terrymorse 

If the measure is aerobic efficiency, cycling technique makes virtually no difference.

Cyclists with "good" technique are not much more efficient than cyclists with sloppy technique.

Not so with running, where "good" technique is more efficient.

Not at all with swimming, where "good" technique makes a huge efficiency difference.

Trakhak

At 70, I'm glad that I've been a monoathlete all my life: never ran, never stretched, etc.

GhostRider62

Easier to screw your endocrine system on a bike

Easier to hose your joints running

Pick your poison.

rwh 

The last time I hurt myself running the first question my doctor asked me was "why did you do that?" As time goes by I know of more and more people with knee replacements, and so far none of them are bikers.

tkamd73 

Pretty simple here, try running 26.2 mi, then bike it. Would take weeks of training for me to run a marathon, if my knees could take it, 26 mile ride, that’s something I could do on a whim, little or no prep at all.
Tim

Phil_gretz

Can you please expand on this? I'm not following your meaning...

GhostRider62

300-500 mile weeks or too much intensity for base fitness. Functional over reaching is easy to do on a bike. Cortisol. Testosterone. True overtaining is rare but can take many months or years to recover.

When running, the joints go first.

Make sense? Maybe I just have lousy knees and hips. I can never push myself as hard running as I can cycling. I never get knee or hip pain cycling. I always get it running.

Phil_gretz

^ I suppose that's possible if you have serious time to commit to bicycling at the expense of the rest of life. Me? I have about four hours per week available for bike riding. I have to spread them over four days to at least gain a minimal benefit, so...

GhostRider62

I suppose that is one way to look at it. It isn't an expense to me. It is pretty well established that cyclists can train for many more hours than a runner, it isn't a mere possibility. Whether they wish to train that much is an entirely different question. With 4 hours, it is hard to do much damage.

If you only have 4 hours to train, how can you post here so much?

Carbonfiberboy 

Especially when climbing, technique makes no real difference. The person with more watts per kilo will drop you. Neither your technique nor theirs will make any difference. I do think technique makes a small difference on long endurance rides. There's a woman who rode PBP on a single speed cruiser with fenders and flowers in the basket. She finished well below the time cutoff. The way you know it's non-technical is that anyone can get on a bike and ride. Here's what technical sports look like:

pgjackson

Not following the logic. I know people who have completed marathons without training. Anyone can run. People run them all the time barefoot, flipflops, wearing crazy costumes....Running is not technical if it's a fundamental human ability. Sure, training will make you better...but as an activity literally anyone capable of walking can run.

Carbonfiberboy 

And now, rather than replying to the post you quote, you're on the other side of your own argument, see post 124. Technique matters for some sports, not so much for others. As you pointed out, strength sports are another example of technical sports.

pgjackson

Running is harder on the body, especially for older runners. Running is considered a high-impact activity. Cycling is generally considered low-impact. But cycling actually takes an amount of training to learn how to do it, thus it is more technical. Plus, if your bike isn't set up correctly, it can cause problems, thus more technical. Then there are beach cruisers, MTB, road bikes, recumbent bikes....all do things differently, thus more technical. Anyone can run...but running (particularly on older joints) can be bad. Cycling is often prescribed to rehab running injuries. Never heard of a doctor telling someone to start running to rehab a leg injury.

So, to get back to the original point....in my opinion, running is much harder on the body than cycling. As far as which takes more technical skill...cycling. I mean you have a machine involved, you have to be able to balance on two wheels, shift gears, brake, have the bike set up properly...you don't need anything to run, not even shoes.

downhillmaster

To be a proficient recreational road cyclist requires almost no technical ability and in no way can it be described as incredibly technical.
Of course it is a bit more than simply running on your own two feet. That is a given.

pgjackson

I'm not even sure why we got off on a tangent about which is more technical. Not even germane to the topic. Which is harder (in a bad way) on a 50+year old body? It's running.

rowerek

Running without basics of a good technique not only will be slower but will also most likely lead to injuries that so many are talking about.

I can recommend these videos to anybody starting or trying to improve running technique (Introduction, fundamentals, posture, legs, arms)


I would also recommend to wear shoes, good shoes, the best that $80-$100+ can buy on sale and online. I tried many and for now settled for ASICS (Kayano, Nimbus), Nike (Epic React), Adidas (Ultraboost), Brooks (Glycerine).

