pgjackson

Because cycling for 2.5 hours is much easier than running for 2.5 hours. 2.5 hours of running is 15 miles at a 10 minute pace. I don't think I could do that one day in a row. I ran a half marathon once when I was in my 30's and in great shape. It killed me. Everything hurt. I swore to never do that again.

terrymorse 

That depends on what one means by "reasonable".

In the context of the question studied: "For the same effort, does functional overreaching elicit different responses in running and cycling?", it's necessary to compare the same effort over the same amount of time.
For example, comparing 2.5 hours of cycling to, say, 45 minutes of running, would not answer the question.

How about the overreaching aspect? Is is reasonable to conclude that the training in the study were overreaching? I think so. It's fairly certain that 2.5 hours at 70% of VO2max over 3 days is overreaching for most athletes. Picking a shorter time or reduced effort might not be an overreach for all athletes.

pgjackson

Does anyone here think cycling is harder (more damaging) than running? That is the question.

bald1der

I retired from the Army 4 years ago. After almost 30 years running on these knees and back, I can honestly say that riding a bike is less punishment on my body. My Dr recommended I start riding for my exercise instead of running or walking. I ride 3-4 days a week and average about 50-70 miles.

Clyde1820

To be fair, though, that study was examining distinctions in immune responses, inflammation responses, soreness post-exerciser, and recovery/repair. Not actual perceived exertion or difficulty, other than attempting to equalize the VO2 Max cardio effort and the time of effort. From a cardio standpoint, I'd think it makes sense to compare similar VO2 Max effort. Of course, cycling involves a more-efficient stroke, wheeled travel and vastly reduced pounding, as compared to running. They examined bloodwork for subjects and tracked the body's immune, inflammation and recovery indicators. Good study, from that standpoint, but it doesn't appear to be worthy as a comparison of effort or difficulty between the two different sports, other than the VO2 Max.

Interestingly, in your experience you've found a 5K run @ 9:45/mi is a tougher effort than 12.5mi @ 17mph. Myself, back when I both ran and cycled, I'd tend to find a 6:30/mi run for 5K being roughly similar in difficulty as 15mi @ 17mph (give or take). A 9:45/min jog wouldn't even get my heart rate moving, but attempting a 20mph ride even for only 12-15mi would get me winded and achy. Was a much stronger runner than a cyclist, and I could tolerate much higher cardio exertion on a run as compared to a moderately-fast bike ride. Everyone's different. I wonder how they filtered out different runners and cyclists such that they guarded against biasing the study's results, given such performance differences in people. The abstract doesn't clearly indicate.

PeteHski

This is incorrect. Are you sure you didn't mean 70% of FTP? 70% of my VO2 max for 2.5 hours would be impossible. That would be an IF of around 0.9

terrymorse 

Yeah, that also had me scratching my head. I'm not sure where that "70% of VO2max" falls with respect to FTP.

Coggan says that VO2max is 106-120% of LT power, so 70% of VO2max would be 74-84% of LT.

That's high, but it doesn't seem "impossible for 2.5 hours" high.

Vintage Schwinn

Generally, running/jogging is harder. (with the loose definition of harder here--- as being more difficult & somewhat abusive and brutal on the joints from the constant pounding)

Someone over 50 isn't a spring chicken, no matter what, even if in super-athlete shape.

Now, yeah if you really get intense and hardcore such as some downhill mountainbiker kamakazee, or some nut-job near sixty year old that tries to replicate the hill climbing capabilities of the tour de france participants, and hell yeah, that will be much harder and abusive to a 50+ year old body than say just running a 10k or a 13.1 half marathon. Physically your body will take a beating such that recovery time might take days longer.
Just riding a bicycle leisurely to spiritedly will be much lower impact as to the constant pounding on legs/ankles/knees/hips/spine that one would get from running on hard road asphalt surface. Sure if you run on the beach or maybe on soft grass golf course fairways, you won't experience nearly as much of that beat down.
Ask any really good tennis player why that they prefer playing on clay courts versus hard courts and they will tell you why! A teen-ager or twenty-something might enjoy it because they have much more youthful knees with lets say fewer miles on the entire body.

