I know this topic's regurgitated countless times, but isn't there an active concurrent thread on this?

I came from a soccer background. While you might run 12km in a match, you're either loafing, or killing it. Those neverending explosive transitions and the ability to recuperate from them gave me enough of a foundation to be a respectable cyclist fairly quickly.

yeah something like a soccer players transitions better than a marathoner imho.

That's me. Any long sprints on the bike and I'm at the back.

My 10K split time in a 15K, 10 mile or half marathon wasn't much slower than my 10K race time.

How fast are you at the marathon or half marathon? It makes a difference - a slower than 3:30 marathon runner is an order of magnitude different than a 2:40 marathon runner, but most noncompetitive marathon runners consider a 3:30 marathon runner 'fast'. (That's 8 min/mile, not too fast.)

Most guys running sub-3 hour marathons do track intervals that are very high intensity, and comparable to hard bike attacks in intensity and duration. 400m repeats done at 5min/mile pace, which is a typical speed for VO2 intervals for a decent but far from elite 2:55-3 hour marathon runner, is 1:15 per repeat.

I've done several marathons right around 3:00. That included speed work three times a week with lots of 400m intervals mostly on the road. I also got lots of improvement with half mile intervals which all helped with my longer times but had little affect with short distances.

I was talking specifically about fast marathoners with no fast twitch muscles. You don't need fast twitch muscles to run a fast marathon. Also, 'hanging' with Cat 3s is easier than winning.

Have you won any crits lately? There are a bunch of guys who get to the end of a cat 3 race fresh enough to put out 1200+W. You're going to have a tougher time in a field sprint if you can't put out some decent power over 5 and 30S. It's still possible to win but it's going to take more than a month or two of racing to figure out how.

Agreed and I didn't say otherwise. Bigger guys who are fast and have a normal or better than average ratio of fast twitch fibers will do better.

True but not in disagreement with what I said.

Some guys running 17min 5ks will be good cyclists, some won't. Some will be good climbers, some won't. The requirements for success in a crit are different than for a fast marathon. There is some correlation, but some of what makes a fast runner, i.e. running economy isn't of much use in a bike race.

And hockey players.

I have a very hard time beliving that your 10k pace is the same as your half marathon pace with a 3 hour marathon ability.

There used to be this guy who was a triathlete who turned out to be an o.k. cyclist...

Basically these are the two biggest things. Hanging with someone during training is almost always damn easy. Hell i just came from a bunch of rides down in flroida where we averaged (just to show you all) 40 k/hour for a couple of hours everyday, and by the end of the ride my normalized power was z2 (and i pulled, so sitting in is even easier. Anyone could just roll in with the group, and hang with cat 3-1's. the difference is when you start racing us and we start getting aggressive in terms of pace changing. Come talk to me when you can jump over 1100 watts 40 times, and still produce 1200+ watts at the very end of the race, or can roll at 320-330 watts for a couple of hours (yes i've done this before, its hard, but to ride otf of a 1/2 race you need to actually produce some power).

some runners wil make strong rides, but it will take time for them to be anything special. some runners will suck. runners who only run at one pace (doing one 400 m sprint at a high pace is alot different than 30 of those in a row, whihc is basically what crit racing is, and even some road races) will struggle with the type of strain cycling gives. Now if you just ask them to sit on a wheel at 40 kph for an hour no duh they can do it, but so can everyone else (literally it takes like 150 watts).


edit: this is why triathletes rarely become truly strong racers, they might have a largish ftp, but they dont know how to race, and dont have the anaerobic ability that roadies have. trust me, i was a really strong tri-geek cyclist, then i went to crits and got my ass handed to me.

Without looking up specific data from my training logs and spreadsheets, I remember one marathon three years ago and my 10K split was around 42'. A few weeks earlier I barely broke 40' in a 10K.

Then you're running substantially faster at 10k than the marathon. 6:26 for 10k vs 6:58 for the marathon. That's very close to exactly what you're 'supposed' to be running for 10k vs marathon according the Mcmillan's calculator. That's not even close to the same pace.

I suppose you're right. The only thing is I was much slower for the first couple miles in the marathon because of avoiding slower runners. The 10K wasn't like that because I started upfront

This reminds me of the "good cyclist" thread. There is more to it than aerobic capacity. Obviously, a strong runner will have an advantage over a more sedantary person when starting cycling.
The problem I have seen is they have the ability to go fast before they have the matching bike skills.
A very strong and competitive runner I knew crashed himself out of the sport soon after switching to cycling with a brain injury. Several others, friends of mine, have had similar problems. Horrible crashes by men who were very strong but had limited cycling experience.

