Does anyone actually choose cycling over running if they have the choice?

Just got back from a super pleasant two hour bike ride over rolling farm roads. HR was equivalent to a recovery run. No pounding and who runs two hour recovery runs? For injury prone and aging athletes, it's just good easy aerobic work. Save the running for quality days and long efforts.

And I just got back from a super pleasant 2.5 hour hike in the mountains with my two feet firmly planted on the ground! Two beers later and my legs feel just fine.

In my prime a 2.5 hour long run would beat the crap out of my legs and I'd need two days to recover (plus a couple of six packs and bag of potato chips!).

(BUT, to each their own right?)

If you can't bury yourself (if that was your intention) over a 4 hour ride then you aren't doing something right. You are probably just limited by the fact that your cycling specific muscles are limited, having just got into it. Cycling uses fewer muscles, so you probably won't get out of breath as easily as the oxygen demand won't be as great. The ones it does use though, such as the quads get hammered. Once you build up your quads they'll soon get oxygen hungry!

Good on you! Hiking, especially on steeper grades, is great cross training.

Run for competition and exercise, bike to enjoy nature and have fun.

I know many people who choose cycling over running. Reasons vary from preferences of spouses and friends, social reasons, biomechanical or injury issues that make running inadvisable, desire to explore while exercising, and others.

It is true that one has to ride for a longer period of time to get the same exercise load as running, the ratio shouldn't be 4:1. And the plus side of cycling is that you can greatly overload your training in a day by riding 50-100 miles without breaking down.

I prefer running, but I am an enthusiastic cyclist as well.

Lazy people with low aerobic potential and bad biomechanics choose cycling over running. Running is by far the hardest sport to excel in, so it weeds out the cyclists and triathletes.

I used to feel that cycling was a waste of time, and then I got older. Now I think it's excellent recovery when your body needs a bit of a break from the pounding.

And you can definitely smoke yourself on climbs. Hit some hard hill repeats. Aim for 5k+ of vert in a ride, and I promise you that you will get that "spent" feeling.

say whatt wrote:

Lazy people with low aerobic potential and bad biomechanics choose cycling over running. Running is by far the hardest sport to excel in, so it weeds out the cyclists and triathletes.

I agree that it can be a refuge for people whose biomechanics are not compatible with serious running. But the serious cyclists I know are not lazy or aerobically challenged. They spend long hours riding hard, sacrificing free time outside the office to do so. And then they spend time in the gym on strength work.

I agree cycling sucks, it doesn't matter how much I'm hurting, I'll be going along at a about a tempo-run effort, and then I see that my heart rate is 110 and I'm not even breathing out of my mouth. swimming I've discovered is far more effective at getting heart rate up, and feeling an aerobic stimulus. And the bike thing is for real, my friend who cant break 6:30 in the mile dusts me on the few bike rides we've been on together when I challenge him to race a hill or something.

Yeah I've usually heard that 4-5 miles of biking is roughly equal to 1 mile of running. It can get old pretty quickly.

If you're able to, you could try cycling workouts (hills, speed intervals, etc.) to break up the monotony a bit. You could also bike with people you live with/are frequently in contact with.

In any case, try biking in more interesting areas. For example, if you've got a forest preserve you can go to and ride around on trails there. That way you get a change of scenery and on trails you're less likely to get hit by a car.

Also, not to be pushy or anything, but if you're serious about wanting to hurt yourself if you couldn't run, I would strongly recommend talking to a sports psychologist. I get what you mean and I used to have no coping mechanism other than running, but it's a dangerous mentality. Even if it never becomes relevant, it would be good to talk to a professional about it to come up with other non-running ways of managing stress so that you aren't completely dependent on running.

Get better soon and stay safe!

You guys should see what the cyclists have to say about running on their little fanboy message boards.

Cycling is much more interesting in terms of race tactics and the technical aspects of sport -- the equipment, training, etc.

Running is pure. Almost no technique required, just a straightforward test of fitness and will.

Quick followup ... if cycling doesn't seem challenging enough just head out on your trusty steed and try to cover 25 miles in an hour.

No hills require to make it a challenge -- pick the flattest route you can find.

You won't, because you can't.

Yeah but those same goofballs are suckers who routinely spend 5K+ and then some on bikes. How the world of cycling has come to accept the extreme amounts of $$$ needed to get involved is beyond me.

C0l0rado wrote:

You guys should see what the cyclists have to say about running on their little fanboy message boards.

Cycling is much more interesting in terms of race tactics and the technical aspects of sport -- the equipment, training, etc.

Running is pure. Almost no technique required, just a straightforward test of fitness and will.

PCTHiker wrote:

Yeah but those same goofballs are suckers who routinely spend 5K+ and then some on bikes. How the world of cycling has come to accept the extreme amounts of $$$ needed to get involved is beyond me.

Sure, you can spend crazy money on a bike but it isn't mandatory. You can get a very good quality road bike with solid components for $1,200-1,500. That's 5-6 pairs of alphaflys, and it will last you a decade. Better yet, buy it used and save a few hundred.

There are very serious diminishing returns starting around $2,000-2,500. The difference between a $5k and $6k bike is almost nothing.

PCTHiker wrote:

Yeah but those same goofballs are suckers who routinely spend 5K+ and then some on bikes. How the world of cycling has come to accept the extreme amounts of $$$ needed to get involved is beyond me.

You don't need to spend a lot of money. My road bike from 1987, which I left at my parent's house when I moved out of state in my 20s, is still totally fine for riding around - just need to replace the 30 year old tires, which have disintegrated. I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage in any non-race situation on it. I really wouldn't be at a disadvantage much in a regular road race for that matter. The last time I rode in a group with it was about a decade ago, at the Low-Key Hill Climb series Mt. Hamilton race. I finished right in the middle of the pack, despite riding a ~23 lb bike when many others probably had 15 lb (6.8 kg) bike, and not having really ridden in years other than my short (1.5 mile one way) commute on my mountain bike.