Clyde1820

Always found a solid workout of running to be harder than cycling.

Just from an efficiency standpoint, for a similar distance, that makes sense.

Used to be a modestly-competitive middle-distance runner. At my peak, decades ago, I was typically doing ~60mi/wk or more of running and ~150mi/wk cycling. Recovery always took a bit longer with running. Pushing "hard" (say, for 3hrs' worth) on either could require a couple days of recovery, for me, with either discipline.

Ditched running hard out of fear of joint and stress injuries. Avoided most every type of damage, doing that. To this day, the joints are fine and otherwise look (to the orthopaedic folks) like any normal person my age.

Of course, the one big injury I did sustain forever made it simpler to do cycling. Less stress, far less strain on the muscles that had gotten damaged, and easier to travel longer distances without resorting to 1-800-YellowCab at some point.