What's tougher?: running vs. cycling

i was looking up giro results today and then saw the profile for the next 2 days. i might have to change my mind and bump cycling up- 2 words IL MORTIROLO

http://www.salite.ch/mortirol1.htm

This climb is ridiculous- it said its the hardest one in europe(or tied with one in the vuelta).

800+m of altitude gain in 6k in the MIDDLE of the climb- that is severe and nonsensical.

Also some nice comments about recently deceased Marco Pantani's racing exploits against none other than Miguel Indurain at the main site

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=5255

im having a little trouble getting my brain around those numbers from the middle of the climb- 700ft gained per mile for almost 4 miles - the total gain is 1300m over 12k- it is just mind boggling.

nihilo wrote:

Running burns more calories per hour than cycling. Therefore, running is harder than cycling.

The reason running burns more calories is because it is a weight bearing exercise. In cycling, the bike supports your weight.

Are you sure about this? Where did you get this from?

Don't your shoes support just as much weight as the bike....all 100% of it? I think your logic is a little flawed.

The problem is, how do you define what is "tougher?"

tougher to go far --> Running

tougher to go fast --> Running

tougher to be good at it --> depends on talent

tougher on shins and knees --> running

tougher on head and collar bone --> cycling

tougher on the wallet --> cycling

tougher on the trainig schedule --> cycling

tougher on the pain threshold --> probably cycling

tougher on the biceps --> cycling

tougher to burn calories/min --> cycling

tougher to burn total calories --> running

Did I miss anything?

Yo Hannsen,

Do you still have my book? Anyway, regarding breakaways, I believe most of them intend to fail. I did some reading on cycling and watched a few races....so now I am an expert ; ) Anyway, alot of times a teamate will break away early hoping to set up a victory for someone else on their team later in the race. The idea is that it forces the pelaton to chase them down, thus making the pace of the race faster, thus burning out the kick of all the sprinters. I think last year in the Wachovia race a woman led for a couple of hours. She was eventualy reeled in and then her teamate took off and won the race....I beleive. On the mens' side the tactic failed and it came down to a huge sprint between 100 riders in the last 300 meters.

I'm sure alot of my facts are wrong, but that's the jist.

-Barry

hoffman is right, cycling is not remotely as competitive to running...the reason is that you need money and time to start cycling...you dont need that for running (ie. kenyans, ethiopeans etc.)...

.

.

.

.

What's better?: apples vs. oranges

.

.

.

.

nihilo wrote:

You guys are too wrapped up in subjective standards of judgment here. Let's try something a little more objective.

Running burns more calories per hour than cycling. Therefore, running is harder than cycling.

The reason running burns more calories is because it is a weight bearing exercise. In cycling, the bike supports your weight.

That's like arguing that a 10k is harder than a marathon because you are running the 10k at a faster pace and therefore burning more calories/minute than at marathon pace.

Cycling races last upwards of 6 hours (vs. 2:10 for a top marathoner); even if calories/hour are higher in running, the extra 4 hours spent cyling more than makes up for the difference in energy requirements per unit time.

On a climb, calories/heart rate/etc are pretty similar to running.

hmm i believe that book was lost in the mists of time ugh. I will look at the old house maybe its in the attic. You have a good memory hehe. Hopefully ill be up there at some point to run if i find it ill bring it(that is quite unlikely though).

Running is of course as you can't just cruise down a hill like on a bike or buy a pair of Scot Bars and disk wheels and pick up another 3 minutes on your 10k time.

Running is more weaight bearing therefore more muscle mass is required. For that reason when doing scientific exercise studies researchers use a "VO2" peak for cycling, rather than "VO2Max". We have found with testing that running will produce an 8-15% (depending on your ability as a cyclist) higher VO2 in the same person during testing. It is also easier for a cyclist to carry over distances (eg pursuit and road racing)than a runner. Olympic gold medallist Kathy Watt was a topline junior runner in Victoria(Australia), a state record holder and champion. She took up cycling because she got injured and not only won the road race at Barcelona Olympics and was also silver medallist in the pursuit (would've won with better tactics). Running is more taxing aerobically but cycling may require the greater use of muscle force in some muscles due to having to crank the pedals agaist that resistance, hence the bigger quads. At the end of a marathon a runner cannot "go another step", may need weeks to recover, but a cyclist can back up day after day in tours.

Barryp wrote:

Don't your shoes support just as much weight as the bike....all 100% of it? I think your logic is a little flawed.

The problem is, how do you define what is "tougher?"

tougher to go far --> Running

tougher to go fast --> Running

tougher to be good at it --> depends on talent

tougher on shins and knees --> running

tougher on head and collar bone --> cycling

tougher on the wallet --> cycling

tougher on the trainig schedule --> cycling

tougher on the pain threshold --> probably cycling

tougher on the biceps --> cycling

tougher to burn calories/min --> cycling

tougher to burn total calories --> running

Did I miss anything?

