Speaking of rhythm, does anyone else find it hard to maintain a steady/even effort on a bike? Even small rolling hills are annoying, causing you to constantly adjust. If you keep power constant then obviously you're always changing speed, varying cadence and force moving through the gears. There is no rhythm in it, I can never just hit the cruise and "check out" mentally like I can running.
Bobby1 wrote:
Skinning runners will not make good cyclists.
It rubs the lotion on its' skin or else it gets the hose again.
Wow, this gave me the feels man :(
Couldn't agree more
I would like if I could go to far away places faster while running, but I also don't want to have to put in several hours a day to be moderately competitive.
Is cycling as dangerous as it appears to me? Seems like every cyclist I know gets into a horrible crash at some point. Cycling looks fun to take up but that would be a turn off.
I took up rock climbing in the early '80s, while my brother took up cycling about the same time. We had very similar career paths within each, both reaching the local pro level.
Thirty-five years later, my brother just retired from competition after breaking his neck in a crit. Over the years he fractured his ribs, collarbone (many times) scapula and radius. I have never broken a bone (some pretty good stitch-ups due to rockfall, though) and have had no injuries from falls (though I've had my share) or from training (unlike running- I am always holding off injuries).
I steer clear of ice climbing- it seems to be about as dangerous as cycling, probably more fatalities though.
Soprano wrote:
-It is way easier and cheaper to buy a pair of running shoes and step out the front door then drop a thousand dollars or several thousand dollars on a bike and gear.
-If you're traveling, or want to run from work, it's much easier to bring a pair of running shoes and shorts than your bike.
-You can run just about anywhere you want; cycling you have to worry about cars/traffic.
-If you want to drive somewhere to ride, you have to hook your bike up to a bike rack (running, you just hop in the car and go).
-To get the same cardiovascular benefit cycling, you have to ride about three times as long as you would run. So what you can accomplish from a fitness perspective in 10-minutes running, takes you 30-minutes of cycling.
Fair points. I do a ton of my riding just hoping out the door and go, which skews my viewpoint. Traveling I couldn't agree more, running is massively more convenient.
Many of those you mentioned can be minimized though. Such as traveling with the bike, get used to it and it takes maybe 45s to pop off the front wheel, toss the bike in the back seat and go.
Only one I really disagree with is cardiovascular benefit. I don't agree with that 3x as long thing at all. I think that addage comes from runners using cycling as XT time, in which case they usually aren't bike fit and don't have the muscular strength/endurance to put out sufficient power to tax the system, combined with it being cross-training it means you need a little more to get an "equivalent" benefit. I don't need to do 15x5 min VO2 repeats (and indeed couldn't) to get the same benefit as a 5xMile workout. It's arguably much easier to tool around on the bike at really easy efforts compared to running, but if you keep the wattage up the whole time an hour ride on the bike feels to me as beneficial as an hour run.
The main reason for big hours in cycling is two reasons; namely that races tend to be much longer, or are multi day stage races where big hours are necessary to develop the fatigue resistance and recovery to handle such races, and simply because you can. Cardiovascularly, it's not a huge deal to train 25 hours a week, but running 200+mpw with any kind of quality just isn't possible as the physical damage is so much greater. You can ride a pretty damn good TT or crit race on the bike off 5-10 hours a week of training.
Ca$hclay wrote:
LM wrote:every running race is a time trial. Run as hard as you can from A to B. Which is great, and one of my favorite ways to race. But on the bike races are much different, and much more tactical. You can try to draw out people for a breakaway in a 5 hour race right from the start, you can attack up a climb and try to solo away, you can try to keep the group together and then win in a field sprint.
I am nitpicking a bit here and appreciate your post, but disagree with this. Racing, especially on the track at 800-1500 meter distances, can be extremely tactical. The same is true for cross country depending on the course, conditions and your team.
Cycling and running are both great. Cycling's drawback to me is the tremendous time-suck for a similar workout result from a run. That and the idiot drivers on the road who can end your life in an instant. I'll always be a runner 1st but am all for both.
Finally to the OP - No. There are true cyclists and true runners. The purists in each endeavor typically scoff at one another and won't budge an inch on this topic.
