Training & Nutrition - an hour and a half --- bike or run

I want to be a better cyclist. The problem is finding time to ride. Because of evening commitments I can't ride some nights of the week. I can take about 1 1/2 hours for lunch, which means I can either run or I can ride, but after changing, then eating after, I can only ride about 15 miles. Is this short of a ride doing any good, or would I be better off running?

Yes, 15 miles is better than 0! Do some intervals.

I would cross train!! Great for the body and the cardiovasular endurance from running will definitely carry over to your cycling!

Your stated goal is to be a better cyclist, nota better runner or to have better overall fitness. So ride. Consider intervals, short, hard hilly routes, and really beautiful places that you'll really have to work to get to in time!

Your stated goal is to be a better cyclist, nota better runner or to have better overall fitness. So ride. Consider intervals, short, hard hilly routes, and really beautiful places that you'll really have to work to get to in time!


Well, my primary goal is to be a better cyclist, but I'm not in perfect shape, my goal is to lose 10+ pounds this summer. I assume that dropping weight will help me ride better.

I would stay with biking. I'd focus on time trialing for a best distance in 60 minutes, switch it up with interval trainings. Running is just too hard on the joints.

I do exactly this workout, alternating activities. I will do one or two runs per week during lunch of 4 miles. Other days, I bring my bike to work and have created a 13 mile loop with some small climbs. At least once a week, I do the loop as a speed run, trying my best to improve speed/time, notwithstanding the traffic lights! This makes it more interesting and fun. When I finish the cardio portions, run or bike, I do stretching and abs before hitting the shower. Given my time constraints, this works well. Now that the days are longer, I will commute to work regularly on my bike so that counts as a workout.

Sheldon

Again, my opinion, but I would reccomend throwing in some runs. You will lose more weight with the running, and further running helps build bone mass which cycling does not. I would also second the attempting to throw in a bike commute now and then. Bike commuting does not have to be an either/or solution, on days you drive in bring in some work clothes, then on days you ride you can do your commute and a lunch ride. Your metabolism will be up all day with 3 rides in one day, at least I know mine is when I do this routine.

Good luck and remember to bring in good snacks so you don't get tempted by the office food.

-Marcus.

A few years ago I belonged to a group of noon time riders that had a 12 mile loop. The group ranged from 2 to 6 depending on who could get free. We all raced at the time so these would be our hammer rides. We would TTT the loop or occasionally do intervals or practice group sprinting. In any case these were definitely fitness rides!!

Again, my opinion, but I would reccomend throwing in some runs. You will lose more weight with the running, and further running helps build bone mass which cycling does not. -Marcus.

I find this too. I have trouble losing those "extra" pounds by just bicycling, but I find that I lose weight quickly when running. And if I can lose five pounds I really feel that transfers over to extra power when bicycling.

Running = 100 calories per mile roughly.
Bicycling = 90
Swimming = 79.

Based off what your saying, it would appear that some type of cross training, 3 days bike, 2 days running would rock.

On the run, try to make sure you've got good shoes, they make a difference on joints. Try to run on grass or dirt, not streets if your really worried about joint issues.

Do the run/walk - Its basically run a mile, then walk for 1 minute, then run another mile, etc - for 30 minutes. Interval training like this will make you bike better, its worked for me anyhow.

Alternate, run some days, bike others - then find a duathlon to go race in :)

Running = 100 calories per mile roughly.
Bicycling = 90
Swimming = 79.


What what what!?!?!?!

might rethink that swimming number :) Swimming a mile is a butt whipper. More like 790 than 79.

Actually, I've heard from a few sources that cycling is more like 40 calories/mile.

Actually, I've heard from a few sources that cycling is more like 40 calories/mile.
If your really putting the hammer down it might get up to 60 or 70, 40-50/mile would be a normal brisk ride. 90 is an awfully high number.

Swimming a mile would certainly be over 500 calories per mile and a fair bit higher if it is very cool water.

Oh and running, in moderation, on a hard surface is good for bones and joints. Heel strikes are proven to increase bone density.
Padded shoes result in the same leg shock loads as running barefoot. They figure this is because the mind becomes more sensitive to what, and how, the foot is stepping [on], this micro foot placment/adjustment is turned off by shoes. (Thin shoes, aka racing flats, tend to turn off the sensitivity and they don't have cushion.)

Oh and running, in moderation, on a hard surface is good for bones and joints. Heel strikes are proven to increase bone density.

That doesn't explain how it's good for the joints though.




Padded shoes result in the same leg shock loads as running barefoot. They figure this is because the mind becomes more sensitive to what, and how, the foot is stepping [on], this micro foot placment/adjustment is turned off by shoes. (Thin shoes, aka racing flats, tend to turn off the sensitivity and they don't have cushion.)

Can you re-phrase this? I can't figure out what you're implying here.



Not trying to be a dick, just honestly curious.