What's tougher?: running vs. cycling

Skinny runner legs are pretty much useless on a bike.

You're right. It is pointless to compare. You have a lot of different cycling events, just like you have a lot of different running events. So are you comparing long distance cycling to the marathon? Or track cycling on a velodrome to track running? Or mountain biking on rough terrain to cross country? ???

Cycling. The mental anguish and problems you run into on a 5 hour ride are way different than doing a 2 hour run, and those are about equivalent long bouts for the respective discipline. Once you get used to doing long rides, long runs just don't seem all that long.

The sensation you get in your legs riding up Mt. Baldy (a local mountain to socal that is about 12 miles long and consistent 5-10% grade) is about equivalent to how your legs feel at the end of an 800, the difference being you have to sustain that for over an hour, simply because you can, physically anyway.

Truly though they are different, and complement one another. They help keep from over-specialization that leads to injury which I feel is much more prevalent in running.

My reason for asking is merely that it seems that a certain mind-set, in some cases arguably bordering on insanity, is required for cycling. Clearly, one can lead a fairly normal life, with a full-time job, and still WIN the Olympic marathon. But the training for cycling, typically with a few rides per week over 5 hours, requires a commitment that running, by its very nature, doesn't require. Perhaps the unusually high number of suicides among winners of the big races (Pantani being the latest) lends credence to this conjecture. They've put absolutely everything into cycling, and now they have (in some/many cases) very little else to turn to once they've reached the top and start to come down.

I would like to mention though, the Mt. Baldy Run-to-the-Top race is the "toughest" race I've ever done.

would i be right in saying cycling has less injuries than running? in running its very easy to get injured. The only injuries i ever see cyclist get is when they fall off.

I think its annoying with running how you can only do it for about 1hr or so every day.

Well, I get injured about once per year from running. Last year, I tried cycling for a few months (wanted to race), and got into several minor crashes with cars. Bike racers I know say they can count on at least one pretty bad crash per year, sometimes more.

They both are tough in their own way. Cycling is really my first sport, and I am a collegiate track cyclist. I ran in high school and am starting to race again just because I miss the competition in running. Cycling is tough in a different way because racing requires a lot of tactical skills as far as edging out other riders and being able to ride while touching other riders' elbows (or having them shoved into you). As far as physically challenging, same thing. Hill climbing on a bike is incredible, especially on a grade of 15% or so, but it's not exactly a picnic to run up a hill either. I think that the two are just hard to compare.

To be among the best in either, they're equally tough.

My worst cycling mishap resulted in 6 fractures-four ribs, a clavicle and a scapula; and, nasty road rash requiring stitches. Running, which I try to do more of, results in achilles tendon injuries. Cycling hurts more, but the running injuries are more frustrating and take far longer to return from.

After a few years of bike racing, running seems much easier.

In Cycling, the expense, the hardships of extreme weather, the danger, the time required to train and the extremes of effort and anxiety, all make distance running seem like a much easier option.

The best cyclists are tough but crazy.

I've competed in both at a moderately high-level, and, from a racing perspective, it depends on the particular race. There's a lot of variation in degrees of difficulty.

A criterium is pretty similar to a XC race - hard from the gun, and you feel like you're in oxygen debt the entire time.

A flat sprinters race is probably the easiest sort of race in the world (if you're not a sprinter). You just roll with the peleton, and can get pulled along at 30+ mph without putting in much of an effort. Much easier than any running race I've ever done.

A race with a lot of climbing depends on the type of rider you are. I was a climber, so a stage with climbs was not particularly difficult for me. It was much harder for me to be in a breakaway on a flat course than break away on a climb.

A stage race is absolutely brutal. Especially if it doesn't have too many flat stages. It's the cumulative wear that kills you. There's nothing like it to compare to in running. Unless you've run marathons back-to-back.

When it comes to training, cycling with out question demands more time. You NEED to be on the bike 5/6 hours a day if you want to compete at a high level. At the very least, you need to put 6 hours a day in on the weekends (in addition to 2/3 hours the rest of the week), even to compete at a Category 3 level (which is probably equivalent to your average NCAA runner).

Triathlon - Ironman... .The hardest physical event

I find it much more difficult to go for an easy run than an easy bike ride.

Personally, cycling has always been harder. cyclists don't use their arms as much as their legs, true? i bet runners can bench more than cyclists?

i get injured every year as well and am on the bike for sometimes two months, i love it when i dont have to ride anymore, i dont find it to be more cardiovascularly as hard, but i think its much tougher on the legs. I start out breathing hard but settle down and i can last a good 2-3 hours...with i start breathing harder towards the end, probably just me. once i am back to running though my legs feel like shit, granted they look nice and muscular from all the quad work but it takes like 2 weeks to figure out how to run again

Running is harder hands down, don't even think about comparing the two. Why ? Cycling far from a global sport it is not all competitive in comparison.

You have France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, a few guys from Australia and the US and, erm ... that's about it. Not a big talent pool compared to running. The african countries would be hard pushed to finance a professional cycling team, it's an expensive sport.

Top level cycling today is at about the level of running in the late 1950's. Yep that's right. In the 1970's most professional cyclists did not even train throughout the winter, there was not that much competition so they did not have to. Eddy Mercx was a smoker for goodness sake and was the best back then.

That should settle the argument ...

Ohio has it - running after cycling is the toughest. The best run 2:35-2:40 after going HARD on a bike for 4.5-5 hours. That's pretty freakin impressive.

thank you Mr. Hoffman. I can't even tell you how happy i am by your response. Where are the Africans and let us not forget the ASIANS? Its not a well represented sport.