Trond Lays it Out

Another 2 bits... I've done 3-hr bike rides that were totally
devastating. Anaerobically, aerobically, muscularly---the works. Yet
not harsh.

I've done running races that I was trained for (like half-marathon
trail race in the humidity) and been all done in at the end---but those
max blast bike workouts were much more intense.

On a bike you can get max-intense over and over again and keep fueling
up, for hours. You can go much harder/intense/severe on a bike than on
something where your weight isn't supported, for longer, too.

I don't know how to rate such a workout except that it was the hardest
in my life. Really fun, too.

Harder than ski training. Not harder than a 30k ski race, though---but
longer---with a bike you maybe don't want to really get close to losing
consciousness but on skis that's how the top of a hill should be. : )


In skiing I'd feel like I was trying to pull my arms out of their
sockets. In biking it was breaking the frame or bars. I suppose running
can bring out the "kill," too. But for over an hour?

You had to be in full-on race fitness to survive---even the warm-up was
tough. For sure it wasted you for the next couple days. 60 miles---1 hr
warm-up, 5 5-mile mini-races in hills, 20 min warm-down. 85degF/85%
humidity. Oh yeah!

--JP

There are several different issues here.

One is the effect on your body's integrity -- ie joints, muscle
breakdown, etc. For sure running is harder. So in terms of keeping
track of what you've done in order to deal with injury prevention,
etc, you must count an hour of running as more than an hour of
cycling. Maybe double. Maybe more.

But what about looking at it in terms of the stress on your body that
is good -- the demands placed on your muscles to propel yourself
(that's what you're training for, after all). Or even stress related
to, say, getting sick or generally overtrained (as opposed to
injured). It's not at all clear to me that an hour of running is
"worth" more in that respect than an hour cycling at the same
intensity (using perceived exertion or HR or some other measure of
exertion). It's just harder to do because of injuries and (bad) muscle
breakdown. In this respect maybe running is little higher, but not
"double."

I never run much, but the only time I was running regularly (about
70-90 minutes once a week and a few short (like 20 minutes) runs per
week, those workouts were not more tiring systemically than other
stuff -- cycling, skating, whatever. But there was a cost in soreness
that was much higher than other forms of exercise.

JFT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Matt Liebsch wrote:
This is the response i got from Piotr when I asked him about it...

"Well all I can say is that most ski coaches would not
consider at 3 hour run and 3 hour ride the same- regardless of HR.
Clearly,
running for 3 hours is much more difficult, fatiguing, abusive, takes
more to
recover from.

I think it depends on the individual. In college, there was a period when I
used to run 20 miles per day in single daily runs, just about every day,
mostly in about 2:30-2:45 on hilly mixed road/trail terrain. It wasn't
difficult to keep up day after day. I'd sometimes take a day or two off per
week, but I was doing 20(+) each time I went out for a run (weekly running
mileage often looked like: 120, 140, 100, 120, 145...) . At the time, I
was also doing an additional 5-7 miles per day of walking to and from
classes from off-campus to and around the large campus, to the libraries,
and into town for a bite or to go to the record shops and book stores.
Plus, there was biking to get the groceries. I would also often hop on the
bike for a ride (30-100) on a running rest day. (I had ridden on college
cycling team my freshman year.) Whew! Makes me tired thinking about it
now, but it was "normal" for me then. I found myself most tired, or maybe
depleted/hungry is the better word, after solo rides in the 4+ hour range
(usually up the coast and into the mountains), much more so than a 2:45 run.
A reason for that was probably because I didn't "fuel" myself while training
or racing, for that matter (mostly out of ignorance). The hours mattered
more than the activity for me.

I don't think that "2 hour ride = 1 hour run" is a very good estamate.
From a training prespective it's better to say 2.2 hrs level 1, 0.8 hrs
level 2.


If you are looking at physical load, "2 hour ride = 1 hour run" is
acturate, but also from that prespective 4 hour run = 12 schultz ice.

The point is: how you want to count hours is a very subjective process.
xc-ski training makes it far more difficult because of all the
cross-training involved. Plus, you can't compare one persons hours to
another unless those people are training the exact same way.

Byrnes-out

I actually believe that subjecting your body to the general physical
abuse, or pounding, is good for your training, in moderation. I think
we would all agree that xc ski races are not just a aerobically taxing,
but also physically taxing. So to "teach" your body to fix it self is
a part of training.

Byrnes-out

There is research, and anecdotal evidence, in the cycling circles to
the effect that if all's you do is low impact, high aerobic activity
like cycling, you become more susceptible to osteoporosis: essentially
the theory seems to be that your body sweats out calcium, and it does
not get the triggers to produce it. I know of two very active masters
cyclists who are now on supplemental calcium, and do free weights,
because of this issue. I'm looking into it myself since my activities
are XC skiing, cycling, and paddling-all fairly low impact, as my
knees can't take much impact anymore.

Here's a couple of links:

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/libr...y/aa092099.htm
http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/...s-Cycling.html

Parham.