|Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||Boise100|
Nov 26, 2003 2:28 PM
|I found out the hard way that being in shape for cycling doesn't translate into running skills. After a 10 mile run, I am feeling muscles that I didn't know I had!
I consider myself a competent cycling putting in about 100~150 miles a week on the road or on the rollers. But damn, I had absolutly no idea that running was so unique.
Would running help with cycling or are they totally diffrent muscle groups? I'm thinking it would help develop calf muscles and aerobic capacity.
Anyone with running experience have any thoughts on this?
|I have a thought||rdbike|
Nov 26, 2003 2:40 PM
|I am 41, 5'11/180lbs and have always put the road bike second to running. Out of no where, I got a stress fracture in my right paw to be followed up with a tear in some calf muscle I can't pronounce.(and I am in the orthopaedic implant business). Long story short, I clipped in for the last 6 months and have kept more wieght down with no injuries. My resting HR has gone down a full 10 bpm. Last month I stepped up to the plate and bought a new Ciocc and put the Specialized Allez on the indoor trainer. I am sold.|
|Now you know how I felt when I switched to cycling....||Cory|
Nov 26, 2003 2:55 PM
|I ran 40-70 miles a week for years, but as I got into my late 40s, my knees started to hurt. I'd cycled a little in college, and just sort of eased back into it.
It uses different muscle groups, that's for sure. It's no wonder you're sore. On the other hand, 10 miles is a pretty long run, farther than most "fitness" runners go on a regular basis. You can stay in decent shape doing 20 miles a WEEK.
As for transfer of ability from one sport to another...I never really saw much. The cardio fitness carries over, of course, and running hills sort of compares to cycling in that your legs go up and down. But when I switched abruptly from one to another, which I did for a couple of years, I was always lousy at the new one. Makes a nice break, though, in the off season.
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||globalhelipimp|
Nov 26, 2003 3:02 PM
|Was this your first time running? If so, starting out with
10 miles is WAY too much. When I did cross-country in high
school (I'm almost 20 now, fyi), we wouldn't do ten miles
until a few weeks into our training regiment; and most of
us were fairly experienced runners.
Running puts much more impact and stress on the body versus
biking. If you're thinking about keeping up the running,
I'd definitely step down your mileage. You should be tired
after you run, but not hurting in the days to come, or
injury is bound to follow. Start off slow, maybe 4 miles
3x/wk and see how your body feels.
My knees weren't ever that great, and running always seemed
make everything worse. I started biking this summer and
haven't had an injury since; no complaints here, and my
body is happy, too.
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||ukiahb|
Nov 26, 2003 4:08 PM
|I took up running this year and it has made me much stronger on the bike (and about 10 lbs. lighter). The common wisdom is that running improves cycling performance much more than vice-versa, and this has been my experience. Running also works well when my time is limited...a half hour run feels like a good workout, and it takes me 2-3 times as long cycling to get the same effect|
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||pedalruns|
Nov 26, 2003 4:44 PM
|I'm a long time cyclist.. used to race years ago.. and after boredom gave running a try a few years ago, and 3 marathons later I'm done running! I qualified and ran the Boston in April.
And if you started out on a 10 mile run that is WAY, WAY too much..
I think running is much harder on your body... I'm not running now due to a sore hamstring.. But I do think the running helped my cycling.. After years of cycling I was good at going over my max, recovering and repeat... running taught me better how to stay at a steady pace.. Alot of my long runs were very slow and I think this really helped my endurance...
And it is a nice break from the bike in the winter, much easier to run in the cold, and when Spring rolls around your much more fresh for hard road rides...
If you do want to run, you must start very slow and build up the miles..
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||Boise100|
Nov 27, 2003 4:22 PM
|Yes, even ther person I was running with told me that 10 miles was way to much but my ignorant self brushed it off because I thought I could do alright (dumb I know).
Well it's the next day and my legs are still sore but I am looking forward to giving it another go just as soon as I can walk again.
I really has a good time doing it and can see many of the benifits...
1) shorter workout time.
2) cardio workout is high.
3) calories / hour burned is high.
4) better leg definition.
5) easier on really cold days than cycling.
|reasons to run||litespeedchick|
Nov 28, 2003 5:26 AM
|You listed 5 great reasons to run. Here's one more.
If you are on a trip without your bike, whether business or pleasure, it really gives you a great way to get in a workout.
For example: When my husband and I were in Paris last year we both wanted to work out in the mornings. He had to find a gym with a stationary bike, pay 30 Euro to get in, and ride through the boredom. I ran through the Jardin du Luxembourg and mingled spectacular sightseeing with my workout.
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||dgangi|
Nov 27, 2003 9:28 PM
|Wow...10 miles is WAY too much for somebody to attempt if they are not accustomed to running. Very different muscle groups are used (as opposed to biking) in addition to exposing the body to stresses it is not used to. You are quite lucky that you didn't injure yourself, particularly your achille's tendon.
I do both - run and bike - and I find it is a nice mix of sports. On some days I do not feel like biking or do not have the time and a 1 hour run is just the ticket. Running consumes much more calories/hr than biking, so a 1 hour run is equivalent to almost twice that on a bike. And running is much more tolerable on cold mornings.
Don't listen to some of the naysayers on this board that think any exercise other than road biking is a waste of energy. Running is a great sport and will defintely help you reach your fitness goals. As you found out, only concentrating on one sport makes your body very one-sided. Besides, when is the last time you saw an avid runner who was overweight? Running is probably the best sport for keeping your body weight down.
|re: Took up running...thought I'd do much better...||lemonlime|
Nov 28, 2003 1:20 AM
|Running is nearly hands-down the best for your fitness level. Yes, it can be hard on your knees, but with good shoes and if necessary, orthotics, most knee worries can be alleviated.
It's also relatively cheap. I spend about $200 dollars a year on running shoes (1200-1500 miles) plus maybe another $100 on body glide and shorts/shirts/socks,
Be super careful with that mileage at first. Give your legs several days off before you go out for an easy run, say, three miles at about 7:15 pace. Good luck!
|it's not totally different muscle groups||Sao|
Nov 28, 2003 3:17 PM
|You use your legs, especially your calves, for both. If you live in a hilly area, you'll be surprised how much cycling helps you run uphill faster. They are both good cardiovascular activities. I do both and find they complement each other quite well, i.e., I was off the bike for almost two months last year while I trained for a marathon, and was able to hop on and ride 50 miles with little added difficulty.
True, they accentuate slightly different groups of muscles, but I don't think they are that wildly different and it's pretty much a wash as far as calories burned. As a sidenote - cyclists' legs tend to resemble those of a sprinter more than a marathoner which is probably a more specifically accurate comparison to make (except for the added c-v benefit you get from distance cycling).