Switching from cycling to running

"Biking is now a purely leisurely activity.
Anyone else made the switch from cycling
to running, or vice versa?
What did you think of the switch?"
~ Buck

I do both, cycle, run,
And find them complimentary.
I do it for my health,
I don't race, etc.

Pehaps one day,
But that's not my current goal.

Running gives me stiff legs,
Cycling keeps them limber,
And that's very imortant to me.

But running is a better challenge for proprioceptive
Senses, and that's also something
I need.

I agree that running is generally a harder workout than cycling, unless
you're cycling up steep hills. In that case you'll find your arms are given
a substantial workout. I cross-train, and find that a healthy combination.
If you're that new to running, ease into it over time or you'll offend the
injury gods. While the muscles will come around pretty fast, the connective
tissue and such takes longer. Of course it depends on your age, duration and
intensity, and weekly miles also.

-Tony

Buck Rogers wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Hi all!

I thought I found the perfect sport when I started cycling about 1.5
months ago.
I'd done absolutely no form of excercise before. However, I started to
realise that I wasn't getting the whole body exercise that I wanted. Sure,
I
sweated, but it was only my legs that were getting a workout.

Three days ago, I decided to go for a run after work. I did 1.5 kms, on
grass, with
hills around a nearby park. At the end, my lungs hurt, my legs hurt, my
arms were
sore(they're still a bit sore now), and I was sweating like a pig. Loved
it - this
was the whole body exercise I was looking for!

So I've been running for 3 nights in a row, sometimes in the rain. I've
learnt to
pace, so that I am not out of breath at the end.

Well, it's raining now, but I'll be running shortly in the rain. I hope to
eventually
do 4 laps of the park after work every night, which equates to 6 kms. I am
guessing
that is equal to about 7-8 kms on flat pavement.

Biking is now a purely leisurely activity. Anyone else made the switch
from cycling
to running, or vice versa? What did you think of the switch?

--
Buck

"Buck Rogers" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi all!

Quoted message said:

Three days ago, I decided to go for a run after work. I did 1.5 kms, on
grass, with
hills around a nearby park. At the end, my lungs hurt, my legs hurt, my
arms were
sore(they're still a bit sore now), and I was sweating like a pig. Loved
it - this
was the whole body exercise I was looking for!

The biking magazines have written about the very real risk of Osteoporosis
(loss of bone density)among otherwise very fit, healthy male cyclists.
Turns out that in addition to Calcium (which we need more of because we lose
it in sweat), that the body needs a certain amount of impact to stimulate
the bones to use that calcium and keep bone density up.

It would seem that serious cyclists should always do some running (or
tennis, etc) cross-training to stay healthy.

To echo what Twittering wrote, running is much more fun for me because it's
more interactive -- you're adjusting your foot plant, throwing yourself
forward and balancing (it's really a series of controlled leaps), and
working almost every muscle (maybe every muscle?).

It's also much less dangerous provided you don't run in traffic -- I've
known two cyclists killed and several seriously injured on the road and on
trails, numerous concussions, serious neck injuries, etc.

But....if injuries prevented me from running, I'd switch to cycling.

-- Dan

biking conditioning does not transfer to running. you are starting at
zero. i suspect you have already injured yourself.

It is easy to run in the beginning, but you will soon discover you have
tendinitis etc. You have to start very slow in the beginning. 10%
increase per week. you have to stop if you feel pain in your ankles or
legs.

hiking is even more intense than running and you don't injure yourself.
I have gone out and done 30 km hikes in the mountains with no prior
exercise and not been injured. hiking clears your mind better. hiking
through avalanche terraine is great for keeping up the intensity.

Buck Rogers said:

Biking is now a purely leisurely activity.

Either biking or running (or many things for that matter) can be
leisurely or balls-to-the-wall. Your choice of objective and/or effort
level.

Quoted message said:

Anyone else made the switch
from cycling
to running, or vice versa? What did you think of the switch?

I haven't done much biking lately, but when I was rehabbing an achilles
a couple years ago, I did a fair amount of mtn biking on some small, but
steep hills (30-70ft vert, 10-20% slope; yes, I avoided the steep
slopes, like 30%, on my bike after one hill bucked me when I was slow on
the weight redistribution). My heartrate went places on those hills that
it is just now starting to see in my occasional imitation of running
speedwork. But I met my goal that year of not walking in the duathlon.

