# Why can't runners cycle quickly



## Cathryn (10 Aug 2015)

This is my second post today including a link to something I read, so sorry about this.

I recently found this article by a guy who does a podcast on ultra running, who has started doing a series of articles about cycling for runners. I'm a runner who's getting back into cycling, so it felt fitting. In the article, he explains why runners (especially women) aren't particularly fast cyclists. I'd be interested in your views? 

 http://iancorless.org/2015/08/06/cycling-for-runners-why-cant-runners-cycle-quickly/


----------



## summerdays (10 Aug 2015)

I'm not a runner (I HATE running), but found the article interesting, and could probably tick the female lacking leg strength box. Perhaps I do reach for the shifter far too easily


----------



## DaveReading (10 Aug 2015)

At last, the excuse I've been looking for to explain my slow speed on the bike!


----------



## nickyboy (10 Aug 2015)

Is this guy serious?

6. When runners complete cycle testing sessions we commonly hear this: _“My heart and lungs felt fine, it’s just my legs, I couldn’t turn the pedals, there was too much resistance”

2. To use bigger gears you need to have the basic leg strength (often lacking in runners, moreso ladies)

4. Pretty much all studies on the subject show that slower cadences use less oxygen, results in lower heart rate and require less fuel than higher cadences
_
This stuff is just nonsense


----------



## Cathryn (10 Aug 2015)

DaveReading said:


> At last, the excuse I've been looking for to explain my slow speed on the bike!


My very thoughts


----------



## Cathryn (10 Aug 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Is this guy serious?
> 
> 6. When runners complete cycle testing sessions we commonly hear this: _“My heart and lungs felt fine, it’s just my legs, I couldn’t turn the pedals, there was too much resistance”
> 
> ...



Why do you think that?


----------



## raleighnut (10 Aug 2015)

Surely with running if you go uphill you use a shorter stride which is similar to using a lower gear on a bike, cadence remains roughly the same.
A more accurate test would be increasing the resistance in both cases.


----------



## DRHysted (11 Aug 2015)

All that report tells me is that I'm cycling & running incorrectly. 

Well why change the habit of a lifetime.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Aug 2015)

There are a few world class duathletes and triathletes that may disagree with this too.


----------



## Crackle (11 Aug 2015)

His basic premise from which he expands seems wrong. Sure if you run the same pace around a track he might have a point but if you run on trails, uphill, do sprints, fartlek etc you surely alter the resistance on your legs and the muscles groups you use. When it comes to cycling you don't transfer that strength completely and have to build the same as running. And the especially women bit, what twaddle, why? It mostly seems nonsense with some truth hiding in there about runners adapting to cycling.


----------



## sidevalve (11 Aug 2015)

So let's be accurate here - he says that a runner [male or female] can't just jump on a bike and pedal off like a TDF winner ? Just simple common sense to me - train in one sport and then wonder why you aren't top notch in something else ? Get real.


----------



## summerdays (11 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> Is the women bit because ladies don't like to have big muscly legs?  Although, in all seriousness, one or two women have said to me in the past that that was why they didn't take up cycling.


I don't want big muscular legs, it makes it harder to get clothes sometimes, but I could also help that issue by loosing some fat too . Though I would say runners seem to have slimmer thighs.


----------



## Crackle (11 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> Is the women bit because ladies don't like to have big muscly legs?  Although, in all seriousness, one or two women have said to me in the past that that was why they didn't take up cycling.


Maybe but there are plenty of pictures of Victoria Pendleton which prove otherwise.


----------



## moo (11 Aug 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Is this guy serious?
> _..
> 4. Pretty much all studies on the subject show that slower cadences use less oxygen, results in lower heart rate and require less fuel than higher cadences
> _
> This stuff is just nonsense



Indeed.

Slower cadence (at the same power level) uses less oxygen but MORE fuel. Oxygen is plentiful, glycogen stores are not.


----------



## Cuchilo (11 Aug 2015)

If runners did squats they would cycle better


----------



## nickyboy (11 Aug 2015)

Cathryn said:


> Why do you think that?