Anyone can choose to be a dumbass and be excessively gung-ho to such an extreme degree that they go way beyond anything rational or prudent, and actually set themselves back because they beat themselves up so badly. Injury and recovery time is mostly what it is. You can't really wave a magic wand and significantly improve that. It is almost like the old saying of you do the crime, and you'll do the time. YOU MUST WORK WITHIN A REGIMEN THAT IS MOST APPLICABLE TO YOUR CURRENT HEALTH and PHYSICAL ABILITY THAT YOUR DOCTORS SAY IS OKAY. If you just throw common sense out of the window and fail to heed the advice of your doctors, well you're probably asking for trouble UNLESS you yourself already have a medical degree and applicable credentials to make such a determination yourself.

This is just one idiot's opinion who is not a doctor and never played one on tv, although I am good friends with an actor who did play a doctor on tv.

GhostRider62

No. This is more like 81% of FTP and is very, very easily sustainable for 2.5 hours. 86% of VO2 Max is my FTP....range is 82-88%

70% of FTP would be more like 24 hours.

You need to spend more time training or time with the maths.

GhostRider62

Other exercise physiologists have different numbers than he. But, just using what you provide. Let's say a rider has an established FTP of 300 watts.

106% of FTP would be 318 watts for VO2 max. 70% of that would be 222.6 watts. Do you think a 300 watt FTP rider would have trouble doing 222.6 watts for 2.5 hours? This is probably just out of zone 2 into low zoe 3. If someone is a sprinter, they will have developed and trained differently. The percentages would be a little different

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/p...aining-levels/

VO2 max is usually happening in the 4-8 minutes of a very hard effort. FTP is the best you can do in around an hour (say 40-70 minutes as a range)

So you don't think I am full of more crap than I am, here is my power duration curve from last year. I have a lot of race quality efforts in there, it is accurate

366 watts 4 minutes
357 watts 5 minutes
342 watts 6 minutes
342 watts 7 minutes
342 watts at 8 minutes

309 divided by 357 is 86%. One could argue I should used 342 watts but then it would only make my assertion easier.
70% of 357 is 249 watts , this was low tempo (81% of FTP) as I had stated. The longest decent effort I have on there is 3 hours at 273. A 3 hour run at that pace would be like a marathon and would trash someone. A couple weeks to recover. A ride? Not so much. Maybe a rest day or two.

PeteHski

So this theoretical rider who can hold 300W for about an hour can only manage 318W for 5 mins? Really?
My FTP is currently 285W and my 5 min power is 365W. VO2 max is my relative strength, but I don't think I'm far off the norm in that relationship. Maybe at the upper end of normal.

Anyway 70% of my 365W is 255W which I can't hold for 2.5 hours. I guess we are all a bit different.

PeteHski

I'm fine with maths (have a masters in mech eng), but looks like I need to up my FTP to match my VO2 max as I certainly don't find it very, very easy to sustain 81% of my FTP for 2.5 hours. For me that would be a very hard effort, but not impossible.

GhostRider62

Then, it is not a maths issue. Just train more. 81% of FTP is low tempo. Next time you are so sure someone is wrong and nitpick them, make sure you have half a clue what you are talking about.

GhostRider62

I am using Coggan's numbers that were provided. They are optimistic. Others give a slightly lower range. 90% would be for a superfit and endurance trained athlete from my knowledge. I also gave what I think are a more normal range. You are outside the low end of that range. Once you learn more, you will understand how to increase your FTP, closer to your VO2 max but I suspect you won't. Or, you might be a fast twitch, super duper sprinter. Marathon runners and endurance athletes would be closer to 90% than the 78% that you are at.

Runners tend to use VO2 max and cyclists use FTP. How does one compare equivalent efforts, that was why.

PeteHski

Is that a fact?