This is the best analysis and should put the issue to bed.

There are fewer good women cyclists than there are good men cyclists. So a woman with a big engine can come into the sport and make a splash since the talent pool is much, much shallower than on the men's side.

I would argue that a female endurance athlete wanting to make some money and sign with a team is better off going with cycling than running unless she is a very good runner. I think that if a good cycling coach took the women who made the finals of the NCAA DI 5000m but did not finish in the top 3, that coach could develop a couple of good cyclists. Over a couple of years, a medallist would come of that group.

I would also say that since there are fewer women competing in cycling as opposed to running, it would be easier in one respect for a woman to make it as a top cyclist.

Now, the female runners at the top of the heap should obviously stay there. The marathoners just make a lot of money...

The beauty of no eccentric muscle actions (well very littler) in cycling.

hannsen wrote:

i was looking up giro results today and then saw the profile for the next 2 days. i might have to change my mind and bump cycling up- 2 words IL MORTIROLO

http://www.salite.ch/mortirol1.htm

This climb is ridiculous- it said its the hardest one in europe(or tied with one in the vuelta).

800+m of altitude gain in 6k in the MIDDLE of the climb- that is severe and nonsensical.

Also some nice comments about recently deceased Marco Pantani's racing exploits against none other than Miguel Indurain at the main site

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=5255

I want to cry just reading this. Although it's actually only 741m of altitude gain in the middle of a ridiculous climb it's still, well, ridiculous. 2K of that is between 13.4%-14.2%. Utter hell. This next question is asked with sincerity...do you see many cyclists, such as the sprinters who start the stage, dismount and jog up the hill? At some percentage it absolutely must be easier to run up a hill than it is to ride. ...heaven is a place on Earth, but CLEARLY so is hell.

Everyone knows running is tougher. What a stupid thread. I agree with the guy above. It's like asking what is better and Apple or Orange. LIke Dude who the heck cares. Lets move on or I ll start another post.

Yeah thanks. I was the guy who said apples or oranges. Also I have a 9 inch cock. So yeah.

> Luv2Run says: If a cyclist is tested, his/her VO2max will be pretty darn close whether the test is done on a bike or treadmill run; if you take a runner and stick him/her on a bike, local fatigue in the legs will often be the case for cessation of the test. The legs just crap out before the heart and lungs have had enough.

As an exercise physiologist I can tell doesn't matter which sport you do, your VO2 on a bike is lower than on a treadmill because your are using less muscle mass-no ifs or buts about that. As the measurement of VO2 comes from both delivery and absorption, a greater muscle mass is going is going to absorb more oxygen. A runner doing a cycling test will crap out earlier because their anaerobic threshold will be poorer and their muscle force will decline more quickly, just means they'll hit their VO2 peak quicker, but they will hit it. They'll hit lactic much earlier.

>Not sure how you are coming up with one being more taxing than another aerobically. In cycling the events off the track are longer in time duration. Quads of endurance cyclists are not all that big and with gearing you can select a gear that requires very little force to maintain a given power output. Sprinter types are a different story...

You answered your own question. Endurance cycling races go for a much longer duration, and can be repeated day after day in tours, something that can't be done running. Thus we know aerobically which is easier. Even more so with gearing!!! Alot comes down to more energy being expended in the weight bearing exercise of running due to eccentric contractions (you're right there), thus loss of muscle force (which requires energy). All local ion pumps and channels (calcium, sodium/potassium) have their own local supply of glycogen, ATP etc...

But there is one point where you are right. There is also structural losses of force (as distinct from metabolic losses) as well-18% decline in calcium release, which has a direct relationship to muscle force. There was also a 13% decline in sodium/potassium pump activity, which has an important influence on calcium release and thus muscle force changes, and a 26-30% decline in actual muscle force during prolonged cycling to fatigue-that was my masters study, now accepted in the "Journal of Applied Physiology". Would have been a much greater decline if we could have measured the actual effects of metabolites on those pumps and channels. The larger structural changes occurring in running, as you correctly pointed out, are due to the eccentric contractions and the weight bearing effect, both of which will produce much greater fatigue.

Even sprint cyclist recover quicker-last night at the world cycling championship Anna Meares, silver medallist in both the sprint and the pursuit, did the pursuit final and 6 sprint races in one night. Track and field sprinters couldn't do that. Plus she had no problems carrying over the distance from the sprint to the pursuit. And endurance cyclists can go very well over shorter distances like the pursuit, that's been demonstrated. Probably due to the sport being less taxing than running both metabolically and structurally.

Regards

Jim

I'd like to see Mike Wardian in a stage-style footrace consisting of about 300 miles of racing over the course of a week. I think he'd handle it well. He's strong and looney like that.

kohlberg wrote:

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.