What's tougher?: running vs. cycling

From a pure cardiovascular perspective running is a somewhat tougher than cycling, simply because your heart and lungs have to provide more oxygen and energy to more muscles at once. Cycling involves mainly leg mucles, however, they're pushed to a fatigue level over and over in bike racing. Cycling is about intensity and fast recovery. Bicycle racing is also harder from a tactical standpoint because riders(teams) often attack to blow the race pieces. There's nothing tougher than trying to recover when someone goes of the front at 30+ mph. Brutal !!!

Personally, cycling is harder. I don't own a bike.

A testiment to the beauty of cycling:

Ben

Anything can be the hardest if you make hard. Even sitting on a couch can be hard. Sit in on single position without moving on a couch for 24 hours in front of the TV. Even lying on a bed for a long time can be painfull, ever hear of bed sores? The worst leg pain I ever felt in my life was when I suddenly stopped running because of an injury after training hard for 7 months. Not doing anything hurt way worse than any interval workout, mentally and physically.

I ran distances in high school and some in college. I always thought cycling was a lot tougher physically and mentally than running, and every runner I knew that got into cycling thought the same thing (certainly way more danger factor, which demands more "toughness" in that regard). I have never known a runner who bike raced that thought cycling was easier than running. Granted a cycling road race will have some sections that are ridiculously easy (when no one wants to go hard), but when it is hard it is REALLY hard, and you are plunged into depths of fatigue that you just don't reach in running. But, I don't think that means that the top competitors in cycling are any tougher than in running - it is just my feeling on the difficulty of the two sports.

As a side note, I think I would rate cross country skiing as more aerobically demanding (and difficult) than either running or cycling.

Nothing compares to rollerblading.

I have been a runner for several years, and I bought a road bike about two years ago. While I'm no world-class athlete, I am usually in pretty decent shape.

I did some casual riding on the bike, and really enjoyed it. As a gift, my wife got me a three month training plan (biking) from a local coach. The first week of the program, he had me ride a total of 10-1/2 hours, complete with two harder workouts. My legs felt like they were on absolute fire after that first week. While I had the aerobic capacity to handle the riding pretty well, I did not have the muscular stregnth to handle it. The two sports use a lot of similar muscles, but they also use a lot of different ones that you won't use in the other.

I think that a lot of people underestimate how difficult cycling really is. You have to keep in mind that the pro's are able to go 35mph.....UP THE ALPS!

a lady wrote:

Personally, cycling has always been harder. cyclists don\'t use their arms as much as their legs, true? i bet runners can bench more than cyclists?

Cyclists not using their arms? Obviously you have never raced or sprinted....Sprinting requires a lot of upper body strength as well the tension of always being ready to break or shift...

I don\'t think just because a cyclist isn\'t a \"sprinter\" that they don\'t have to sprint to cover attacks etc...

SPA

Ah, this thread is back.

About 10 days ago I went riding with a friend. I had just beaten him in a 10 mile race by over 20 minutes. However, he kicked my butt on the bike. Here's the kicker: He doesn't cycle. He had to borrow a friend's bike to go riding that day.

The difference is I have long skinny runner legs and he has tree trunks. He can't run much faster than 8 min/mile but can handle grinding out the gears much better than I.

Conclusion: For me cycling is much harder. For him, it's running.

Having Run, done triathlons, and now being a bike racer I can say that of the three sports (and were talking high level here)

Triathlon is the most punishing to train for and likely the most physically punishing to race for one day races... You usually are in pain for the whole race....This is of course non-draft legal races.

Bike Racing is almost as punishing to train for as triathlon and a pretty dang punishing to race, there is no pain like having to jump on a train after just countering an attack...And stage races, forget about it. It is also the most mentally taking sport I can imagine. When you see those guys just casually rolling along in the peleton your forgeting that they are doing 50km/h and are centimeters from each other. And I have never been more tense than barreling down hairpin turns at 70km/h on a crappy road with 15 guys right next to me...Your shoulders and hand and forearms ache unbelievably...

Running is just not as punishing phyiscally or mentally. It is a hard sport but at worst the pain is all over after 3:00 hours.

My last point is that although I have only done it once, my contention is the most painful phyiscal sport of all is Cross country skiing (skate) you are using your whole body and when your done racing you whole body is wracked with lactic acid, snot is drid and frozen to everything part of you body and the next day you can't move a muscle...

Cycling is MUCH more difficult on the arms. When sprinting or climbing a hill you must pull on the handle bar with the opposite arm as you crank down on the pedel with your leg. Also, your arms supprt some of your weight while you are riding.

And if you don't buy that, just look at a world class distance runner (Kenyan's can't do 3 pull ups) and look at a world class cyclist. They're arms are significantly more built.

Dustin Hoffman wrote:

Running is harder hands down, don't even think about comparing the two. Why ? Cycling far from a global sport it is not all competitive in comparison.

You have France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, a few guys from Australia and the US and, erm ... that's about it. Not a big talent pool compared to running. The african countries would be hard pushed to finance a professional cycling team, it's an expensive sport.

Top level cycling today is at about the level of running in the late 1950's. Yep that's right. In the 1970's most professional cyclists did not even train throughout the winter, there was not that much competition so they did not have to. Eddy Mercx was a smoker for goodness sake and was the best back then.

That should settle the argument ...

