Bone density - Running versus weight training for cyclists. Which is better?
 

I'll start that I used to be a gym rat. I loved going to the gym, and pushing heavy weight around. That is until I found cycling and my road bike.

I follow a "time crunched" plan, and compete in a few races per year. What I've noticed is that the cycling has pretty much cannibalized much of my muscle from my once 175lb body down to about 145lb. I feel almost weak when doing anything besides cycling. I'm also concerned about bone density issues being in my mid 30's and participating in such a low impact sport.

My question is, is there a difference between the "impact" of weight lifting and running? I'm concerned about the damages of running(worn out knees, etc) while interested in the benefits of impact training. Should I do both, or just use weight training as my impact training supplement.

I know more time on the bike will make me a better cyclist, but I know I'm no natural talent, and I feel the benefits of a well rounded training regimen far outweigh the specific training results of a 100% bike training regimen in my case.

If you want to look like you are starving to death, stick with cycling. If you want to have some muscle and be strong all over, cycle AND lift weights. Cycling is a great cardio workout and I wouldn't give that up...but you don't have to only cycle. As you get older, the importance of resistance traing increases. Have to keep the muscles active. BUt remember, you can't lift weights at 40 the same way you did at 20. Stuff starts to break.

Just doing cycling isn't enough to maintain a well balanced body. Mix up weight lifting and running. Runninh is espcially good for keeping bone density. Running also won't cause knee damage if you have the proper bio-mechanical alignment - some people need foot inserts/orthodics to do that.

Yes, there's a difference between running and lifting. Mostly, it's in axial loading and the repetition of a force. Studies (the BEST study comes to mind) have shown an increase in BMD in even postmenopausal women from lifting weights; this one validated 8-12 rep max, and others have looked at 15 reps and more with good results.

Running does concentrate gains in BMD in the femur, pelvis, and spine, where we're generally most concerned with fractures associated with age. Lifting gives you gains, but they are more dispersed across the entire body. This, of course, depends on how you lift.

For a well-rounded lifestyle that still gives you a lot of time on the bike, I don't know that you could do better than strength training 2x/wk, running a bit, maybe swimming a little, and cycling to your heart's content.

FWIW, the fears about "wearing out your knees" are not founded on scientific evidence. I'm sure someone will flame this, but if you look, the evidence is just not there; in fact, there's evidence supporting mild impacts and regular movement as being beneficial to collagen synthesis and the nutrition of the cartilage (cartilage is avascular). We're talking about healthy knees here, and moderate running volume. If you're a heavy, overpronating marathoner with a history of meniscus tears, then it's a different story.

weight lifting/ resistance training is KING

If you ride standing you'll get a way better balanced workout, but then you'll have succumbed to a great sin. Because cycling is done seated for more than a century and we heathens are not supposed to fiddle with this creed.

Just in case you might be interested in a great sin... :)
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...2#post13486982

The OP's original question was - which is better for bone mass density: running or weight lifting?

Both will help, but there's a lot of evidence showing that weight training is one of the most effective ways to build bone mass density.

I would definitely urge you to get back into the gym. Your story is very similar to mine, and when I (re)started lifting, I was amazed a how much strength I'd lost. My weights were down by 25%! I now tend to go for a lower-weight / higher-reps routine, and although I'm back into my previous 3day split, I put a lot of emphasis into core training. If you were successful as a BB, then you'll know that squats and deadlifts are king - and as far as I'm concerned, they should be mandatory for cyclists.

True - and false:

True because you have to be a LOT more careful as you age. You can no longer just grab any weight and force-lift it even if it's too heavy for you. The body is no longer that forgiving.

But...

False in that with intelligent buildup, you can be an incredibly successful lifter or bodybuilder well into your 50s and 60s.

I'd urge anyone here who is interested in gym for the (slightly ;)) older person to go to this forum:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11

It is to gym rats as Bike Forums is to cyclists.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...or-your-bones/

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/he...0abb00a95.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb...h/he-cycling16

http://www.livestrong.com/article/39...ring-exercise/

Running is not your only alternative to weight lifting. Hiking will be easier on the joints and still give you some cardio benefits too.

running is NOT an alternative to weight lifting. they're two different things.

one builds muscle mass and strength, and relies on type 2 muscle fibers. the other is predominantly joint health and cardiovascular health and relies overwhelmingly on type 1 muscle fibers

thats why I do all three. i go to the gym every other day. between those days i run for an hour outside. and I commute everywhere by bicycle

U MIRIN BRO?

Thanks for he links. Some compelling information in them to support implementing some weight bearing activities to help with bone density.

Not exactly true. Strength training also uses type I fibers, and all training drives the conversion of fibers toward more oxidative capacity.

It's theorized that part of power training is learning to bypass the slower type I units. Normally, those motor units are recruited first.

mirin bruh

I am a gym rat, a cyclist, and a serious hiker ... and a (very ;)) former runner. My most recent hike was the "hike across Delaware", and before that, I climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro (early October).

I would definitely agree that hiking is a great alternative to running and far less stress on the joints.

I don't think it's as good an exercise as running, though to me, it's altogether more enjoyable.

One important consideration: If you're doing mountain hiking, coming downhill can be hell on the knees. After doing tons of squats (lower-weight / higher-reps), I managed to rebuild the bone and cartilage in my knees to the point that I went from dreading downhills to having no pain at all.


I agree.

Same (almost) here: Gym, hiking and biking. Each activity definitely helps my performance in the other.

Running and weight training are, of course, both better for bone density that cycling.

Add more movements that aren't so repetitive so you can improve muscle balance. There are a lot of muscles that cycling just doesn't activate very much, and some gym routines are designed for isolating certain muscles instead of recruiting a greater variety.

Adding a blog link - I'm risking being labeled a shill ;) but how many cyclists (or runners, for that matter) do you see doing stuff like this?
http://steve-edwards.blogspot.com/20...uve-never.html

Not much more to say after this. Everything in life should be done in moderation, even cycling. As the others have pointed out, being active in multiple sports and physical outlets is paramount to health if you aren't concerned about being the best (in which case, stay at 140lbs and cycle all day, everyday :P). The truth is, most of us cycle for sport and for health, but it should be supplemented by various other ways to ensure that our bodies stay healthy in every aspect.

As for gym alternatives, (not that I advocate paying the stupid exorbitant fee for participating) try crossfit type workouts. Olympic style: deadlifts, pullups, squats, bench, power cleans, clean&press and power snatches should be plenty for a well rounded athlete. I can honestly say that I'd rather be the athlete I am now (which can bench,squat and deadlift 315lbs, cycle a century and run a half mary-- not tooting my own horn, just making an example) than be someone who is just overtly great at one single thing. Besides, looking like a frail homeless guy on a $5000 bike is somewhat odd.