Originally Posted by
Random11
Seems like an interesting question (running vs. cycling), and related to a thread on another one of the forums about whether cycling is good exercise. As to my bench pressing, I have skinny cyclist arms that are barely strong enough to carry groceries from my car to my house. I'm fairly sure I could bench press 5 pounds if I was well-rested, but don't anticipate working my way up to 500.
Well I suppose it is an interesting question. It is just that I didn't see it posed as a question. Seemed to be more of "I run therefore I'm better". Don't take offense, think of this as conversation at the tavern with friends. This definitely isn't Friend or Foe type stuff. And I'd hate it if all my friends were of the same opinion as me because there'd be nothing for us to talk about.
Running vs cycling arguments usually get presented in effort over distance. But IMO, most people going out to run or cycle are going to go out for the limited amount of time they have to spare for that. So an hour of running might get you what? 8 miles at best? So for a 172 lb person, that comes to 967 Calories expended. For an hour ride I can sometimes average 18 mph. And that works out to 983 Calories expended.
https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/
https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking/
And using your marathon time of 3hr 40min, then if I could run that, and I couldn't, then the Calorie calculator comes up with 3175 Calories for my 172 lb self to run 25.2 miles in 3hrs 24min. One of the most recent rides I have close to that time is a 58.9 mile ride last year. The calculator for it comes up with 3277 Calories burned.
So which is harder? Just too many personal preference things involved IMO than actual difficulty. And I think that really if effort is to be compared, you'd have to consider over time instead of distance to get a truer picture.