Running vs Cycling

Scoffin said:

I was just wondering which one is a better cardio workout, Cycling or Running? While I'm going to try my best to continue to ride through the rough Iowa winter, I'm thinking about getting on the treadmill this winter instead of the stationary bike. Neither one excite me too much - mostly because the scenery is the same all the time - and I'm not much of a runner.

But then again, I wasn't much of a cyclist until a couple months ago.

Running is better in the cardiovascular sense but it's no good for the joints! Rowing is the best cross training for cycling and vis versa. Circuit training at a Gym is good too!

Gavin 🙂

aTmSpectre said:

Personally I can't stand running, i mean I hate it. But I can ride my bike for hours on end.

But running is better for excerise!

To me running is better than cycling for cardio conditioning. Even swimming is better than cycling. But that's for ME.
Running and Swimming, I can keep a constat HR while exercising, and can "modulate" and
"shape" the training. At cycling, It's the road that shapes your HR. Any steep VS HR will show that.
Not to say, that while swimming (and at a less degree while running) you are moving your WHOLE body. For me, cardio 'quality' goes in this order:

-Running
-Swimming
- Cycling

As an 'overall fitness' exercise, If I had to choose, no doubt: SWIMMING. Cardio (aerobic and anaerobic) , strength and flexibility packed in one relaxing sport. Plus the breathing benefits you
get from breathing with you rib cage submerged. Plus all the pretty girls you see while swimming 😄.

Well, I'm a freediver, what can I say!! 😄

Cheers!!

tarczan said:

Don't think if I agree, my heart rate doesn't go up much when I walk.

You don't have to agree, its a fact. When you run, supporting your body uses a great deal of energy and therefore increases cardiac output. 🙂

what's the measure of an exercises cardiovascular "quality"? The amount of energy (calories?) required of you at a given intensity?

For instance, running would be better cardiovascularly for you than cycling if you could maintain a specific intensity only for an hour and you burned 1000 calories but while cycling you could only maintain an intensity that burnt 900 calories?

Or is a measure of how quickly (and completely) you can push yourself into exhaustion? (e.g. I've ridden 111 miles, I've never been able to run for more than 7 miles)

It seems to me that both are rather silly measures as they are to a great deal measuring how well trained to the specific sport you are. If you are well trained at some sport you will be able to maintain a greater intensity for longer (and thus burn more calories in a 1 hour maximal effort) than for an activity you aren't trained for. Additionally ones ability to exhaust themselves in a particular activity is largely mental.

There might be some argument to be made that an activity is inherently better for your cardio system if somehow it allowed you to maintain a higher heart rate, but i'm pretty sure that isn't the case for any sports out there.

I just did an informal experiment- my heart rate is the same sitting (as on a bike) or standing. I'll try it a few more times, would be interested in others' results.

I don't understand how running can be considered more aerobic than cycling. Just pedal harder.

Running/jogging may be safer because you don't (necessarily) have to share the road with traffic, however, it does apply significantly greater stresses to the joints in your back and lower body.

Does anyone here seriously think that running/jogging for 2 hours at 150 BPM is any different than cycling for 2 hours at 150 BPM (or for that matter doing a stair climber at the gym), other than the beating your body will take? Rubbish.

Doctor Morbius said:

I don't understand how running can be considered more aerobic than cycling. Just pedal harder.

Running/jogging may be safer because you don't (necessarily) have to share the road with traffic, however, it does apply significantly greater stresses to the joints in your back and lower body.

Does anyone here seriously think that running/jogging for 2 hours at 150 BPM is any different than cycling for 2 hours at 150 BPM (or for that matter doing a stair climber at the gym), other than the beating your body will take? Rubbish.

Running safer than cycling,hmmmm. Even if you go off road, a trip or fall while running can be seriously damaging to bones and joints, and ever suffered a hamstring injury while running-it hurts! And running on the road is bloody scary, worse at night when its a country lane-the slightest sound gets your heart rate up, and then a car whizzes past you from the front and your night vision is gone, you lose the road and end up in a ditch with a bust ankle!

Doctor Morbius said:

I don't understand how running can be considered more aerobic than cycling. Just pedal harder.

Running/jogging may be safer because you don't (necessarily) have to share the road with traffic, however, it does apply significantly greater stresses to the joints in your back and lower body.

