What's tougher?: running vs. cycling

not in the mountains. Look at Marco Pantani(now dead) and compare pre-disease Lance Armstrong with the survived Armstrong. Look at a lot of the mountain goats, they all have skinny legs. Last spring my weight got down to 115. I went on a bike ride and hit some hills, I flew up them unlike I have ever before, now I'm back up to 127 and I can't climb hills like I could last year. At least my BMI is now almost healthy.

The thing i would like to know from all the cyclists on here that are also runners, is how easy is it for a good runner to become a good cyclist given that he is willing to put in the time? Do you think the same type of people that excel in distance running can easily excel at distance cycling? I ask because, after my competitive running career I would like to pick up Triathlons, particularily half and iromans. Would a 2:20 marathoner type pick up cycling pretty easy. From what i hear, swimming is mostly technique, so once you nail that it becomes more of perfecting your stroke as compared to just getting on the bike or running on the roads for hours. I've read many articles stating that people from swimming backgrounds crush the swim part of the triathlon without much practice because it is so uncompetitive with all the triathletes that think they can just swim for time and distance in practice and not worry about form.

one question wrote:

The thing i would like to know from all the cyclists on here that are also runners, is how easy is it for a good runner to become a good cyclist given that he is willing to put in the time? Do you think the same type of people that excel in distance running can easily excel at distance cycling? I ask because, after my competitive running career I would like to pick up Triathlons, particularily half and iromans. Would a 2:20 marathoner type pick up cycling pretty easy.

It depends a lot on body type...particularly leg power / weight ratio. However, I would say that the odds are that a 2:20 marathoner will be good enough on a bike to hold his own in a triathlon.

However, in a cycling-only race, it's a different story. Because of the way that races play out (often requiring all-out efforts for 10-15 minutes at a time), the runners who do the best are usually 5k or steeple guys. The limiting factor in cycling is usually anaerobic threshold and, to a lesser degree, VO2 max. Normal cycling races aren't as much of an aerobic sport as people imagine. Triathlons, however, are different...much more steady riding without the need for a high anaerobic threshold.

So, if you're a 2:20 marathoner, don't worry too much about it...I imagine you'll be competitive in a tri, as long as you put in a bit of time on the bike and in the pool.

steven wrote:

The question of whether or not running is tougher than bicycling as a sport. The bike holds you up so you can continue to move beyond the point where fatigue would collapse you as a runner. Athletes are sometimes unable to stand when they get off the bike after a long and exhausting ride. That fact has nothing to do with whether or not it is tougher to become a great bicycler than a great runner. That's harder to answer.

This is the best answer I've seen in this thread (from my point of view). It has always been my contention that running is tougher - one of the reasons being that you can rest, however briefly, while riding. Get up out of the saddle, change hand positions, etc. When you run, there is no coasting or any way of obtaining even momentary reprieve.

(not counting abberations like stopping to walk or getting off the bike at a rest/food stop)

Ah, but that's what makes being a top leve cyclist so hard! There are ways to take breaks on a bike - but every pedal stroke is sacred at the top level, especially in time trials, and those that don't take the reprieve are the ones who win. It's damn hard not to take those momentary breaks when you're eyes are rolling up into your head, but the best push through it.

I'll say it like this, at the top levels, cycling and running are impossible for 99.5% of us, both physically and mentally.

I agree, in comparing the recreational runner to the recreational biker. My bet is that most of regular runners could do what the bikers are doing but not vice versa.

Lid E. Ard wrote:

I agree, in comparing the recreational runner to the recreational biker. My bet is that most of regular runners could do what the bikers are doing but not vice versa.

Huh? You mean to say that regular cyclists can't run???

Eddie Merckx did not smoke. You are probably thinking of Jacques Anquetil who emerged in the late 1950s. And Merckx not only trained in winter, he raced!

It's not fair to compare the two sports but if you can watch the Tour de France (3500 km with just two rest days) or Paris Roubaix (250 km one day race with 51 km on cobblestones!) and satisfy yourself that this is not an unbelievably tough sport, then I'd be surprised.

Seb Coe went on record on BBC TV that in his view, the long distance cyclists are the toughest of them all.

