I'm picking up my old Ribble 653 this weekend and I'm hoping to get out in the hills for a long ride every Sunday to shift a few pounds and improve my climbing.
For those of you who cycle how much do you think it has improved your climbing?
Yes I'm much better up hill now
I'm picking up my old Ribble 653 this weekend and I'm hoping to get out in the hills for a long ride every Sunday to shift a few pounds and improve my climbing.
For those of you who cycle how much do you think it has improved your climbing?
When I did my knee in the summer before last, I used my lead filled, indestructable and squeeky old mountain bike a lot, with some great rides almost all of which required me to cycle up Albert Hill out of Settle to begin with. That hill especially is fantasic for killer quad training on a bike and for sure my thighs felt the burn. Since then though I've probably come to the conclusion that running up steep hills (or walking up really steep hills) is better for improving climbing than cycling up steep hills but the mix is probably good one way or the other.
Seems to work for me, I'm much stronger on the hill than people that leave me for dead on the flat. It's becoming embarrassing, on the flat I mean, not that I'm fast or anything. FWIW I ride fixed more often than not, seems like a good combo.
I'd certainly say cycling is going to help alot.
A couple who run for preston are seriously into their tri's...and after spending a good few months absolutely hammering their training they are not far from actually winning races!!!
But, as my A-level teacher said to us a few years ago....SPECIFIC!
If you want to be good are running up hill....nothing beats actually running up hill.
I got injured in October 2008, quite seriously, as in I could not run for a loooooong time... so in order to not climb the walls, I started riding a bike. It seemed to make a bit of a difference when I tried running again last year, but then stopped running again as it aggravated my injury. This season I have spent on the bike and on the bike alone, racing... and I have just started running again... and was able to run streight to the top of the ridge behind me (600 odd metres) without stopping AND a few minutes faster than I used to be when I ran and raced on the fells almost daily and gtrained for it :-O So I'd say I have definitely become a lot stronger running uphill from the cycling!
Good thread, good news for me as I don't get much chance to get out into the hills and I've just invested in a nice new road bike!
Ive never been into cycling proper, only a bit of fun mountain biking and going to work etc but I found that it had an adverse affect on my running. Although I could tell that my legs were stronger I found that my running times became slower but also my legs tired quicker. I put it down to the fact the cycling was training the muscles in a different way and not one that complimented my running.
For those people who think cycling has helped them...
Did cycling help because the running training you were doing wasn't hilly enough? Or was it beneficial in a way that you weren't able to get from hilly runs?
I apologise for the cut and paste job from the last time a similar discussed but I couldn't be bothered to type it all out again...
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.
I'd say it would help but you need to get the running in aswell. plus do more stretched.
There's a couple of guys who come to our winter road league who are awesome on the hills but pathetic on the flat and descents as they not used to striding out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote