how much cross training to compensate for a ten mile run

psychozeb

can anyone give me some info on how long would i need to spend on the bike to give me the same workout as a ten mile run.the programme i'm following calls for a ten mile run the day before my long runs and would like to swap this for a session on the bike.

rigal

psychozeb wrote: »

can anyone give me some info on how long would i need to spend on the bike to give me the same workout as a ten mile run.the programme i'm following calls for a ten mile run the day before my long runs and would like to swap this for a session on the bike.

About 4 times the run distance (40 miles) AFAIK..

psychozeb

thanks for the reply,would that have to be at a fairly quick pace or is it more important to spend the time on the bike at a slower pace.

WhitestBoyAlive

30-40miles if you are equally as good at cycling

psychozeb

WhitestBoyAlive wrote: »

30-40miles if you are equally as good at cycling

only cycling about a month but have done a few 20-25 mile cycles and felt fairly comfortable doing them.

rigal

psychozeb wrote: »

thanks for the reply,would that have to be at a fairly quick pace or is it more important to spend the time on the bike at a slower pace.

I've just started cycling this summer. I think there is a danger that you can go too slow on the bike. I tend to average 15-17mph depending on the route and the hills involved (live beside the Dublin mountains). I also wear a HR monitor and it's usually around 130-140 bpm where as on a long run it'd be c. 20 beats higher.

I guess it depends on your level of fitness. For context I'm training for my second marathon in October and am aiming for sub-3:30 so long runs are done at c.8:30 mins/ mile. I haven't done any very long cycles (>35 miles) as I tend to try to run as much as possible and just use the bike for x-training.

psychozeb

rigal wrote: »

I've just started cycling this summer. I think there is a danger that you can go too slow on the bike. I tend to average 15-17mph depending on the route and the hills involved (live beside the Dublin mountains). I also wear a HR monitor and it's usually around 130-140 bpm where as on a long run it'd be c. 20 beats higher.

I guess it depends on your level of fitness. For context I'm training for my second marathon in October and am aiming for sub-3:30 so long runs are done at c.8:30 mins/ mile. I haven't done any very long cycles (>35 miles) as I tend to try to run as much as possible and just use the bike for x-training.

not too bad on the fitness side did dublin last year in 3:25:30 and paris in 3:29:30 doing my cycles at the moment at around that 17-18 mph average but not a huge amount of hills involved.

rigal

psychozeb wrote: »

not too bad on the fitness side did dublin last year in 3:25:30 and paris in 3:29:30 doing my cycles at the moment at around that 17-18 mph average but not a huge amount of hills involved.

Better than me then ... Hopefully we're both doing something right!

psychozeb

rigal wrote: »

Better than me then ... Hopefully we're both doing something right!

hopefully would love to get a boston qualifying but it might be too much of a jump so hoping the bike will help.just believing in yourself is half the battle.

ss43

psychozeb wrote: »

can anyone give me some info on how long would i need to spend on the bike to give me the same workout as a ten mile run.the programme i'm following calls for a ten mile run the day before my long runs and would like to swap this for a session on the bike.

What's the purpose of the ten mile run? If it's just a recovery run (which is unlikely given the distance) you could just go for an easy cycle and you'd get much the same effect i.e. increasing the blood flow and speeding up your recovery.

However, if it's real running training, it can't be done on a bike. It won't challenge your legs to support your weight and deal with the impact of running and you'll work different muscles (even when the same muscles are involved the action isn't necessarily the same).

psychozeb

ss43 wrote: »

What's the purpose of the ten mile run? If it's just a recovery run (which is unlikely given the distance) you could just go for an easy cycle and you'd get much the same effect i.e. increasing the blood flow and speeding up your recovery.

However, if it's real running training, it can't be done on a bike. It won't challenge your legs to support your weight and deal with the impact of running and you'll work different muscles (even when the same muscles are involved the action isn't necessarily the same).

was hoping it would give me a break from running on the road the day before my long runs but at the same time giving me a good workout.a lot of marathon programmes i was looking at have cross training in them.

ss43

psychozeb wrote: »

was hoping it would give me a break from running on the road the day before my long runs but at the same time giving me a good workout.a lot of marathon programmes i was looking at have cross training in them.

Doing the ten miles off-road would be another alternative so!