Hilarious in its inaccuracy. Merckx (correct spelling) was not a smoker and he is the best ever, not the best of the 70's. Top level cycling today is probably ahead of every other sport in the world in terms of scientific preparation, excepting swimming. Of course I cannot prove this and you can still think that international cycling is a provincial sport ... but that isn't what the thread is about.

Even amateur cyclists use HRM's, altimeters, Power Tap hubs, indoor trainers with all kinds of measurements, all kinds of nutritional aids (on-bike and off), and scientific training methods. To say that cycling is like running in the 50's is way off. All the top riders train year round now. The season stretches from Jan-Feb all the way to mid-October.

I don't care if you think running is harder, but use some facts to arrive at that opinion.

Something to chew on: A top road cyclist trains 30-35 hours a week, actually ON THE BIKE turning the pedals, and a lot of other time on weights, massage, stretching, etc.. A top runner runs 12-14 hrs a week. Both are very tough.

I happen to think that running is harder, because there are no easy runs, you have to push yourself along no matter what, and a race is hard from the gun in running. But the pain in cyling is very brutal and can go on indefintely, I would not comment on the comparison unless you have done both fairly seriously. Part-time triathletes need not give their opinion.

What's heavier a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers????

You're a freakin moron.

everyone knows feathers are heavier than bricks- duh.

I like watching cycling ive caught 2-3 stages of the Giro this year but i know nothing about training except what ive read so running is harder for me hehe. The thing i always find annoying is that the poor breakaways work approximately 1% of the time. Those poor schlubs are killing themselves out in front for 4 hours and invariably get reeled in 10k or so from the finish. Its so funny like early on in the stages people get a lead of like 10-15 min sometimes- like 5-7k!! its just wierd and then they end up getting swept up. Oh well.

Interesting (obviously unresolvable) question.

I'll offer a few thoughts, mostly based on previous comments. As background I'm an average club runner and have been an average club cyclist. My wife was a pretty fair collegiate distance runner, took to cycling in grad school and for the last several years has been ranked in the top 10 in the USA. She is obviously much more interesting to discuss than I!

First off, her cycling talent is 100X greater than her running talent. But for coincidences, she could have gone her whole life and never discovered that. That is the same for many individuals and many sports.

Further to this, she is technically and tactically very good. She can drop like a stone on descents, whips through corners and touches the brakes less than anyone I've ridden with. Tactically, well that's a longer discussion which wouldn't be of much interest here.

To race professionally at the highest level she has had to quit her old job (scientist). In the Winter she routinely spends at least 35 hours/week in the saddle. Most of the rest of the time she is either eating or sleeping, I kid you not.

She almost never injured as a runner, but as a pro-cyclist averages about one serious crash/year, along with several others which would make me feel pretty sorry for myself. 5 collar bones, many ribs, several concussions, we buy road rash dressing in bulk, you get the (not pretty) picture.

She is a specialist climber, 5'5", 115 lbs, scrawny as a rat BUT her thighs (and to a lesser extent calfs) are freakin' unbelievably muscular. She naturally has buff pipes for arms, but most cyclists strive for the Tyrannosaurus rex body type (think about it).

Her oxygen transfer is off the scale, but interestingly her lactate clearance is not and neither is her max heart rate. Her resting heart rate fluctuates from 35-45 depending on her level of fatigue.

Generally I find that runners look down on and underestimate the fitness (mental and physical) of cyclists more than the other way round.

Go cheer for her at the World Cup race in Montreal this w/e and Liberty Classic in Philly next w/e.

AD

toughness wrote:

My reason for asking is merely that it seems that a certain mind-set, in some cases arguably bordering on insanity, is required for cycling. Clearly, one can lead a fairly normal life, with a full-time job, and still WIN the Olympic marathon. But the training for cycling, typically with a few rides per week over 5 hours, requires a commitment that running, by its very nature, doesn't require. Perhaps the unusually high number of suicides among winners of the big races (Pantani being the latest) lends credence to this conjecture. They've put absolutely everything into cycling, and now they have (in some/many cases) very little else to turn to once they've reached the top and start to come down.

What other winner of a big cycling race has committed suicide?

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? SNIP.

Many females track athletes become cyclists. They are exposed to cycling when injured and realize that they can make some money at it. Women's cycling has a dearth of talent so someone with a big engine can dominate. On the men's side, everyone has a big engine...

luv2run wrote:

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? SNIP.

Many females track athletes become cyclists. They are exposed to cycling when injured and realize that they can make some money at it. Women's cycling has a dearth of talent so someone with a big engine can dominate. On the men's side, everyone has a big engine...

Not sure I understand the logic there. Are you saying that there is less variation in male engines than in female engines? Many men have small engines, as do many women; the distribution of engine size is about the same between the sexes.

In my experience a similar proportion of women get really serious about cycling as do about running, and likewise for men. Women's sport in general is less developed in the Western world than men's (with a few exceptions). But at the high performance end of the spectrum I promise you cycling is no 'easier' for women to be successful at than running.

Finally, "...are exposed to cycling when injured and realize that they can make some money at it" - NOT!!! Unless my wife is hiding truck loads of prize money from me.

AD

I agree 99% of what you say =-but for an average build cyclist to generate 400 watts for abot 40 mins - that would put him WELL above "competitive" - boardering on if not already Tour De France class