To the person who says that riding a bike for five hours is mind numblingly tedious, it is tedious if you are oblivious to the scenary you pass through! I can happily ride for three and a half hours through the city where I live (riding for pleasure, not training), and not be bored for a second. 20 minutes on an exercise bike in my own bedroom, ok, I take your point! Incidentally, Pantani died of a cocaine overdose, not suicide, and the countryside where he trained is quite staggering beautiful!)

Pantani (on left): pure climber

Outside of trauma, cyclists can still get knee injuries or back injuries.....................

For women, it can be an easy transition from running to cycling since the talent pool is so shallow.

Several top female cyclists (Alison Dunlap, Mari Holden, Amber Neben and Kristin Armstrong) started out in other sports (respectively, soccer, triathlon, distance running, triathlon) before coming over to cycling.

For the men, it is far tougher since the talent pool is far deeper. Also, there is a lot to learn about road cycling in terms of tactics and bike handling.

For a runner, I would suggest mountain biking if you can develop the skills. Chances are you will not ever reach the same level of success in cycling that a 2:20 marathoner would reach.

In triathlon, the strong swimmers often do not develop as well as cyclists and runners (the women are an exception-again the talent pool is a bit shallower).

Cycling at the highest levels is much harder than most people think. These guys race a lot even at the lower tiered levels.

No. I just meant that they'd get the piano sooner.

And I don't mean the top cyclists who are awesome, I bow to them, they are way fit beyond my pitiful workouts. The tour-de-France is unimaginable to me. I've heard that the top cyclists'resting heart rate is lower than top marathoners and I don't doubt it.

I just get a tad irritated at a lot of the recreational bikers in my area. There's all this expensive equipment and clothing and they often ride abreast without going single file when crossing runners. It's like we're invisable or something. Plus, the the hard core runners are out there 365 days a year in all kinds of weather and most of the bikers aren't.

This is an interesting thread. I was formerly a distance runner until I took up cycling because of a career-ending running injury.

Honestly, I always thought running was harder mentally because there are no breaks in running. You start a race and it keeps hurting more and more. Many times during a cyling race there is time to relax, recover, and change positions to get comfortable. Of course there are times when you go 100% and everything hurts, but a lot of the time you don't go all out. Lance Armstrong, for example, does absolutely no work for the first week of the Tour de France when the stages are flat. He just tucks in behind his teammates for 5 hours and probably gets his HR up to 140 maybe.

When it comes to the physical requirements needed to push the pedals hard, cycling is very different than running. Essentially, the goal of cycling is to produce as many watts as you can and be able to hold it. On flat ground, your speed is determined by the relationship between watts produced and cross section in the wind (it doesn't matter how much you weigh), and your speed climbing is determined by the relationship of watts produced to the weight of the cyclist.

A competive cyclist can hold maybe 350-400 watts for 40 mins or so in an indoor test. It takes a long time to develop the strength and ability to hold such high power for such a long period of time. If you put a 14:30 5K guy on a machine set to 350 watts, he would probably only be able to push it for 5 minutes before his quads can't work anymore and his heart feels like it's going to explode. I'm not saying that a 14:30 guy can't become a good cyclist... it just takes years of development to train your body to do such a thing. As a good runner, you have great endurance, but not necessarily great strength in the legs. Awhile back I rode a steep 1 mile climb with a 9:00 2 miler (who had been riding for a couple months) and I had to wait a couple of minutes at the top for him.

It goes the same way for going from exclusively cycling to running. If you take the top collegiate cyclists in this country (Vo2 maxes ~75) and have them run a 2-mile time trial, I bet very few would run under 11:20! Their bodies are just not used to the specific muscle angles and stresses involved with running. Everyone keeps arguing what Lance's 10K time would be with a couple months of training, and I'd guess it would be around 33 minutes. There would be girls beating him.

In terms of injuries, they are less common in cycling do to essentially no impact, but they do happen and all sorts of things can go wrong with knees, hips, back, nerves, achilles tendons, hamstrings, etc. It is certainly not a "risk-free" sport, even without crashes.

I am a former all american level distance runner. I never reached the highest level of running but got good enough to be able to train with people that were at the highest level. I now cycle in europe and am about the same level, I am guessing. I am good enough to be able to train from time to time with professional cyclists that have done grand tours and people on my team get called up to the professionals every year. I think about this question all the time.

