aclinjury

In the world of endurance cycling, you can have a big guy with poor climbing and TT ability, and he can still win a bunh of races in the TdF.
In endurance running, no big guy is gonna win anything of significance.
Goes to show just how hard running is, and how easy cycling is, because everyone can win in cycling. Not so for funning.

it's for this reason that you find aging fat dudes with a belly still able to race on a bicycle and stand a chance to win at the end. These same dudes would get clobbered from mile 1 in running

Pantah

It's different for everyone. My brother has always been a terrible runner and he hates it. I think the fastest mile he's ever run was just under 10 minutes. However, he can jam out 100 miles on a bike no problem averaging 18mph.

Me? I've always been a gifted runner and love it, particularly long distance on trails. I'm a decent cyclist, especially these days, and I thoroughly enjoy it, but still have never quite matched my brother's natural gift for cycling.

Slightly back on topic, Most runs for me are around half marathon length and last an hour and a half. Bike rides are longer but wind up lasting almost the same amount of time. I can absolutely tell I've exerted more energy during the runs than during the rides, especially considering the amount of hills in my runs. Rides always have hills, but not quite as much. The ability to coast on the downhill sections on a bike is something that doesn't exist while running. Sure, going downhill will use a bit less energy while running than flat or uphill, but only to a point. There's a couple of extremely steep, rocky downhill sections on my runs that actually cause me to use more energy (than say running on flat terrain) due to a need to prevent myself from tripping over rocks and to control downhill speed. On a bike, descent speeds are controlled with brakes, while running, it's done with muscles.

SpeedyBlueBiker

I'm a former competitive runner who ran track and XC in college on scholarship. I didn't start cycling until I was age 37. I started cycling just to be hanging out with friends that cycled. We mostly mtn biked and later I got into road cycling. For me, cycling is something that I do for fun. It wasn't something that I did for competition. After graduating I still kept running but around age 26 my competitive days were pretty much over. I then decreased my mileage from about 80mpw to around 30mpw. The difference for me is that to get the same aerobic benefits as running I would have to cycle at least 3X or maybe 4X the amount of miles that I run. That results in a lot more time devoted to cycling than I really want to do. Running is much more efficient in terms of time management compared to cycling. Running is much harder then cycling. Although long steep climbs on a bike are also very hard. There's just no coasting in running! Most of my road cycling these days is between 18 to 21mph.

Dvdvija

I honestly believe running expend more calories than biking. I recently got back to running because I really wanted to sweat out when I'm exercising. Everytime I do serious bike riding, I didn't feel like I did do any exercise. My heart rate wasn't pumping as much as running. Running and biking are my favorite sports. I run to get my heart pumping and I bike to relax.

ColonelSanders

It's been a while, so my memory is a bit hazy.

I think I saw him say that on the Joe Rogan podcast and Lance was(maybe still is?) doing triathlons back then.

nickm001

Agree with everything you said, with little change - Max HR for running is usually a bit higher then for biking ( an example for me it was 165 for running and 156 for biking) which means you were putting a bit more effort while biking then running, relatively speaking. But equal time on the bike and run with same level of effort should use about the same energy.

RLB3

You can't coast while running, and you still have to run while going down hill. I started riding because I hated running. I think running is way tougher.

PeteHski

This is a really poor analogy. The reason "big" guys sometimes win in cycling is because flat races are dominated by power. But no fat guys are winning anything in the TdF! If you want to win a flatter stage, you can carry say 85 kg, but it had better be all muscle producing some huge power numbers. Plus those bigger guys really do struggle to get through the mountain stages within the cut-off time. The TdF is about as far away from "easy" as you could possibly imagine!

PeteHski

But don't you ride 3-4x faster than you can run?

Crankycrank

Agree with PeteHski that this is a very poor analogy. Not exactly apples to apples comparison anyways. Can a marathon runner compete in a 100 meters sprint, 400 meters, hurdles, etc. Kind of what differentiates a pro cyclists skills in different races. Fat cyclists don't win races unless they're competing against other racers of similar conditioning. Runners don't stay in a race after falling down 3 times with road rash all over and a fractured collarbone and then ride this way almost every day for 1-3 weeks. I'm not trying to start a war on which is tougher, I've done both and would agree running is generally more demanding in many ways but let's not get delusional about this.

Calsun

It takes 5 times as much energy to run a miles as it does to bicycle a mile. The rider's weight is supported by the bicycle and this makes up a lot of the difference. Also when running there is both acceleration and deceleration with each stride but on a bike all the leg movement is in a forward direction. Going downhill the rider can expend very little effort but the runner is working harder to maintain a steady pace.

The only aspect that influences the bicyclist more than the runner is any wind. The air drag force increases with the square of the rider or runner's speed. A bicylist at 15 mph is working against 4x the air drag of a runner at a 7.5 mph pace. So to get more of a workout one need only ride faster and increase the amount of air drag they need to overcome.

rossiny

I forgot where I read this , but they had a comparison on efficiency as far as miles covered . I guess the horse was pretty far up there as far as efficiency , but then the bird was super efficient, but then amazingly a man on a bicycle was even more efficient . I have run some track and cross country. One thing I can tell you is if your trained for running , you won't necessarily be able to jump on the bike and be efficient .

