You don't need to do just one thing. I run, cycle, lift weights, hike...
You don't need to do just one thing. I run, cycle, lift weights, hike...
Amen to the above comment about doing a variety of things. Certainly for me that works. I can no longer focus my aerobic fitness on running exclusively. Nor any one activity
I am fortunate to have many local parks and rail trails for biking. I rarely get on the roads for any distance for riding.
I'm not sure that I understand this part of the OP's initial post though:
'...I hear about pro riders with resting heart rates in the thirties and I see their veined up legs and I honestly wonder if that's the smarter option....'
Unless one is expecting to excel at a single venue and make a living at it the best policy is to do a moderate amount of different things including exercise. Simply makes life more interesting.
Age 60. Today I have a stiff knee and sore back. Running is losing its appeal, but I acknowledge that my weight is a contributing factor in dampening my enthusiasm (5 ft 10 in, 190 lbs).
In 2 days, my wife and I will go for a long walk in the woods at a State Forest 70 miles from our home.
Stay away from outdoor bicycling. In addition to the danger, you cannot pedal hard and fast the way you can on an indoor stationery bike. A Schwinn AirDyne will provide an excellent workout of all four limbs.
pr100 wrote:
You don't need to do just one thing. I run, cycle, lift weights, hike...
Yeah, variety is the spice life. I’m close to 40 and I do those things plus rowing. Im now in the best total body shape of my life. Especially lifting heavy weights. It’s a game changer.
Except running is awesome. Cycling can never really give you the same feeling and you know it.
Slow it down and just enjoy running easy. As you age it gets even better. You don’t need to compete. Running for fitness is a different game, but the rewards can be even greater because success doesn’t depend on the performance of others. Prioritize your health and well being rather than race results.
I’ve seen plenty of runners turn to cycling and go all out every day because they can. Too much intensity will burn you out.
My .02 cents
- Cycling is great, but just not the same as running in terms of quality of workout in the shortest amount of time
- As others have noted, I've had a lot of close calls with drivers that are simply not paying attention or think they own the road. They do own the road btw - this is a collision you will not win
- I love the quick recovery time with riding and even being able to recover on flat or downhill stretches during a long ride. It's not like running where once you red line, it can be very difficult to recover
- Do you have $ and time? You'll need both for riding. Seems like it takes me at 10-15 minutes to prep for a ride. Running is so much simpler
- I'm still not sure, but most cyclists I encounter on the roads seem like pretentious a$$es. Not sure why. Maybe I'm the a$$ or maybe it's because they've almost been run over by a soccer mom (or dad) on her/his phone multiple times. Runners have a much more pleasant vibe and disposition
In summary, riding is great and I love it, but nothing beats a 4-5 mile run @ a good clip. Like you, I wish my body could handle more running.
I agree with pretty much everything Ca$hclay says in the comment right above mine.
I'll just add - I've been biking pretty much every day for over a year now, and I'm still not getting that same awesome feeling of flow and power that I used to get from running. It's a good way to get some exercise and clear my head, but it's not the highlight of my day like running often was.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet - mountain biking! So much safer than biking on the roads, as long as the trails are within your skill level. And more fun, too.
not sure wrote:
Brian Gates2 wrote:
Wrong trade. Read “Body by Science” by Doug McGuff, MD and take up WEIGHT TRAINING.
Weight lifters get fat as soon as they stop.
Cycling misses the most critical element of exercise i.e. opposing gravity. Everything about fitness depends on being able to stand and move around with good posture.
Riding for 5 hours is about as good for your posture as sitting at a desk for 5 hours.
Joe Jackson wrote:
If you start digging into the statistics, you quickly see just how many of those deaths were either:
1. Drunk cyclists veering into the path of a motor vehicle
2. Uneducated cyclists riding against traffic and/or at night without lights
3. Kids doing dumb things
Drunk drivers are the one scary thing, but fewer than 1000 Americans are killed on bicycles per year, compared to about 30,000 in cars. Are there 30 times as many cars? Maybe... but I'm sure there's many millions of cyclists at any rate so we're looking at less than 0.1% annual population fatality rate.
