Cycling vs Running

While both running and cycling primarily exercise the legs, they are actually quite different. A study found that, while cycling can help with running, running isn't very effective in improving cycling.
However, cycling is not a weight-bearing exercise, as running is. Thus, cyclists should run, so that their bones can stay strong etc. Runners don't necessarily have to cycle. Also, since running is weight-bearing, it is much harder mile for mile/minute for minute than cycling. This is pretty obvious, as there aren't many 100 mile running races, while there are plenty of 100 mile bike races.
A poor runner can probably become a very good cyclist with proper training and dedication. However, only a select few will ever become professional. "Excellent," is relative though.

I was an average runner on my x-country team in high school, and while in the military I was one of the faster runners in my unit. I didn't get into cycling until after having been a runner for a few years.

I was actually a much better cyclist competitively than runner. I got much better results.

Part of that I attribute to the fact that I already had developed a strong cardio system and was used to an hour plus worth of excercise from running. For a few years I would do both, but then got out of running completely and devoted all my time to cycling.

When I went out for a run in the winter after NOT running for two years but riding constantly, I got my azz kicked .......... it was significantly harder than I remembered to run fast!

Thanks for the reply, I too did much running in the
military, but I was a 21 minute 3 miler... which will
win no race I know of. Just decided to get into Cycling,
and just trying to see what others may have encounter.
Again, thanks...

"Daremo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was an average runner on my x-country team in high
school, and while in the military I was one of the faster
runners in my unit. I didn't get into cycling until after
having been a runner for a few years.

I was actually a much better cyclist competitively than
runner. I got much better results.

Part of that I attribute to the fact that I already had
developed a strong cardio system and was used to an hour
plus worth of excercise from running. For a few years I
would do both, but then got out of running completely and
devoted all my time to cycling.

When I went out for a run in the winter after NOT running
for two years but riding constantly, I got my azz kicked
.......... it was significantly harder than I remembered
to run fast!

--

Thanks for your reply!

"keydates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While both running and cycling primarily exercise the
legs, they are actually quite different. A study found
that, while cycling can help with running, running isn't
very effective in improving cycling. However, cycling is
not a weight-bearing exercise, as running is. Thus,
cyclists should run, so that their bones can stay strong
etc. Runners don't necessarily have to cycle. Also, since
running is weight-bearing, it is much harder mile for
mile/minute for minute than cycling. This is pretty
obvious, as there aren't many 100 mile running races,
while there are plenty of 100 mile bike races. A poor
runner can probably become a very good cyclist with proper
training and dedication. However, only a select few will
ever become professional. "Excellent," is relative though.

--

In article <[email hidden]>, keydates

Quoted message said:

While both running and cycling primarily exercise the
legs, they areactually quite different. A study found
that, while cycling can helpwith running, running isn't
very effective in improving cycling.However, cycling is
not a weight-bearing exercise, as running is.
Thus,cyclists should run, so that their bones can stay
strong etc. Runnersdon't necessarily have to cycle.

If cyclists need to run to keep their bones strong then
runners need to ride to keep their knees and other joints
from wearing out from the impacts of running.

Quoted message said:

Also, since running is weight-bearing,it is much harder
mile for mile/minute for minute than cycling. This
ispretty obvious, as there aren't many 100 mile running
races, whilethere are plenty of 100 mile bike races.

Wear and tear and lack of longer training sessions would be
the main reason. You can produce just as much exertion on a
bike as you can while running. If you don't believe me go to
your local velodrome and do some track events. Less than 10
minutes long and as hard as running races over that same
time period.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

keydates said:

While both running and cycling primarily exercise the
legs, they

areactually

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite different. A study found that, while cycling can
helpwith running, running isn't very effective in
improving cycling.However, cycling is

not a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight-bearing exercise, as running is. Thus,cyclists
should run, so

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their bones can stay strong etc. Runnersdon't
necessarily have to cycle.

If cyclists need to run to keep their bones strong then
runners need to ride to keep their knees and other joints
from wearing out from the impacts of running.

[censored]! Some of the epidemilogical data shows runners
having no more (and some evidence of less) joint damage
than the general population.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, since running is weight-bearing,it is much harder
mile for

mile/minute

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for minute than cycling. This ispretty obvious, as there
aren't many 100

mile

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

running races, whilethere are plenty of 100 mile bike
races.