SpeedyBlueBiker

Nope! A good D1 runner would train at around 6:00 per mile pace and race at 5:00 pace and under. That's 10mph and 12mph. 3-4X faster would be at a minimum 30mph.

aclinjury

why are you comparing a marathoner to a 100m sprinter? that's like comparing a TdF rider to a track sprinter. Can a TdF rider compete in a match sprint? duh. That's not what I was comparing. I don't believe you were a serious runner one bit.

PeteHski

Do you not see that TdF riders are varied because of their different specialities? The sprinters are not competing in GC or KOM. There are effectively races within races, which is not the case with running.

PeteHski

Well 6:00 min/mile pace is elite level running pace over 10 km or 37 mins. So you have to compare that with elite level cycling pace for 37 mins, which would indeed be in the order of 30 mph or faster.

Now if you were an elite runner and crap cyclist, or vice-versa, then the ratio is going to change signficantly. Like if I was running I would be lucky to break under 10:00 min per mile pace.

Sy Reene

oh no.. we're back to discussing why a heavier bike would provide a better workout.

SpeedyBlueBiker

37 minutes for 10km is NOT elite level running. Elite level runners will be sub 29 and the top champions are going to run in the low 27's and faster. The track world record for 10,000m is 26:11, a 4:12.8 mile pace. The difference between a 37 minute 10K runner and a 26 minute 10K runner is like night and day. The comparison would be like a top TdF rider and your local club rider meeting up for a Saturday 30 mile club ride complete with a coffee stop.

Happy Feet

Oh.. you cheeky Lil monkey

The comparisons are evident though.

What seems to be being said is that running requires more input and gives a more intense workout in a set time over cycling. The counter argument is that while more efficient, one can ride a bike harder to try to equal that level of exertion.

That was the same argument put forth saying that someone could ride a race oriented bike harder to equal the input required for a heavier bike.

Both are true. But I would say this argument is logically more sound. Many people prefer cycling because it is less stressful but they can crank harder to get a decent workout, on par with running.

However I still maintain my former position that spending way more for a very efficient bike that one needs to ride harder for exercise to match the workout on a heavier bike is convoluted (if exercise is the primary goal).

Equally, a fixed gear bike gives a better workout than a single speed, which gives a better workout than a multi geared bike. Efficiency reduces work which in turn, requires less effort. I own all three forms and find this to be true.

Exercise is work against resistance. Running provides more resistance than biking. A heavier bike provides more resistance than a light one. It's the same thing.

PeteHski

I was going off the chart here:-

https://runninglevel.com/running-times/10k-times

Yes, there is a big difference between Elite level and WR.

PeteHski

Well actually you only need to match the same perceived effort on both bikes (or the same power output if you have a power meter) to get the same exercise. You don't need to ride the lighter bike any "harder" as such, it will just be faster for the same effort. So you will cover more distance in the same time.

The only thing a heavier bike brings to the table is a higher "minimum" effort required to ride it, especially uphill. But if you are riding above that minimum effort on both bikes anyway, then the only difference is how fast you are moving for any given effort.

Happy Feet

Yes and no. The minimum required effort is a more or less consistent increase in effort throughout the exercise time every time additional input is required. Not a once only threshold to overcome. To compare it would be like using a programmable exercise machine that changes intensity for a workout. You can run it at 5 effort level or 10 (the difference being resistance applied). Generally speaking, as long as you can perform the task correctly, you would get a better workout using the machine at higher resistance.

Exercise is work against resistance. If we accept that premise then spending more for a bike that is designed to reduce resistance is counter to the stated goal. Racing bikes are not designed for exercise, they are designed to win races by reducing the input required or maximizing the input supplied (six of one/half dozen of the other).That was my premise in the other thread. When professional cyclists train, they tend not to use their race day bikes. Professional runners also do not usually train in their race shoes.

What muddied the waters in the other thread was the exaggerated comparisons between high end bikes and low end bikes. Again, I argue that there needs to be a certain base level of functionality to gain benefits from both. If comparing running to cycling there needs to be a certain base level of functionality. Running or biking up a 45 degree incline would not make sense (for example) because one would gas out before any longer term benefits would come into play. Similarly, comparing a race oriented bike to a department store beach cruiser would also not work.

tomato coupe

As another poster already pointed out, you don't ride a lighter bike harder to achieve the same workout you get on heavy bike; you ride it at exactly the power to achieve the same workout.

Happy Feet

?

You either ride harder/faster to match the intensity of the higher resistance bike to get a similar workout or you ride the same, which gives a lesser workout. A lower resistance bike is easier to pedal.

If you are saying you ride x amount of watts on both, the bike with less resistance requires you to ride harder/faster to achieve that result. You have to put more into it to make up for the decreased resistance.

Iride01 

If you are more fit than those you ride with, then in order to keep at their slower pace, you might benefit from a heavier bike. However if you are in flat lands, probably not. And even in hills, unless all up hill it's not a good way to make a match.

What will help you benefit if you need to match your speed with lesser cyclists is more drag. I think that might be why I've seen a few pro's with drogue chutes on them while they ride with people that aren't anywhere near their cycling ability.