Have some ambitions next year, involving several multi week hikes, I’ve started to swop out some bike sessions with runs, to get ankles, knees and hips hike ready, I’m enjoying switching it up and have observed some physiological changes around RHR and HRV, basically I’m seeing a Whoop reading of 45-47 RHR and HRV in the 40’s, as opposed to 50 and low 30’s when cycling.
A quick Google returns that running is a full body workout that will trigger a more robust training affect due to greater cardiac engagement, resulting in lower RHR etc, does this make sense? Hard cycling sessions do seem to tire me more, and I rarely get Whoop recoveries in the green, I’m getting greens every morning after running, with a lower RHR too, or is it simply a case that running is not taxing me and I’m actually recovering? If so, seems I should throttle back the bike and do more runs.
For me, runs tend to be much more taxing on my musculoskeletal system, but rarely fatigue my aerobic/energy systems a ton since I’ve built it to withstand much longer and more difficult efforts on the bike.
Without very regular running, it’s tough to get your body conditioned enough to allow your aerobic system to be the limiting factor. As cyclists, most of us have big motors, but weak chassis.
I can redline on the bike and feel my quads start to melt, but it’s much harder to push myself that hard for nearly as long while running. There are way more soft tissues that start to fatigue, and your form starts to break down, making things tougher, which doesn’t happen on a bike.
Essentially, I can usually fatigue my body as a whole a bit more by crushing hard bike workouts consistently, whereas when running, I often have to dial things back sooner due to being sore.
I’m not a runner I’m doing 3 x 5 milers a week, 8.40 ish a mile, tempo HR, I’m tired after them but seem to recover overnight really well, whilst cycling seems to suppress my RHR and HRV, at least by the Whoop scores.
I wouldn’t seek out more running unless it’s something you really enjoy.
Running is almost always more damaging, which is why you see so many runners cross-training these days. Cyclists don’t have that issue. Yes, most cyclists would probably be healthier overall if they included some running into their training, but for those whose goals are 100% cycling focused, it likely does more harm than good.
I go back and forth between the two, but really enjoy running these days. I have to balance it with time on the bike, though, because I’ll get pretty sore and pick up small injuries if I start to push my weekly mileage up too far. With cycling, it’s more of a general fatigue thing that’s much less obvious than a physical injury, which is why I think burnout and overtraining are so common.
We endurance athletes are used to being tired and have a hard time slowing down our training, so we often take on more than we should. With running, it’s very obvious when I need a rest day.
I’m doing 3 x 5 milers a week, 8.40 ish a mile, tempo HR, I’m tired after them but seem to recover overnight really well, whilst cycling seems to suppress my RHR and HRV, at least by the Whoop scores.