Wear and tear and lack of longer training sessions would
be the main reason. You can produce just as much exertion
on a bike as you can while running. If you don't believe
me go to your local velodrome and do some track events.
Less than 10 minutes long and as hard as running races
over that same time period.

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Sam

Quoted message said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, keydates

Quoted message said:

While both running and cycling primarily exercise the
legs, they

areactually

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite different. A study found that, while cycling can
helpwith running, running isn't very effective in
improving cycling.However, cycling is

not a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight-bearing exercise, as running is. Thus,cyclists
should run, so

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their bones can stay strong etc. Runnersdon't
necessarily have to cycle.

If cyclists need to run to keep their bones strong then
runners need to ride to keep their knees and other
joints from wearing out from the impacts of running.

[censored]! Some of the epidemilogical data shows
runners having no more (and some evidence of less)
joint damage than the general population.

Sam, that's weak. Comparisons with the general population
are virtually meaningless for athletes. They don't care
about the fat and lazy general population, only about what
affects their own ability to do their chosen sport(s).

Note my use of the word "if" above, and it's not really bull
at all since you know as well as I do that many long-time
runners end up with joint problems and then choose to do
more cycling.

-WG

Well, at least a road race isn't on par to a road run. You would agree that 26.2 miles on foot is much harder than 26.2 miles on a bike.

In article <[email hidden]>, keydates

Quoted message said:

Well, at least a road race isn't on par to a road run.

Oh really? How so?

If you'd like to learn how to do a really hard bike ride in
about 90 minutes just let me know and I'll describe such a
workout, or pick any period of time you'd like to try.

Quoted message said:

You would agreethat
26.2 miles on foot is much harder than 26.2 miles on a
bike.

So what? Each discipline offers events that are hard. You
can go just as hard for two hours, three hours, 5 minutes,
20 seconds, etc. in either discipline. You could also say
that in some bike races there are rest periods that allow
for even more exertion at very high intensities.

If marathons weren't so hard on the body (not in a good way)
more people could train to do a marathion every day for
three weeks, like that bike race over in France.

-WG

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, keydates
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You would agreethat
26.2 miles on foot is much harder than 26.2 miles on a
bike.

It would depend on the effort being made in the ride. You
could put a time restraint on completing the ride that would
require an effort that approach that of running a marathon.
But it would have to be a hell of a ride. I ran one marathon
and swore I'd never to it again! :-)

I started as a runner, took up cycling as cross training,
and started bike racing after being grounded from running by
injury (persistent plantar fasciitis). I had my eyes opened
to something when I started using a heart rate monitor. I
found that even when running at a relatively slow pace, my
HR would still get up to 130-135 bpm. Then I'd go on a
training ride and find myself cruising at 20mph only to look
at the monitor and see an HR of 100. So I had to concentrate
on putting in a good effort to make sure I was benefiting
from the work. 1K hill intervals usually took care of that!

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

in article [email hidden], Number 9 at
[email hidden] wrote on 7/3/04 12:25 PM:

Quoted message said:

Can poor runners become excellent cyclists? What is the
relationship between the two sports? Examples would be
appropriate as well.

Thanks ahead of time!

Number 9

To put it this way, Lance was a triathlete first before
getting into bike racing...

-Sonarrat.

What I am saying is that cycling is generally less intense than running mile for mile and minute for minute. See the examples below:

As for the "So what," I was illustrating the differences between cycling and running. Also, when a person runs 26.2 miles in, say, 2 hours, he is working much harder than the bicyclist who does that same thing. Yes, if the cyclist were to cover this distance in say, 1 hour, or go 60 miles in 2 hours, they would probably be getting the same workout as that 2 hour marathon runner.

If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist either needs to go farther at this same pace (5 minute mile) or go faster in those 5 minutes (ie 4 miles).

The difference to me is that running is more damaging with
eccentric contractions. Running for 4 hours each day would
probably be much harder on the body than riding 4 hours each
day. I have ridden for 10 to 12 days for 4+ hours each day.
Never ran a single run longer than 3 hours in training (some
bad marathons lasted about 4 hours) for a marathon; when
training for a little 100 mile race (Leadville), 6 hour
rides once a week for several weeks was the norm.

As for intensity, the easiest way would be to measure
intensity based on %VO2max (or % LT power/pace).

The real question is why people insist on comparing the two.
Both are excellent forms of exercise and competition.

