuming of course the above is true.

Over two decades ago, Seb Coe was running 50 miles a week.Arthur Lydiard was questioned by Runners World about this. He said he didn't believe it. It was impossible to achieve Coes fitness on such a low mileage, according to Lydiard.

A few years later after realising Coe was weight training, Lydiard changed his mind.He now said that Coes ability to achieve his results on such low mileage, was because his weight-training gave him the muscular endurance of the longer runs.

Approx 15 years on, Lydiard was interviewed again.He was asked if weights training had any effect on running.He said it had no effect at all, and was a waste of time!

The point is if weight training was worthless, then running must be worthless.Running is a form of weights training.When we run we move our body weight.This wasn't even a scientific error on Lydiards part, it was a philosophical one.

---

I heard that Coe did a lot more miles than people thought - that his purported mileage only included quality running. That he didn't count recovery runs nor warm ups and warm downs (which he would admit were 3 miles apeice, and he did a LOT of sessions!). And out of that generation of great British milers, Cram and Elliott did less mileage than Coe. True? I don't know!

Either way, to compare the scientific approach of Coe with the more traditional methods used by Ovett, and see such similarly brilliant results, proves there's more than one road to Rome.

All said and done I think it's difficult to argue against the results of Champions like Coe, Bland and Lydiard's best athletes. What they did must have been right! BUT. But, did they all do everything they did for the right reasons?? I think that is you're point and I take it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

I heard that Coe did a lot more miles than people thought - that his purported mileage only included quality running. That he didn't count recovery runs nor warm ups and warm downs (which he would admit were 3 miles apeice, and he did a LOT of sessions!). And out of that generation of great British milers, Cram and Elliott did less mileage than Coe. True? I don't know!

Either way, to compare the scientific approach of Coe with the more traditional methods used by Ovett, and see such similarly brilliant results, proves there's more than one road to Rome.

All said and done I think it's difficult to argue against the results of Champions like Coe, Bland and Lydiard's best athletes. What they did must have been right! BUT. But, did they all do everything they did for the right reasons?? I think that is you're point and I take it :)

---

There might be more than one road to Rome, but only one will be the shortest!

One for those of you who combine the two. Im getting very into my training and want to reach the best of my ability fell running and also on the bike. I know training volume varys for everybody and at the moment I am doing alternate days cycling and running, combining speed,hill, intervals and endurance sessions in both. I know there are some famous examples ie Mr Jebb, but what are peoples thoughts on the impacts of the two diciplines and how does everybody else manage to fit it all in.. Gratefull for your responses.

Ditch the bike and run more. Swimming is a better accompniment in my opinion works the core more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboTom

Ditch the bike and run more. Swimming is a better accompniment in my opinion works the core more

---

No, dont.

Cyclings quality for going along side running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Fowler

No, dont.

Cyclings quality for going along side running.

---

No its not, waste of time. much better to work on the core. Cycle for fun but dont see it as a worthy accompniment over swimming or just the gym

I commute to and from work, then run at night.

Ask Rob Jebb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboTom

No its not, waste of time. much better to work on the core. Cycle for fun but dont see it as a worthy accompniment over swimming or just the gym

---

Disagree..... Cycling works all the same muscles as when you climb, so its perfect as a supplement for mountain/fell running.

Bash allows recommends it, and John Brown didn't run for weeks before the World Trial he just cycled, then ran a few times the week before and made the Commonwealth Team..... so it clearly works.

I'm starting to incorporate it into my training again. Add in a couple of hours cycling once or maybe even twice a week to keep the load off my body whilst helping to increase aerobic capacity. Obv not as good as running, but will deffo help. I cycled quite a bit last summer and it seemed to work then....

Cycling is good training, especially on hilly routes. If you want to work your core what is wrong with sit ups? :confused:
I have no doubt swimming is useful too, but I don’t feel it is as relevant as cycling when cross training for fell running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grouse

Ask Rob Jebb.

