Seattle Forrest

I'm guessing you're a more experienced runner than I am, I should be asking you that!

When I've run and used Running Dynamics, I noticed something funny. Better and more experienced runners have told me my strides are too long, I should make them shorter which will help with turnover/cadence, and get me the same pace with less effort. So, I'll put the RD screen up on my watch, and make an effort to shorten my stride, and my HR will shoot up 10 bpm.

So I'm thinking if you did an outdoor run on a flat course and a windless day, running at a natural gait and a shuffle step, if you do both at the same pace, one might have a higher HR cost. Do that at various paces and see how your body reacts.

wphamilton

I doubt it. I ran track in the 70's and then very little running since, until about a year ago.

I am fully capable of poor form either way which would skew it. On the other hand, it would be good to know even with poor form.

Darth Lefty 

This is why the triathlon-focused competitor to this forum is called slowtwitch,com

OBoile

I'm not expert on this, but I do remember reading in a book about running that runners tend to gravitate to their most efficient cadence over time without really thinking about it. IIRC there was a study done and for experienced runners, their self-selected cadence was the most efficient.

Carbonfiberboy 

It's true that running at the same speed but higher cadence will increase HR. Which is also true of cycling. Cycling at the same speed at 60 and 100 cadence, HR will definitely be higher at 100. Which doesn't mean lower cadence is better, nor does any of this mean that self-selected cadence is better, unless you're talking to top finishers in endurance races.

Training to run or ride at different cadences influences "self-selected" cadence. Years ago, when I was trying to get faster, I pushed my self-selected cycling cadence up from 88 to 94. We often note that newbies to cycling frequently ride at 60 or lower cadences. Self-selected but ineffective, though very possibly the most efficient for the untrained.

work4bike

A very interesting video and talks about how weightlifting helps all athletes. The video gets really interesting at the 14-minute point.

TexMac

There is a sturdy that shows 95deg squats might be better than Ass2Grass

Carbonfiberboy 

A benefit of ATG is strength throughout the full ROM. A benefit of half-squats is more strength thoughout the ROM used by cyclists. A benefit of using Olympic or powerlifter depth (top of hinge of thigh below knee) is that it doesn't count if you don't go that low. My 2nd-in-powerlifting-Worlds coach at the gym says that particular depth makes you strongest. But how would he know?

TexMac

No doubt.
the sturdy was comparing full vs half vs Quarter transfer to sprinting
https://ylmsportscience.com/2016/07/...msportscience/

njlonghorn

As a kid, I was an avid waterskier. For weeks on end, I could put in 6-8 runs per day of 10-15 minutes each.

I now ski once or twice a year, if even that. I have no trouble getting up and can still cut pretty well -- but after 60-90 seconds my outer thighs are burning out of control. My recovery time before I can take another run is 2-3 days.

I guess cycling isn't doing anything for my abductors, lol.

work4bike

If I get the jist of that sturdy... claiming that the 1/4 and 1/2 squats greatly improved 28-college students vertical jump and sprint performance over 16 weeks, then I'd have to agree, but that doesn't mean that we should all be doing 1/4 & 1/2 squats in lieu of full depth.

If someone is serious about total body health, be careful of training the body for specific exercises or following the training regimens of professional athletes. If I were training for a race or something, I'd probably cut out the full depth squats (and a bunch of other things), but most of us are not training for an event/race. Nature abhors not only vacuums, but also specialists.

TexMac

Agree, you can't go on with what every sturdy says esp with diff age and abilities. I never used to lift when I ran marathons in highschool, then played rugby and we used body weights, started lifting heavy after highschool, now I just use bodyweight and rarely any weights.

OBoile

Yeah, I've lifted with a few world champion powerlifters (there are a lot of age/weight combinations and it's a pretty small sport, so these aren't as rare as you would think). While certainly not a detraction wrt knowledge (they all know powerlifting really well and strength training in general), I wouldn't take their word as gospel for general training advice.

The height chosen for powerlifting was done simply because it gives a (relatively) clear way to measure range of motion. It was a choice made for practical reasons, not because it was magically superior to all other depths for strength training. If you're a powerlifter, you need to use that depth a lot because that is the depth you use to compete at. For anyone else, it's a fine default choice, but may not be optimal depending on your goals and your mobility (if you're rounding your back to achieve a certain depth, it's too deep).

