GCN brought up a question I've had for years, since attempting to run, after years of cycling. I was absolutely perplexed by how difficult it was for me and not just from a musculoskeletal point, with the obvious pounding the body endures during a run.

I noticed that a H/R of 135 BPM on a run felt much more of a huge effort than the same HR on the bike -- 135 BPM on the bike was an easy zone 2 ride, but on a run it was a taxing zone 3. However, over time 135 BPM became less taxing.

But my question was why did 135 BPM feel so taxing? Surely it was NOT because my cardio (AKA: Engine) was insufficient.

My guess was that, while the part of my cardio system located in my thorax was more than adequate for the task, my blood vessels and musculoskeletal system in various parts of my legs were NOT up to the task. This begged another question -- at what point does the Cardio system stop and the musculoskeletal system begin?

To wrap things up, this was critical in me coming to the conclusion that just doing one activity for health is NOT enough for true health, especially as we age. I've heard many people say that they don't run, because it's too hard on the body.

That's exactly why I run, because the body needs stress. I know many elderly cyclists that do have knee/hip/back pains.

So much for the idea of only doing low-impact activities.

Cycling fitness doesn't have any carry over to other athletic activities.The only way for a cyclist to be good at other activities is to cross-train and participate in those other activities. Just because somebody has good cardio/endurance on a bike doesn"t mean thst they will be good at other things. Every sport or athletic acrivity requires different adaptatipn.

Nonsense. These adaptations definitely cross over:

1. cardiovascular fitness
2. leg strength
3. ability to sustain high training load while avoiding injury
4. mental toughness

In my case it's because I never liked running. I guess I have a bad gait. Because even when a child, if I ran too long, my insides hurt. I use to say it was bouncing my kidneys up and down too much. But who know what was really going on in there.

I would say, it's not such a black and white issue. That's the problem with us humans, we're always looking at things in an either this or that answer, period.

If only life were that simple

Step in the ring with an olympic wrestler or a pro boxer and I guarantee that you would be gassed out after 2 minutes. Your cardio is only adaptrd to cycling and nothing else.

#1 Cardiovascular fitness is sport specific. Some have more carry over than others.
# 2 Cycling is more about endurance than strength. Bicycles have gears which gives you a lot of mechanical advantage and improves efficiency. Even weak people can cycle.
# 3 Cycling is very low impact compared to other sports. Chances of injury are very slim. Your highest chance of injury is if you crash, not when you just cruising along and riding at a normal pace.
# 4 Real life hardships and challenges is what builds mental toughness. A bike ride is a relaxing, stress relieving activity for me.

Also from GCN : some pro cyclists running fairly quick marathons and other distances




and I’m not sure what the dude above me is going on about. Many athletes use cycling to train their cardio systems.

Nope.

Adaptations of the heart, lungs, blood, and arteries happen, no matter what type of exercise you did to make those adaptations happen.

Aerobic muscle adaptations happen when the muscle gets worked. Hypertrophy, capillarization, mitochondria function and growth. Those are obviously activity specific.

I don't think cyclists make awful runners: I think that video looks at world-class cyclists and world-class runners and wonders why they're not world-class in the other activity, not why they're awful. There's a big difference between being "not world-class" and "awful." It depends a lot on your reference group for riding or running. That video starts off with Dan saying that he's a poorer rider than the others but a better runner -- but the others are probably better runners than most males their age.

This is exactly how I feel. It seems, as we age, whatever fitness we have becomes more and more specialized. Doing something new, even if it is fairly "easy" just wrecks me.
I've been watching a lot of Steve Magness YouTube videos and, while he isn't really aiming what he says at older guys, he does stress the importance of doing some sprints for endurance athletes. I tried to chase my nephew at full speed in a game of tag and, while I caught him, it resulted in a lot of weird, uncomfortable feelings in muscles that hadn't been used that way for years. That's something I think I need to add going forward.

Edit to add:
Thought of this while running today. I pretty much never run slower than zone 3 because zones 1 and 2 seem just as uncomfortable as zone 3 to me. Like, if I'm going to be running, I at least want to try to get it over with quickly or something.

For me, it was mostly a matter of training my leg muscles to do completely different things. Running is very easy leg motions (picking up and swinging a completely free leg forward, then doing a hard push of short duration. By contrast, biking at its best is a very smooth, continuous motion with no sudden anything required. Biking not only trains the muscles to operate differently, it also builds a lot of muscle mass that isn't even part of the runner's motion. Gone were my long, lean legs of my X-county days!

In my brief racing life, I ran starting mid-fall for a change of pace. I'd run X-country in high school and ran for fun in college so this wasn't new. But that first 8 mile run in October! Wow! did that hurt! I'd build to around 12 and start becoming comfortable, then snows hit and my activities became hit or miss for a while then it was time to start putting on fix gear miles of LSD.

I can still run the 40 in exactly the same time I never did

Why run when you have a bike?

I've never seen a happy look on a runners face.

That and running is hard on joints and you'll pay for it later in life. I have so many friends that were long distance track runners in high school and their 20s and then continued to run later on in life and now in their 50's and 60s are paying for it.

This is only true if you're running some very high mileage. For most people, including cyclists doing it as cross training, it's fine and may even have a protective effect.

personally, I cycle because it's the only way I can run. I've had knee issues for 30 years. So far cycling has helped keep me from having to get knee replacements.

I do a bit of cross-training...the majority of my exercise is cycling, but I do some strength training and running as well. I wouldn't call myself a great runner, but I'm far from awful. While specificity is key to being great at anything, I think my high level of cycling fitness has led to improvements in my running ability as well. I'm guessing that I'm a better runner than even most physically active people, but just don't have the speed and endurance of someone that specifically trains for running.