I run races and also race bikes at the Cat 3 level. Both sports ebb and flow for me over the course of the year. I run workouts on the track and road, and ride on and off road. I picked up cyclocross (CX) about 7 years ago, and it's been a great combination of what I like to do. My fastest half-marathon is 1:22:10, and I've been stuck at 29 to 30 minutes in 5-mile races for many years (I'm going on 38 in age). So, not blowing anyone out of the water, but holding my own. When I started cyclocross in Cat 4, our races were 30 minutes. My first race I thought I was going to die, but it was an absolute blast. Now in Cat 3 it's 45 minutes. As a Masters bike racer I could get in on the 60-minute races, but I've done one in my "career" and haven't felt like I needed to do that again. In our community, there are several former collegiate runners from D2 and D3 that have gotten into cyclocross or mountain bike racing- once they get bike handling down, with their endurance they're pretty tough to beat, and they can get several podiums a season for many, many seasons. There's a lot more cash in winning as well, whereas the running races in our area scrape up swag or gift cards. If you like pushing your body's limits, put some CX tires on an old steel touring bike or a single speed (with brakes and a freehub, of course) and try a 30-minute race. So, my point of all this is that I personally know a couple cyclists that have felt the need to switch to running because they've crashed on the pavement too many times. However, among the group of CX racers I know, plenty of runners have gravitated to the bike and have gotten their fix in spades off-road (they race mtn bikes in the summer then CX in the fall). And regarding the $$$ part of it- as you'd expect there are plenty of people that try to buy speed, but never win races because they don't know how to race.
Too many of my friends have died cycling. I'm done with it.
It really depends what your options are. This is only a logical question if most cyclists actually couldn't run, which most actually can but choose not to. Here in the CO mountains (Steamboat Springs), there are actually may choices besides running only from MTB ride to road ride to trail run to stand up paddle, plus xc skiing, uphill/downhill skiing (skimo), and triathlons throughout the summer. Believe me, of all these choices, a road run is the absolute most boring despite being easy and convenient and everyone can do well. Most folks who do all these things here could easily break 3:00 in the marathon with not much "extra" specific running training. For most around here, running is the sport used to train for these other activities, and you are an exclusive runner only if you suck at these other things. Bring your "runner only" superior status here and you will be schooled by superior aerobic specimens.
Just run more wrote:
I see most people taking up cycling because it hurts to run. I was the same way where I got injured in running and became really into cycling, but now that I can run again, I wouldn't even think of getting on the bike. Besides all of the logical reasons like convenience, time efficiency, etc, the feeling of running at a easy pace to running to exhaustion just feels great.
HardLoper wrote:
Is cycling as dangerous as it appears to me? Seems like every cyclist I know gets into a horrible crash at some point. Cycling looks fun to take up but that would be a turn off.
If you race, it's pretty much an inevitability you will crash at some point. You're talking about hours riding wheel to wheel at high speeds with many other riders trying to beat them to the finish line. Shit happens. Now, more often than not, crashes aren't ridiculously bad things. Usually it's some painful road rash and maybe a broken collarbone. If you get really unlucky it can be something worse, but is almost never fatal or "career ending".
Just riding on the roads without racing, it comes down to traffic issues mostly. When you spend that much time on the roads it's likely you'll end up being involved in some sort of incident with a vehicle at some point. You can minimize this by riding very defensively and staying alert at all times and by riding on low traffic roads, but the risk is there.
Aa apple wrote:
Speaking of rhythm, does anyone else find it hard to maintain a steady/even effort on a bike? Even small rolling hills are annoying, causing you to constantly adjust. If you keep power constant then obviously you're always changing speed, varying cadence and force moving through the gears. There is no rhythm in it, I can never just hit the cruise and "check out" mentally like I can running.
Steady effort? Yes, it's quite easy, especially if you have a power meter. Just get into the flow at X wattage, and keep it in that range. Just like you get locked into 6:30 pace running you can get locked into the feel of 280W riding.
Rhythm...depends on the terrain. Obviously on flats and steady climbs it's very possible to get into a nice rhythm. If you keep power constant though, that's what I'd call the equivalent of rhythm. If you're efficient with gears you'll only minimally vary cadence by the usually 4-8rpm between gears.
I can definitely zone out when I ride uneven terrain, but I think it's a different kind of zone out than while running.
keepdreamin wrote:
erfgwegv wrote:"also i like how running you have to earn your body but in cycling the richest man with the best bike wins"
You just keep believing that. I still remember a story the Mayor told me about a kid riding in a race in upstate NY. This kid was a local stud and for the race he rode a home-made bike, the Mayor described it as a rolling screen door. Kid ate everyone's lunches. Talent wins, but you can keep thinking money will win out, the biking manufacturers certainly want you to.
To an extent. Obviously a 25 year old in good shape with a steel frame is going to beat out the 45 year old guy with a gut and a full carbon frame. But if you had two people in the exact same shape, the one with the more expensive bike is going to win.
Maybe if the race is an hour long 10% climb.
The difference between a top of the line $9000+ road bike and an entry level road bike is roughly 4%. So in other words, if you are riding on an entry level piece of garbage against someone on a top of the line bike, it's like racing against someone with magic shoes that turn them from a 16:00 guy in a 15:20 guy. That's certainly not trivial, but at the same time cycling races are generally not climbs in isolation, which totally changes the game. None of that matters if you're a better sprinter and just sit on the guys wheel doing 20:00 effort while he is working at 15:20 effort.
