Runners Can't Hold a Candle to Cyclists

jTjg wrote:

Don't be a tool.

Cycling is not more difficult physically and mentally than running.

Much less injuries in cycling. Much easier to get in the training.

There is a reason why cycling is 98.6% white.

Fewer injuries? Possibly, but the injuries tend to be much more severe. Consider that 2011 Tour de France winner Cadel Evans in one year had THREE FRACTURED COLLAR BONES. That's too many for a lifetime, let alone one year.

jTjg wrote:

The best part is access to heart rate average while in the Tour de France. These guys average about 130bpm for most of the days with only shorts spikes (8-11 min) at above 170bpm. It's a total jogfest at the elite level. Check out science of sport for more,

http://sportsscientists.com/

You keep telling yourself that when you wouldn't even last 1 km trying to keep up with them.

And another thing, cycling doesn't have the same Robert Young scam problem that is so persuasive through out running. What do slow "for the kids" cheats always do? They run.

I call this pose, "Pimp Sagan":

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2016/10/18/1/20165776_338764_670.jpg

Not one of y'all has mentioned the ridiculously beautiful girl on his arm.

You're all talking about fashion and lycra and heart rates and short shorts and men's packages. This website is pathetic.

I'll tell you what will get your heart rate up... a night in a hotel room with that dame he's got on his arm.

Big Trader wrote:

Not one of y'all has mentioned the ridiculously beautiful girl on his arm.

You're all talking about fashion and lycra and heart rates and short shorts and men's packages. This website is pathetic.

I'll tell you what will get your heart rate up... a night in a hotel room with that dame he's got on his arm.

That's all that will get his heart rate up too since cycling is like jogging.

Dial it up wrote:

Calm down. Didn't mean to make you guys butt hurt or insult running. It's a tough sport in its own right, but I can tell you it isn't near as tough as cycling. Your responses indicate you aren't experienced in both so your opinions or guesses aren't really valid. Has nothing to do with what I'm built for or best at. I'm actually probably better built for cycling than running.

+1

Big Trader wrote:

Not one of y'all has mentioned the ridiculously beautiful girl on his arm.

You're all talking about fashion and lycra and heart rates and short shorts and men's packages. This website is pathetic.

I'll tell you what will get your heart rate up... a night in a hotel room with that dame he's got on his arm.

She is wearing too much makeup and looks like a prostitute.

For you skinny twinks, go jogging in circles.

http://www.acecabana.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Robert-Forstemann_strong-legs_04.jpg

http://67.media.tumblr.com/41fef38c7a63bbe7691d2f5717e3bd8e/tumblr_mj4cyhqoB01qh54ymo1_500.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUiDNqmCAAEFy09.jpg

jTjg wrote:

The best part is access to heart rate average while in the Tour de France. These guys average about 130bpm for most of the days with only shorts spikes (8-11 min) at above 170bpm. It's a total jogfest at the elite level. Check out science of sport for more,

http://sportsscientists.com/

If serious, I'm amused.

Yes, cycling has lots of places where you go along fairly easy. But it's different from a jog fest, it's like doing 5 or 6 steps at 11s 100m pace and then going back to 12 min pace. Easy, but gradually weakens the edge.

But of course the hard parts are hard. You might only get the HR spiked way up there at certain points, but usually at that point it's a massive dig just to hang on. It's like going along pretty easy for an hour then you race a surgy 5k. Then along easy for an hour, then abother surgy 3k. Some more easier stuff. Then another 5k. Short recovery. Then 4 min as hard as you can.

Mountain days are a little different. Those can often be more like easy running interspersed with 10-60 mins running around marathon effort. So think like 10 miles easy, then 8 miles MP, jog 4 miles, 6 miles MP, jog 5 miles, 10 miles MP, jog 8 miles, 7 miles MP, jog 3 miles, 5 miles MP, jog 3 miles, then 15km race pace for 30'. Keep in mind that all of this isn't necessarily steady running, on the descent stuff it's all sprint interspersed with barely pedaling, and on flats it's similar but more light pedaling with quick surges and short sprints. The MP efforts are different too, because it's like racing where instead of running straight 3:00km you run 11s 100m, 14 s next 100m, then go 2:35 for the next 800 before doing it again.

Whether that's "harder" than running is a bit silly to speculate on, but cycling is incredibly taxing in its own way. In some ways I'd say it's more mentallybdifficult because you just have to be mentally present he whole time, not paying attention and you can lose the race in 5s. Imagine an ultra where at any point you're competitors can start sprinting and if you don't start sprinting then you automatically lose...that's bike racing sometimes. If someone sprints at mile 5 of a marathon it's not a big deal if you don't react for 10s, or even elect to go with the move.

Wise One wrote:

I call this pose, "Pimp Sagan":

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2016/10/18/1/20165776_338764_670.jpg

He looks like he is wearing another costume, besdies the one he wears on his bike.

Wise One wrote:

And another thing, cycling doesn't have the same Robert Young scam problem that is so persuasive through out running. What do slow "for the kids" cheats always do? They run.

No,instead cycling has the SKY team scam where they claim their riders are are competing cleanly while pumping them full of PEDs under the guise of fake TUEs etc just before the major stage races.

Dial it up wrote:

but I can tell you it isn't near as tough as cycling.

Runnning is several orders of magnitude more competitive than cycling. It is not even close. You need to invest several thousand dollars in just equipment alone to be able to compete in a high level bike race so that eliminates virtually all of the world's population. An Olympic champion in cycling is like a state champion in running in terms of the talent pool he has to defeat to get there. Only when I see a bunch of East Africans destroying in the mountain stages will I start to take cycling as a legitimate competitive sport.

The only area where you can say that cycling is tougher than running is the risk of horrendous injuries. But then you may as well say that extreme sports such as BMX stunt riding or base jumping are tougher than running because of this.

Witness the fitness wrote:

For you skinny twinks, go jogging in circles.

http://www.acecabana.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Robert-Forstemann_strong-legs_04.jpghttp://67.media.tumblr.com/41fef38c7a63bbe7691d2f5717e3bd8e/tumblr_mj4cyhqoB01qh54ymo1_500.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUiDNqmCAAEFy09.jpg

This is nandrolone + androgel.

Wise One wrote:

I call this pose, "Pimp Sagan":

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2016/10/18/1/20165776_338764_670.jpg

This guy looks creepy.

cyclists possess muscle, runners possess skin and bone

If there's a fight, my bet's on a cyclist

Cyclists have obviously never heard of Alberto Juantorena, Rod Dixon, Frank Shorter, Hasely Crawford, Rob de Castella or John Walker.

All they have is Chris Froome and Tyler Hamilton. So, so lame.

I've seen ten Dam post on Strava with 120bpm averages in the tdf but I take your point, it doesn't mean a non-pro could keep up with him. Probably Daley Thompson had a lower average during his decathlon and I couldn't beat him either. A better comparison would be an HM v say a 10M TT. Running even ultras doesn't really have a meaningful comparison with a Tour stage.

jTjg wrote:

Running even burns the most calories at the Olympic level,

Burning the most calories is among the least important criterion for ranking sports I can imagine. Why not add olympic zumba or stationary cycling, and give the gold medal to the person who burns the most calories. They can be named "best exerciser in the world". WhoooHooo!!!!!!

"best exerciser in the world" = Crossfit