I agree with the OP for the most part.
My hamstrings are shot from several decades of high mileage and track sessions. I spend a lot of time now on the indoor bike trainer because I like my spinal cord the way it is - and the distracted drivers see it differently.
I swim a lot when the pools aren't shut down from COVID.
Nothing compares to running...wish now I hadn't wasted a couple of those decades training like a fool for no reason and saved some for later!
Use something like Strava route builder to see a heat map of where people ride. I had a 75 minute, 24 mile training ride yesterday and all but 1.5 miles were on either very quiet residential roads or protected bike paths. No reason to fight cagers
I wouldn't choose cycling over running unless am forced into it by injury. I see the appeal though. You can go really fast, cover a lot more ground, and see a lot more things during a ride than you can on a run.
Also I feel like their is a lot less personal pressure in riding. I'm 35 and still have running PRs in the back of mind and hold on to the hope that I still can break all of those. cycling doesn't really seem to place as much emphasis on time for distance as running does. Like, it would be pretty hard to find Lance Armstrong's 50k /100k PRs or whatever. However, I don't know anything about competitive cycling so I could be way off.
I've cycled fairly seriously for the last ~three years after some running injuries that didn't resolve quickly. In a week if I'm only cycling I might do 100-150 miles, maybe 200 if I'm going real big, which still isn't all that much on the grand scheme of how much people cycle. Prior to this I ran about 40 miles/week and had PRs of 18:12 in 5k and 1:25 in HM. Nothing special but I wasn't a newbie runner.
Running in my experience is overall the more difficult sport but there's nothing in running that compares to the effort of riding up a big climb. Cycling is also way more technical (bike-handling, descending) and gear-centric although maybe Vaporflys have evened that up a bit. They are different types of fitness for sure. I think you could get in pretty good shape for a 5k and maybe a 10k by doing a ton of cycling and one or two intense runs/week but for longer races I'd be surprised if this worked well.
"Four-hour-ride = one-hour-run" like OP said isn't right but an hour of typical cycling is easier than an hour of typical running for sure. Very serious cyclists will do 20-30 hours of saddle time in a week, I think that much running would crush even the hardiest runner fairly quickly. Triathletes tend to track training volume by time (sum of hours swimming/biking/running). An hour of each is roughly comparable but I would say definitely not equivalent.
1-hour swim = pretty long swim
1-hour bike = just getting started
1-hour run = standard easy run
That's how it is for me at least.
We ride on a perfectly paved rails-to-trails system, no intersections at all, no motor vehicles, on vintage Italian steel. It is amazing! Especially because there is a great bar/burger joint nearby.
I disagree with OP. Cycling, in general for me, is much more fun than running if I isolate the experiences to just themselves.
You get it all:
- More terrain
- More vert
- Adrenaline rush coming down the mountain
- It's an adventure
I used to be a serious, consistent runner until about 2-3 years ago. In my most dense training I would stacking 4-6 weeks around 95-105 a week, two+ workouts, long run, etc. I could reliably hit everything from 3:50 1500s on the short end to 1:06 Half Marathons on the longer side and with consistency. I took it seriously and I loved running.
I stopped running seriously because as I got to 30, I realized PR opportunities would slip away because I no longer wanted to devote the time and energy to that sort of training while having a family, focusing on career, etc.
I still loved running, but trail runs didn't quite scratch that itch. I live in the mountains and realized that I can find the magic with more exploratory adventure sports. Skiing and Cycling more than fill that. There is something about going for a 4-5 hour ride and doing 45-60 minute climbs as you go up in altitude that can turn any ride into an intense workout, but then you get the adrenaline rush of bombing down a mountain. Skiing same. Resort is fun, but hiking or skinning up a mountain for 1-3 hours and then hitting a long run can be just incredibly more fun than a run, and still exhausting.
The difference is a 4-5 hour ride you may get 1.5-2 hours of genuinely hard work (2-3, 40-45 minute climbs but then lots of flat cruising and downhill adrenaline.
Skiing? Same thing. Go hike up a mountain for a couple hours with your gear on. You'll get your hear rate going, see beautiful terrain, be outside and of course get the rush of that downhill that racing will never ever be able to grasp. (Except for the rush of competition in a tight race where you are in the mix to win).
You can match that rush of competition on any ride or ski you want. That's why it's better.
It depends where you live and what kinds of roads are available. I always like running over cycling, but I could see how cycling would be fun somewhere with lots of smooth, low trafficked forest roads.
Cycling purely for exercise blows. Hate it. So monotonous and uncomfortable. Cycling that involves sightseeing or scenic roads can be nice.
Yes, people do. I find your arrogance pretty amazing though.
Seppo Kaitenen wrote:
You don't have to ride 4 hours to get the same workout. Go look into some cycling training plans.
And yes, some people do go cycling as their first choice. I agree with you, there are numerous downsides. But, as posters here have mentioned, there is a feeling on a bike you cannot feel running.
Having done a considerable amount of riding, there is a cool feeling to it, but I never have gotten the same feeling from riding that I have from running either. Yet, I have many friends who are not fat and lazy who ride and have incredible fitness.
How about just recognizing that each person likes different things and celebrate the fact that people are being physically active?
A bike for many people is the first taste of freedom. When you were a kid and got that first bike it allowed you to travel farther than you would on foot because it was WAY faster. I'll always appreciate that about a bike.
Milethon wrote:
I wouldn't choose cycling over running unless am forced into it by injury. I see the appeal though. You can go really fast, cover a lot more ground, and see a lot more things during a ride than you can on a run.
