Re: Switching from cycling to running



D

DJ

Guest
"Buck Rogers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
> 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

Why make any switch at all, do both if you get good results.Road Cycling is
pure aerobic,spin hard,hit the hills, and keep that heartrate high, if you
need a better cycling experience, try Mountain bike Riding in real cross
country conditions. Guaranteed to give you a maximum full body workout. I
have just experienced this type of riding (not serious stuff mind you) but
wow...!! I was stoked with it. Every muscle in my body was telling me it
was working hard. I know this might not be something you'd do everyday, but
jeez it makes cycling a lot more interesting.

DJ
 
A

Absent Husband

Guest
Yeah - do both!!

I'm sure I've read research reports (proper ones - control groups, etc,
all used) - that show that runners that incorporate cycling into
training are better than 'runners only'; and cyclists that incorporate
a small amount of running are better cyclists.

I think the best results were found when you added only one or two of
the 'other discipline' into your weekly training programme. Gotta have
that darn link somewhere.....

Cheers,
Absent Husband
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On 15 May 2005 17:12:10 -0700, "Absent Husband"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah - do both!!
>
>I'm sure I've read research reports (proper ones - control groups, etc,
>all used) - that show that runners that incorporate cycling into
>training are better than 'runners only'; and cyclists that incorporate
>a small amount of running are better cyclists.


I'm sure I haven't. Please cite your sources :)
And were the subjects of the research already well trained
cyclists/runners, or not? that make a *huge* difference
to the result of the experiment.
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
Carl Brewer wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2005 17:12:10 -0700, "Absent Husband"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Yeah - do both!!
> >
> >I'm sure I've read research reports (proper ones - control groups, etc,
> >all used) - that show that runners that incorporate cycling into
> >training are better than 'runners only'; and cyclists that incorporate
> >a small amount of running are better cyclists.

>
> I'm sure I haven't. Please cite your sources :)
> And were the subjects of the research already well trained
> cyclists/runners, or not? that make a *huge* difference
> to the result of the experiment.


Actually I'm pretty sure the studies have shown that cycling can't
possibly help running. However, I became a better runner from cycling, I
figure it was because I was overreaching in my running training whereas
recovering from my cycling training, therefore it was a cardio effect.

As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
country at night without lights.

Tam
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:00:07 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:


>As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
>triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
>my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
>cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
>their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
>country at night without lights.


Riding takes you to interesting places and is a viable method of
short-medium distance transport, but, you do what you like
doing, run or ride or walk or swim or ski etc .... as long
as you do *something*!
 
A

Absent Husband

Guest
Ok - I'm thinking hard now.... (can you hear the cogs & gears
whirring??)

IIRC - this was done with both elite and sub-elite runners who were
ALREADY a part of (and fully participating in) a running
squad/trainingprogramme. Prior to commencement, they were all 'running
only' as part of their training.

The two comparison groups were the control (maintained running
programme), and the experimental group (EG). The EG replaced one
running session, plus added an extra session, to their programmes (ie.
two sessions total). These two sessions involved 30min - 1hr in a
gymnasium on one of those electronic cycling gizmos.

End result was a statistically significant difference in running
performance between the two groups (favouring the EG). Don't know the
quantum of the difference, but it was enough to be statistically
significant. (*Warning - I have a maths degree, so no sledging about
'statistical significance' or I'll get narky....*)

I promise I'll try and find the link/report/article/wherever the heck I
saw it... But this'll have to do for now...

Cheers,
Absent Husband (who hasn't used the term "statistically significant"
since his thesis, and feels kinda excited...)
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
Carl Brewer wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2005 21:27:52 -0700, "Absent Husband"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
> >Cheers,
> >Absent Husband (who hasn't used the term "statistically significant"
> >since his thesis, and feels kinda excited...)

>
> It'd be wonderful if sports-science researchers had
> a better (any!) grasp of statistics :)


Tell me about it. I try to understand these papers and they won't even
use consistent terminology, and half the words have a different, very
specific meaning in my area of specialty. Biggest frustration at the
moment is when people write about separability of their equations which
aren't separable.

The most ridiculous part is that a lot of the research would've been
written up in universities that have a maths/stats department that could
offer advice.

Tam
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:58:04 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Carl Brewer wrote:
>>
>> On 15 May 2005 21:27:52 -0700, "Absent Husband"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

><snip>
>> >Cheers,
>> >Absent Husband (who hasn't used the term "statistically significant"
>> >since his thesis, and feels kinda excited...)

>>
>> It'd be wonderful if sports-science researchers had
>> a better (any!) grasp of statistics :)

>
>Tell me about it. I try to understand these papers and they won't even
>use consistent terminology, and half the words have a different, very
>specific meaning in my area of specialty. Biggest frustration at the
>moment is when people write about separability of their equations which
>aren't separable.


In my experience as having worked at a university for
some number of years in departments that spanned the
whole lot, as a gross generalisation, the physed (now
"human movement?") faculties were the least rigourous
in their pursuit of accuracy.

