# Running vs. Biking



## Ceicei (Jul 16, 2007)

As far as resistance goes, which will do better, running or biking?  How does the cardio value of running compare with biking?  What are the pros and cons (such as risk of injury) with each of these?

- Ceicei


----------



## exile (Jul 16, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> As far as resistance goes, which will do better, running or biking?  How does the cardio value of running compare with biking?  What are the pros and cons (such as risk of injury) with each of these?
> 
> - Ceicei



Ceicei, I think the local conditions and the specific regime you use has a lot to do with it. But I think it's probably easier to control the conditions while running. Here's what I mean: you can do interval trainingshort periods of very intense aerobic exercise interpspersed with longer `recovery' phaseswith either a bike or on foot. But having done both while riding my street bike and running on a track, on the beach, etc., I find it's much easier to control the length of the sprint interval, to ramp up the speed into the red zone at a moment's notice, to lengthen the recovery phase, and so on, on foot, rather than on the bike. With a bike, I found just too much attention was devoted to gear shifting, and the logistics of an all-out bike sprint are a lot more complicated under normal circumstances (for me, anyway) than a five/ten-second-per-minute intense sprint on foot. Cycling is way more _fun_ than running, for meway, way more; I actually dislike running as an aerobic exercise, because it's often so tedious. But I feel as though I have more discretion in how I adjust my routine to the space available when I'm on foot. It wouldn't surprise me, though, to hear that other people have had the exact opposite experience. 

Check out the following table for a quantitative comparison of calorie consumption. 

http://www.annecollins.com/weight_loss_tips/calories.htm


It's by no means perfect, but it gives the basic idea: jogging burns slightly more than `moderate' cycling, but runningprobably she's thinking of sprint or near-sprint speedis way out in the lead, along with rope skipping (a true killer, in my experiencebut you need almost no room!) An interesting interval idea would be, moderate jog for 50 seconds, stop and skip rope all out for 10, then back to jogging...


----------



## crushing (Jul 16, 2007)

I'm not sure about the resistance aspect, but being a bigger guy I like the much lower impact of cycling over pounding the pavement with my size 13s.  I also have the great fortune of practically living on a 22 mile stretch of a rail-to-trail bike path.  To mix up and vary the exercise (it's so much fun I hesitate to call it exercies!) I like to get off the asphalt and go back into the woods.  Some areas I ride are a real challenge for balance and coordination.

I have got to start running more because my big mouth got me into a 5K run in a couple months.  I'm thinking about getting to the point of doing a duathalon or maybe an adventure race.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 16, 2007)

I did competitive mountain biking from 99 - 01. If you want to get a good workout, hillclimbing would be the way. You don't need to go into a sprint and it'll get your heart rate up, as opposed to only coasting downhill. If you live in a flat part of the country, you'll need some open trail/roads to get some mileage in.

Biking is definitly easier on the knees, but I did feel it in the hips (or was that all that Kenpo training I used to do?)

Earlier this year, I joined a gym and did some treadmill/stepper running. (talk about boring). But the impact was certainly different than riding used to be, so I'm gonna get my bike back out this year to burn off a few calories. Once I get my wind back, I may throw in some running too.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 16, 2007)

So what you're saying is that this depends upon the goal when running or biking?  With running, it's easier to adjust the intensity, but with biking, it will depend more upon the space available and the terrain whether the workout gives more resistance?

- Ceicei


----------



## exile (Jul 16, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> So what you're saying is that this depends upon the goal when running or biking?  With running, it's easier to adjust the intensity, but with biking, it will depend more upon the space available and the terrain whether the workout gives more resistance?
> 
> - Ceicei



That's been _my_ experience, Ceicei. If I want to up the intensity of my run, all I do is go all out and try to emulate my high school track team days , for five to ten seconds. But if I want to do the same thing on a bike, I need to either find a convenient strech of uphill which just happens to come when I'm ready for it, and only last five to ten second's worth of hard pedaling, or I gear way down on essentially level ground (such as we have here in abundance, lol) and put the hammer down for five to ten seconds... which is not all that easy to do, given the realities of urban traffic. _I'm not saying it can't be done!!_ (sheesh!) But by the nature of the case, you need a lot of space available that you may not have conveniently at hand...

People have said that biking is a lot easier on your knee and foot joints than running is, and they are speaking gospel truth there, so far as I can see. But I think that if you look after yourself and run on firm but not hard ground, you needn't have a problem. I turned 60 years old in March, I've been running intervals for more than a decade, and my knees and feet are finein large part, I think, because I won't run on asphalt, much less cement. With running, you can _always_ ramp your workout into the aerobic stratosphere if you want, and if you can stand the tedium of track running. With cycling, it's quite a bit dicier and depends on favorable circumstances a lot more... again, this is just _my_ experience....


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 16, 2007)

Fo9r me I preferr biking easier on the knees and at my age I need them more than ever.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 16, 2007)

For vertical caving, bike-riding is excellent.  Yea, even if you use a Frog.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 24, 2007)

I agree with those who find running very hard on the knees--constant pounding.  I prefer cycling.


----------



## qi-tah (Jul 24, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> As far as resistance goes, which will do better, running or biking? How does the cardio value of running compare with biking? What are the pros and cons (such as risk of injury) with each of these?
> 
> - Ceicei


 
Depends on what you have to work with. I love beach holidays 'cause i get the chance to do some serious hill sprints - and running in soft sand isn't as likely to aggravate my knees as other surfaces. But 'cause i live hundreds of km's from the coast, i more often cycle. It helps that i live in the country, with lots of hills and tracks for bush bashing! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Mind you, wiping out on the bike is a bit of a worry. 
Another thing about cycling... if you do a lot, be sure to give yr hammys a good stretch after each session. Cycling does wonders for yr quads, but tends to shorten the hamstrings.


