Would most cyclists choose to run if they could?

Agreed with everything you said. Cycling is great when you can't run or when you want to go out for a long distance, but nothing beats the feeling of running.

No, true cyclists are a different breed.

I came from running, went to cycling, now do a mix of both.

Not sure how running is especially more convenient or time efficient than cycling. It doesn't take that much longer to put on a helmet and clip in.

That aside having done both, I do continue to ride. I will say that nothing I've done in cycling quiet beats the feeling of being in sync on a great threshold run or even one of those good days when your whole body feel efficient and grateful, as if you're almost skimming the ground in flight.

Cycling wins for me in some other ways:

1) Diversity is one. Running is pretty much the same thing, one foot in front of the other and repeat. Cycling has climbs, it has sweeping downhills at 50mph, technical switchbacks, etc. It has group rides that are dynamic in a way that a race, let alone a run, never will be.

2) Racing - Racing bikes beats racing on the roads. This goes out the window a little if your incredibly high level, but unless you're at the absolute top of your competition every running race is a time trial. Run as hard as you can from A to B. Which is great, and one of my favorite ways to race. But on the bike races are much different, and much more tactical. You can try to draw out people for a breakaway in a 5 hour race right from the start, you can attack up a climb and try to solo away, you can try to keep the group together and then win in a field sprint.

It's also sorta nice that different body types can do different races. In running, unless your a sub 20 BMI type guy you're not winning or even being competitive in many races, certainly not beyond the mile distance which is...nearly every road races. On the bike, depending on the terrain anyone can be competitive. Wanna put on 30lbs of muscle and have some sprint power? You can do that and be a deadly crit and flatter road races. You'll never win a hill climb or road race over tough terrain but you don't have to race those. Everyone can carve out a niche for themselves. Some really good races are even set up in ways that every type of rider has a chance of winning with the right moves and right conditions.

3) I don't quite know how to title this, but because of the physical damage you can't really just hammer here or there on runs. In cycling it's perfectly reasonably if you're feeling good to just rip it up that local 6% mile climb for 3-4 minutes. Same thing with group rides, you can get really competitive on a group ride or something without it torpedoing your training. It's part of the reason strava, while good for runners, is probably 10x more interesting for cyclists.

4) Climbs - This one is more personal, but damn does it feel good to fly up a hill on a bike and get into the rhythm of climbing. That comes close to approaching the same good feel I get from running. As someone that always sucked at running anything vertical, being strong at that on the bike makes both the ups and downs awesome.

So with all that said, I generally prefer racing bikes over racing on the roads, but certainly still enjoy hopping in the occasional road race and really pushing it with all I have.

I will admit though, if every run felt as good as that 10% of truly good runs do, or maybe if I ran uphill well...I'd probably never touch my bike again.

cycling does nothing for me, i never get a sweat on or feel oxygen deprived. no impact is boring, skateboarding is more fun than cycling. also i like how running you have to earn your body but in cycling the richest man with the best bike wins

People that are too poor to buy a decent bike become runners. Cycling is fast and fun, more lucrative, and the podium women at the TdF are a nice bonus.

LM wrote:

Not sure how running is especially more convenient or time efficient than cycling. It doesn't take that much longer to put on a helmet and clip in.

Really? Running is tons more convenient and time efficient; no question about it.

-It is way easier and cheaper to buy a pair of running shoes and step out the front door then drop a thousand dollars or several thousand dollars on a bike and gear.

-If you're traveling, or want to run from work, it's much easier to bring a pair of running shoes and shorts than your bike.

-You can run just about anywhere you want; cycling you have to worry about cars/traffic.

-If you want to drive somewhere to ride, you have to hook your bike up to a bike rack (running, you just hop in the car and go).

-To get the same cardiovascular benefit cycling, you have to ride about three times as long as you would run. So what you can accomplish from a fitness perspective in 10-minutes running, takes you 30-minutes of cycling.

All that said, to answer the OP's question, there are plenty of people capable of both who prefer cycling. Some people just don't like to run and others really enjoy cycling.

Also, if you are someone trying to get in shape, or doesn't stay consistently in shape, cycling (the way they do it) is easier. Stay on the flats and go slow and a bike ride can be enjoyable your first time out. If you're out of shape and haven't ran in 2-years, your first couple weeks or month of running is going to suck no matter how slow you go.

