bazap

Hey everyone. I am a Division One distance runner but I use cycling as a means of cross training (supplemental) or training (replacement) when I am not running as much.

Recently I bought a Trek 1.2 to do some more cycling and to replace a very old bike I have. Most of my rides average about 17 mph and are about an hour long. HR can get in the range of 140-160 (max HR is about 200, min is 45) I don't have a power meter, just my gps watch. I am not sure what I should be expecting in terms of speed or HR or anything.

During the year when I was at University I would do some cross training on an indoor Wattbike and my steady rides would often come out to 180-190 watts and about 20-22 mph with a HR around 130-150.

I know there is a lot more to deal with on the road with wind and turns and stopping, etc but it just seems like I am going a lot slower and my HR is always higher when cycling outside.

Am I just undertrained on the bike right now or just getting used to cycling outside? Looking for some tips on what to expect

10 Wheels

Outside is the Real World.

Welcome to The Wind, Heat, Dogs and Pot holes.

Carry spare tubes and a method to air them up.

Happy Safe miles to you.

10 Wheels

Get some Bright Lights for Safety if you ride in traffic.

merlinextraligh

If you want to train a bit more scientifically, and you don't have a power meter, you can set your training zones by HR.

To find your Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (or Functional Threshold) warm up, then do a 3 mile time trial as hard as you can go; recover for 5 minutes, and do it again. Take 92% of your average HR for both efforts, and that's your LTHR.

That's the HR you should be able to sustain for a one hour all out effort, and the target HR you'd use for long intervals such 2x20's. Shorter or longer intervals are then done as a larger or smaller percentage of that number.


And forget about the Wattbike. The power on most indoor trainers is crap. At best, it helps in a relative sense comparing efforts over time on the same trainer, but doesn't translate outdoors.

caloso

Yes and yes.

bazap

Based off of that what would be some percentages for things like tempos or easy rides?

mcours2006

You can base that on your own tempo and easy runs.

john_mct

Aside from recommending you read a well reputed book on HR training, I'll add that it does seem to take longer to get into that euphoric "runners high" mental state on a bike. When running long it would hit me around 45 minutes in but on the bike it doesn't seem to hit til an hour and a half or so...

merlinextraligh

Easy ride would be below 80% of LTHR

Endurance 81-89%

Tempo 90-93%

Steady State intervals 94%-100%

VO2 mak work 103% plus.

You'll see different plans using different terms and definitions for different zones but that's kind of the gist.


Below 80% its a recovery ride.

80 -90% its endurance

90-100% you're working on raising threshold power

And above 100% you're working on peak short term power.

merlinextraligh

Problem is HR Zones tend to be higher for running than cycling.

For most people running LTHR is higher than cycling LTHR

So if you want to actually use the HR data you need to do a cycling field test

mcours2006

I've never trained, as a runner, with HR monitor. My tempo runs were based on the 'comfortably hard' rule of thumb, or a hard enough pace at which sustain for no more than an hour.

mcours2006

Are you saying that you can achieve a higher HR max with running than cycling, and hence all the corresponding zones would be higher? Not challenging; genuine question.

merlinextraligh

Yes.

Not entirely sure about max HR, but field tested LTHR it's definitely true for most people.

I've seen it in my own field tests, and its the reason my coach made me test HR separately for running, when I was doing a HR based program.

There's some individual variability here, and may in part depend on your experience and training in each discipline.

Doge

You can be world class on that.

Runners have lots they can apply to cycling. They know how to read their body. A cyclist will develop more leg mass than a LD runner, but outside of racing, the runner has most the tools already.

The fastest kid junior cyclists were/are often the fastest runners. Several junior kid cyclists can do 5 min miles (one I know at age 12).
Later the muscle mass is different as they spend time in the sport.

Doge

I saw that too. Esp in rowing. An efficient cyclist cannot bring the HR as high as a runner. And rowing was nuts how high HR can go. Again, depends a bit on muscle mass and fitness, but a fit roadie normally had more HR beats left when they are going near all out than a runner at the similar effort.

I was seeing stars at 185 riding, and could uncomfortably hold that 2-3 times as long running.

My kid is very measured and could hold 200 for 30 sec riding and 5 min rowing.

mcours2006

I'm not, nor do I aspire to be, nor did I state that I wanted to be. But thanks for the snark!

You probably train like that though, and I'm sure you have some world class credentials to show for that. Good on you, mate!

Doge

No snark intended towards you. What I meant is your method works just fine for any level.

mcours2006

Okay. My misinterpretation on that.

I used to be a regular on Runner's World forum and every month there'd be a heated discussion on the merits of HR training vs perceived exertion. To me adding that technical HR aspect to the training takes some of the enjoyment I had when running. But others like to be able to quantify their progress. I'm not that serious a rider/runner to do that.

Zurichman2

bazap I was never an elite runner. I was a decent runner though in that I use to race @ 6 minutes a mile. For some reason my speed I had running never carried over to the bike. The mental fortitude and endurance it takes to run/race a marathon did. It is different for everybody but for me it takes a 150 mile ride to get the same feeling that I had when I was racing marathons. Hard to believe also but my very first ride coming from the running segment was a 100 mile ride on a heavy Trek 540 touring bike. Yes I was sore for a couple for days after that. If you are using cycling for cross training I would just say go out and enjoy it and don't worry about doing it competitively like you do your running. Just my .02 cents worth.

Zman

evan326

First thing you will notice is the way that cycling uses muscles differently. I took pride as being a strong uphill runner, and having good core and quad strength. When I first started cycling the first thing I noticed were my thighs were so sore. For me, running is much more below the knees and cycling is above the knees as far as muscle use goes. I use cycling as a great way to get my low HR time in. I have a high max HR no matter what, so I could never do an easy run and stay close to 160 or so that I'm supposed to. On my bike I can average less than 150.

Shuffleman

That's a good observation. I typically hit it after about 3-4 miles running. I rarely get the same feeling on a bike. I love riding but running just provides a better sense of euphoria for me.

Doge

I have been looking for data that shows a serious user of a PM will get better than a serious user of some other method without a PM. All the comparisons I see and read are PM vs "couch potato". A disciplined athlete can adopt a number of methods. I have seen - me, wife and kids (3 national class, me - I hate pain) all guess HR and power near the accuracy of electronic devices. How you feel seems to be ignored, and while old-school I think is still the most significant measure of what an athlete should do.
If you are tired - rest and sleep or back off. If you are at altitude - HR will be higher resting and lower performing. Power is not predictable. HR is not predictable.

The HTFU for serious athletes is as stupid as I can think of. That is not how to train.

/Soap Box

mcours2006

I might get some flack for saying this, but for most recreational runners/cyclists, HR training is a bit of an overkill. Simple principles will get you there just as quickly--build up some base, add some threshold training, then short intervals, rest, repeat. Back off if you're feeling sluggish. Go harder if you're feeling good. There was a time not too long ago when we didn't have all this technology. We managed fine.

More elite athletes can make better use of HR training as progress at that level are much harder to come by, so technology may be able to extract some more performance gains.

But I understand that lots of rec athletes use the technology as motivation. It's nice to see the hard numbers, and then analyze it, try to improve on it the next time. I'm not against it. It's just not for me.

jamesdak 

Hmmm, sort of as a side note. In my 20s I mainly just used a bike to recovery from injury. In those days I could hold a low 5 min/mile pace for up to around 10 miles. On thing I noticed was running pace improving a bit after spending time on the bike recovering. I expected to lose pace but gained it on 3 different occasions over around a 3 year period.

dalava

Seems like we have a lot of "used to be" 5mm runners on this board