IMO, as long as your range of motion isn't either ridiculously short or too deep (i.e. rounding your back), how deep you go matters considerably less than things like effort, consistency, nutrition, volume etc. Do those things right with any reasonable ROM and you'll get stronger.

OBoile

To add to this, it's very dangerous to make conclusions based off of a single study. I've seen (but I'm not going bother looking up) at least one study that showed full range squats were superior for vertical jumping and sprinting speed.

OBoile

I have nothing scientific to base this on, but I've found that as I get older, my fitness seems to become far more activity specific. I go skiing once a year or so and I've found that as I get older, it's far more difficult on my leg muscles despite me doing a bunch of other stuff (biking, weights) than it used to be.

Carbonfiberboy 

Of course it does. I think skiing once a season would be discouraging. Today was my 3rd time this season. We skied 21,000' in 3.5 hours of skiing, got tired and went home. Yeah, when I was 22 I could ski 40,000' once I was in shape. Of course I'm not in skiing shape yet, and won't get there ever just skiing once a week. I'm a happy skier though. I was hitting over 40 on some runs, or so my Garmin said, meaning that actually I was faster than that due to slope. I'm just starting to ramp up training for the season, so biking, skiing, weights, running, all that stuff. It's good to do it all in the winter. I have a century on the tandem scheduled for late February.

jsk

I agree with this in theory. The reality I see in commercial gyms makes me think that most people would be best served by going at least to parallel if not hip-below-knee.

The reason I say that is because it's just a fact that shallow squats are easier, and what happens is people with lousy form end up putting way too much weight on the bar when they squat shallow. You don't have to be squatting ATG to hurt your back, in fact from what I've seen most of the people with the worst form are squatting shallow. I see lots of guys rounding their backs on 1/4- or 1/2 squats because they've got far more weight on the bar than their trunk/core can properly support even through a limited ROM.

Another downside of shallow squats is that it's likely to create or exacerbate muscle imbalances since the outer quads are doing the majority of the work. The inner thighs don't really contribute much unless you squat deeper. Not to mention the lack of posterior chain recruitment.

OBoile

Agreed on all points. My "default" choice would be hip-below-knee. But other (reasonable - 1/4 squats don't count) depths will work almost as well. I find some people just get too dogmatic about squat depth.

work4bike

Like the OP (and me) this lady found out she was also wrong.

A good article on the importance of cross training.

https://www.bicycling.com/training/s...cyclist-fit-af

Carbonfiberboy 

Hams are usually weaker than they should be in cyclists, maybe most everyone. I've been doing ham training for a long time, but pulled a ham doing stiff legged deadlifts this past week. Guess what the greatest statistical risk for a pulled ham is? Age, dammit. So glute-ham raises and Nordic curls from now on, emphasis on the eccentric, maybe no concentric for me.

Seattle Forrest

Romanian deadlifts are great for the hammies.

Seattle Forrest

21 miles on Saturday, finished under 4 hours. Did another 12 miles Sunday.



Selfie mode is a mind ****. Watch is on my left hand in that pic.

Hondo Gravel

I squatted and deadlifted my way to a triple hernia operation . I ride my bikes a lot and have decent legs nothing earth shattering but when I tried squats and deads again I was sore for a week and my hernia mesh hurt and felt like it was going to pop At 50 if I hit lower body lifting I’m too sore to enjoy riding and I don’t want another hernia. I know weight lifting is great but I get enough strength work doing chore and my small ranch. If you are young no problem .

SylvainG

Good for you I love cross country skiing too. I usually only have an hour to 'give' to skiing per day on weekends so it limits where I can ski. Lucky for me, there are groomed trails around a lake near my place that I go to. Elevation difference for a 7 km trail is about 80 meters.

Did the 15km Gatineau Loppet myself yesterday in 1h 26m (avg speed of 10.6 km/h and elevation difference of 200 meters). Did another 7 km this afternoon (around that lake). Forecasting above 0C and rain next week so cross country skiing will almost be over but that means cycling season will start soon

I'm 54 and lucky for me, have no hernia. I also don't dead lift. For upper legs, I do weighted squats, weighted lunges, free hand jump squats, sit squat and dumbbell one leg squats.

Edit: Forgot I turned 55 earlier this month...

gurk700

Gotta do HIIT. "Just commuting" won't do anything for leg strength. It'll help you keep up a decent endurance and spend calories.