Biking Shortening Hamstrings?

I've noticed when running downhill my hamstrings have been feeling tight; I stretch after the run but the tightness remains for a couple of days after.

I've only really noticed the tightness as my running mileage has dropped off.
I'm thinking that the biking might be causing the hamstrings to shorten.
The hamstring never seems to fully extend on the bike although I'm pretty certain my seat height is set ok. I haven't changed anything on the bike.

Hoping some of the cyclists on here can help me out?

You're most likely right in your conclusion....

I do more cycling than running and rely on a bit of yoga to keep my body balanced and supple. If I neglect em I start feeling tight and painful.

A few careful simple stretches, done regularily, will have you feeling great in no time :)

Pilates is good too :D:D

Yes, cycling does shorten the hamstrings... so plenty of stretching after a ride to counteract that. Also, ride at a high cadence, so that the hamstrings and quads don't bulk up too much... riding at a higher cadence is better x-training for running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Highy

I've noticed when running downhill my hamstrings have been feeling tight; I stretch after the run but the tightness remains for a couple of days after.

I've only really noticed the tightness as my running mileage has dropped off.
I'm thinking that the biking might be causing the hamstrings to shorten.
The hamstring never seems to fully extend on the bike although I'm pretty certain my seat height is set ok. I haven't changed anything on the bike.

Hoping some of the cyclists on here can help me out?

---

If your hamstrings had shortened you wouldn't be able to stand straight. This is because the Hamstring muscles would be pulling on their connective tendons.

Since the tendons don't contain elastic tissue, any shortness in the muscles couldn't be taken up as slack in them. Therefore the shortness would be conveyed to the associated body part causing movement.

The hamstrings cause movement in several ways. By moving the foot towards your buttocks; drawing the leg behind the body(in combination with the buttock muscles); or if you touch your toes, straightening you up again.

In cycling the leg is never drawn behind the body like in running. So the hamstrings don't get trained through this additional movement.

If you run less and cycle more, some detraining will occur in the hamstrings, through this range of motion, and it's likely that this is causing your stiffness. In the same way as if you'd taken a break from running and then came back to it.

when i was on big cycle and running milage i found i had to stretch my hamstrings and calfs more, i also did a lot more striding out to extend my leg length,i found this helped a lot.
now i cycle and run less milage,i have increased the quality of speed work on both,tweaking more on the pedals and striding out before and after speed work,of course along with stretching.
you twiddle till you find what works.
good luck and give us feedback

Cheers for the replies,

I have neglected stretching really, most of my biking and some of my running tends to be commuting so I get out the door and just bike or run, pretty much the same at the other end.

I've been trying the stretches after biking for the last couple of days (to the amusement of my colleagues!), going for a run later - I'll see if the hamstrings are any easier.

Quote:

---

Also, ride at a high cadence, so that the hamstrings and quads don't bulk up too much... riding at a higher cadence is better x-training for running.

---

What would you consider a high cadence - I reckon I ride about 80/min at the moment - is that high enough?

I read somewhere that 80-100 rpm is the most "efficient" way to cycle. At 100 I feel as if I'm about to throw myself off the bike, so I aim for 80ish. The link below is interesting but, as usual for me, overcomplicated!

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...-matters-16394
Interestingly, a Japanese group [3] studying ‘college-aged cyclists’ found that the cadence with the lowest oxygen cost (VO2) was not the same as that producing the lowest muscular fatigue. Measuring the electrical activity of cycling specific muscles, called an electromyogram (EMG), they found 80-90 rpm had significantly lower EMG activity than any other cadence (70rpm, 100rpm) [3].
However, the lowest amount of oxygen was used when pedalling at 60-70rpm, significantly less than 80-100rpm [3]. So, muscles have better neural efficiency when spinning, but this increases oxygen cost. To what extent these can be further trained is not clear, but the fact that professionals can ride at high cadences for hours and that club-level riders tend to ride in ever lower cadences as they tire, suggests cadence is a vital parameter for training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

IAt 100 I feel as if I'm about to throw myself off the bike, so I aim for 80ish.

---

You need to try riding fixed downhill :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

I read somewhere that 80-100 rpm is the most "efficient" way to cycle. At 100 I feel as if I'm about to throw myself off the bike, so I aim for 80ish. The link below is interesting but, as usual for me, overcomplicated!

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...-matters-16394
Interestingly, a Japanese group [3] studying ‘college-aged cyclists’ found that the cadence with the lowest oxygen cost (VO2) was not the same as that producing the lowest muscular fatigue. Measuring the electrical activity of cycling specific muscles, called an electromyogram (EMG), they found 80-90 rpm had significantly lower EMG activity than any other cadence (70rpm, 100rpm) [3].
However, the lowest amount of oxygen was used when pedalling at 60-70rpm, significantly less than 80-100rpm [3]. So, muscles have better neural efficiency when spinning, but this increases oxygen cost. To what extent these can be further trained is not clear, but the fact that professionals can ride at high cadences for hours and that club-level riders tend to ride in ever lower cadences as they tire, suggests cadence is a vital parameter for training.