First one - there is loads of analysis that shows that the force exerted through the pedals, even when riding quite hard, is about 200 Newtons (about 20kg). Of course runners experience no resistance but we're still talking about, when cycling, resistance levels which are very low

Second one - as above. How "strong" your legs are has nothing to do with how fast you cycle unless you're a track sprinter. It's all about aerobic capacity as the forces involved are small enough for everyone to exert (that's the 200 Newtons)

Third one - this makes me laugh. If that was really the case why do all professional cyclists maintain what most people would consider a fast cadence? It's because they have worked out that, to cycle as fast as possible for a long time, allowing your aerobic capacity to be the limiter (fast cadence, low forces) rather than leg strength (slow cadence, high forces) gives the best results


----------



## nickyboy (11 Aug 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Surely with running if you go uphill you use a shorter stride which is similar to using a lower gear on a bike, cadence remains roughly the same.
> A more accurate test would be increasing the resistance in both cases.



Spot on. They should start to incline the treadmill for the runners to provide a similar experience to increasing resistance for the cyclists. Then the runners would start to say "I don't have enough strength in my legs" to keep going....which is nonsense in the same way that saying you don't have enough strength in your legs to keep cycling is nonsense


----------



## ayceejay (11 Aug 2015)

I think the author makes a good point when he suggests that we make a mistake in thinking that
pro cyclists spin a low gear at a high cadence when in fact they are spinning a high gear at a
high cadence which is what makes them fast.


----------



## ColinJ (11 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I think the author makes a good point when he suggests that we make a mistake in thinking that
> pro cyclists spin a low gear at a high cadence when in fact they are spinning a high gear at a
> high cadence which is what makes them fast.


But it isn't 'strength' that lets them do that, it is 'power'.

Olympic weighlifters are incredibly strong but they are unlikely to be fast on a bike!

I once took a younger bodybuilder colleague out for an evening ride over the local hills. He was strong enough to break his chain (mashing a 52/13 gear round on a climb! ), but trying to keep up with me half-killed him. (And I am not fast!)


----------



## ayceejay (11 Aug 2015)

ColinJ said:


> But it isn't 'strength' that lets them do that, it is 'power'.
> 
> Olympic weighlifters are incredibly strong but they are unlikely to be fast on a bike!
> 
> I once took a younger bodybuilder colleague out for an evening ride over the local hills. He was strong enough to break his chain (mashing a 52/13 gear round on a climb! ), but trying to keep up with me half-killed him. (And I am not fast!)



I think this statement needs some clarification Colin. What is 'power' and how is it obtained? Can you demonstrate that strength
plays NO part in cycling fast? Can you have a lot of power but no, or minimum strength?


----------



## ColinJ (11 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I think this statement needs some clarification Colin. What is 'power' and how is it obtained? Can you demonstrate that strength
> plays NO part in cycling fast? Can you have a lot of power but no, or minimum strength?


That was covered by nickyboy in post #18.

The forces in your legs when walking up stairs are generally higher than those riders put through the cranks on a bike. Nearly everybody can walk up a flight of stairs, therefore nearly everybody is already strong enough to ride fast. The problem is that most people can't climb (say) 1,000 flights of stairs one after another - they can't sustain the power required. They could probably cycle at 30+ mph, but only for 100 yards or so.

Power is the rate of expenditure of energy. Energy (or work done) can be represented as a force times the distance for which it is applied. So, you could, for example, apply a lot of force over a short distance for one second, or (say) half the force for twice the distance for one second and the power generated would be the same. That would be like churning a big gear vs spinning half the gear twice as fast.

If you took that to ridiculous extremes, then you could apply a huge force and use a tiny cadence and still generate a lot of power but human bodies do not work efficiently like that. Similarly, you could apply a tiny force and use a huge cadence, but that isn't efficient either. Useful cadences lie somewhere between those extremes, and vary from person to person, and from time to time.

You certainly need to be pretty strong to be a track sprinter but _most_ cyclists are limited by how much oxygen they can get round their bodies in their blood rather than how hard they can push on their pedals. That's why EPO is such a big deal - it doesn't make riders _strong_, it makes them _powerful_ by artificially boosting that oxygen capacity!

Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree were 2 of the fastest cyclists ever but they weren't exactly massively strong.


----------



## outlash (11 Aug 2015)

Spot on Colin & Nicky. Can you now please explain this to my brother in law who complains his knees are knackered after a ride because he thrashes up the local climbs in the lowest cadence possible because in his words he's 'down on power'.


----------



## ColinJ (11 Aug 2015)

outlash said:


> Spot on Colin & Nicky. Can you now please explain this to my brother in law who complains his knees are knackered after a ride because he thrashes up the local climbs in the lowest cadence possible because in his words he's 'down on power'.