"also i like how running you have to earn your body but in cycling the richest man with the best bike wins"

You just keep believing that. I still remember a story the Mayor told me about a kid riding in a race in upstate NY. This kid was a local stud and for the race he rode a home-made bike, the Mayor described it as a rolling screen door. Kid ate everyone's lunches. Talent wins, but you can keep thinking money will win out, the biking manufacturers certainly want you to.

Agree with most of what LM and Employee say.

Started with cycling and was in love with my Italian made bike. Pictures of beautiful bikes do for me what cars and trucks do for others. There was a cycling culture that was foreign and exotic to many Americans (ie Breaking Away movie). At my best finished in the front of a few races after years of training and racing while in high school and college.

Got married and had a job. Took up running because there was only two hours a day for training and little money. Did have a BMI under 20 at 6'0 and 135-140 pounds. Could actually win some small races outright and ran three marathons in the 2:30s with my first in 2:48. Lydiard training of 100 mpw.

Now 60, divorced, 150 pounds and with time. Cycling is fun as I get my toy back and a bike can take me farther afield. Running is less fun as it takes so long to warm up and hit my stride (unless) I'm getting off the bike to run. Yet, I would hate to lose the ability to run so I keep at it. Swimming is fun because it is still a growth sport for me with room for improvement. A cool down swim after a bike or a run feels great and my cool down swims are now up to 40 minutes.

Cycling and swimming favor heavier people as watts generated is often determined/influenced/helped by your weight in a trained athlete. However in distance running where you don't have a bike or the water carrying your weight, being as thin as I was was a plus.

Most of my injuries/soreness these days are running related and not from cycling or swimming. Can't come close to my running pace anymore whereas I can get close to my cycling mph for one hour. Swimming is getting faster than I was.

Cycling: Helmet, shoes, sunglasses, gloves, watch. Booties, arm warmers, leg warmers, if it is going to be that kind of day. Do I need more air in my tires? Did I replace the tube from the flat on the last ride?

Running:socks, shorts, shirt, shoes, watch. Head out the door.

I really enjoy a solid 2-3hr road or mtb ride in the good weather, but only have time for that on the weekends. Running is convenient and easy.

The simple answer is yes....

BUT.....when joint erosion/replacement has made Running impossible, cycling is a reasonable substitute. I never thought I would cycle, but the feeling after a hard ride, although a diluted methadone for the real thing, will have to do.

Every day I ride I fantasize about being able to run down the same road and wish I could feel that ground under my feet, bounce in my stride, and that joyous exhilaration that only running had gifted me in the long past. Only when it is taken away will you realize its unique pleasure.

Love both sports. Was a D1 runner and never even considered cycling until I was in my 30s. No doubt that running is more time and cost efficient and great when you are on the road/travelling. As I get older, I enjoy cycling more. Cycling is a more technique oriented sport, so you can continue to improve your performance by learning and mastering skills. Cycling has more of an adventure/exploration element too. I live in rural northern new England. On the weekends, I get together with buddies and we plan to ride all day on dirt roads and find new spots and destinations. I am typically limited to a 8 mile radius from my house in running. Cycling is more social. You can do an all day ride with a group or individuals of differing abilities and allow the stronger riders to do more work. Racing is completely different too, but that was already covered here. Both sports are amazing, just different.

Just run more wrote:

I see most people taking up cycling because it hurts to run.

That's because the people you know are injured runners, not typical cyclists.

Besides all of the logical reasons like convenience, time efficiency, etc, the feeling of running at a easy pace to running to exhaustion just feels great.

Running is more time efficient if exercise is the objective. If one wants to get somewhere, then clearly biking is more efficient. Obviously, where one lives constrains what might be reasonably accessible by bike.

Soprano wrote:

-It is way easier and cheaper to buy a pair of running shoes and step out the front door then drop a thousand dollars or several thousand dollars on a bike and gear.

I think the cost angle is way overplayed in this sort of discussion. While one can spend an absurd amount of money on a bike, it isn't necessary. The capital cost of a bike is high relative to running, but bikes don't require replacement every few months as do running shoes. Recurring costs are pretty similar in my experience.