I don't know what programme you're using so I don't know the logic of having a ten mile run scheduled before your long run.

Going on a bike will give you a good bike workout. If you're unfit, then it'll help because any activity will but if you're a reasonably well trained a runner, cycling will do very little for your running (in my opinion).

I'd venture a guess that cross-training is for those who aren't fit enough to take on a full running programme rather than because it offers benefits running doesn't.

rigal

ss43 wrote: »

I'd venture a guess that cross-training is for those who aren't fit enough to take on a full running programme rather than because it offers benefits running doesn't.

Check out this article:

http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/crossbenefits.shtml

psychozeb

ss43 wrote: »

Doing the ten miles off-road would be another alternative so!

I don't know what programme you're using so I don't know the logic of having a ten mile run scheduled before your long run.

Going on a bike will give you a good bike workout. If you're unfit, then it'll help because any activity will but if you're a reasonably well trained a runner, cycling will do very little for your running (in my opinion).

I'd venture a guess that cross-training is for those who aren't fit enough to take on a full running programme rather than because it offers benefits running doesn't.

it's one that was in irish runner for a 2:30 to 3:15 time and it is saying 10miles before the long runs

Running Bing

Another strategy I have seen (but never used myself) is too keep your HR at the same level, for the same duration you do on your run.

So if you take 80 minutes to run 10 miles with an average HR of 75% then you could cycle/swim/whatever for 80 minutes keeping your HR at 75%.


The problem arises when your other muscles are not strong enough to do this....like I could never swim for 80 minutes keeping my HR at 75%, but if you were strong enough on the bike it could work.

rigal

Running Bing wrote: »

The problem arises when your other muscles are not strong enough to do this....like I could never swim for 80 minutes keeping my HR at 75%, but if you were strong enough on the bike it could work.

+1 This is a good point and applies to me and probably most runners who take up cycling. I'd be working very hard on the bike to keep my HR up that high for a full session. I guess as the muscles adapt you get faster..

psychozeb

Running Bing wrote: »

Another strategy I have seen (but never used myself) is too keep your HR at the same level, for the same duration you do on your run.

So if you take 80 minutes to run 10 miles with an average HR of 75% then you could cycle/swim/whatever for 80 minutes keeping your HR at 75%.


The problem arises when your other muscles are not strong enough to do this....like I could never swim for 80 minutes keeping my HR at 75%, but if you were strong enough on the bike it could work.

yeah will have to get my heart rate monitor set up,in a box going on 2 years now.might just do the longer run on the saturdays and fit in the cycle for a shorter time and increase the intensity of it for better breathing control.

ss43

rigal wrote: »

Check out this article:

http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/crossbenefits.shtml

SHOULD YOU CROSS-TRAIN?
As I rode the exercise bike in the lab this morning, it occurred to me that there are 3 good reasons to cross train: 1) you are injured and can’t run, so you need to do something to keep your sanity; 2) you want to improve your cardiovascular fitness without getting injured; or 3) you want to improve your running by doing other activities (such as weight lifting or yoga) that do not target your cardiovascular system...

Studies have shown that predictable training errors such as increasing mileage or adding speedwork too quickly lead to the majority of running injuries. Just as the risk of coronary artery disease can be reduced through regular exercise, so can the risk of running injuries be reduced through modifying risk factors. One way to do this is to reduce pounding on the legs and back by substituting other forms of exercise for a portion of your running.

Assuming the plan is appropriate being injured or preventing injury aren't a big deal. I don't consider strength or flexibility training to be cross-training. They're part of proper training.

But, won’t your racing performances suffer if you replace some of your running with cross training? The Principle of Specificity of Training says that your body adapts very specifically to the type of training that you do. That is why you wouldn’t have much success as a runner by doing all your training on the bike or in the pool. But, what if the majority of your training is running, can you enhance your cardiovascular fitness by doing other types of aerobic workouts? Let’s see what the research says.

Research says yeah but not as much as if you just ran.

In a 1995 study published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, Carl Foster, Ph.D. and colleagues investigated the effects of increasing training volume via additional running versus as equal increment of cross training. Thirty reasonably well-trained runners were divided into 2 groups. One group (run + run) increased their running mileage by 10% while the other group (run + swim) added an equivalent amount of swimming to their training. After 8 weeks of increased training, the run + swim group improved their 2 mile race performance by 13 seconds whereas the run + run group improved their 2 mile time by 26 seconds. In addition, the 4 mmol lactate threshold improved in the run + run group but not in the run + swim group. The results of this study suggest that even reasonably well-trained runners can improve their running performance through cross-training, but that the improvement is likely to be less than through increased running.