Also I feel like their is a lot less personal pressure in riding. I'm 35 and still have running PRs in the back of mind and hold on to the hope that I still can break all of those. cycling doesn't really seem to place as much emphasis on time for distance as running does. Like, it would be pretty hard to find Lance Armstrong's 50k /100k PRs or whatever. However, I don't know anything about competitive cycling so I could be way off.
In cycling it is watts/kg that is the obsessive number. There are estimates of what the pros can do (and a good deal of actual power data posted). But yes, not having a context is freeing right up until you stumble across such information.
For some context on speed, top 10 finishers in the Tour de France typically average ~25 mph over 21 stages of ~100 miles/stage, some of them riding up literal mountains. On downhills they will reach 65 mph. For your average Joe Cyclist, 20 mph for a couple hours is a pretty solid ride.
Luv2Run wrote:
Milethon wrote:
I wouldn't choose cycling over running unless am forced into it by injury. I see the appeal though. You can go really fast, cover a lot more ground, and see a lot more things during a ride than you can on a run.
Also I feel like their is a lot less personal pressure in riding. I'm 35 and still have running PRs in the back of mind and hold on to the hope that I still can break all of those. cycling doesn't really seem to place as much emphasis on time for distance as running does. Like, it would be pretty hard to find Lance Armstrong's 50k /100k PRs or whatever. However, I don't know anything about competitive cycling so I could be way off.
In cycling it is watts/kg that is the obsessive number. There are estimates of what the pros can do (and a good deal of actual power data posted). But yes, not having a context is freeing right up until you stumble across such information.
Lance did 480 up the Madone... 6.8w/kg for a half hour.
It does not take four hour rides to get a workout, at all. I have a strip of road near my house that I rip off a half mile on my bike. It only takes a few of these and your legs will be smoked. I used to do about seven to nine of these and actually cut the number down because I was getting some residual fatigue. I'm talking hard, like the feeling of racing a 400 almost. It's somewhat like running, you can run 10 miles or you can bang out 300's on the track and your body learns how to control and feel the effort.
rosshm16 wrote:
I've cycled fairly seriously for the last ~three years after some running injuries that didn't resolve quickly. In a week if I'm only cycling I might do 100-150 miles, maybe 200 if I'm going real big, which still isn't all that much on the grand scheme of how much people cycle. Prior to this I ran about 40 miles/week and had PRs of 18:12 in 5k and 1:25 in HM. Nothing special but I wasn't a newbie runner.
Running in my experience is overall the more difficult sport but there's nothing in running that compares to the effort of riding up a big climb. Cycling is also way more technical (bike-handling, descending) and gear-centric although maybe Vaporflys have evened that up a bit. They are different types of fitness for sure. I think you could get in pretty good shape for a 5k and maybe a 10k by doing a ton of cycling and one or two intense runs/week but for longer races I'd be surprised if this worked well.
"Four-hour-ride = one-hour-run" like OP said isn't right but an hour of typical cycling is easier than an hour of typical running for sure. Very serious cyclists will do 20-30 hours of saddle time in a week, I think that much running would crush even the hardiest runner fairly quickly. Triathletes tend to track training volume by time (sum of hours swimming/biking/running). An hour of each is roughly comparable but I would say definitely not equivalent.
1-hour swim = pretty long swim
1-hour bike = just getting started
1-hour run = standard easy run
That's how it is for me at least.
Your post contradicts itself. You say that in a week, if only cycling, you might do 100-150mi, but also that a 1-hr bike is "just getting started". Assuming you apply any power to the pedals, 100-150mi/week is realistically only an hour-ish per day...
To those saying that it takes a long time to get an equivalent workout between biking and running, reality is that most of you are runners and have not taken the time to become strong cyclists - you haven't developed any cycling specific fitness. You can't push the pedals hard enough to challenge an aerobic system that is well-developed from running (ie your heart rate is much lower and you can't hit the same highs). If you are well-rounded between biking/running, you'll find that you can get a hell of a session done in an hour on a bike, let alone 2 hours. I hit 5 W/kg for my 20min test on the bike doing 3-5h of cycling per week, typically done as 2-3x60-70min rides and maybe one 90ish minute ride. By some people's definition here, that is hardly training (apparently). I found that a very high quality approach made me strong and volume just made me tired. And, once I trained hard on the bike with a lot of quality work, my ability to hit heart rates similar to running improved.
No my post does not "contradict itself". 100-150 miles/week is ~18 mph average for someone who rides an hour a day on average. That's a very normal average speed.
That's my point...you said an hour is barely getting started.
I'm sure you can discover the error in your assumptions if you think about it a little.
rosshm16 wrote:
For some context on speed, top 10 finishers in the Tour de France typically average ~25 mph over 21 stages of ~100 miles/stage, some of them riding up literal mountains. On downhills they will reach 65 mph. For your average Joe Cyclist, 20 mph for a couple hours is a pretty solid ride.
A big point to remember here is the drafting aspect of cycling. Averaging 20mph on a solo ride is a completely different thing than averaging 20mph in your bike shop's weekly ride with 15 other people. Obviously riders in the TdF are beasts, but the draft effect at the middle/back of the peloton is absurd, and top riders are pulled by their teams until it's time to make a move.
No and hell no.
Cycling is complicated, takes too much time (3 to 1 ratio is pretty much accurate) and is flat out dangerous. If you ride roads you can get hit by a car; if you ride trails you can fall and hurt yourself.
Running is far more simple and relatively safe.