My wife is an ultra marathon runner and I'm a cyclist. She has a bike (a real nice one too), but hardly rides it. I dragged her out for a ride today and we had a nice time going slow and enjoying the scenery (sounds like ultra running to me). Near the end she brought up an old argument - that running was more difficult than cycling because runners need to support their own weight. Also, she didn't feel she was exerting herself much on our 35 mile ride. I think the two disciplines are just too different to compare, but to me, exertion is exertion, whether its on a bike or on a run. Equal heart rates more or less equate to equal levels of effort (neglecting power output differentials, which you can't meaure on a runner anyway). I don't think supporting your body weight has anything to do with it.
Its pretty clear to me that distance runners don't put out nearly the same power that a cyclist does for equal times exercising. Otherwise distance runners would have more powerful builds, which they clearly don't. Ultra runners are pure endurance athletes, whereas most cyclists have to sprint at times, or at least opeate at a high % of their max heart rate.
Am I wrong? Is running "harder" than cycling? It seems to me that anyone making this claim isn't riding very hard. I've never suffered running like I have cycling - certainly not in the muscle tissue. Only thing comparable for me is rowing.
Its pretty clear to me that distance runners don't put out nearly the same power that a cyclist does for equal times exercising. Otherwise distance runners would have more powerful builds, which they clearly don't. Ultra runners are pure endurance athletes, whereas most cyclists have to sprint at times, or at least opeate at a high % of their max heart rate.
Am I wrong? Is running "harder" than cycling? It seems to me that anyone making this claim isn't riding very hard. I've never suffered running like I have cycling - certainly not in the muscle tissue. Only thing comparable for me is rowing.