I tried explaining to the body-building gear-masher that it would be better to spin a lower gear because if he carried on like that he would destroy the bike or his knees. He said that it felt weird to him to spin because he was used to 'pumping iron'. And 5 seconds later, his chain exploded under the strain!


----------



## outlash (11 Aug 2015)

Bless 'em! You can lead a horse to water......


----------



## fossyant (11 Aug 2015)

I havent an answer. Did a little off road a few years back with me, my 10 year younger runner of a brother, and my lad who was about 8.

Nothing technical. My lad battered him downhill and uphill. My brother can do a good 10k run, 30 something minutes.

Downhill was laughable, but that's a bike skill thing.

I also took him to the velodrome, and he crapped his pants at even doing the bottom of the track.

Dunno. I've been a road rider since I was young and went out with clubs from 16. I commute in traffic without too much worry.

There is lots for a fit runner to take in though.

To balance things out,

On a club run we went MTB'ing and got overtook by a fell runner !! Sometimes it is quicker walking.


----------



## fossyant (11 Aug 2015)

PS you try running for 30-60 minutes. I reccon you won't be walking the next day.

It's a different exercise. Cycling is non impact so allows different muscle use, running is impact, so some of the training is the shock resistance.

As a cyclist, you could keep up with a runner for a bit, but you'll be in serious pain next day, or indeed off to the physio.

Cycling is very specialised muscle wise. It translates to low impact endurance, but not to running


----------



## ColinJ (11 Aug 2015)

fossyant said:


> PS you try running for 30-60 minutes. I reccon you won't be walking the next day.
> 
> It's a different exercise. Cycling is non impact so allows different muscle use, running is impact, so some of the training is the shock resistance.
> 
> ...


True!

For a while I ran to work and a friend cycled there. I borrowed his bike and found it hard going. He tried running after me and it half-killed him!


----------



## fossyant (11 Aug 2015)

I think us Cyclists are just weirdo's. Pain pain, go fast !!!! Repeat !

You'd make a movie out of that strap line ! 

Live, die, repeat.....


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (12 Aug 2015)

ColinJ said:


> That was covered by nickyboy in post #18.
> 
> The forces in your legs when walking up stairs are generally higher than those riders put through the cranks on a bike. Nearly everybody can walk up a flight of stairs, therefore nearly everybody is already strong enough to ride fast. The problem is that most people can't climb (say) 1,000 flights of stairs one after another - they can't sustain the power required. They could probably cycle at 30+ mph, but only for 100 yards or so.
> 
> ...


Such a beautiful post,I almost teared up with joy


----------



## ianrauk (12 Aug 2015)

I'm a cyclist and I can't run, let alone run quickly


----------



## puffinbilly (12 Aug 2015)

ianrauk said:


> I'm a cyclist and I can't run, let alone run quickly


There's no need to, when you can cycle - that's what god made legs for - none of this walking or running nonsense.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Aug 2015)

When I was a runner I was a dreadful slow plodder. But as a cyclist I'm quite different. I'm ... er ... a dreadful slow trundler.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (13 Aug 2015)

nickyboy said:


> First one - there is loads of analysis that shows that the force exerted through the pedals, even when riding quite hard, is about 200 Newtons (about 20kg). Of course runners experience no resistance but we're still talking about, when cycling, resistance levels which are very low
> 
> Second one - as above. How "strong" your legs are has nothing to do with how fast you cycle unless you're a track sprinter. It's all about aerobic capacity as the forces involved are small enough for everyone to exert (that's the 200 Newtons)
> 
> Third one - this makes me laugh. If that was really the case why do all professional cyclists maintain what most people would consider a fast cadence? It's because they have worked out that, to cycle as fast as possible for a long time, allowing your aerobic capacity to be the limiter (fast cadence, low forces) rather than leg strength (slow cadence, high forces) gives the best results



Not quite as simple as that though, is it. 

Anyone can spin in a high cadence but that doesn't mean they'll be hot on the heels of Alex Dowsett because he'll be pushing a higher gear. 

The reason he can do that is probably a little more complicated. Aerobic engine etc. or is there also some superior leg strength to be taken into account?


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> or is there also some superior leg strength to be taken into account?



Let's not spoil a good thread with mentions of 'leg strength' ....


