Training & Nutrition - running bad for cycling?

i have read that running long distances destroy leg muscles, so wouldn't that be bad for cycling?

It doesn't seem to hurt this guy.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo124/sandyb316/LanceArmstrongRunning.jpg

(Disclaimer: I am neither gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) nor a big Lance fan. I just dig using running to stay tough in the off season)

It doesn't seem to hurt this guy.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo124/sandyb316/LanceArmstrongRunning.jpg

(Disclaimer: I am neither gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) nor a big Lance fan. I just dig using running to stay tough in the off season)



lets not worry about what lance does for once and think about the science....

I don't think that there is any exercise that "destroys" anything. Face it, it's just exercise. You do it, and then you rest and recover. If your muscles get destroyed, either you didn't rest enough, or you overdid the exercise part and injured yourself.

I think that running is great exercise for cyclists. It's enough impact so that you strengthen your bones, and you also get the endurance buzz. It develops a powerful "levering" action in your ankles which helps your pedaling. A short jog is a great core warm-up for off-season weight/resistance work outs.

It doesn't seem to hurt this guy.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo124/sandyb316/LanceArmstrongRunning.jpg

(Disclaimer: I am neither gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) nor a big Lance fan. I just dig using running to stay tough in the off season)


I just want to look at this picture again:love:

http://www.jasonshields.org/yahoo_site_admin1/assets/images/Marathon_Runner.21071750_std.jpg

vs

http://www.treehugger.com/Cycling_BikeRace01.JPG


it just makes me think.....

It uses different leg muscles, but it certainly doesn't destroy them. If anything, it'll increase your aerobic capacity, which is generally considered a good thing for cycling.

I know an absolute animal cyclist who is 55yo and only riding for 4yrs.
He had been a marathon runner. He has exceptional aerobic capacity, super lean body mass and can fly up hills like a pro. (guy competes in Masters races and is always in contention. These are more competitive than Cat 3's)

I would say a properly designed running fitness program can help (as long as you don't run in a way to injure/wear down your knees or back) but assuming that your training time is limited, why run when you can ride?

Well elite distance runners have to be very thin to be competitive. So that might be what you are thinking about.

For an ordinary mortal, I think going out of a short run would probably help one's cycling. Of course, cycling is better training for cycling than running.

After doing both for decades, I find the aerobic workout of running definitely boosts my maximum power output while riding- if I've been down on running mileage I find myself getting winded during long climbs on the bike. I find it's good cross training.

Most of the (non-injured) people who insist that running would "hurt" their cycling are just lazy farts.

There's a potential big difference between running and cycling as to amount of force absorbed by knees, so the results and any damage would vary by individual. Some strengthening may be required before beginning a serious running program. For a couple of decades I had no problem both running and cycling; then near 40-ish found that I couldn't do both in the same season, so alternated. A few years ago I found the mechanics of the two activities to degrade performance for both, and just decided I enjoyed cycling more.

As a recreational (that is, totally non-competitive) cyclist who took up running this winter, running improved my aerobic capacity but it didn't do much to help my biking muscle development. I'm still just as slow riding up hills post-running as I am pre-running. I don't think that the running has done damage at all - maybe the only issue is that I push myself to do both a couple of times a week where I'd be better-off with an extra rest day or two.

I do both. I've cycled for many years, and started running a couple of years ago. I agree, the running definately boosts your resperatory system, and I feel both sports compliment each other. They use different muscles, so you end up with a more well rounded set of legs.

I've recently gone from racing marathons do racing tris, and working hard on the bike.

Running is outstanding for developing aerobic endurance; I've seen some studies showing that it's actually easier for most folks to hit a higher HRmax on running vs cycling due to more muscles being recruited on the run. This will help for long pulls on the bike - when I started cycling with a Cat5-4 racing group, with ZERO road bike experience, I was fast enough to keep up with the front of the pack on all terrains.

Where running falters in terms of cycling, is the amount of strength/power you need to generate to go FAST or climb big hills. Running, even at a very fast pace, doesn't require sustained quad power, and demands more from the aerobic capacity. I could run 7min/mile on marathons and sub-6min/mile on 5ks, but my quads would get toasted on the bike way before my aerobic capacity was taxed when I started. While running uses a greater # of muscles, cycling really demands a lot from mainly the quads, and this will generally be the limiting factor for accomplished runners who switch to bike - all those runner calves and hams aren't a big factor on the bike.

Of course, if you have both the quad power and aerobic capacity, you'll be super strong on the bike.

Interestingly as well, I've noticed that all the bike climbing I've been doing (I do a LOT of climbing on the wknds) really helps my hill running - to the point that I'm dramatically better on hills versus flats/downhills compared to my fellow competitors on the run. I think hill running/hill biking share much more in common than flat training for both.

[QUOTE=agarose2000;8457397]Where running falters in terms of cycling, is the amount of strength/power you need to generate to go FAST or climb big hills. Running, even at a very fast pace, doesn't require sustained quad power, and demands more from the aerobic capacity. I could run 7min/mile on marathons and sub-6min/mile on 5ks, but my quads would get toasted on the bike way before my aerobic capacity was taxed when I started. While running uses a greater # of muscles, cycling really demands a lot from mainly the quads, and this will generally be the limiting factor for accomplished runners who switch to bike - all those runner calves and hams aren't a big factor on the bike.

Of course, if you have both the quad power and aerobic capacity, you'll be super strong on the bike./QUOTE]

Most of us that make that switch found sore hip flexors as the problem

i have read that running long distances destroy leg muscles, so wouldn't that be bad for cycling? Whenever you perform any activity the body reacts to that activity.

When people pay attention to an activity, and use a system of work and rest to get their body used to doing the activity, it is called training.

If you perform an activity without paying attention and hurt yourself - it's called an injury. When running long distances, if you pay attention and use a training system you will not hurt your muscles, nor your cycling. In you don't pay attention - then you will destroy parts on your muscles and become injured.

I hoped you paid attention to this post!