According to TrainerRoad, Tempo range is 76-87% of FTP, so that makes 81% mid tempo. Maybe there isn't a consistent definition of "Tempo". But anyway for me 81% of FTP would be very hard work for a solid 2.5 hours. Even 76% would be a tough workout for that duration. Probably why their "Endurance" zone only goes up to 75% and why I can only manage about 70% on 5+ hour rides.

https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/e...ng-Power-Zones

PeteHski

I'll just ignore this crap.

PeteHski

Rubbish. Elite cyclists can get up to around 85% and the higher their VO2 max the harder it is to hit that 85%. As I'm not an elite cyclist 78% is pretty normal, although I do realise my FTP is lowish relative to my VO2 max. But it's not outside of a normal range. I use Sufferfest 4DP testing, which puts me well into a normal range, with VO2 max as a relative strength or FTP as a relative weakness.

PeteHski

mmm... that's not very far off world tour pro power over that time frame. Obviously I don't know what you weigh. But that's a big number for an amateur racer to average over 3 hours. Especially if your FTP is 309W. That makes your effort an IF of 0.88 for 3 hours. Exceptional, bordering on unbelievable. Unless your FTP is really much higher.

GhostRider62

No. Should be able to do closer to 93% for 3 hours balls to the wall. It was a solid effort, no more no less. You really don't know what you are talking about.....

"

L3: Tempo

When you ride in your tempo zone, you’re maintaining power between 76% and 90% of your FTP. Efforts in this power zone can be maintained for durations between two and a half and eight hours. Long course triathletes (half and full Ironman events) may spend a great deal of their bike leg riding time in this zone, "

https://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com...zones-101.html

PeteHski

93% of FTP for 3 hours. You crack me up 😂 😂 😂

PeteHski

So you keep telling me. What makes you an expert anyway? Are you an ex-pro or something? If I plug your claimed numbers into BBS for the event I did last weekend (which is one of the toughest UK Sportives) you would have won it outright quite comfortably. So would I if I could have ridden for 7 hours at that kind of % FTP! So forgive me if I’m a bit sceptical.

PeteHski

Most athletes have an FTP in the range of 72-75% of their 5 min MAP (VO2 max power). Various references agree on this range within a few percent either way. I’m at around 78% so my MAP is high relative to my FTP.

I think Coggan was referring to a V02 max training zone rather than outright 5 min power. 106% of FTP would be extremely low for 5 min MAP. That would put your FTP at 94% of your MAP, which is way outside the norm used in ramp test FTP estimates etc. Someone with an FTP of 300W would have no issue holding 318W for 5 mins. They would more likely be able to hold around 400W. But apparently I don’t know what I’m talking about.

david101

If you live in a rural area with lots of space to store a bike and relatively traffic free roads, then cycling is definitely a better experience. If you're in an urban apartment taking your bike up and down in an elevator or worrying about it getting stolen from the street, and facing crazy congested roads when you ride, then I'd go with running.

Doug64

I raced bikes when I was young, and ran competitively with a local tack club. I liked bike racing more than running, but was a much better runner. I ran my age every year until I was 49 years old. My plan was to run my age until I turned 50, and then I'd start reducing the distance for every year over 50. I seriously injured my ankle in an accident at 49 and could no longer run, so I jumped back on the bike with more zeal. It helped during my rehab program. I used to run the 25 miles home from work about once a month, and ride my bike back to work the next morning. It was much easier riding back to work the next morning, than running the same distance the day before. I was built for running, 6' at 150 lbs. I never had any serious problems or injuries.

My wife was a triathlete until her early sixties, then she tore an ACL, and stopped running. She still swims and bikes. We both were pretty successful at our sports. However, I was a really mediocre at racing bikes.

When I was 64 years old and my wife was sightly younger, we rode across the U.S., averaging over 50 miles a day for 74 consecutive days. I think we both agree that running is harder than riding most of the time.

PeteHski

That is awesome 👏

I struggle to run a single mile. But I can ride a century easily. So for me running is definitely much harder!