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

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.

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:[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:[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:[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]...

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