Benefits of cycling?

[TimW]

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.

[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?

[CL]

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!

[CL]

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.

[TimW]

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

[CL]

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!

[SLovatt]

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.

[TurboTom]

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

[Al Fowler]

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.

[TurboTom]

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