Mtn biking downhills usually requires faster reaction times than
running. Uphills may become walks. If you're riding an area with lots
of up and down, you may be shifting your weight quite a bit to keep
tires on the ground and traction. Requires a lot more thinking and
effort than running the same trails. And as Dan pointed out, it's
usually more hazardous on or off road.

I'm running more now because I'm too lazy / busy to bike our local
trails 😉 But I'll probably do more after June 30.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Dan Stumpus said:

The biking magazines have written about the very real risk of Osteoporosis
(loss of bone density)among otherwise very fit, healthy male cyclists.
Turns out that in addition to Calcium (which we need more of because we lose
it in sweat), that the body needs a certain amount of impact to stimulate
the bones to use that calcium and keep bone density up.

That's not unique to males 😉 Weight-bearing exercise, like running, is
heavily recommended by knowledgeable doctors. Biking and swimming are
generally considered non-weight-bearing, although biking can have some.

Quoted message said:

It would seem that serious cyclists should always do some running (or
tennis, etc) cross-training to stay healthy.

To echo what Twittering wrote, running is much more fun for me because it's
more interactive -- you're adjusting your foot plant, throwing yourself
forward and balancing (it's really a series of controlled leaps), and
working almost every muscle (maybe every muscle?).

Mountain biking will have most of that also - with a lot more adrenaline
for those of us that don't like to wipe out on bike 😉

Quoted message said:

It's also much less dangerous provided you don't run in traffic -- I've
known two cyclists killed and several seriously injured on the road and on
trails, numerous concussions, serious neck injuries, etc.

yes.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

gty wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

biking conditioning does not transfer to running. you are starting at
zero. i suspect you have already injured yourself.

The general aerobic conditioning gained from biking also works for running.
Also, for trail runners, biking helps keep the quads and knees strong. In
this sense some amount of biking is a perfect compliment. For runners who
run on flat ground only, if you can bike a couple of hours a week more it
can give you more aerobic fitness, though if you bike too much or use big
gears your legs may get bulky and slow you down.

Quoted message said:

It is easy to run in the beginning, but you will soon discover you have
tendinitis etc. You have to start very slow in the beginning. 10%
increase per week. you have to stop if you feel pain in your ankles or
legs.

hiking is even more intense than running and you don't injure yourself.
I have gone out and done 30 km hikes in the mountains with no prior
exercise and not been injured. hiking clears your mind better. hiking
through avalanche terraine is great for keeping up the intensity.

Trail running is far more intense than hiking on the same trails. It can
also carry less injury risk, provided you're a good technical trail runner.
Choice of activities depends on what your goals are: if you just want to
find an activity you enjoy then by all means go hiking.

-Tony

"gty" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

hiking is even more intense than running ...

Not even close. In fact that is such a ridiculous statement, that you're
probably just a troll.

If you ever get yourself in shape to run up mountains, report back to us.

I've run tons of mountain races from 6 to 50 miles, and know a thing or
three about this.

-- Dan

I had been thinking about getting a rowing machine because I don't feel
running gives me much upper body workout. When I hit a treadmill with
arm bars for the winter, my arms really felt it at first. I doubt I
could stand rowing every day though.

I've never seen anyone run in the snow on 30% grades. The point is that
you are worrying about avalanches, hypothermia, getting lost in fog,
bears, falling off cliffs, vertigo, etc. This is the best way to clear
the mind of garbage neurotic thinking. For example, if you are
obsessing over being dumped by a girl, a good hike will make you forget
about it. I'm not talking about a hike through a park. A good hike will
consume 8 hrs. It is truly insulting to suggest that a 2hr trail run is
comparable to 8 hrs of macho mountain climbing.

Dan Stumpus said:

"gty" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

hiking is even more intense than running ...

Not even close. In fact that is such a ridiculous statement, that you're
probably just a troll.

If you ever get yourself in shape to run up mountains, report back to us.

I've run tons of mountain races from 6 to 50 miles, and know a thing or
three about this.

-- Dan

Don't the toughest parts of the long mountain races actually come down
to hiking? Or do they really run up steep grades - i.e. without both
feet simultaneously touching? Honest question.