For me the hardest thing about running is that there is almost always one singular objective that counts above all others. The Olympics, NCAAs. Trophies from any other meet were almost jokes on my team. We would never raise our arms in victory for anything except Penn Relays and NCAAs. The mental pressure of this singular objective focus was always too much for me. There are a lot of mental cases in running I found. To me this singular objective focus is that heardest aspect of running. Theree is always one target race and all other races are just lead ups to that race. I couldnt handle it.

In cycling it is too hard to win any one race. Cyclists dont really have singular objectives because there is too much luck involved in winning a race (the tour de France being an exception but there are only about five cyclists in existence that can base their training around a tour de France win) Every race is a new chance. Every victory, even for the strongest cyclist is thrilling and the arms go straight up. Cyclists often race 100 days a year and each race could become the race that defines a season, one victory is enough to valdiate a season and every person that takes the line has a chance to win. Training is more ofa matter of increasing the probablility. Time is completeley unimportant. I find that, for these reasons, mentally, cycling is easier, even if the training is harder (40 hours a week on the bike at the highest level, some days with two to three hours at lactate thresh hold. I dont think there is really an argument there)

Finally, Cycling is more international than people are making it out to be. Here in Europe there are people from Asia and all over trying to make it to be professional. There is an Ethiopian professional cyclist, there is a tour of Burkina Faso where Europeans compete against African teams, a Tour of Qatar with middle easter teams, a World B championships with teams from all over the world that weren't strong enough to qualify for the World A championships.

migolfer wrote:

[quote]steven wrote:

This is the best answer I've seen in this thread (from my point of view). It has always been my contention that running is tougher - one of the reasons being that you can rest, however briefly, while riding. Get up out of the saddle, change hand positions, etc. When you run, there is no coasting or any way of obtaining even momentary reprieve.

(not counting abberations like stopping to walk or getting off the bike at a rest/food stop)

I think you've misunderstood my point. Top level cyclists can push themselves to a greater depth of fatigue making it tougher physiologically. A top level runner cannot hold his/her HR at at a high level for as long as a top cyclist because their legs wll not hold them. My contention is that cycling is tougher in that it is more physiologically taxing because the bicycle allows the athlete to push him/herself beyond what running allows.

Another point, cyclists can pull muscles, have pretty bad tendonitis, the ever present saddle sores, and chronic back pain are all common injuries that a cyclist can get.............this is meant to dispell the thought that cyclists only get injured during crashes

When you come up with a running equivalent of coasting downhill for a mile, I will begin to compare the two.

It's not the case that Lance does nothing for the first week. The Tour starts with a flat time trial which is flat out all the way. Then four days later there is the team time trial, which is mentally very tough and physically, really exhausts all concerned. Last year, the Italian Giro winner Simoni found himself unable to recover after the Team Time Trial, it was so tough.

If everything goes to plan, then it can be relatively easy for Lance and other major contenders in the first week. But if you read the history books, you'll see it's never that simple. Also, don't ignore the stresses of riding for five hours in very high temperatures at an average speed of nearly 50kmh. When the start tackling the mountain stages or time trial, they usually have 1000 highspeed kilometers in their legs and that hurts even someone like Armstrong.

Just to address a further point: recreational cycling is much easier than running, but no one ever "coasts down hill for a mile." The Tour de France will have ten mile descents (sometimes fifteen mile) but these are not coasted. They are ridden at 80kmh, often with no safety barriers, and it is actually very tough on the leg muscles (because of the changes of rhythm and temperature.)

WickedObvious wrote:

When you come up with a running equivalent of coasting downhill for a mile, I will begin to compare the two.

Easy...an interval workout. The idea of "rest" in cycling is very misleading. All the rest allows is for the attacks (pick-ups) to be that much harder.

As runners, you should think of a cycling race as an intense interval workout. In an normal race there are several 10-15 minute periods of 100% effort that are as hard as anything you do in running. That's why earlier I said that cycling requires more of the physiology you'll find in good 5k and steeple runners than in marathoners.

So, you're right that it's hard to compare the two. But don't assume that because it involves periods of "coasting downhill" that cycling is significantly easier than running.