Due to work being hectic at the moment and taking up a lot of spare time, the opportunities I have to run mid week are becoming more and more minimal, hence the increased turbo sessions. A number of people do ask can you supplement cycling for running? Well ...
Benefits of cycling?
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 tough turbo sessions when I can't run 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.
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.
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 tough turbo sessions when I can't run 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.
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.
FRA Forums - Training
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave comments here -