Does anyone here seriously think that running/jogging for 2 hours at 150 BPM is any different than cycling for 2 hours at 150 BPM (or for that matter doing a stair climber at the gym), other than the beating your body will take? Rubbish.

Having run close to 30,000 miles, and now being an avid cyclist, I can tell you that your answer is overly simplistic. Running is much harder than cycling. It is simply a hell of a lot more difficult to be the sole means of propulsion, and the body is worked harder to accomplish that means. For example, I came in from a 35 mile ride the other day where I averaged about 92 % MHR. I felt fine at the end. For a run of the same effort, I am wiped (10 mile run).

Doctor Morbius said:

I don't understand how running can be considered more aerobic than cycling. Just pedal harder.

Running/jogging may be safer because you don't (necessarily) have to share the road with traffic, however, it does apply significantly greater stresses to the joints in your back and lower body.

Does anyone here seriously think that running/jogging for 2 hours at 150 BPM is any different than cycling for 2 hours at 150 BPM (or for that matter doing a stair climber at the gym), other than the beating your body will take? Rubbish.

Doc,
For once I've got to disagree with you.

I have started running and I notice that running for one hour is a lot more beneficial in a fitness and weight control sense than cycling for 3-4 hours.

My calorie spend for one hour on the bike is 600-650 per hour.
When running it's closer to 1000.
Ok, I can't run for 4 hours but it seems to me that in my case running has started to benefit me more than cycling when it comes to weight control and
general cardio wellbeing.
Since starting to run, my weight-loss has improved dramatically.

Don't get me wrong - the Bike is still number 1.
But running seems to get my metabolism working a lot better.

limerickman said:

Doc,
For once I've got to disagree with you.

I have started running and I notice that running for one hour is a lot more beneficial in a fitness and weight control sense than cycling for 3-4 hours.

My calorie spend for one hour on the bike is 600-650 per hour.
When running it's closer to 1000.
Ok, I can't run for 4 hours but it seems to me that in my case running has started to benefit me more than cycling when it comes to weight control and general cardio wellbeing.

There is nothing stopping you from riding your bike at an intensity where you burn 1000 calories an hour. I think all that you've discovered is that doing high intensity work has a much greater benifit per hour.

skydive69 said:

Having run close to 30,000 miles, and now being an avid cyclist, I can tell you that your answer is overly simplistic. Running is much harder than cycling. It is simply a hell of a lot more difficult to be the sole means of propulsion, and the body is worked harder to accomplish that means. For example, I came in from a 35 mile ride the other day where I averaged about 92 % MHR. I felt fine at the end. For a run of the same effort, I am wiped (10 mile run).

In terms of being more wiped from running vs. cycling I would think this is due to training specificity. You're just a better runner, you can maintain a higher intensity with a lower heart rate while running, thus you're able to more effectively exhaust yourself.
Think of it this way: I'm sure that you could find a hill to ride your bike up that would take you about the same amount of time as that original 10 mile run. You could also find a speed to go up it that would leave you feeling just as exhausted and spent as the run did. The main problem of course might be that you just aren't in good enough biking shape to go that fast, but that's not because cycling is inherently easier than running.

Another thought experiment: If I say that both rowing and x-c skiing are "more difficult" than running how do you counter that statement? I have plenty of personal experiences to back up my claim. 🙂
I personally think that people tend to think of the sport(s) that they have learned to trully push themselves in as the one(s) that are the "most difficult." I know that's what I did.

Doctor Morbius said:

I don't understand how running can be considered more aerobic than cycling. Just pedal harder.

Running/jogging may be safer because you don't (necessarily) have to share the road with traffic, however, it does apply significantly greater stresses to the joints in your back and lower body.

Does anyone here seriously think that running/jogging for 2 hours at 150 BPM is any different than cycling for 2 hours at 150 BPM (or for that matter doing a stair climber at the gym), other than the beating your body will take? Rubbish.

My Dear Doctor,

It is well known to the medical profession and simple creatures such as myself that running is more beneficial than cycling for losing unwanted pounds. No good for the joints though.

Cycling is good just the same, as cross training for rowing, which I do, and I will probably purchas a bike for cross training as runnung bores me to tears!

gavin 😄

gavin11756 said:

My Dear Doctor,

It is well known to the medical profession and simple creatures such as myself that running is more beneficial than cycling for losing unwanted pounds. No good for the joints though.