---

If you can catch him;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboTom

No its not, waste of time. much better to work on the core. Cycle for fun but dont see it as a worthy accompniment over swimming or just the gym

---

:confused: Waste of time??????????? Spending time on here typing waste of time is a waste of time, i'm wasting my time, think i'll cycle to work:p

Why not swim, cycle and run and do core exercises and everything else and if you find something that works for you, do it. Just marry the right person or give the whole thing a wide berth;)

yeah i also find climbing hills on the bike similar to running especially when out of the saddle, and the low impact thing i find good too i can bike hard and run hard the next day with out to much of a training hangover from the day before. do a fair bit of core work in the gym. good point about finding something and sticking with it, its just the never ending search for that elusive piece of training wisdom that doesnt exist hahah

Lazy of me, but below is a previous post of mine on a similar thread.

This is a really interesting thread and something that is continuously discussed amongst multi-sport athletes (triathletes/duathletes).

In simplistic terms it all boils down to the one of the three basic rules of training:
1) Progression
2) Overload
3) Specificity

(some folks also like to add recovery)

This states the very obvious fact that the best training for a particular activity is doing that activity. Therefore, for a healthy runner, cycling can never be a 100% satisfactory substitute. Muscle recruitment, impact etc are all very different. However, for an injured runner (especially an impact related injury) cycling can be ideal for keeping the CV system working effectively and maintaining muscular strength/endurance.

Where cycling can also be useful is to supplement running training. it is possible to add cycling training to increase training volume but without the associated risk of injury of ramping up the running mileage. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of it being very effective for improving climbing strength in particular. Personally, I often use an easy road spin as a recovery session from a hard/long run on the previous day and always find it to be beneficial.

Any form of cross-training (including weights etc) therefore will not have as much direct benefit to your chosen activity as actually doing it. However, and this is the best reason for including a variety of cross training activities, they will make you more robust. Because of the very specific demands of any sport, your body become very strong through the required range of movements of it. But, for movements outside of this range, it can really be quite pathetic. This is why many "sports injuries" are often traced back to events/stressors outside of the sport... sitting badly, picking up a child or kicking a football. I recently talked to a sports physio who worked with the GB canoe squad and their training motto was "robust or bust". This referred to the broad range of cross training activities to supplement the specific canoeing work.

Triathletes and Duathletes will always tend to bias their training to favour cycling volume. Long course triathletes (Ironman) will often ride longer in training than the 4-6 hours required in a race but will very rarely run for any longer than 2-2.5 hours (a sub 3 hour marathon at the end of an Ironman is pretty tasty). The main reasons for this are not that cycling is the best all round training or that cycling transfers to running but not vice versa. It's simply that 1) the bike leg is the longest and so will yield the greatest potential time gains. 2) The stronger you can get off the bike the better you will run. 3) Longs runs of more than 2-2.5 hours will not give you satisfactory fitness returns relative to the increased risk of injury.

OK... hypothetical time. Take an elite road cyclist and an elite road/track runner (as opposed to fell) and get them to swap disciplines. Who would perform better assuming neither had any previous experience/training in the others sport. We'd get the runner to do a flat 40km time-trial on the bike and the cyclist to run a flat 10km road run (although the run time would be shorter both events require working at a similar CV intensity). We'd then swap them back to their specialist sport and make comparisons. Well, this has been done a few times, and the consistent result is that the cyclist comes out on top. The usual reports back from the athletes are that the runner on the bike felt his heart/lungs were absolutely fine but he lacked the leg strength and that, although the cyclist running felt fine during, he was in tatters the next day. The runner lacked the muscular strength to push the big gear required for a fast 40km and the cyclist's muscles had never been exposed to repetitive impact before.... specificity.

What hasn't been tested, as far as I'm aware, is the same protocol but with a fell runner rather than a road runner. My prediction is that it'd be a much closer run thing because of the greater leg strength required for fell running. Again fell running has very specific demands. So a trained road runner wouldn't necessarily perform on the fells and vice versa.

Finally, don't ignore or discount personal experience. if it works for you stick with it. I've found that, for me, single-speed mountain biking compliments fell running well so that's what I do.
__________________

This thread is interesting.I would love to see a breakdown of Jebbys training diary.I am currently trying to balance the two disciplines this year,competing in the British mtb champs and throwing in the odd fell run ( only about 10 this year).I want to do some Triathlons again next year and will spend the winter on my swimming.

One problem i find trying to do more than one discipline is that you never think you are specifically doing enough on any one part.

A Question for Nikalas and others...