"keydates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that cycling is generally less intense
than running

mile for mile and minute for minute. See the examples below:

Quoted message said:

As for the "So what," I was illustrating the differences
between cycling and running. Also, when a person runs 26.2
miles in, say, 2 hours, he is working much harder than the
bicyclist who does that same thing. Yes, if the cyclist
were to cover this distance in say, 1 hour, or go 60 miles
in 2 hours, they would probably be getting the same
workout as that 2 hour marathon runner.

If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist either
needs to go farther at this same pace (5 minute mile) or
go faster in those 5 minutes (ie 4 miles).

--

I compared the two to judge what chance I, as a weak runner
might have as a cyclist. No other reason.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JT-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The difference to me is that running is more damaging with
eccentric contractions. Running for 4 hours each day would
probably be much harder

on

Quoted message said:

the body than riding 4 hours each day. I have ridden for
10 to 12 days

for

Quoted message said:

4+ hours each day. Never ran a single run longer than 3
hours in training (some bad marathons lasted about 4
hours) for a marathon; when training

for

Quoted message said:

a little 100 mile race (Leadville), 6 hour rides once a
week for several weeks was the norm.

As for intensity, the easiest way would be to measure
intensity based on %VO2max (or % LT power/pace).

The real question is why people insist on comparing the
two. Both are excellent forms of exercise and competition.

"keydates" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that cycling is generally less
intense than running

mile for mile and minute for minute. See the
examples below:

Quoted message said:

As for the "So what," I was illustrating the differences
between cycling and running. Also, when a person runs
26.2 miles in, say, 2 hours, he is working much harder
than the bicyclist who does that same thing. Yes, if the
cyclist were to cover this distance in say, 1 hour, or
go 60 miles in 2 hours, they would probably be getting
the same workout as that 2 hour marathon runner.

If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist either
needs to go farther at this same pace (5 minute mile) or
go faster in those 5 minutes (ie 4 miles).

--

While both require a good aerobic energy system (high
VO2max, good power/pace at lactate threshold, etc), cycling
does have some advantages over running. In cycling (road)
you have a team and your talents can be accentuated there.
In running, teamwork is seldom the case. Running for most of
us is basically time trialing.

The key is to try it and give it an honest go to see if you
like it (to me if you do not like it there is little sense
in doing something that is voluntary).

"Number 9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I compared the two to judge what chance I, as a weak
runner might have as

a

Quoted message said:

cyclist. No other reason.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The difference to me is that running is more damaging
with eccentric contractions. Running for 4 hours each
day would probably be much

harder

Quoted message said:

on

Quoted message said:

the body than riding 4 hours each day. I have ridden for
10 to 12 days

for

Quoted message said:

4+ hours each day. Never ran a single run longer than 3
hours in

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(some bad marathons lasted about 4 hours) for a
marathon; when training

for

Quoted message said:

a little 100 mile race (Leadville), 6 hour rides once a
week for several weeks was the norm.

As for intensity, the easiest way would be to measure
intensity based on %VO2max (or % LT power/pace).

The real question is why people insist on comparing the
two. Both are excellent forms of exercise and
competition.

"keydates" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that cycling is generally less
intense than

running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mile for mile and minute for minute. See the examples
below:

Quoted message said:

As for the "So what," I was illustrating the
differences between

cycling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and running. Also, when a person runs 26.2 miles in,
say, 2 hours, he

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

working much harder than the bicyclist who does that
same thing. Yes,

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the cyclist were to cover this distance in say, 1
hour, or go 60 miles in 2 hours, they would probably
be getting the same workout as that 2 hour marathon
runner.

If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist either
needs to go farther at this same pace (5 minute mile)
or go faster in those 5 minutes (ie 4 miles).

--

I totally agree with that. I start cycling this week, plan
to race next year, and see how it goes from there.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Em-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While both require a good aerobic energy system (high
VO2max, good power/pace at lactate threshold, etc),
cycling does have some advantages over running. In cycling
(road) you have a team and your talents can be accentuated
there. In running, teamwork is seldom the case. Running
for most of us is basically time trialing.

The key is to try it and give it an honest go to see if
you like it (to me if you do not like it there is little
sense in doing something that is voluntary).

"Number 9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lJ3Gc.5207$-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I compared the two to judge what chance I, as a weak
runner might have

as

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

cyclist. No other reason.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
-"]news:[email hidden]-
.net...

