Should a cyclist run ?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I have never run, well I ran as a kid, but never as a way of building aerobic fitness. At 59 years of age I though it might be an idea to do some short runs if not for another reason other than the "use it or loose it" effect of the human condition. So I went eagerly to a grassy track with a friend who is a competition squash player to do some sprint work. Session was fairly easy lasted 30 minutes. Next day I was a little tight in the hamies, Rode the following day, about 40 k into the ride legs gone, looked down to see just blubbering girly legs.

Today the day after the ride I'm still kind of sore. Now before you write a long reply about explosive movement and muscle fibre damage similar to weight training. I'd just like to add, I know all that. But I'm motivated by a deeper understanding of my aging body. And yes, that was a truly dumb thing to do, nevertheless I been coming to terms with a strength imbalance, specifically a weakness, even more precisely, a lack of endurance in my glute meads. Running seem like the best thing to do at this stage. Longer runs than 400 metres maybe a better idea then sprint work.

Anyway the question is … ya think cyclist should run ?

Anyway the question is … ya think cyclist should run ?Yes, but you may need to modify the bike and the riding style.

A more forward 'tri' position and spin at a higher (88-96) cadence, try not to have more than 1-2 minutes from 'off the bike' to running. ;)

Anyway the question is … ya think cyclist should run ?

Running almost certainly will harm your cycling performance, but it may be the right thing to do anyway from a health perspective.

Make sure you ease into it really slowly, like 15min the first day. I was out of town without a bike for a week once when I was still a noob to all things training. I went for an hour run and couldn't even walk for two days afterward even though I didn't think the run stressed me at all.

YMMV

Yes, but you may need to modify the bike and the riding style.

A more forward 'tri' position and spin at a higher (88-96) cadence, try not to have more than 1-2 minutes from 'off the bike' to running. ;)

Thanks for that George, but I'm not a triathlete and haven't the time, inclination or love of water needed to become one.

If your goal is general fitness then its a great idea to mix it up. However just because you are fit at one disclpline, don't expect to be go into another at full tilt, take it easy with the new disclpline and let the body adapt.

Running almost certainly will harm your cycling performance

YMMV

How ?

If your goal is general fitness then its a great idea to mix it up. However just because you are fit at one disclpline, don't expect to be go into another at full tilt, take it easy with the new disclpline and let the body adapt.


No… my goal is to be quicker on the bike. AND not have bits of me wither, die and fall off or ache so bad they keep me awake at night.

How ?

Any time you spend running will take time away from your cycling and provide additional fatigue. Perhaps "harm" was a little strong but it will certainly not help.

A very famous man once wrote: "Rode the following day, about 40 k into the ride legs gone, looked down to see just blubbering girly legs" He was describing a biking session after running.

No… my goal is to be quicker on the bike. AND not have bits of me wither, die and fall off or ache so bad they keep me awake at night.
Edd, I am happy you mentioned your obiejetiv for mixing running and bici. That's how I would cominc had I the question. The answer is rigidly tied to your obiejetiv.

Running is a sport different . It utilize 70% available muscol. Bici, OTOH, (surprize-surprize) uses only 40%. This muscolar disparità (and different training duration) is/are responsabil for different fisic effet on body the two endurance sports provide... Running makes busy both propellant and equilibratura-needed muscols. . Bici -- principally only propellant.. Bici needs both strength and endurance. Aerobic running -- requires endurance only.

Normally, or should I say in maggiority case, running will not render you rapider on bici. It will render one important part of your body fitter -- cardiovascolar system. If your cardio was under-developed by your bici, then running will render you speed.

I ran over a dozen maratons. Some sub 3h. I also like long rides (150 to 200 km) and racing local. My personal conclusion when mixing two sports was that I non-variabilly loss climbing bici strength as I got fitter/addapted running.

Uh (cleaning sweat from my head), this post was difficult :)

The older you are the more important it is to throw in a weight-bearing activity (like running) to minimize bone density loss.
Go ahead and run, it won't ruin your riding. Just do like others have said and start slow.

Good luck.
Lou

italiano has provided a good comparision between endurance running and cycling. Many cyclists consider running evil as its really hard to run if you are a cyclist and the reason for that is that running incorporates muscular activity that isn't required for cycling.

italiano also discusses the important issue of bone densitity. From the age of 35 we loose bone density. To counteract this we need to do impact and/or resistance exercise.

The older you are the more important it is to throw in a weight-bearing activity (like running) to minimize bone density loss.
Go ahead and run, it won't ruin your riding. Just do like others have said and start slow.

