Do Any Of You Guys Run?(differences Between Running And Cycling)



I usually do both pretty frequently and for me, biking is so much more enjoyable... Running gets pretty boring after a while, and when I'm with my bike I'm always having fun, and I can feel that I'm exercising more...
 
Yeo. I started off with running and only just started getting into cycling. Another pro of running is that your butt doesn't get sore from a bicycle seat. :p Honestly, I like both pretty equally but cyclying is easier and allows me to travel farther than running so if I had to pick, I would say I like cycling a bit more than running. Both are great forms of exercise though.
 
I try to run as much as I could walk and ride my bike. They have their own advantage and uses. If I feel tired or lazy I just take a morning walk or a little jog. If it is not practical to bring or use a bike I run for my daily exercise. It is just a matter of using what is available and practical for me at any given time.
 
I used to run a lot back when I was in high school and a bit in college. Running definitely helps with building up one's endurance, especially long-distance running. I definitely recommend some running before getting into cycling if the hobby it taken up predominantly for exercise purposes. Partly because it's less dangerous and it's good to adopt some exercise regiment, especially for folks that will be adopting cycling at a more advanced age.
 
If cycling is bad for bone density then by logic that means that walking/jogging/running is also bad for density, right? Or am I reading into that wrong?
 
Susimi said:
If cycling is bad for bone density then by logic that means that walking/jogging/running is also bad for density, right? Or am I reading into that wrong?
When you do things involving walking/jogging/running, your bones adapt to the stress and become denser. Its your bodies way of preparing for the next time you perform that activity. Cycling is a low impact sport and although they're many pros to this, one con is that your bones have no need to adapt (due to lack of stress).Bone density is very important to bone healing. The bone in my right arm snapped in half due to a car accident over 5 years back and it was as good as new due to having a high bone density and being young(was 23). You lose bone density as you age and this is one of the reasons the elderly take so long to heal and are susceptible to fractures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Susimi
Uawadall said:
When you do things involving walking/jogging/running, your bones adapt to the stress and become denser. Its your bodies way of preparing for the next time you perform that activity. Cycling is a low impact sport and although they're many pros to this, one con is that your bones have no need to adapt (due to lack of stress).Bone density is very important to bone healing. The bone in my right arm snapped in half due to a car accident over 5 years back and it was as good as new due to having a high bone density and being young(was 23). You lose bone density as you age and this is one of the reasons the elderly take so long to heal and are susceptible to fractures.
Ahh, I understand it now. Many thanks for explaining how the density works :)

Also sorry to hear of your accident those years ago.
 
I recently rode a 60 mile charity ride. It took me 5 hours and I was pretty tired afterwords (we're slow puppies with ego issues so we over-did it early and we took a lot of time at the rest stops).

I ran 1.6 miles in around 24-25 minutes and I thought I was going to die. I literally couldn't run slowly enough to stay in the aerobic range.

Some of it may be adaptation (cycling is apparently the exact opposite of running in how muscles are used) but I've never been able to run worth a ****.

The nice thing about cycling is that you can get your heart rate up in the aerobic range for hours and keep it there.

My goal for this winter is to get up to 5K running distance (for obvious reasons) at a respectable pace (10-11 minutes per mile or so).
 
Uawadall said:
That fact has been known for a very long time, I heard about it back in the 80's.

I had to make a decision when it came to fitness, either spend time lifting weights or spend the time doing cardio, I couldn't do both because I didn't have enough time, so I chose cardio because my body type is more suited to running and cycling. Years ago in the late 60's I started running in high school, which I kept up through the military, then in college I did both running and cycling, but after awhile due to the pounding my knees started to hurt so I gave up running and devoted myself to cycling. Making the switch was a good thing because now that I'm 62 I haven't had to have knee surgery, which I'm sure I would have had to do if I boneheaded stayed with running. I don't have perfect knee joint genes, but a person needs to know their limitations and be careful not to exceed it.
 
Jcycle said:
That seems like a ridiculous conclusion to me. It all boils down to impact. Running is bad for your joints and your spine.
Everything has its pro's and cons. It is well known that excessively pounding the pavement isn't health and could be bad for joints, but the article was specifically addressing bone density. Nothing "ridiculous" about facts.....For a sport where falling and breaking a bone isn't extremely rare, cross training seems to make a ton of sense for those who can.
 
I used to really love running, but since I gained a little bit of weight it's hard to and very uncomfortable. I know that sounds silly, but it's true.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
0
Views
349
Road Cycling
chiefhiawatha
C
C
Replies
1
Views
357
Road Cycling
Boyd Speerschneider
B