Quoted message said:

The difference to me is that running is more damaging
with eccentric contractions. Running for 4 hours each
day would probably be much

harder

Quoted message said:

on

Quoted message said:

the body than riding 4 hours each day. I have ridden
for 10 to 12

days

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

4+ hours each day. Never ran a single run longer than
3 hours in

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(some bad marathons lasted about 4 hours) for a
marathon; when

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

a little 100 mile race (Leadville), 6 hour rides once
a week for

several

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weeks was the norm.

As for intensity, the easiest way would be to measure
intensity based

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

%VO2max (or % LT power/pace).

The real question is why people insist on comparing
the two. Both are excellent forms of exercise and
competition.

"keydates" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> What I am saying is that cycling is generally less
> intense than

running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mile for mile and minute for minute. See the examples
below:
>
> As for the "So what," I was illustrating the
> differences between

cycling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> and running. Also, when a person runs 26.2 miles in,
> say, 2 hours,

he

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> working much harder than the bicyclist who does that
> same thing.

Yes,

Quoted message said:

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the cyclist were to cover this distance in say, 1
> hour, or go 60

miles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> in 2 hours, they would probably be getting the same
> workout as that

2

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> hour marathon runner.
>
> If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist
> either needs to go farther at this same pace (5
> minute mile) or go faster in those 5 minutes (ie 4
> miles).
>
>
>
> --
>
>

In article <[email hidden]>, keydates

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that cycling is generally less intense
than running mile for mile and minute for minute.

Not always true. One of the most intense races in all of
cycling lasts about 1 minute and 1-15 seconds and is only 1k
long. A person can ride just as hard mile for mile or minute
for minute if they choose to-most don't. Another hard bike
race is the 3k pursuit and it takes approximately 3:40 to
ride-similar to the 1500m or 1 mile run.

Did you watch the Tour prologue? Do you think 3000m runners
are at less intensity?

Quoted message said:

Also, when a person runs 26.2 miles in, say, 2 hours, he
isworking much harder than the bicyclist who does that
same thing.

You can ride just as hard for two hours as you can run for
two hours. If you do a running race for two hours you are
going as hard as you can over that period of time. A bike
racer can do the same thing, and sometimes because of the
dynamics of bike racing you will push yourself even harder
than you could during a run.

Do you ever see a runner collapse on the ground during a
race because they can't hold themselves up? In bike racing
riders can often reach this level of exertion/fatigue, then
coast for a few minutes, and then go hard again.

Quoted message said:

Yes, ifthe cyclist were to cover this distance in say, 1
hour, or go 60 milesin 2 hours, they would probably be
getting the same workout as that 2hour marathon runner.

So what is your point? Smart riders train by the hour, not
by the mile, because your body responds to time at a given
intensity, not miles at a given intensity. If you ride with
a group the miles will go by faster-same with races. Time
accounts for this.

Quoted message said:

If a runner goes 1 mile in 5 minutes, a cyclist either
needs to gofarther at this same pace (5 minute mile) or go
faster in those 5minutes (ie 4 miles).

Why is this a problem? If you want to become a good cyclist
then you need to forget about miles during training and
focus on hours and minutes. It would help your running too.

-WG

1. I never said that cycling was always less intense than running. I said it generally is, at least for "average" people.

2. A cyclist who rides 2 hours at the same intensity as the 2 hour marathon runner should go much farther than that runner. 13.1 mph run for 2 hours requires a lot more exertion than a 13.1 mph bike (assuming terrain is equal). Thus, the same intensity on a bike generally means that the speeds are higher and thus a greater distance is travelled.

3. I am reinforcing my point that a cyclist cannot go the same speed as a runner and still expect to get the same workout. Assuming the terrain is equal, a cyclist must go faster than a runner to get the equivalent amount of exercise under a certain time. A runner is going 20 minutes uphill at 10 mph is exerting more than a cyclist going 20 minutes uphill at that same speed. I am not denying your point that time is more important than mileage. I am just stating that cyclists have to go faster on a given course than a runner given a certain time in order to achieve the same intensity.

In article <[email hidden]>, keydates

Quoted message said:

I am reinforcing my point that a cyclist cannot go the
same speed as a runner and still expect to get the same
workout.

Do you know any cyclists that believe they can ride as slow
as a runner and still get the same benefit?

-WG