Unbelievable. Where in the blazes did I mention anything about running
up mountains? Sweet jesus, only madmen with a strong impulse to commit
suicide engage in such a barbaric practice. I am talking about the
weaklings that jog 40 minutes on flat terrain. frankly, i think it is
dangerous for your health to run up mountains. I do a fast walk up 30%
grade for up to 6 hrs. I have the flu. Please go away , mr flu. i want
to start running again.

gty said:

I've never seen anyone run in the snow on 30% grades. The point is that
you are worrying about avalanches, hypothermia, getting lost in fog,
bears, falling off cliffs, vertigo, etc.

have you not heard of rec.climbing or rec.backcountry? why not go there
and revel in the intensity?
hh

I like the competition of running. I might meet girls. as a person who
has both run and hiked, i am very impressed by the endurance and cardio
demands of hiking. real intensity, for me, is calculus finals when you
are not good at math. that was intensity.

timeOday said:

Dan Stumpus said:

"gty" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

hiking is even more intense than running ...

Not even close. In fact that is such a ridiculous statement, that
you're probably just a troll.

If you ever get yourself in shape to run up mountains, report back to us.

I've run tons of mountain races from 6 to 50 miles, and know a thing
or three about this.

-- Dan

Don't the toughest parts of the long mountain races actually come down
to hiking? Or do they really run up steep grades - i.e. without both
feet simultaneously touching? Honest question.

It depends on slope, length of hill, length of race, conditioning of
runners, etc. Look at top 2 pictures here (ignore rest - they're from
something else):
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
This full race is about 14 mi with 9000ft elevation up and same down.
Course record is low 3 hr range. First hill is 3000ft in about 2-2.5 mi.
These 2 pictures are near the top of the 1st hill (about 40-45 min into
race), on the gentler half.

I didn't see any racers running this part of hill. Some of the younger
bucks ran the gentler slopes just below this, then power hiked the
steeper, but the winner just power hiked this from what I saw.

The lady on the right is a very competent snowshoe runner and ultra
runner (outright win occasionally). She was just watching this race, so
she was only running the first hill. Because she was only doing a
fraction of the race course, she could run it. Earlier portions of the
trail are 30-40%, and I'm not sure if she ran those or not. I do know
people that run those slopes if they are only doing the steep portion
(1st mile or so).

And of course, on an ultra, there's a lot more energy conservation going on.

So it's definitely a function of multiple aspects.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

PS: The better runners can run this stuff in winter also with snow
cover. Hard-core mountain runners are tough beasts.

"timeOday" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hiking is even more intense than running ...

Not even close. In fact that is such a ridiculous statement, that you're
probably just a troll.

If you ever get yourself in shape to run up mountains, report back to us.

I've run tons of mountain races from 6 to 50 miles, and know a thing or
three about this.

Quoted message said:

Don't the toughest parts of the long mountain races actually come down to
hiking? Or do they really run up steep grades - i.e. without both feet
simultaneously touching? Honest question.

Depends on the runner, the race distance, and the steepness of the hills.
When I was younger I could run every step of a certain 50 mile race in the
mountains.
Now that I'm 20 yrs older, I walked about 10-12 miles of the uphill on the
same race -- out of 25 miles of uphill.

The stronger runners run, say 85 -100% of a mountain course, and the weaker
runners might walk half of it.

My own rule of thumb goes like this: if when running up a hill, your legs
burn no matter how slow you go, or if you're going 3mph or less when
running, then it's easier to switch into fast hiking. The best runners can
run 4mph up 20% grades at altitude in a 50k race. Dot's extreme Alaskan
races, with 30+% grades are so steep that even even elites find them too
hard to run.

I believe Mat Carpenter ran every step of the brutal San Juan Solstice 50
miler. Here's the profile: http://www.lakecity50.com/profile.gif. Most
mountain runners would say 12,800' of climb for a 50 isn't that bad -- but
this is all between 9k and 13.5k foot elevation.

But back to the claim that hiking is more intense than running: the reason
runners hike some sections is because it's too damn tough to run them (and
finish in one piece).

-- Dan

This concept that biking is a good crosstraining method is nothing but
pure, unadulterated, [censored]! Unless biking/running is your sport,
because to me biking is 1) aerobically not very much of a challenge,
and 2) hurts my back, knees, and ankles. Biking is not a normal
movement for the human body. It is a completely alien movement we are
just not desiged for. The fact it's easy, quick, and popular, does not
change that. Afterall, sitting (in a chair) is not natural either, but
we do it for hours on end.

This concept that biking is a good crosstraining method is nothing but
pure, unadulterated, [censored]! Unless biking/running is your sport,
because to me biking is 1) aerobically not very much of a challenge,
and 2) hurts my back, knees, and ankles. Biking is not a normal
movement for the human body. It is a completely alien movement we are
just not desiged for. The fact it's easy, quick, and popular, does not
change that. Afterall, sitting (in a chair) is not natural either, but
we do it for hours on end.