----------



## ColinJ (13 Aug 2015)

What is this obsession with leg strength ...? 

Can you stand up from a sitting position and does your pedalling effort lift you out of the saddle***? If the answers are 'yes' and 'no' then your legs are strong enough to lift you, but on the bike they don't need to! 


*** I know that sprinters usually sprint standing up. We have already covered leg strength in sprinters.


----------



## jonny jeez (13 Aug 2015)

Cathryn said:


> This is my second post today including a link to something I read, so sorry about this.
> 
> I recently found this article by a guy who does a podcast on ultra running, who has started doing a series of articles about cycling for runners. I'm a runner who's getting back into cycling, so it felt fitting. In the article, he explains why runners (especially women) aren't particularly fast cyclists. I'd be interested in your views?
> 
> http://iancorless.org/2015/08/06/cycling-for-runners-why-cant-runners-cycle-quickly/


Of the two best riders I know, one is a runner. I know plenty of very good riders who are also runners and actually think runners make excellent riders...something doesn't track here.


----------



## hopless500 (13 Aug 2015)

summerdays said:


> I'm not a runner (I HATE running), but found the article interesting, and could probably tick the female lacking leg strength box. Perhaps I do reach for the shifter far too easily


Same here.


----------



## Cathryn (13 Aug 2015)

hopless500 said:


> Same here.



Same here!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> There are a few world class duathletes and triathletes that may disagree with this too.


Who generally ride bikes with different frame geometries to "normal" bikes to take advantage of their runners musculature?


----------



## Milkfloat (14 Aug 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Who generally ride bikes with different frame geometries to "normal" bikes to take advantage of their runners musculature?



I thought it was the opposite - a Triathlon bike has a steeper tube angle meaning a more forward seat position to preserve the hamstrings for the run. I could be wrong though, I have never done a triathlon, I like to take my time getting dressed.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (14 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> I thought it was the opposite - a Triathlon bike has a steeper tube angle meaning a more forward seat position to preserve the hamstrings for the run. I could be wrong though, I have never done a triathlon, I like to take my time getting dressed.



Same here. Think I could be a world class triathlete, but I don't like showing my undergarments in public.


----------



## Tin Pot (14 Aug 2015)

Cathryn said:


> This is my second post today including a link to something I read, so sorry about this.
> 
> I recently found this article by a guy who does a podcast on ultra running, who has started doing a series of articles about cycling for runners. I'm a runner who's getting back into cycling, so it felt fitting. In the article, he explains why runners (especially women) aren't particularly fast cyclists. I'd be interested in your views?
> 
> http://iancorless.org/2015/08/06/cycling-for-runners-why-cant-runners-cycle-quickly/



Pseudoscience.

It sounds like science, but isn't.

The opening premise is that the difference between cycling and running is determined by the VO2 Max test.

There is no basis given or supported for that.

The point about cadence and triathletes is completely missed - it's about efficiency; fuel, power, heart rate, the lot. A higher cadence in a lower gear is more efficient in certain situations.

The only good part is that it encourages training in higher gears, which I would agree makes hill climbing easier as your legs strengthen. But I won't race like that.


----------



## Tin Pot (14 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> I thought it was the opposite - a Triathlon bike has a steeper tube angle meaning a more forward seat position to preserve the hamstrings for the run. I could be wrong though, I have never done a triathlon, I like to take my time getting dressed.



You're right.


----------



## raleighnut (15 Aug 2015)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> Same here. Think I could be a world class triathlete, but I don't like showing my undergarments in public.


Go Commando?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> You're right.


Surely the tri position, as well as being aero puts less emphasis on/rests the quads? Most (endurance) "fun" runners have relatively weak hamstrings.


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Aug 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Surely the tri position, as well as being aero puts less emphasis on/rests the quads? Most (endurance) "fun" runners have relatively weak hamstrings.



Yes, I think we might just be at cross purposes here:

The hypothesis was that a tri bike encourages the aero position and puts less emphasis on the quads.

But this isn't to take advantage of a runners physique, it's because there's a marathon to be ready for when you dismount.

If I recall correctly - the science is starting to catch up, and the aero position is the most important - if the course is relatively flat and the rider can maintain the position for the vast majority of the distance. I don't hear so much about the legs.

I'm weighing up the cost/benefit at the moment over upgrading my road bike. The tri bike isnt winning so far...


----------