IMO, a lot of people over-dramatize the injury potential of running. It's like anything, in that you're probably fine if you stay within your capabilities and run with good body mechanics. It's not like you're immune from non-crash related injuries in cycling...I've suffered from over-use injuries as well as ailments caused by poor bike fit. Once I figured out bike fit and proper recovery, I've had far less issues on the bike.

For me, I cycle for a variety of reasons, including health, performance, and because I enjoy it. I don't particularly enjoy running, but do it to be physically well-rounded. It's kind of the same story with strength training for me, although there is also a cycling performance aspect to it.

There can also be the problem of continuing to run the same mileage after marrying and establishing a career and putting on weight, as so many do. Cyclists can get away with putting on weight. So can runners, but only to a point.

I didn't mean to say that cyclists made for "Awful" runners, I just lazily used the same title as the GCN video in the OP.

My only point was that years ago when I first started running after years of cycling I was surprised at how difficult it felt from a cardio perspective. This started me on years of wondering what it means to be healthy (or "In-Shape"). And I'm thankful for that initial inspiration to think outside the box.

I do believe that cycling does have aspects that carry over to running, but if you think you're just going to effortlessly switch over from one cardio activity to another, you're in for a rude awakening. I didn't expect to be a topline runner, but I never expected it to be so difficult on that first run. Speaking of "cardio activity", I heard a famous running coach, David Roche (and avid cyclist, who is also the record holder in the Leadville 100) say of running -- running is a Power Sport. He's absolutely correct. Many think of running as a cardio activity, which it is, but it's also very much a Power activity, hence all the injuries.

However, I don't avoid running because of the impact, rather I see it as a way to build up the body, especially as we age. I deal with the impact by doing a lot of "gym" work, much of which can be done while watching TV, or simply not needing to be in a Gym. Strength training is much more than simply lifting weights, I also do a lot of isometric and plyometric exercises to keep the connective tissues and bones healthy -- lifting heavy weights is good, but only if you've properly conditioned your connective tissues.

I do believe a lot of "old runners" never focused on their musculoskeletal system as much as they should have. Again, running is a Power Sport.


Great example of someone with very healthy connective tissues, which act much like springs when properly conditioned.

Ok, you've convinced me...The guys at GCN are a bunch of idiots

This is true and on the other hand, if you ride all the time and do not mix in running or walking (older age) then your stride and flexibility for either is decreased and thus cyclist become worse runners and walkers compared to younger times.
It is Not a cardio issue.

I'm also sure that if you went to a running forum, you'd find some anti-cycling zealots saying that it terrible because it will "wreck" you bone density. There's always a few people that seem to want to put down "competing" forms of exercise.

The stress running puts on your body can be both good and bad. The dosage is what matters.

If your main goal is to be a functional/mobile/healthy person as you age, the best way to accomplish this is through a variety of different activities incorporating both cardio and strength training. That variety builds a certain amount of resiliency. As you say, one activity can support another.

However, you also have to enjoy life. If all you want to do is cycle, well that's still much better than the person just sitting on the couch.

Why do cyclists make such awful skiers? Great catchy headline but really? I am a very good skier but the first week of the ski season at altitude by legs and core seem to belong to a different person while my heart and lungs are a yawn than when I am on the bike. By the end of the week, I am better. The second and third ski trips are much better and I am back. That assumes no ballistic skiing such as mogul fields.

Running...as a former runner, I could get my running back but it would be a slow process with a combination of walk / run over weeks of training while I got used to the impact / ballistic nature of running and the eccentric muscle contractions in my legs and back.

I used a cycling coach that liked the run and jump for the start of the season training. Run up a hill and at the top, do squat jumps. Ug.

A couple of months ago, I tried running a lap around the gym's running route and then do box jumps. It was pretty ugly but I did it. Heart and lungs worked great but the ballistic nature of running impact and box jump explosive move and landings took their toll quickly.

Why do road cyclists make such awful box jumpers? BTW, I love the GCN guys.

a personal anecdote - quite a while after diagnosis with heart condition, i found cycling was something i could enjoyably do. as i got more and more into it, even without any all out efforts, ever, i got to a pretty solid level for long distance rides. i could hold 200+ true average watts uninterrupted for hours and hours at 110 BPM. i did unsupported centuries with a few bars in my pocket, pretty solid 3,500 climbs, etc.

at the same time, walking up stairs or a hill causes immediate shortness of breath, and running is out of the question. my legs are strong, i’m not overweight at all, but my heart doesn’t work correctly but can manage cycling. the bicycle is an amazing device!

If you're familiar with the Stryd running sensor, it is used to estimate running power, very much like power meters on bikes. There's a reasonably loose connection between running speed and running power: the rule of thumb is that to run X meters/second on firm flat ground takes about X watts/kg. There's obviously variation across individuals because some runners are more economical in their running than others but it's a useful rule of thumb to put things into rough aerobic equivalence.

To put that rule of thumb in context, it would say that a world-class marathoner needs to put out something just under 6 watts/kg for two full hours. People who both run and ride say that running a 10K in 42 minutes is roughly about as hard as doing a 40K TT in an hour: the rule of thumb says that a 42 minute 10K run would require around 4 watts/kg.

So that's the aerobic part. There are obviously other differences between the sports, but as a ballpark rule of thumb, X meters/sec = X watts/kg ain't bad. That Dan Lloyd is a better runner than the other GCN presenters shows that the rule of thumb is just a rule of thumb, not an exact equivalence.