Good luck.
Lou

thanks Lou,

I do two 40 min weight sessions a week that have no real relevance to my cycling fitness … to keep up my core and upper body strength … done this for last thirty years.

italiano has provided a good comparision between endurance running and cycling. Many cyclists consider running evil as its really hard to run if you are a cyclist and the reason for that is that running incorporates muscular activity that isn't required for cycling.

italiano also discusses the important issue of bone densitity. From the age of 35 we loose bone density. To counteract this we need to do impact and/or resistance exercise.

Thanks for your input, my bone density is just fine. I've worked in the fitness industry as second job since I was 35. I'm no body builder, but I probably carry more muscle mass than most cyclists, I figure about 6kg. my body fat is lowish, could be lower, and I'm going to drop this, about 4kg.

italiano made a few points that have interesting relevance:
1) if you're running, you're not biking, so this impacts time on the bike.
2) adaptation within the active muscle is different and therefore not helping ones cycling.
3) additional fatigue was also impacting bike training time.
4) his perception that doing marathon length runs made him faster on the bike by improving his fitness but hurt his hill climbing ability.

… now the fitness thing has my interest there is more to this then just ones VO2 max ?

4) his perception that doing marathon length runs made him faster on the bike by improving his fitness but hurt his hill climbing ability.

… now the fitness thing has my interest there is more to this then just ones VO2 max ?


First off, happy new year all.

I would bet that this perception is incorrect. If he were to have ridden at an equivalent intensity level on the bike instead he would have been faster yet and all all aspects of cycling.

I've read that weight training doesn't really do much for bone density. It's really the shock of running and other high impact sports that stimulate bone densification (is that a word?).

I would imagine that if you stick to your weight routine and run maybe 15min a day two or three times a week after a ride you'd have pretty decent "overall fitness" without having it negatively impact your cycling too much.

No. Never run...ever. That is why god created wheels. Don't do it man.

First off, happy new year all.

I would bet that this perception is incorrect. If he were to have ridden at an equivalent intensity level on the bike instead he would have been faster yet and all all aspects of cycling.

I've read that weight training doesn't really do much for bone density. It's really the shock of running and other high impact sports that stimulate bone densification (is that a word?).

I would imagine that if you stick to your weight routine and run maybe 15min a day two or three times a week after a ride you'd have pretty decent "overall fitness" without having it negatively impact your cycling too much.

I'd like to know who wrote that. I have excellent bone density, heavy free squats with a bar bell builds bone density better then any other method of exercise. Running effects the same sort of response due to impact/velosity/increased/mass inertia thing.

… going to start running (moderate jog) 30 min a week just before my Wednesday ride. Still recovering from Friday sprint/Sunday ride. I don't expect this to improve my cycling, however I believe removing aches and pains from my body will have a positive effect on my cycling

I have excellent bone density,

How do you know?



heavy free squats with a bar bell builds bone density better then any other method of exercise. Running effects the same sort of response due to impact/velosity/increased/mass inertia thing.


You seem to sort of contradict yourself in those last two sentences. I'll have to look for some sources for you but weight bearing exercises while improving bone density don't do so nearly as well as say BD drugs or vibrational/impact type of exercises.

How do you know?



You seem to sort of contradict yourself in those last two sentences. I'll have to look for some sources for you but weight bearing exercises while improving bone density don't do so nearly as well as say BD drugs or vibrational/impact type of exercises.Hi beerco, what edd has written is the current thinking in the fitness industry. Like most fitness things there are opposing opinions and I'd be interested to read those papers when you dig them up. Cheers Mike.

How do you know?



You seem to sort of contradict yourself in those last two sentences. I'll have to look for some sources for you but weight bearing exercises while improving bone density don't do so nearly as well as say BD drugs or vibrational/impact type of exercises.

Yeah the fitness industry tends to impose a pseudo complexity to things. The known fact is that if you spend time in weightlessness you loose bone density at an alarming rate, so the opposite may also be true. This might mean a backpacker traveling the world might have the best bone density exercise but no one has tested this !

Yeah the fitness industry tends to impose a pseudo complexity to things.

Just to summarize my position for anyone who's paying attention:

If you're a pro cyclist - you shouldn't run or lift weights until after you retire. The health risk is worth the performance benefit since you make your livelihood racing. Do take calcium supplements though...so long as they don't trigger positives :rolleyes:

If you're an amateur racer - If you're young you can probably skip the weights and running for a while. If you're older, you should consider adding some in simply for health reasons. We all get older.

If you're simply a rec rider - do whatever the heck you want. No ones keeping score at this point. Balance riding, weight lifting, running etc.

p.s. being a combination of lazy and very busy means that you shouldn't wait for me take the time to look up the studies. I looked on pub med briefly and saw that there were some studies which showed an increase in bone density of <10% in healthy young males after weight lifting. I recall reading (but don't have a citation) that the vibrational plate that NASA tested (on sheep though) was much higher than that but I can't find a reference.