I'd like to see the stats on 2 and 3. I have no doubt a majority of collisions are caused by the idiot cyclists who break right-of-way by running stop signs and such. And by the motorists who contribute to the confusion by yielding for no reason.
Inspired by this thread, I rode my bike for 40 minutes during my lunch break today.
My feet and achilles had been hurting and I really couldn't run.
There is a bike path near me and it's mostly a decline going out and incline coming back.
Riding uphill is harder than running uphill.
My thighs were a bit heavy at the end.
I didn't feel I got as much out of it as a shorter run but at least I got something in and sweated a little.
I rode indoors using a smart trainer and Zwift at the start of pandemic. One hour per day. Got into serious shape - fitter than I have been in years. Unlike running, I could ride extremely hard without worrying about injury. There are some great training programs, especially the ones that boost your Fitness Threshhold Power (FTP). The social experience was better than I expected. I did go back to running when the weather got nice, but I will be back on the bike when the weather gets nasty again.
Age 66. Had to stop running last year after 50 years of serious running. Sigh.
We all age differently and have to adjust our exercise habits accordingly..
Tried road biking and just did't feel safe. Just too dangerous.
Tried mountain biking but my bike handling skills suck and I was afraid of crashing.
SO. I take long walks and hikes, lift weights, and ride an elliptical (the Schwinn a40 is a great manual machine that give you a fun total body workout) plus I play golf (walk and carry my sticks).
DO I miss running? Sure.
DO I feel better now that I've stopped? Definitely.
Cycling has been linked with the development of osteoarthritis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/art.24737 I've never seen a study linking running with arthritis, except in rats (which is obviously of limited utility), although I obviously can't claim to have read every study on the subject. But some say running may even have a protective effect against it.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Joe Jackson wrote:
If you start digging into the statistics, you quickly see just how many of those deaths were either:
1. Drunk cyclists veering into the path of a motor vehicle
2. Uneducated cyclists riding against traffic and/or at night without lights
3. Kids doing dumb things
Drunk drivers are the one scary thing, but fewer than 1000 Americans are killed on bicycles per year, compared to about 30,000 in cars. Are there 30 times as many cars? Maybe... but I'm sure there's many millions of cyclists at any rate so we're looking at less than 0.1% annual population fatality rate.
I'd like to see the stats on 2 and 3. I have no doubt a majority of collisions are caused by the idiot cyclists who break right-of-way by running stop signs and such. And by the motorists who contribute to the confusion by yielding for no reason.
Quite like another topic, it can be difficult to find good data to look at. So much of it used to push the agenda of mandatory bicycle helmets or bike lanes (i.e. vehicle point of impact stats used to justify forcing cyclists off to the side of the road). As you’ll see, basic rule following is essentially ignored in the collected data:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812765Joe Jackson wrote:
So much of it used to push the agenda of mandatory bicycle helmets or bike lanes (i.e. vehicle point of impact stats used to justify forcing cyclists off to the side of the road).
stats seem to say it's usually the front of the vehicle. How was that spun into bike lanes? A car can still cross over and rear-end you there.
The stats also seem to say 20% of fatally injured cyclists in collisions were legally drunk. Who in their right mind is even gonna trust their drunk self not to wreck solo?
my 2c wrote:
You may want to look into bicycle-motor vehicle accident rates and their consequences before making your final decision.
Biking is only healthy until you crash. Also, biking a lot makes my pee burn.
Haha the cyclists on here sounds like Aussies when they talk about dangerous animals.
'You barely see snakes and spiders', they say. 'it's all scaremongering. But I nearly stepped on a tiger snake last year. I'd have had an hour to live if he bit me.'
OP stated " I hear about pro riders with resting heart rates in the thirties and I see their veined up legs and I honestly wonder if that's the smarter option." It seems much of this thread has been about the balance of injuries, essentially orthopedic vs. traumatic, which certainly matters. However, there is the other side to this and that is the fitness. The OP seems to believe, and I happen to agree, that cycling at a high level has the potential to create some significant adaptations in terms of metabolic fitness and health.
Bad Wigins wrote:
The stats also seem to say 20% of fatally injured cyclists in collisions were legally drunk. Who in their right mind is even gonna trust their drunk self not to wreck solo?
They probably meant 20 percent of the drivers were drunk, not the cyclists they ran over.