Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Running and Cycling
![[Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/adbdb69087604e71dfc6c88ae66378f2_100.png)
I have jut moved and now cycle 8 miles to the train station and then 8 miles back at a fair pace. I have been running for 2 years but have been told by a few people that running and cycling do not mix and I will get a lot of injuries. Is this true?? What about Triathletes??
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I think they complement each other as they work different leg muscles.
Whoever said they're not compatible is talking out of their exhaust.
if you run and cycle you will develop more balance between the muscle groups in the legs.
Us runners should be cycling as crosstraining- so id ignore the advice you were given
If it was a problem then why are tri-athletes such good runners?
Monique, when is the Tadcaster duathlon and doesn't the turbo trainer get in the way when you're watching the telly?
I was supposed to do a session on the turbo trainer yesterday in front of Footballers Wives, but watched on my sons telly instead- I haven't used it yet not once I have been so taken up with the London training.
... BUT here's a question that i've been meaning to put out for a while: having recently moved myself, i'm now doing 15miles a day on the bike- at a pace, with luggage usually!
I've never considered the cycling to be 'training' and reckoned if i used this level of fitness as a base, i could train in swimming and running on top of it. Problem is that the running is deterioating recently- noticably since the move. Any reccommndations- which do NOT involve getting on the tube!!!
It's late - I should be running....
Going much faster involves my legs dying - why?
Plus you'll have a diff Max Heart Rate on a bike. Should be lower as it's only the legs going and not legs arms and body. So that 55% wasn't really 55 - it was higher.
been wondering if its related to the extra cycling ( or am i just getting lazier?) and if so, is there a more efficient way to train ?
Are you saying that the normal heart-rate training principles that apply to running are different on a bike? If I train at a max HR of, say, 160 doing intervals on a hard run, should I aim for a lower rate on the bike?
All your training should be based on MHR and that should be calced using an exercise to exhaustion type test. So on the bike - youd warm up on a Turbo, and then keep going through the gears every few minutes until you just can't go any further. Oh and have a helper timing and recording it all and shouting at you to go faster etc.
For running - you'd need to do it on a treadmill, and follow the same kinda methodology, but increase the speed of the treadmill until you can't take any more.
You should find that the MHR on the bike is lower than the MHR on the run. I haven't tried this myself - I know the MHR for the bike, but don't train with a HRM for running.
If you haven't done a Max test and you rely on the 220-age thing, then you could be way out, and there might be no point in using the HRM anyway !
Gee this is confusing !
I'd already guessed I wasn't working very hard as I get overtaken by the lycra brigade every time (only have mountain bike).
I played on my mates 3k Carbon fibre machine once - and the blummin thing went like it had a motor !!
Without wishing to get too off the subject, do you think the Heart Rate monitors aimed at cyclists (which include cadence and speed measurements eg Polar S510 and S710)are worth the money? Or am I just as well to get a cheaper HR monitor and a £15 speedo from Halfords?
If you are Lance Armstrong and have backup to analyse your figures then you could get one, but I just find them too confusing.
Get a cheaper HRM and the Cateye Cordless comp for about £22.