I've found that running and cycling are complimentary. Running quickly builds cardio stamina and strength in the back of the legs. Cycling builds strength in the front of the legs as well as lower back and neck stability. I've found that having strength in both the back and front of my legs makes it less likely that I'll get injured running. I used to have a lot of hamstring tightness issues, likely because my leg strength was unbalanced. Once I started mixing cycling and running, I built quad strength and I've had no issues with my legs while running. Running also helps with building ankle and foot strength and stability, making cycling efficiently a bit easier. Lastly, the back and neck stability that hours on my road bike has built makes it easier to maintain an efficient, upright running posture.

Data point:

When I was in my late teens / early 20s, I had to do a regular PT test that included a 2400m run. I would routinely put in a 9:15 to 9:30 run time, and one memorable day when all the girls were watching and cheering, I put in an 8:48.

Then I got fat. Over 300lbs fat. And I'd get spit off the back of any run I might do.

Thanks to cycling, I've dropped a ton of weight and I'm down to ~200 lbs. I've also started doing some racing (MTB, road, and crit) and I'm taking my cycling training a lot more seriously. I'm a Cat 4 with potential to be a solid Cat 3 - LT 285W, VO2Max 60 @ 455W, 3.17 W/kg @ LT, 1100W sprint.

Yesterday, after 3 years of dodging, I finally had to participate in a 5km formation run. Pace was fairly slow (6 min km). For the first time in at least a decade, I wasn't spit off the back. The run itself was moderately hard but at no point was I ever in real distress. Yay for fitness!

But dear Lob are my legs sore and stiff, even today. Running, it appears, uses a completely different set of leg muscles than cycling and those muscles are letting me know they don't appreciate the workout. I can barely friggin' move.

Also interesting; a 5 km run (at 28 minutes) generates the same TRIMP score as a bike ride of similar intensity but 3 times the duration.

DG

I'm a runner and I think it has definitely helped my cycling. And since I've been cycling I've noticed my average HR has been a little bit lower while running, but the biggest difference has been in my max HR. On my bike I can get my max HR up to about 181 bpm on intense climbs where as running I'm lucky if I can hit 173 bpm. And because I can push hard on my bike I think it has made me a stronger runner.

That's the opposite effect that most people experience where they can attain a higher HR running vs cycling.

Exactly. People get higher HRs running for a variety of reasons. Something is definitely wrong with 181 on the bike and 173 running. I think the actual max is more than 181 and running hasn't been hard enough to reach it yet

Some of the variability in the postings results from varying definitions of the word "cyclist". I might think of a strong cyclist as someone who can do a very fast, climbing Century, while others will think in terms of racing skills - endurance, tactics, sprint, etc.

In my late 30's I was a 190 lb. marathoner with a 2:42 best and a 2:47 climbing marathon over the hills between Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz. All we did was run hills. This was in the days when "training" and "nutrition" for us amateurs wasn't quite so structured to say the least. I could ride a Century with my eyes closed, butt pain excepted, and I could maintain well over 20 mph on the flats (nothing special there of course). With a bit of work I probably would have been a strong cyclist; my mid-30's son, primarily a swimmer, went from doing short triathlons to Cat 2 in a few years.

I don't think it takes a huge amount of ability to run 6 minute miles for a distance, but it takes commitment and a willingness to suffer. I mean, we hammered all the time, running 50 up to 70 miles per week. Same with cycling; To be elite you're going to need genetics or drugs (or both), but to be good you have to commit and suffer. To me that's where the cross-over exists.

I think it's all but impossible to generalize, but generalizing is what the 41 is all about.

I've been running for a little over 2 years and my max HR has never been over 179 and that was during a half marathon January of last year, so maybe cycling has helped increase my max. I guess I'll find out this January if I can top 179 BPM while running a race.

When you're talking about runners who competed at a very high level in middle distance racing, in my experience they almost always find cycling to be an easy crossover and quickly can become quite strong cyclists. The level of pain in middle distance racing (think 3K to 10K) is generally higher than in longer distance events, and I think that is at least one indicator of cycling potential. Plus, as a category they typically have tremendous aerobic capacity, with very high VO2s. Threshold power seems to be easier to add later on if you already have a huge engine.

yep. strong cyclists and good cyclists are two very different subjects if you ask me, quantity versus quality...
lots of strong cyclists, few who know how to ride well.

I've been told time and time again by triathletes that running improves their riding but riding DOES NOT improve their running...

That may give you an answer...

Seems also that the dudes that place high in the pro IM races are the strong runners - I'm thinking Craig Alexnder for example - also a true Australian champion. (Just wish more people over here gave a crap!)