A 1993 study published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise investigated the effects of 5 weeks of increased training intensity through running and cycling versus running only in moderately-trained runners. Both groups increased their VO2 max values from 55 to 58 ml/kg/min, and improved their 5K times by over a minute and a half. These results indicate that similar improvements in running performance can be attained by either increasing running training or the addition of cross training in moderately trained runners.

Would be nice to see the actual study. Seems interesting

One of the best studies on cross-training and runners was published in the February 1998 issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Twenty well-trained distance runners increased their training for 6 weeks by adding 3 extra workouts per week. One group (run + run) added running workouts while the other group (run + cycle) added cycling workouts. Both groups improved their 5K times by approximately 28 seconds (from 18:16 to 17:48) after the 6 weeks of increased training. This study is particularly interesting because the runners were more highly trained than those in the other studies and because the increase in training was substantial but realistic. These results clearly show that runners can improve performance by increasing training using cycling workouts. It is likely that other cross-training activities working the large muscle groups of the legs (such as stair climbing, in-line skating, rowing, deep water running, and cross country skiing) would lead to similar improvements, whereas activities less similar to running (such as swimming) would not.

Unless they were women, I'd question their definition of well-trained. It would be nice to see the actual study here too.

Although the evidence suggests that cross-training can lead to improved performance in moderately-trained or even well-trained runners, there is no scientific evidence concerning cross-training for elite runners. A 1994 review of cross-training studies in Sports Medicine concluded that while cross-training is beneficial for moderately trained athletes, that the principle of specificity of training likely becomes more critical the higher the level of performance.

Train harder for running and then the cross training won't be beneficial!

The Bottom Line

So, what can we confidently say about the benefits of cross-training?

1. Cross-training will help you stay in shape when you can’t run. If you cross-train at the same intensity and for the same number of minutes that you would normally run, you will show almost no loss in running fitness for at least 4 weeks, and after that any loss in running performance will be gradual.

2. If you increase your training volume by cross-training you can improve your running performance. The improvement, however, will not be as large as if you had increased your mileage. This point goes right to the heart of the mileage versus injury trade-off. Sure, you would improve more by increasing your running, but you would also increase your risk of injury. The challenge for the runner is to manage that trade-off by running as much as you can before the risk of injury shoots up.

3. There is no evidence that cross training will improve performance in elite runners. The concept of specificity of training becomes more critical the higher the level of performance.

Run, run, run, run, run, run (maybe throw in some strength and flexibility as well). When you can't for some reason run, then do some aqua-jogging, cycling etc.

rigal

ss43 wrote: »

Assuming the plan is appropriate being injured or preventing injury aren't a big deal. I don't consider strength or flexibility training to be cross-training. They're part of proper training.


Research says yeah but not as much as if you just ran.


Train harder for running and then the cross training won't be beneficial!


Run, run, run, run, run, run (maybe throw in some strength and flexibility as well). When you can't for some reason run, then do some aqua-jogging, cycling etc.

Think you're missing the point ss43.

I agree that the more running the better but everyone has their limits. No one training plan is going to suit everyone as some of us can recover quicker than others.

In an ideal world anyone training for a marathon would do 50+ miles per week but the reality is that most (novice) runners training for a marathon cannot sustain that kind of mileage without elevating the risk of injury. Therefore if your legs can't manage running 5+ days a week replacing a run or two with some appropriate cross-training is better than doing nothing.

ss43

rigal wrote: »

Think you're missing the point ss43.

I agree that the more running the better but everyone has their limits. No one training plan is going to suit everyone as some of us can recover quicker than others.

In an ideal world anyone training for a marathon would do 50+ miles per week but the reality is that most (novice) runners training for a marathon cannot sustain that kind of mileage without elevating the risk of injury. Therefore if your legs can't manage running 5+ days a week replacing a run or two with some appropriate cross-training is better than doing nothing.

For most people, if they can't handle 50 miles, they should be patient and gradually build up to over 50 miles (well over it) befroe attempting to run a marathon. I don't think there's many people with an absolute limit of 50 miles per week. It just takes time to build up to for some people.