----------



## Obliquity (Jul 25, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> With running, it's easier to adjust the intensity


 
Come ride with me. I can guarantee intensity, even on the flats. Most casual cyclists have no idea how to train on a bike. Intervals can be very intense. A long push can be exhausting. Hills can feel like pushing a boulder uphill.

Cycling does require an investment in equipment and you have to have places to ride. Getting used to riding in traffic can take some time. Running just requires shoes.

There are other differences, but as far as the idea of varying intensity, that can just as easily be done on a bike.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 25, 2007)

qi-tah said:


> Another thing about cycling... if you do a lot, be sure to give yr hammys a good stretch after each session. Cycling does wonders for yr quads, but tends to shorten the hamstrings.



That caught my attention.  

So cycling doesn't really help with the hamstrings?  Ummmmm.
%think%


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 25, 2007)

Obliquity said:


> Come ride with me. I can guarantee intensity, even on the flats. Most casual cyclists have no idea how to train on a bike. Intervals can be very intense. A long push can be exhausting. Hills can feel like pushing a boulder uphill.
> 
> Cycling does require an investment in equipment and you have to have places to ride. Getting used to riding in traffic can take some time. Running just requires shoes.
> 
> There are other differences, but as far as the idea of varying intensity, that can just as easily be done on a bike.



Someday, I'll have to take you up on the offer.

Hey, have you heard about the new bike made by Trek, called "Lime"?  That bike supposedly is able to change gears automatically...  I never thought there would come an "automatic bike".  Maybe I'll mosey down to the bike shop and test drive one to see how it works.

I took a bike ride though the mountains (it's on a bike path though) yesterday with my kids.  It was kind of nice being able to manually shift gears myself, sometimes for the challenge to work harder.

- Ceicei


----------



## Obliquity (Jul 25, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> That caught my attention.
> 
> So cycling doesn't really help with the hamstrings? Ummmmm.
> %think%


 
On the contrary, if you are using cycling shoes with clip-in pedals, the proper pedal stroke (at least on a road bike) includes pulling as well as pushing. It makes for a *very* good hamstring workout. I think it is more accurate to say that the hamstrings can get very tight if you don't stretch them. To that I can attest.

Tight hamstrings lead to tight glutes which lead to tight lower back muscles . . . you get the idea. 

Also, for the record, my experience is almost entirely with road bikes -- road racing (many years ago) and a few triathlons. I actually have no experience riding a mountain bike on anything but flat trails.


----------



## Logan (Jul 26, 2007)

Cycling is bad for your flexibility - the range of motion is cramped, so if you want to remain flexible I would go with the running....and stretch after.

If flexibility isn't a concern for you (though you should at least bear it in mind), then why not do both? Benefits of exercise tend to be sport-specific, so you could be a good runner but suck at cycling and vice versa. If you did both, you could be a jack-of-all-trades for general cardio....though you would never reach your full potential as a runner/cyclist because of trade-offs (though this would be more of a concern for athletes at a high professional level).


----------



## Obliquity (Jul 26, 2007)

Logan said:


> Cycling is bad for your flexibility


 
Ummm . . . could you cite the information sources on which you base your declaration? How does running aid in flexibility? How does running and stretching generate greater flexibility than cycling and stretching?

Not to be a poophead, but the propogation of misinformation, no matter how well intentioned, is one of my pet peeves.


----------



## exile (Jul 26, 2007)

Obliquity said:


> Come ride with me. I can guarantee intensity, even on the flats. Most casual cyclists have no idea how to train on a bike. Intervals can be very intense. A long push can be exhausting. Hills can feel like pushing a boulder uphill.



We're short on hills here in Columbus (not quite as bad as the Canadian prairies, but getting there). In the southern part of the state it changes quite a bit, but in central Ohio. the glacial planing is all too evident. Where I used to live in Victoria, B.C., there were routes where you could get a couple of hundred feet of vertical gain in less than a mile, but that's like a different planet...

The other problem is lack of room. We have some rails-to-trails routes around here, but you need to get out of town a bit. Columbus was designed for cars; most cycling where you can get any uninterrupted distance is on the long arterial routes through town... and there the problem is of course the traffic and the lights.

Still, I'd way _rather_ ride than run, if I could. I find running in most contexts incredibly dull and tedious (Locarno Beach in Vancouver, in sight of 9000 foot high mountains across the inlet, is a priceless exception... sigh). Biking is more fun; I just find the interval aspect much more difficult to work in than with running. If you've any advice on logistics for high intensity biking under these kinds of midwestern urban conditions, I'd love to hear it!


----------



## Logan (Jul 26, 2007)

I would recommend reading "Stretching Scientifically" by Tom Kurz. It lists a range of sport-specific research into this which is what I am basing my point on....any decent physio would tell you the same thing.


----------



## Logan (Jul 26, 2007)

Cycling is a form of light resistence training through a limited range of motion, the consequence being that muscles are drilled to be accustomed to a shorter range of motion. Running is better overall for flexibility but you would still need to stretch after wards to keep calf and ankle flexibility.

Interestingly, there are a number of theories suggesting that the limitations in flexibility actually help with cycling/running or whatever endurance sport due to muscle efficency etc. However, for martial artists in general, flexibility would be needed to comfortably sit in stances, kick high without injury and so on.


----------