By the time you get to a decent low end bike you would show up to a race with (1.3k-2.5k) the difference is much closer to 1-2%. Which means that now magic shoes guy is more like a 15:45 guy.
So yes, a more expensive bike wins, but it doesn't take $5k+ to get within 1-2% of what the absolute top bikes will have (and not that many guys have absolute top bikes either) so in reality the situation is rarely ever as ridiculous as 15:20 vs 16:00.
And of course if the guys on nice bikes are 22:00 guys (which, outside of races they usually are) it doesn't really matter at all what you're riding. If you're a strongish 4.5+ w/kg FTP guy you're going to be able to drop 90-95% of roadies out there on climbs even if you're riding a $300 30lb MTB.
Ca$hclay wrote:
I am nitpicking a bit here and appreciate your post, but disagree with this. Racing, especially on the track at 800-1500 meter distances, can be extremely tactical. The same is true for cross country depending on the course, conditions and your team.
Cycling and running are both great. Cycling's drawback to me is the tremendous time-suck for a similar workout result from a run. That and the idiot drivers on the road who can end your life in an instant. I'll always be a runner 1st but am all for both.
Finally to the OP - No. There are true cyclists and true runners. The purists in each endeavor typically scoff at one another and won't budge an inch on this topic.
If we are talking track middle distance, I agree, although I think there are even more complex dynamics at play in serious road races. But you're absolutely right that track races at those distance are often tactical and not a TT from start to finish.
From the title of the thread though I was thinking more guys that had running careers and now for injury or whatever can't run. Usually those guys would be doing local road races, which are almost never less than 5k and for anyone but a complete local stud are just straight gun to tape TTs.
thisandthis wrote:
Perhaps you have never run on a hilly trail or road. Running has lots of diversity if you get off the track and flats.
It is easy to experience the rhythm of running in many situations. Including climbs. Much of cycling is not rhythmic. Perhaps it feels so great to get into the rhythm of a cycling climb because it can be different than the rest of the ride
There are more runners that can be ok cyclists than there are cyclists that can be ok runners. Agreed that some people are better suited for cycling.
Being in Colorado it's more the other way around, I've never not run on a hilly trail or road. It has diversity, but unless you go to trails it's more or less putting one foot in front of the other by various margins. Cycling has totally different riding styles, standing vs sitting, on the flats riding low into the wind, running (unless trails, which very few serious runners routinely bomb down) has no equivalent to cornering or descending either.
Good point about getting into the rhythm of a climb, I probably do enjoy climbing in part because it reminds me of the feeling of getting into a good strong rhythm as with running.
I love cycling
Bikes are fun and look cool
You can go fast and go to more places
Running gives a better feeling after but cycling is more adventurous and you can make a day of it
John Clendon wrote:
Cycling: Helmet, shoes, sunglasses, gloves, watch. Booties, arm warmers, leg warmers, if it is going to be that kind of day. Do I need more air in my tires? Did I replace the tube from the flat on the last ride?
Running:socks, shorts, shirt, shoes, watch. Head out the door.
I really enjoy a solid 2-3hr road or mtb ride in the good weather, but only have time for that on the weekends. Running is convenient and easy.
That's an awful lot of stuff to carry with/on you, and most of it is not necessary.
Running: no need for the watch, socks or even shoes. All you need is some piece of clothing so you don't get pulled over by the police. Everything else is optional.
Cycling: a bike and some clothes - could be the same you use for running. Maybe helmet, depending on local regulations.
In fact, I cycled to work this morning with just that minimal setup - a bike, shorts, a blouse and a helmet, and I have just finished running - the same shorts, the same blouse and that was it. Didn't even need shoes for any of that, let alone fancy watches. They all have their uses, but let's not act like there's no running or cycling without them.
knox harrington wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:No, true cyclists are a different breed.+1
I see most people taking up cycling because it hurts to run.
Poppycock.
-2
you mad, biker bill?
Where I live I can run more interesting places than ride, e.g. swim across a river, zero track up seriously steep hills, and run through wilderness areas where bikes are banned. If riding offroad I can go further, but less interesting. If riding onroad the options are less, but I can attack and race my friends and it is more fun.
But I can also ride very hilly rides offroad that make it just as much effort as running. 1hr run on steep firetrails equals 1hr ride on same trails.
My city would also have to have one of the highest proportions of pro cyclists per head of population. Road, mtb and downhill. None of them would prefer to drag their muppet arms around running rather than cycling.
Each to their own.
Soprano wrote:
LM wrote:
Not sure how running is especially more convenient or time efficient than cycling. It doesn't take that much longer to put on a helmet and clip in.
-If you want to drive somewhere to ride, you have to hook your bike up to a bike rack (running, you just hop in the car and go).
Or you can just remove the wheels. I drive a Camry and my bike fits in my car.