The original poster wasn't suggesting putting a cycle instead of nothing. He (she) was suggesting putting a cycle in instead of a run. Without the details of the programme we can only assume it's appropriate for him.

rigal

ss43 wrote: »

The original poster wasn't suggesting putting a cycle instead of nothing. He (she) was suggesting putting a cycle in instead of a run. Without the details of the programme we can only assume it's appropriate for him.

OP then said "was hoping it would give me a break from running on the road the day before my long runs but at the same time giving me a good workout.a lot of marathon programmes i was looking at have cross training in them"..

A break from running = rest day or x-training, so without knowing more about the OP or their programme it's probably safe to conclude that cycling isn't a bad option and would be in fact a good workout albeit not as beneficial as a run..

psychozeb

this will be my fourth marathon with a pb of 3:25:30 so it's not the mileage is the problem just would like to break the 3:15 mark and try and take a bit of the impact of road running away for that one session.

ss43

psychozeb wrote: »

this will be my fourth marathon with a pb of 3:25:30 so it's not the mileage is the problem just would like to break the 3:15 mark and try and take a bit of the impact of road running away for that one session.

If you don't mind me asking -
What mileage are you doing? What's the most you have done? What went wrong in your previous marathons including build-ups (I don't mean that they were bad, just that there's always a few things that don't go as planned)? Have you had a trouble with high mileage before?

psychozeb

ss43 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking -
What mileage are you doing? What's the most you have done? What went wrong in your previous marathons including build-ups (I don't mean that they were bad, just that there's always a few things that don't go as planned)? Have you had a trouble with high mileage before?

doing about 45 miles at the moment and 20 miles on the bike,in one or two marathons my knees got at me but other than that was comfortable enough.enjoy the long runs and haven't had any issues with them.i suppose my biggest problem is my best ten mile is around the 72 min mark and that if i want to be faster i need to improve my aerobic threshold,asthma isn't a big help in that regard.

mithril

I did my first Marathon last year in Cork without doing any runs over 15 miles - I substituted my LSR run for a long cycle -100 K plus. I had a chronic ankle injury at the time and I felt that if I avoided long runs on hard surface it would prevent it from been aggravated which proved to be the case. I agree with the ratio of 4:1 for equivalence between running and cross-training suggested above.

I finished in 3:21 which was roughly in line what McMillan calculator predicted from a half marathon I ran earlier in the year. The second half was slower but not dramatically slow.

I did not feel that I ran out of energy so I think from the point of view of training to burn fat once glycogen stocks in the muscles are used up, bike is adequate.

I did however find it the hardest physical thing I have ever done - muscles got increasingly tight particularly when we hit the hills in the second half and were very inflamed at the end of the race . If I had stopped in the last 10 K , I don't think I would have been able to continue running.

Not sure how much of this was due to sub-optimal training as against a normal experience in a first marathon.

I have run other marathons since then with the recommended ratio of LSR runs in training and found it put much less strain on the body

Husavik

Hello,

I am doing the marathon for the first time this year. I went to my local doctor (who incidentally has worked with international athletes for 18 years) about 10 weeks ago to get myself checked out.

He said I had bow legs and over pronated etc etc. Reffered to a specialist in Bio-mechanics and now have prescription insoles.

I was advised not to run more than 45 miles per week sustained over 4 weeks+ and to alternate with non impact exercises.

According to these two, most people have physiological defects in their legs to some extent and while it's not technically impossible to sustain high mileage and be injury free, it would be very hard.

So for people like us who are not trying to set up any world records training 6 to 7 days a week with a mixture of running and other aerobic exercises is close to optimal.

Or does anyone have their own insights on this?

Regards,

Husavik.

violator13

Husavik wrote: »

Hello,

I am doing the marathon for the first time this year. I went to my local doctor (who incidentally has worked with international athletes for 18 years) about 10 weeks ago to get myself checked out.

He said I had bow legs and over pronated etc etc. Reffered to a specialist in Bio-mechanics and now have prescription insoles.

I was advised not to run more than 45 miles per week sustained over 4 weeks+ and to alternate with non impact exercises.

According to these two, most people have physiological defects in their legs to some extent and while it's not technically impossible to sustain high mileage and be injury free, it would be very hard.

