7 replies to this topic

[Kato]

Hi

I'm riding my wife's MTB to work a couple of times a week. It's great for working up a sweat without putting stress on a niggly hammy.

My question is: How should I ride to maximise the training benefit? I don't wish to become a cyclist but want to improve my running. Should I ride smarter or just harder? I have a HRM but haven't used it for cycling yet.

Some stats: 22 km to work @ 27 kph, 23 km @ 24 kph on the way home (against prevailing wind). There is only the one "bad" hill and that's at the outset of the ride home. The rest of the ride I'm just pedalling as well as I can, really.

[slowboat]

Hi Kato,

Cycling is just like running you have to know your limits. What you are doing without going in depth seems fine, keep your cadance should between 80 -100 per minute and you will be able to go longer without getting as tired. Problem most people make when they start to ride for the first time is pick the wrong gear and they use more energy than is needed.

Others on this site maybe able to offer more information but I hope I have set you on the correct path.

Cheers SB.

[Kato]

slowboat, on Oct 3 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Hi Kato,

Cycling is just like running you have to know your limits. What you are doing without going in depth seems fine, keep your cadance should between 80 -100 per minute and you will be able to go longer without getting as tired. Problem most people make when they start to ride for the first time is pick the wrong gear and they use more energy than is needed.

Others on this site maybe able to offer more information but I hope I have set you on the correct path.

Cheers SB.

Thanks SB. I'll try and keep the canence up. I've been having a look around and % HRMax seems to be a fairly imprecise yardstick to use when looking at training intensity for improving LT. The more widely accepted figure seems to be the intensity of effort that you could sustain if you were riding for an hour. I might be guessing way off but I think that's what I'm doing anyway?

[guinness]

you can achieve different things by cycling differently.

if you want to build aerobic capacity choose an easy gear and spin like mad
if you want to build leg strength choose a harder gear and push (and pull) hard on the pedals

both have benefits for running.
be wary of grinding a hard gear though - it can be hard on the knees

[kakadu]

slowboat, on Oct 3 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

Hi Kato,

Cycling is just like running you have to know your limits. What you are doing without going in depth seems fine, keep your cadance should between 80 -100 per minute and you will be able to go longer without getting as tired. Problem most people make when they start to ride for the first time is pick the wrong gear and they use more energy than is needed.

Others on this site maybe able to offer more information but I hope I have set you on the correct path.

Cheers SB.

Hi SB,
I am not sure if I understand cadence in the right way, is cadence equal to rpm, so is it best to go for 80-100 rpm? I am at 60 so this seems quite high. How long should a work out be then to be cardiovascularly efficient, same length as I would do my running or more ?
Cheers,
Kakadu

Edited by kakadu, 29 November 2009 - 05:41 PM.

[Kato]

Just an update for me. I have been trying to keep the cadence up. At first my legs were getting worn out from the high speed pedalling - I have big meaty legs and it seemed natural to pump hard rather than fast. I've persisted and now find I am going slightly faster on the bike, my only point of reference. The trip home is up to 25 kph, max speed in a sprint for the lights is 52 kph.

I can't wait to get road tyres. I'll be dropping those snooty gits on their aerogel and carbon fibre racers that don't say hi.

[Kato]

kakadu, on Nov 29 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Hi SB,
I am not sure if I understand cadence in the right way, is cadence equal to rpm, so is it best to go for 80-100 rpm? I am at 60 so this seems quite high. How long should a work out be then to be cardiovascularly efficient, same length as I would do my running or more ?
Cheers,
Kakadu

Kakadu

As I understand it, cadence is the speed that you turn the crank at. So a cadence of 80 is left foot, right foot, done eighty times. Not left, right, done forty times.

I believe that cycling is more energy efficient comparing by distance.

On the bike I use roughly 30 percent less energy in an hour, according to my Garmin GPS. This may just be because I'm crap at cycling.

[rohan]

Kato, on Nov 29 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

On the bike I use roughly 30 percent less energy in an hour, according to my Garmin GPS. This may just be because I'm crap at cycling.

my tri coach assumes different heart rates for the different disciplines, but seeing as i don't go by heart rate I can't remember the difference, however she assumes that your average heart rate on a bike will be lower.

for reference, Lance Armstrong often has a cadence around 100, but jan ulrich was much lower than that. Lance is high end.

positioning on your bike could be used to better replicate running.
a MTB has a slack seat tube angle so you are sitting a fair way behind the cranks, if you can get your seat more forwards then you stand a chance of using your muscle a tad more like in running.

unfortunately nothing works like running for training for running, however when in full tri training i am usually pleasantly surprised by how my running ability hangs in there despite run training volume being slashed to about 50%