Cycling is good just the same, as cross training for rowing, which I do, and I will probably purchas a bike for cross training as runnung bores me to tears!

gavin 😄

My own experience says running is the same as cycling for losing weight.
I tried to run off-season and I found I didn't lose any weight. Running for clydesdales is very stressful for joints. I can't more than 60 min due to joint problems not because I'm tired. It leads to much lower weekly volumes than cycling. As a runner I can run 3-4 hrs/week. As a cyclist I can do up to 20 hrs/week. All my unwanted pounds (from 204 down to 175) were lost with the help of a lot of cycling and XC skiing.

dot said:

My own experience says running is the same as cycling for losing weight.
I tried to run off-season and I found I didn't lose any weight. Running for clydesdales is very stressful for joints. I can't more than 60 min due to joint problems not because I'm tired. It leads to much lower weekly volumes than cycling. As a runner I can run 3-4 hrs/week. As a cyclist I can do up to 20 hrs/week. All my unwanted pounds (from 204 down to 175) were lost with the help of a lot of cycling and XC skiing.

Hi Dot

I hours running is more prodictive than an hours cycling. However if you don't like running or are prevented from doing so, then, yes cyccling would be better.

Your English is fine!

regards

Gavin 😉

If you think about it, running engages a bunch more muscles than cycling. I'm positive that running is a more efficient means of excercise. However, if you don't like doing something, then you probably won't do it very often, so if you hate running and like cycling, then cycling is a much better way to stay fit.

gavin11756 said:

Hi Dot

I hours running is more prodictive than an hours cycling. However if you don't like running or are prevented from doing so, then, yes cyccling would be better.

Your English is fine!

regards

Gavin 😉

In what way are they more productive?

cleff said:

If you think about it, running engages a bunch more muscles than cycling. I'm positive that running is a more efficient means of excercise. However, if you don't like doing something, then you probably won't do it very often, so if you hate running and like cycling, then cycling is a much better way to stay fit.

I like running but I can't run a lot. Mostly I can run 3-4 hrs per week. My joints require 1 day to recover from 60 min running session. But I can ride almost every day off-road for 1-3 hrs. Off-road riding loads a lot of muscles too. So running cannot be very effective on me because of very low volume.

cleff said:

If you think about it, running engages a bunch more muscles than cycling. I'm positive that running is a more efficient means of excercise. However, if you don't like doing something, then you probably won't do it very often, so if you hate running and like cycling, then cycling is a much better way to stay fit.

Exactly. Running is better from the scientific standpoint and cheaper because you don't have to buy a bike! But if running is boring you won't do it, therefore running is useless

Gavin 🙂

menglish6 said:

There is nothing stopping you from riding your bike at an intensity where you burn 1000 calories an hour. I think all that you've discovered is that doing high intensity work has a much greater benifit per hour.

In terms of being more wiped from running vs. cycling I would think this is due to training specificity. You're just a better runner, you can maintain a higher intensity with a lower heart rate while running, thus you're able to more effectively exhaust yourself.
Think of it this way: I'm sure that you could find a hill to ride your bike up that would take you about the same amount of time as that original 10 mile run. You could also find a speed to go up it that would leave you feeling just as exhausted and spent as the run did. The main problem of course might be that you just aren't in good enough biking shape to go that fast, but that's not because cycling is inherently easier than running.

Another thought experiment: If I say that both rowing and x-c skiing are "more difficult" than running how do you counter that statement? I have plenty of personal experiences to back up my claim. 🙂
I personally think that people tend to think of the sport(s) that they have learned to trully push themselves in as the one(s) that are the "most difficult." I know that's what I did.

I agree with you regarding rowing and X-Country skiing BTW. They are two of the most difficult aerobic sports. Of course I love rowing - it saved me lots of money. My kid got a rowing scholarship to Syracuse which saved the old man tons of cash!! 🙂

skydive69 said:

I agree with you regarding rowing and X-Country skiing BTW. They are two of the most difficult aerobic sports. Of course I love rowing - it saved me lots of money. My kid got a rowing scholarship to Syracuse which saved the old man tons of cash!! 🙂

That's great. My parent's weren't so lucky. They didn't have any rowing scholarships for men where I rowed (darn title IV, and big football programs).

It seems that what everyone is attempting to say with all this is that an activity that utilizes more muscle groups is better for you. Who knows if that's the case, but I agree that running will place larger strength requirements on your body (although I'm not sure that that _necessarily_ makes for better stresses on your cardio system).