Most of the stuff that came out
of there was fit for filing in the round file, not publishing, but
when the peers reviewing the papers are also ... lax, then it
just doesn't get better. As we saw it, the problem was
that physed was the subject where (again, gross generalisation)
the kids who couldn't do maths/science ended up. As such,
it was hardly suprising that they didn't "get" statistics, or
even the basics of a valuable scientific experiment.

There's a few very bright sparks in physed depts, but they're
in a statisically significant minority :-/ It's wise to very
skeptically read papers from HM/physed departments. The
gems are ... hard to find. It's a real shame, because biological
systems are as complex as nuclear physics (or moreso!) and
it's a facincating and on the whole unexplored area for scientific
exploration.

>The most ridiculous part is that a lot of the research would've been
>written up in universities that have a maths/stats department that could
>offer advice.


The maths faculties won't talk to Engineering or Physics, let alone
the physed department.

How long have you been in universities? :) The departments
within the faculties hate eachother with a passion only
exceeded by their hate for other faculties, and then other
universities!
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:58:04 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Carl Brewer wrote:
>>
>> On 15 May 2005 21:27:52 -0700, "Absent Husband"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

><snip>
>> >Cheers,
>> >Absent Husband (who hasn't used the term "statistically significant"
>> >since his thesis, and feels kinda excited...)

>>
>> It'd be wonderful if sports-science researchers had
>> a better (any!) grasp of statistics :)

>
>Tell me about it. I try to understand these papers and they won't even
>use consistent terminology, and half the words have a different, very
>specific meaning in my area of specialty. Biggest frustration at the
>moment is when people write about separability of their equations which
>aren't separable.


In my experience as having worked at a university for
some number of years in departments that spanned the
whole lot, as a gross generalisation, the physed (now
"human movement?") faculties were the least rigourous
in their pursuit of accuracy.

Most of the stuff that came out
of there was fit for filing in the round file, not publishing, but
when the peers reviewing the papers are also ... lax, then it
just doesn't get better. As we saw it, the problem was
that physed was the subject where (again, gross generalisation)
the kids who couldn't do maths/science ended up. As such,
it was hardly suprising that they didn't "get" statistics, or
even the basics of a valuable scientific experiment.

There's a few very bright sparks in physed depts, but they're
in a statisically significant minority :-/ It's wise to very
skeptically read papers from HM/physed departments. The
gems are ... hard to find. It's a real shame, because biological
systems are as complex as nuclear physics (or moreso!) and
it's a facincating and on the whole unexplored area for scientific
exploration.

>The most ridiculous part is that a lot of the research would've been
>written up in universities that have a maths/stats department that could
>offer advice.


The maths faculties won't talk to Engineering or Physics, let alone
the physed department.

How long have you been in universities? :) The departments
within the faculties hate eachother with a passion only
exceeded by their hate for other faculties, and then other
universities!
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On 15 May 2005 22:18:53 -0700, "Absent Husband"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"So they replace one session with presumably the same
>aerobic intensity and duration, with 2, and then call
>that a valid study?
>
>Please find the paper, it sounds "interesting" with the
>above description :) "
>
><snip>
>
>Ok - stretching the memory again...
>
>IIRC - the gist of the conclusion was that if you were an
>elite/sub-elite runner, and you wanted to improve your performance, but
>you didn't want to pound your legs into submission by adding more
>'running sessions', then there aremeasurable benefits to be gained by
>using cycling (ie. you wouldn't be wasting your time by
>adding/integrating cycling sessions).


That sounds believable.
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On 15 May 2005 22:18:53 -0700, "Absent Husband"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"So they replace one session with presumably the same
>aerobic intensity and duration, with 2, and then call
>that a valid study?
>
>Please find the paper, it sounds "interesting" with the
>above description :) "
>
><snip>
>
>Ok - stretching the memory again...
>
>IIRC - the gist of the conclusion was that if you were an
>elite/sub-elite runner, and you wanted to improve your performance, but
>you didn't want to pound your legs into submission by adding more
>'running sessions', then there aremeasurable benefits to be gained by
>using cycling (ie. you wouldn't be wasting your time by
>adding/integrating cycling sessions).


That sounds believable.
 
C

Carl Brewer

Guest
On 15 May 2005 22:18:53 -0700, "Absent Husband"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"So they replace one session with presumably the same
>aerobic intensity and duration, with 2, and then call
>that a valid study?
>
>Please find the paper, it sounds "interesting" with the
>above description :) "
>
><snip>
>
>Ok - stretching the memory again...
>
>IIRC - the gist of the conclusion was that if you were an
>elite/sub-elite runner, and you wanted to improve your performance, but
>you didn't want to pound your legs into submission by adding more
>'running sessions', then there aremeasurable benefits to be gained by
>using cycling (ie. you wouldn't be wasting your time by
>adding/integrating cycling sessions).


That sounds believable.
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
Carl Brewer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:58:04 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>

<snip>
> >The most ridiculous part is that a lot of the research would've been
> >written up in universities that have a maths/stats department that could
> >offer advice.

>
> The maths faculties won't talk to Engineering or Physics, let alone
> the physed department.
>
> How long have you been in universities? :) The departments
> within the faculties hate eachother with a passion only
> exceeded by their hate for other faculties, and then other
> universities!


