Bike VS Tempo Volume!

Okay just to make this nice and simple, i work out 5days a week with 2days of hills (mon and fri) and a special endurance session on wed. Tempo goes on tues and thurs. Anyways, the fact there is no other transport means for me but to get on the bike an ride 6K to the pitch and 6K back, means an average weekly bike riding volume of 60K!! (including hills and crap!)

Now the qs is, if say my tempo sessions usually average 1500m per session, ie arounds 3000-3500per week (over two sessions):

  1. Would i need to drop that volume to compensate for the bike (as far as aerobic work is concerned)?

  2. Is the bike going to slow me down in any way EVEN if im maintaining three sprinting days a week?

  3. And is there going to be any other training component that would need to be dropped to compensate for the bike weekly mileage?

Thanks a lot

A rule of thumb I have heard used is that 60mins of cycling is equivalent to 40 mins of continous running.
ie a 2 / 3 ratio.

The theory being that cycling supports the body weight compared to running. Therefore cycling develops lower heart rates for a given perceived intensity.

So cycling could be used a a subsitute for the aerobic benefits of continous running at the 2 to 3 ratio.
However it is not as specific as continous running to the demands of an athlete. And continous running may not be as specific as the benefits of extensive tempo.

It does however give a low impact benefit that some people like, eg if they are injury prone.

At 60km a week, the reduced range of motion might create flexibility issues - particularly in the thighs.

I would say it depends on how intense the ride is. 6k is hardly worth talking about Just be careful to go easy. Use the easier gears on the hills and coast down the other side. Sounds like you need the bike to get there so there is not much you can do unless there are free rides to the pitch. Wear a helmet so you don’t get killed on the way there. Amos