I have been thinking of changing training to have a bias towards one area on set weeks. For example over a 3 week period

week 1, 4 days running,2 days cycle
week 2, 4 days cycle,2 days run
week 3, 3 days cycle,3 days run

Possibly followed by an easy week,2days run,2days cycle
I'm hoping a good week on one discipline will be more beneficial than just doing bits a week.Time will tell i guess :)

this is pretty much what Im going to experiment with. be intrested to hear how it goes for you. keep us posted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboTom

No its not, waste of time. much better to work on the core. Cycle for fun but dont see it as a worthy accompniment over swimming or just the gym

---

Do you even know how to ride a bike? You need a strong 'core' as those fashionable pilates types call it, to ride a bike properly and riding a bike properly works the core muscles...

Interesting for me... as I will be juggling fell running and cycling next season.

I started off being a road runner, then became a fell runner when I moved to the Black Mountains a couple of years back. I started cycling this season, because I got injured and could not run.

I focussed exclusively on cycling from December last year until about now, as I could not run for about 6-7 months. After that I found it hard to get back into running because I love riding the bike so much...

My findings: I started cycling on fell runners legs and the coach and trainer from the club I joined were very impressed. I subsequently started running again after 6-7 months of exclusively cycling and found the running very hard to begin with. Now that I am back into it, I find I have the aerobic and anaerobic fitness for it, as well as the leg strength, especially to run uphill, but I have completely lost my speed :eek:

While converting from running to cycling, I clearly had the endurance and aerobic and anaerobic fitness but did not have the leg strength at all to power the bike at any remotely acceptable speed...

My simplistic conclusion after focussing on racing the bike this season is that it is easier to convert from cycling to fell running than it is the other way around. I needed to put in a lot of hard work to get myself up to scratch on the bike, but am very quickly getting back into a reasonable running form.

Next year I am hoping to combine fell running and cycling, racing in boths disciplines, but am unsure how to combine the two. I can't help but feel that, in order to give myself a good chance in either, I should just focus on one.

Any thoughts on how to combine training and racing both on the fells and on a bike? Oh and I am talking road racing on the bike, not off road...

i see cycling as nmore of a substitute as with John Brown but i believe (opinion here not fact) that swimming is more beneficial. This may be because i am good at swimming, i enjoy it more or it does actually help. All i know is that my times are tumbling down and im starting to take minutes of PBs and i put it all down to swimming and core work. whereas last year i had a bit of a cycling buzz and just flat flat all the time again it may just be me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboTom

i see cycling as nmore of a substitute as with John Brown but i believe (opinion here not fact) that swimming is more beneficial. This may be because i am good at swimming, i enjoy it more or it does actually help. All i know is that my times are tumbling down and im starting to take minutes of PBs and i put it all down to swimming and core work. whereas last year i had a bit of a cycling buzz and just flat flat all the time again it may just be me

---

Tom you're at an age where your body's still developing and getting stronger. Your pbs might have improved irrespective of whether you are swimming or cycling or neither

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Tom you're at an age where your body's still developing and getting stronger. Your pbs might have improved irrespective of whether you are swimming or cycling or neither

---

Not grown for 2 years though.
I suppose i have also tripled my general training as well

What! i dont think you an compare swimming and cycling in terms of benifits for running! for a start i think you first have to be a very good swimmer to get any cardio benifits from it! also yer maybe ok for the core but i dont think it really works the quads/calfs that much, maybe breaststroke more than front crawl. In comparison cycling is great for running especially fell running! it works the quads no end! also have a think about how many of the top guys use it;
jebby!
andy peace
jim davies
ben barnsley
ian holmes has done 3peaks cyclox so must do some training!
read in profiles in fell runner simon bailey, simon booth, scoffa, rob hope, ricky lightfoot.... all the saab salomon team as far as im aware! doesnt do al brownlee any harm!
Hey and look at how well Nick craig does in results!

dont think you can argue with that evidence

Ben Barnsley, cyclox:confused:
Totally agree eddy, cycling beats swimming as a compliment to running, young Tom is one chip short of a buttie sometimes, still love 'im though:D

sorry didnt mean he'd done any cyclox just cycling in general saying that would be good to see how he'd do! look at his fred witton times and a veryyy good mtb'er

As i said its in my opinion. Maybe fellrunners do prefer cycling but then again unless some of them try swimming then we will never know.What about all 3 perfect mix look at Alistair Brownlee.

