the paradox that is cycling
Ever wonder why some of the strongest people in your spin class (you know, the ones who never slack off and are always up for another hill) rarely seem to be thinnest and youngest person in the class?
Or perhaps some of your friends (or parent's friends for that matter) talk incessantly about cycling and century rides on the weekend (100 mile rides) yet they have pudges all over and are by most people's definition slightly overweight?
Well that, my friends, is what we call the "bicycling paradox." What makes for a competitive runner (rail thin and young), is not always ideal for a good cyclist. You may be thinking well look at Lance or other professionals, but we're talking about mere mortals today.
The New York Times had an article today about this paradox. In cycling it's your weight-to-strength ratio that really matters. Sure those rail thin ones can race up the hill the fastest, but the bigger ones will go faster downhill (due to center-of-gravity) and they will also ride on flat surfaces faster.
This is true. I used to know a few cyclists and the skinny ones always did great on hilly courses, but when it came to flat courses the bigger ones could sprint faster. (Skinny = climber, Bigger = sprinter)
And with cycling age isn't as big of a factor as running. Bicycling is a lot less grueling on the body than running, so it doesn't take its toll as hard and as soon.
Take away - if you're a runner, cycling is a great cross training activity that will help you body last longer than competitive running. If you're a cyclist, don't fret if you're not the skinniest and youngest, you can still kick some serious skinny-butt out there. And if you're neither a runner or a cyclist, make this the week (or month) that you start trying these sports out.