---

Good study Marty.It just means that at a set speed, 60-70RPM uses less energy than 80-100. A downside of using the bigger-gear/lower cadence is neuromuscular fatigue.

Well at least I'm assuming the speed was the same. The test would have no meaning otherwise.

I suppose for those biking on a basis of 4-7times a week, 80 RPM,although requiring more energy will least fatigue the nervous system. For once or twice a week riding, lower cadence/bigger gears are better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Good study Marty.It just means that at a set speed, 60-70RPM uses less energy than 80-100. A downside of using the bigger-gear/lower cadence is neuromuscular fatigue.

Well at least I'm assuming the speed was the same. The test would have no meaning otherwise.

I suppose for those biking on a basis of 4-7times a week, 80 RPM,although requiring more energy will least fatigue the nervous system. For once or twice a week riding, lower cadence/bigger gears are better.

---

So in this case the summary is:

If you're looking to develop aerobic fitness, go for 80+. If you're looking to develop muscle strength, go for 60 and a big gear.

Just common sense really!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marty mcfly

So in this case the summary is:

If you're looking to develop aerobic fitness, go for 80+. If you're looking to develop muscle strength, go for 60 and a big gear.

Just common sense really!

---

No Marty.Not necessarily. You'll be able to ride faster with the 60-70RPM at the same V02, according to this study. BUT, this study was probably carried out indoors on a static trainer.

Therefore it cannot be applied to riding on the road. Some of the variables will be different.

The best gear will be the one that requires the least amount of power for the same amount of speed.

Getting the best out of one's riding is a fascinating subject, because unlike running a lot of things can be changed.

I think the UCI and their butcher bike philosophy, has destroyed a lot of innovation in the cycling world. They should have allowed Obree type positions to be advanced, and from this we would have seen some radical designs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david

You need to try riding fixed downhill :D.

---

I get a bit scared at 160+ these days after unshipping the chain :)
http://furious-cycling.fotopic.net/p26128371.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Highy

What would you consider a high cadence - I reckon I ride about 80/min at the moment - is that high enough?

---

For me, riding at high cadence is riding at anything higher than 90... I typically ride at 95 rpm and 35 km/hr on the flat and try to maintain that cadence when I have to climb. This means I tend to slow down uphill, but as I predominantly ride on cadence, I don't mind that. Trying to maintain an even, high cadence seems to work best for me.

Just looked at that fixie with the wrapped around chain... auch!

I can't contemplate riding fixed in the hills here, I only ride fixed on the track... and that is scary enough. Mind you, I haven't come a cropper yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I think the UCI and their butcher bike philosophy, has destroyed a lot of innovation in the cycling world. They should have allowed Obree type positions to be advanced, and from this we would have seen some radical designs.

---

Bike technology is still advancing with the pro peleton being the testing ground - composite materials, electronic gear change, frame design, clothing design. Bike racing has got to have uniformaty to allow for an equal playing field - for radical innovation look at the world man powered land speed record machines - I think the geometory and weight guidlines laid down on competition machines are neccesary and the weight guidlines do move with the times, 6.8KG currently which is reviewed and has not always been such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idler

I get a bit scared at 160+ these days after unshipping the chain :)

---

Had a cadence sensor on a fixed I used to have and clocked 182 with a 67" gear - it hurt a lot! Also had a lock up without a chain breakage which would have made a great clip for You Tube - 30 yard upright skid managing to stay on. Brett rescued me from the pain of fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Highy

I've noticed when running downhill my hamstrings have been feeling tight; I stretch after the run but the tightness remains for a couple of days after.

I've only really noticed the tightness as my running mileage has dropped off.
I'm thinking that the biking might be causing the hamstrings to shorten.
The hamstring never seems to fully extend on the bike although I'm pretty certain my seat height is set ok. I haven't changed anything on the bike.

Hoping some of the cyclists on here can help me out?

---

Stand at the bottom of the stairs , put either foot on the bottom step , pull your foot upwards and feel your hamstring pulling.
Are you sure your seat is not to far forward?

do you stand at the bottom of the stairs while seated on the bike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ady In Accy

Bike technology is still advancing with the pro peleton being the testing ground - composite materials, electronic gear change, frame design, clothing design. Bike racing has got to have uniformaty to allow for an equal playing field - for radical innovation look at the world man powered land speed record machines - I think the geometory and weight guidlines laid down on competition machines are neccesary and the weight guidlines do move with the times, 6.8KG currently which is reviewed and has not always been such.