Citizen Runner wrote:

I think the cost angle is way overplayed in this sort of discussion. While one can spend an absurd amount of money on a bike, it isn't necessary. The capital cost of a bike is high relative to running, but bikes don't require replacement every few months as do running shoes. Recurring costs are pretty similar in my experience.

Have a professional tune your bike each spring - $80-90.

Tubes/CO2 cartridge - $8/each for the combo

New tires each season- $60/set

Chain lube each season - $10/bottle

New chain every season - $30

Chain ring every other season- $30

Cassette every other - $60

Brake pads every season - $40

All of those are incurred at different rates, but more often if you ride a lot like 200+ miles/week and/or train through the winter on a trainer or a roller. Maintenance of a bike can add up. Of course, like anything, if you stay on top of the maintenance you can cut down on larger repair costs.

Clothes cost way more than running gear. Cold weather and summer.

oldrunnerslament wrote:

The simple answer is yes....

BUT.....when joint erosion/replacement has made Running impossible, cycling is a reasonable substitute. I never thought I would cycle, but the feeling after a hard ride, although a diluted methadone for the real thing, will have to do.

Every day I ride I fantasize about being able to run down the same road and wish I could feel that ground under my feet, bounce in my stride, and that joyous exhilaration that only running had gifted me in the long past. Only when it is taken away will you realize its unique pleasure.

I'm with you. There are things I like about biking, but the FEEL of it is what keeps me from really getting into it. It's so mechanical and unnatural vs the hardwired motion of running. I was a springy runner and excelled on the track where I had great energy return. The push of a pedal is an eternity in contrast and robs me of that. Cycling feels closer to lifting weights in the smith machine (where you're locked in to a motion) than to running.

erfgwegv wrote:

"also i like how running you have to earn your body but in cycling the richest man with the best bike wins"

You just keep believing that. I still remember a story the Mayor told me about a kid riding in a race in upstate NY. This kid was a local stud and for the race he rode a home-made bike, the Mayor described it as a rolling screen door. Kid ate everyone's lunches. Talent wins, but you can keep thinking money will win out, the biking manufacturers certainly want you to.

Cycling is very simple. If you are blessed with a great engine, then you can do very well nationally. Running, IMO, less so. Why that is, I don't know.

Lots of high-ranking runners switch to cycling and do very well. You don't hear about it going the other way.

That's because cycling is much more forgiving to body type/geometry. One of the perks of having wheels.

I do both (never raced bikes, still competing as a runner, may try cycle racing one day).

One advantage of cycling is that you can pick it up again after not doing it for months and its still fun. It a bit painful but you could go and do a couple of hours and have a good time off nothing - you'd just be a bit slower.

Try the same running and most would be in a world of trouble.

I agree, the buzz of a good run exceeds what I get cycling (but I suspect that's because I'm a better runner than cyclist). But for pure pleasure cycling wins every time. I run to train and train to compete. I ride my bike for the sheer fun of it.

This is silly. If most of the people you see cycling are "taking up cycling because it hurts to run", then you're probably a runner. Oh, yeah, you're posting on letsrun.

It doesn't take much imagination to understand why many people who *can* run still prefer cycling to running. It's faster and you can cover a lot more ground. A long run might be 16-20 miles. A long ride might be 70-100 miles. In 70-100 miles you can actually go somewhere (yeah, yea, I know ultrarunners will cover 100. but there are at least as many ultradistance cyclists who go correspondingly further)

There's no question that running is far more convenient and far less expensive. Calling "the feeling of running at a easy pace to running to exhaustion just feels great" an advantage of running is also. Believe it or not, you can cycle at various paces, and if you wish to ride to exhaustion, you can.

Short answer: No. This is like asking if most runners would be cyclist if they could afford it.

Longer Answer:

It depends on if you're talking recreational cyclists or competitive cyclists. There are probably a whole of people who bike for exercise who chose it over running because it's "easier." There are also a whole lot of people who bike because they like to go an 100+ mile rides and enjoy the scenery.

As far as racers go, though, I don't think there are very many who think "Man, I really wish I could be a competitive runner, but I can't, so I'll just race bikes instead." There are some former runners who may switch over to cycling because of injuries (Mike Woods) but that is a pretty small percentage I think. For me personally, I started cycling because I was happy with what I had achieved running, and was looking for a new challenge. It turns out that I enjoy bike races a whole lot more than running.