Running is fun and adds another dimension to my quest for staying fit and healthy at 60+ and beyond together with biking and swimming.

seypat

56 years young here. I started endurance sports in my mid 40s........because I had to quit playing basketball. I couldn't get rid of Plantar Fasciitis so I had to give up court sports. Now I swim, bike and run. Do 2 or 3 marathons a year and the occasional tri.

What does the OP mean by harder? Tougher to be competitive in or takes a toll on your body? The sport of triathlon was born because people in the 3 disiplines were arguing about who was the fittest. Aerobically, swimming is way harder than the other two for me. As for taking a toll on one's body, I think both cyclists and runners get their injuries because they are just cyclists and runners. You need to get all the cross training you can to keep the body fit and free of injuries. Both cyclists and runners can talk up the health benefits until they're blue in the face. But ask them to move a couch or rake some leaves in the yard and they come away with injuries because neither sport gives the body a total workout. If you had to go with one sport only, swimming will give a better overall workout at a low impact than the other two. It's just not as fun.

GhostRider62

She also rode up all four routes of Mont Ventoux in one day. TWICE!!

Remember the old cars that look stock? Sleepers

GhostRider62

As to whether riding is technical.

I had to abandon upright bikes for a recumbent and it took me two full years to develop the skills and ability to be almost as "good" on it as on an upright.

I never worry about someone stealing it when parked. Why? Almost nobody could ride it.

People can pedal incorrectly but the result in studies is only 5-10% drop in power due to gross efficiency...pretty trivial...

OldRailfan

Cycling is a lot easier on my lower body than running, found that out when switching from doing marathons to triathlons 37 years ago.

pgjackson

I think some people have interpreted the OP's question of "what's harder" to mean which activity is more difficult to master.

What he is asking is what is physically harder (in a bad way) on a 50+ year old body.

Seems his only objections to cycling are safety (traffic), bike repairs, and weather (no cycling in the snow). None of which have anything to do with age. He also mentions that you can get a good run in 30 minutes while a good bike ride takes hours. I'll disagree. Don't know why so many think you have to go out for 20-30 miles in order to get a good bike ride. 30 minutes is 30 minutes no matter what the activity is. My current main loop is a 6 mile out and back (12 miles total). 45 minutes of hard riding gets the job done. If time is a limiting factor, just ride a little faster. Every ride doesn't have to be an epic voyage. Want to really pump up the intensity, ride a mile at a casual pace, then hammer the next mile. HIIT. That will get your heart rate up.

terrymorse 

The answer to that question is rather obvious:

Running is considerably harder on the body than cycling.

Running is clearly harder on:

• joints
• bones
• muscles
• heart (probably)

Running produces greater [1]:

• muscle damage
• muscle soreness
• systemic inflammation

[1] Nieman et al, Immune and inflammation responses to a 3-day period of intensified running versus cycling, 2014

rowerek

[1] Nieman et al, Immune and inflammation responses to a 3-day period of intensified running versus cycling, 2014

"subjects from both athletic groups came to the lab during week five and exercised 2.5h/day for 3days in a row at 70% VO2max"

I quickly looked at the reference text. IMHO, exercising 2.5h/day for 3days in a row, is not something that master runners, bikers usually do or can relate to. Comparing 2.5h biking to 2.5h running is not reasonable.

For example sprint ironman:
swim:.75K/750m, bike 20K/12.5miles run 5K/3.1miles, AVERAGE (not top athletes) total time: 1:15-1:45. So let's say 90min, which usually splits (including transition time) to about: 15min swim, 45min (17mph) ride and 30min (9:45min/mile) run, so about 3:2 time split between biking and running.

To exercise 2.5h/day amounts to doing about 2 sprint ironman triathlons per day. To do this three days in a row is extreme, and, IMHO, is not realistic. Will this provide useful data to compare biking and running? I doubt.

From my personal experience, running 5k at 9:45min/mile is much harder than biking 12.5miles at 17mph.

pgjackson

Concur.

GhostRider62

2.5 hours at 70% of VO2 max is a low Z3 tempo ride. Many cyclists can do this three days in a row but this effort is much more difficult for a runner.

I think plenty of cyclists do three rides a week lasting 2.5 hours each, and many do far more than that.