Question for runners: Are some people just not capable of running?

[KSH]

That's pretty good walking there!

I decided today, I am going to make "finish and not be last" my life motto...

My motto is, "I won't die" or "It won't kill me".

[OakLeaf]

I'm working on a theory here. I actually haven't been running since I crashed my bike last month (pain at first, but a whole lot of other stuff in the last few weeks). I'm hoping to get out for a run later today. But anyway here's my idea:

Cyclists are used to nice LONG workouts. It's not even worth getting all suited up and going out the door unless we're going to ride at least an hour, and that's a really short ride. We prefer two hours on work nights and a whole lot more than that on weekends. Am I right so far?

So then the cyclist decides to go running. But our running muscles just aren't in the same kind of shape as our cycling muscles, besides the fact that even slow running is pretty intense cardiovascularly (whereas on a bike, if you want you can just take the pace down and pretty much cruise forever, long after you feel like your muscles are done).

So we're reaching our running lactate threshold at a HR that doesn't even begin to challenge a cardiovascular system that's in pretty good shape from cycling.

And SO... because we're going out to get some freakin' CARDIO, we keep our running at a pace that we can maintain for 45 minutes to an hour. It ain't even what we'd consider a minimum workout on the bike. But otherwise, we have this idea in our head that it wasn't worth the time to put on our shorts and two layers of high-impact bras and tape up all the blister-prone areas on our feet. We probably don't even think that we're limiting the pace. We just think that that's all the faster we can run, just because that's all we can maintain for five or six miles. Am I still right so far?

But then, as the saying goes,.... train slow, race slow.

I think just maybe, in order for a cyclist to learn to run, we have to be willing to go out for really short runs. Warm up, do some one-minute intervals at a seven-minute pace, then cool down and quit. (Or eight minute, or nine, or whatever's just SHORT of all-out.) Even if we've only been out for 20 minutes. Do it as the warmup to our strength day or Pilates day, or before a shorter bike ride, if keeping a workout so short would result in temper tantrums, insomnia, fighting with the spouse, inefficiency at work, or just general cranial detonation. Then incrementally increase the pace, length and number of the intervals, while leaving the rest periods the same.

That's my new training plan, anyway. I'll let you know if it works.

[VeloVT]

So then the cyclist decides to go running. But our running muscles just aren't in the same kind of shape as our cycling muscles, besides the fact that even slow running is pretty intense cardiovascularly (whereas on a bike, if you want you can just take the pace down and pretty much cruise forever, long after you feel like your muscles are done).

So we're reaching our running lactate threshold at a HR that doesn't even begin to challenge a cardiovascular system that's in pretty good shape from cycling.

Everyone's different, but I have the opposite problem when I'm in good biking shape, but then start running again after not doing it regularly for some time.

My legs will be capable of maintaining a faster pace than my heart and lungs will permit, because running at a moderate/high intensity is more cardiovascularly challenging than cycling at the same intensity. Typically I'll have a lot of muscular endurance from cycling and I'm used to keeping a high cadence on my bike, so my running turnover is quick, which increases speed. But at a certain point my hr just goes through the roof because I'm not in cardiovascular condition to maintain the pace I'm running, and I have to slow down, even though my legs are not feeling heavy at all.

It takes me a few weeks of regular running to get back into cardiovascular condition to maintain a challenging pace, evenly, over distance. Some of it, also, is that you have to develop a sense of pace for running, and unfortunately having a good sense of pace for cycling doesn't necessarily transfer to running, you sort of have to get the feel back.

But the other thing you mentioned, about thinking about running workouts differently than cycling workouts, that never occurred to me because I was a runner before I was a cyclist, but it's definitely true. Running burns more calories per distance or per time period than cycling, thus it is comparatively a more intense workout. Think about it: cycling 26 miles is no big deal, right? but how many of us could get up tomorrow and run 26 miles without training? not me!!! And up to a certain point, you can build cycling mileage pretty quickly -- you can go from riding 10 miles to riding 20 miles, or 20 miles to 40 miles, or 30 to 60, without too much trouble (up to a point). But that's much less the case with running I think. Once you get much past 3 miles you can't really reasonably double your distance all at once anymore. It takes a long time to build up the endurance to run for two or three (or more) hours -- much longer than it takes to build the endurance to ride for the same amount of time. Even though the same training principles apply to both, you really need to think about them differently when considering how fast to build.