Cheers ML

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steadyeddy

sorry didnt mean he'd done any cyclox just cycling in general saying that would be good to see how he'd do! look at his fred witton times and a veryyy good mtb'er

---

Don't apologise mate, just taking the rip out of your spelling;)
Ben Bardsley has done the 3ppp's cyclocross and posted a good time. Hell of a fellrunner and mtb'er as well, apologies to you eddy for mocking your spelling:)

Ben Bardsley, 21st in 2003 3ppp's cyclcross and doing it this year as well.
http://www.ukresults.net/2003/3peaks.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Fowler

No, dont.

Cyclings quality for going along side running.

---

Agree, cycling is less traumatic on the joints and works your Glutes more than running i find, also good for laying off your calves whilst working the rest.

And lest we forget the adrenaline and dopamine rushes associated with speed!

I've been getting into fell running this year after doing years of MTB, and have found the transition quite smooth really. I would definitely say MTB has gone a long way to help me jump straight into fell running, and will continue to use MTB alongside fell running as part of my training.

As for swimming, i just hope to get into the pool as and when, but its for sure my 3rd choice of training.

I Cycle a good 150 miles a week and run only about 40 just now. I personally found cycling has helped me no end with my running.

I'm not sure how some people think cycling doesn't work your core muscles :confused: i beg to differ, since upping my cycling i can do many more dorsal raises at the gym and crunches no bother. :cool:

Best of all - the variation is nice -everyone should be a lean mean cycling machine :)

it helps but if you want to run faster then just running is the way,cheaper aswell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fleeter

it helps but if you want to run faster then just running is the way,cheaper aswell

---

True mate, want to run faster, just run faster, losing weight helps an all, take it from this slimmed down fattock;)

I've recently returned to cycling from fell running and orienteering. I've never been a brilliant runner but I've been respectable. Of course with all sport really to achieve your best you need to focus on specificity. In a previous life I was a Pro Elite Mountain biker and then wouldn't have dreamt of doing anything other than cycling cos within the training schedule there were no 'spare' sessions.
I understand that runners tend to benefit from cycling but I'm not sure about the other way round. I know that the likes of Nick Craig(road and MTB rider pro) is making great headway into the world of running but I suspect as a talented athlete he would possibly do well any way.

The main problem from a cycling point of view is that running shreds the legs and so getting the combination of cycling high quality and easier sessions gets tricky. Basically you seem to loose the high end sessions cos you are not getting enough recovery. No high end means no leg speed so its very difficult. Guess you have to make a decision about priorities.

This winter I'm going to focus on cycling but still want to continue running once a week off road cos I love it. I plan to replace a cycling medium endurance session with a Macc' head torch run yet still achieve a level 3 cycling session plus bike intervals on the turbo.Around this I want to do a 2hr steady state bike ride with a long ride on Sunday.

I'm hoping that this will keep my leg speed on the bike so I can compete well but clearly without similar sessions running I will not be running fast.

So that's my idea with a big focus on cycling. I'd be interested to hear what others are doing and recovering from.

Julie:cool:

it seems the general consensus is that some cycling can be beneficial but not necessarily the other way round. which i'm very pleased about-currently trying to devise a 'training' plan but not wanting to give up my bike.

personally, i've found that riding single speed off road has really helped not only with my leg strength but also my core/back strength. so, if cycling could replace a running session, what would be most useful- speed/intervals or long?

V interesting article in this weeks cycling weekly about this. I get a bit lax about cycling as soon as the dark nights arrive but it has inspired me to get the turbo trainer set up again. :)

My turbo is set up and gets used.
Since the knee opp I aim to do the following per week:-

Hill session running 30-40 mins
Hilly bike ride 60 mins (turbo in extreme weather)
Fast tempo run 20-30 mins
Fast turbo 30-40 mins HR zone 4/5
Long bike 2hr+
Long run 90mins+

This will carry on up till Christmas when I hope I will be able to up it a bit in order to get back to racing.

I also have started the 200 sit-up challenge to help with the core and back strengthening.