Cynic! I've been researching for 4.5 years. Over in Physics I worked at
closing the gap between theoretical and experiemental physics with some
success. And due to my friendship with mathemeticians through a process
of learning with them and later teaching with them, I got heaps of help
out of them as well. We had a whole group of rebellious mathematical
physicists!

Now over in this side of the world, I work with engineers, physicists,
mathemeticians, psychologists, phys ed graduates, physiotherapists...
hehehe but we don't talk to the rest of the department!

Tam

(Bah, don't trust my judgement, I use the net to pick up guys)
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
Carl Brewer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:58:04 +1000, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>

<snip>
> >The most ridiculous part is that a lot of the research would've been
> >written up in universities that have a maths/stats department that could
> >offer advice.

>
> The maths faculties won't talk to Engineering or Physics, let alone
> the physed department.
>
> How long have you been in universities? :) The departments
> within the faculties hate eachother with a passion only
> exceeded by their hate for other faculties, and then other
> universities!


Cynic! I've been researching for 4.5 years. Over in Physics I worked at
closing the gap between theoretical and experiemental physics with some
success. And due to my friendship with mathemeticians through a process
of learning with them and later teaching with them, I got heaps of help
out of them as well. We had a whole group of rebellious mathematical
physicists!

Now over in this side of the world, I work with engineers, physicists,
mathemeticians, psychologists, phys ed graduates, physiotherapists...
hehehe but we don't talk to the rest of the department!

Tam

(Bah, don't trust my judgement, I use the net to pick up guys)
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
DaveB wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > (Bah, don't trust my judgement, I use the net to pick up guys)

>
> Plural? Has Hippy been dumped in favour of someone else already? Or is


Hey, don't even joke about that!

> there a dark history of Internet stalking we don't know about.


No, I was just trying to be non-specific.

> DaveB "not my real name"


Tam

BTW I know where you live...

(not really)
 
D

dave

Guest
Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Carl Brewer wrote:
>
>>On 15 May 2005 17:12:10 -0700, "Absent Husband"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah - do both!!
>>>
>>>I'm sure I've read research reports (proper ones - control groups, etc,
>>>all used) - that show that runners that incorporate cycling into
>>>training are better than 'runners only'; and cyclists that incorporate
>>>a small amount of running are better cyclists.

>>
>>I'm sure I haven't. Please cite your sources :)
>>And were the subjects of the research already well trained
>>cyclists/runners, or not? that make a *huge* difference
>>to the result of the experiment.

>
>
> Actually I'm pretty sure the studies have shown that cycling can't
> possibly help running. However, I became a better runner from cycling, I
> figure it was because I was overreaching in my running training whereas
> recovering from my cycling training, therefore it was a cardio effect.
>
> As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
> triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
> my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
> cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
> their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
> country at night without lights.
>
> Tam


Running is fun???
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
dave wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:

<snip>
> > As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
> > triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
> > my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
> > cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
> > their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
> > country at night without lights.
> >
> > Tam

>
> Running is fun???


Sure, it's easy too! :p

Tam
 
R

Resound

Guest
"Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> dave wrote:
>>
>> Tamyka Bell wrote:

> <snip>
>> > As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
>> > triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
>> > my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
>> > cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
>> > their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
>> > country at night without lights.
>> >
>> > Tam

>>
>> Running is fun???

>
> Sure, it's easy too! :p
>
> Tam


No, it's simple. It's a small, but profoundly important distinction.
 
T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
Resound wrote:
>
> "Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > dave wrote:
> >>
> >> Tamyka Bell wrote:

> > <snip>
> >> > As for running helping cycling, I'm pretty sure it's all bad. The top
> >> > triathletes are generally slower than top cyclists, and I've found that
> >> > my cycling hasn't gotten much worse since I stopped training, and I
> >> > cycle much stronger when I haven't been running. Probably would help
> >> > their flexibility though. Plus running is fun, and you can do it cross
> >> > country at night without lights.
> >> >
> >> > Tam
> >>
> >> Running is fun???

> >
> > Sure, it's easy too! :p
> >
> > Tam

>
> No, it's simple. It's a small, but profoundly important distinction.


Do you think it's simple? I don't think it's simple. There's a lot to it
and a lot of people do it with really bad form. I think a lot of people
don't realise how complex and technical running truly is. But once you
figure out the right way for YOU to do it, it's easy!

Tam
 
R

Resound

Guest

>> No, it's simple. It's a small, but profoundly important distinction.

>
> Do you think it's simple? I don't think it's simple. There's a lot to it
> and a lot of people do it with really bad form. I think a lot of people
> don't realise how complex and technical running truly is. But once you
> figure out the right way for YOU to do it, it's easy!
>
> Tam


Ok, granted. Even as a non-runner, I see people running (especially women,
for some reason) with realy odd running styles. I've tried running once
recently, and I plan to have another go. I made the mistake of taking my
girlfriend's dog with me, thinking I'd run out of go before him even though
he's only a fairly small dog. Nope. Very tired little dog legs,very quickly.
He barely had the energy to bark at my cats when we got home. Little sod.