---

Bike racing would have uniformity by allowing people to use what they like, under the definition of 'bicycle.' You say the guidelines are 'necessary' then you say the weight guidelines move with the times. In other words there's no necessity about it.

What difference will having a £6000(I could buy a motorbike for that much)carbon fibre bicycle make, when you can't change your position to one that suits you.

The butcher bike mentality is all about conformity, and that's why bike design is boring. Thou shalt have thee saddle 0.01mm behind the bottom bracket, and thou must not movest one's bum off the seat because, if thou doest, thou will be disqualified.

It's getting worse than formula one, where "nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, the needle returns to the start of the song, and we all sing along like before."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylan

do you stand at the bottom of the stairs while seated on the bike?

---

nope thats why i said stand

One,two, three...and nothing ever happens......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FggdVPLDFMQ

Quote:

---

Stand at the bottom of the stairs , put either foot on the bottom step , pull your foot upwards and feel your hamstring pulling.
Are you sure your seat is not to far forward?

---

Thanks Daz, I'll try that.

Seemed less tight yesterday when I ran and afterwards - I think that could be more to do with the stretches than having upped the revs on the bike, which I'm finding difficult to maintain. I seem to settle down to a natural cadence if there is such a thing and have to make an effort to pick the revs up again.

How do I check to see if the seat is to far forward? - it's almost at the back of the seat rails as it is.

Quote:

---

Had a cadence sensor on a fixed I used to have and clocked 182 with a 67" gear - it hurt a lot!

---

flippin eck Ady!

how fast was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Bike racing would have uniformity by allowing people to use what they like, under the definition of 'bicycle.' You say the guidelines are 'necessary' then you say the weight guidelines move with the times. In other words there's no necessity about it.

It's getting worse than formula one, where "nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, the needle returns to the start of the song, and we all sing along like before."

---

UCI regs create a level playing field and allow for new technology and developments within their guidelines. A bicycle within racing is as defined by the UCI. A weight limit of 30 years ago would not be relevent now which is why the guidlines have moved on.
I prefer the Del Amitri version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Highy

flippin eck Ady!

how fast was that?

---

It was only the cadence reading that stood out, can't remember the speed. I was with 6 other guys on geared bikes on the Sunday run and they got away on the descent down into Bentham and I didn't catch up until the A683. There is a fixed gear calculator on the Sheldon site where these things can be worked out given the gear and wheel size.

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

I always fancied getting 200rpm (before I got the fear that is!). On a 69" that works out just over 40mph, so should be entirely possible. Just not by me.

Although funnily enough I find it easier to really spin at the bottom of shallower hills than in the middle of really steep hills.

Been doing the stretches for a week now along with biking in a lower gear.

The hamstrings seem less tight as a result, thanks for the advice.

Off to Lakes for a week, guess that's when I'm really going to find out if it's made a difference.

Still interested in knowing how to check if my seat's too far forward - can somebody tell me how to check please?

A plumline from your knee when the pedals are at 90 decs should drop through the BB
its a old way but it works for some folk
:confused:

Ask Sheldon. That page also contains a link to this interesting article by Keith Bontrager. The conventional wisdom is that the knee should be directly over the pedal spindle when the cranks are horizontal but Keith argues against that.

Thanks for the link Nobbut

Some good bike related stuff there - not sure about the dodgy beard though!

Plenty of innovation going on in design of triathlon specific bikes that are outside of the tape measures and blazers of the UCI. Good article on www.slowtwitch.com on aerodynamics/bike positioning of the top guys at Kona this year.

Fixed wise, have hit the magic 200rpm on a 72" gear coming off the Cat and Fiddle into Buxton... pretty scary!

i find it hard to motivate myself to take the time stretching, but now i cycle to work every day i do my stretching after i have clocked in, it seems a lot easier knowing your being paid for it

Stretch Stretch then some more !!
you will be as a supple as a bag of worms
Done me a world of good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fellboy

i find it hard to motivate myself to take the time stretching, but now i cycle to work every day i do my stretching after i have clocked in, it seems a lot easier knowing your being paid for it

---

Haha! Same here. I also get paid to have a shower!

Done 2300 mile on bike in 138 efforts
Done 220 mile run/racing in 67 efforts

Last week my R hamstring went tight and stretching eased it, today my Left forced me to stop jogging.

Is it too much time on the bike and not enough stretching? 1st time ever suffered with Hammie problems.

PS I did have a professional bike fitting last January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

Is it too much time on the bike and not enough stretching? 1st time ever suffered with Hammie problems.

---

Could be. I had a similar problem 10 years ago. I walked from Land's End ot John o'Groats, & was obviously pretty fit by the end of it. First time I went running afterwards, trying to get back into running again, I pulled a hamstring & was out of running for the rest of the year. Physio said it was because they had shortened with the intensive walking.

Basically why cyclo-cross is such a tough discipline, if you're aiming to be in the top league.