So for people like us who are not trying to set up any world records training 6 to 7 days a week with a mixture of running and other aerobic exercises is close to optimal.

Or does anyone have their own insights on this?

Regards,

Husavik.

Interesting.. My doc is the "running is bad for your knees" merchant. This guy sounds good.

ss43

Husavik wrote: »

Hello,

I am doing the marathon for the first time this year. I went to my local doctor (who incidentally has worked with international athletes for 18 years) about 10 weeks ago to get myself checked out.

He said I had bow legs and over pronated etc etc. Reffered to a specialist in Bio-mechanics and now have prescription insoles.

I was advised not to run more than 45 miles per week sustained over 4 weeks+ and to alternate with non impact exercises.

According to these two, most people have physiological defects in their legs to some extent and while it's not technically impossible to sustain high mileage and be injury free, it would be very hard.

So for people like us who are not trying to set up any world records training 6 to 7 days a week with a mixture of running and other aerobic exercises is close to optimal.

Or does anyone have their own insights on this?

Regards,

Husavik.

Are you new to running? Have you been running close to this mileage before.

If you're a beginner and you're able to handle 45 miles a week now, I'd imagine in a year or two you would be able to cope with a much higher figure. Likewise, if you're a beginner and your absolute limit (don't know how anyone could be sure of it) was 45 miles then I wouldn't expect you to be near it until you had more experience.

If for whatever reason, you cannot run, then cycling is productive training. However, if you can run, then running will almost always be more productive than cycling when it comes to your running performance.

Husavik

ss43 wrote: »

Are you new to running? Have you been running close to this mileage before.

If you're a beginner and you're able to handle 45 miles a week now, I'd imagine in a year or two you would be able to cope with a much higher figure. Likewise, if you're a beginner and your absolute limit (don't know how anyone could be sure of it) was 45 miles then I wouldn't expect you to be near it until you had more experience.

If for whatever reason, you cannot run, then cycling is productive training. However, if you can run, then running will almost always be more productive than cycling when it comes to your running performance.

I'm new to marathons but would have done a fair amount of exercise previously in other disciplines (Triathlons, Cycles). TBH, the only reason I went to my doc was for mostly for some advice - I never new I had bow legs. The mileage was a guideline figure from the physio. She also has me doing a lenghty stretching progamme for my calves along with other recommendations such as the ice baths after long runs all basically to keep me running.

It is encouraging to hear that with continued training I could increase my threshold for this time next year. I think it's also fair to say that running is strongest for setting one up for a marathon. All the online programs eg. Runner's World are pure running. As Aristotle said: 'what we have to learn to do, we learn buy doing'.

Regards,

Husavik.

btw, so far I'm just ahead of my target times, so it seems to be working out ok.

thirtyfoot

Husavik wrote: »

Hello,

I am doing the marathon for the first time this year. I went to my local doctor (who incidentally has worked with international athletes for 18 years) about 10 weeks ago to get myself checked out.

He said I had bow legs and over pronated etc etc. Reffered to a specialist in Bio-mechanics and now have prescription insoles.

I was advised not to run more than 45 miles per week sustained over 4 weeks+ and to alternate with non impact exercises.

According to these two, most people have physiological defects in their legs to some extent and while it's not technically impossible to sustain high mileage and be injury free, it would be very hard.

So for people like us who are not trying to set up any world records training 6 to 7 days a week with a mixture of running and other aerobic exercises is close to optimal.

Or does anyone have their own insights on this?

Regards,

Husavik.

My opinion would be that most physiological defects in your legs or hips or wherever can be overcome a lot more effectively by doing strength training that will remove these weaknesses as opposed to putting things in your shoes.

Husavik

Tingle wrote: »

My opinion would be that most physiological defects in your legs or hips or wherever can be overcome a lot more effectively by doing strength training that will remove these weaknesses as opposed to putting things in your shoes.

You could be right there Tingle - see article below if you've not already seen it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/business/30shoe.html?_r=2&8dpc

mithril

Tingle wrote: »

My opinion would be that most physiological defects in your legs or hips or wherever can be overcome a lot more effectively by doing strength training that will remove these weaknesses as opposed to putting things in your shoes.

True for some conditions but if you are flat-footed -which I understand to be the most common reason orthotics are prescribed - strength training this will not help