Cycling Vs Running

2»

Comments

  • fast as fupp
    fast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    who cares -running is as dull as

    cycling is BIG FUN! :D
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • volvine
    volvine Posts: 409
    all i know is i have just signed up for the manchester 100 which i am sure will be a big ask but am confident of completing i wouldn't even consider a marathon as i dont think i would be capable of doing even half of it so i for one think a marathon running would be equivalent of at least 200 miles on the bike.
    My bike
    http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj11 ... ike032.jpg
    Winter ride http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj11 ... ike019.jpg
  • jc4lab
    jc4lab Posts: 554
    Running will propbably get rid of your belly better if thats what you want but i find running is not for the overweight like me..Joints and connective tissues suffer less if you cycle..
    jc
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Running takes more recovery but I disagree with Disney that it's harder. I've done a bit of both and during the event there's definitely as much potential for suffering during a bike race as a marathon. A marathon is a normally steady effort and the suffering builds - a bike race can tear your legs off from the start and the repeated sprints and accelerations are like throwing a series of sharp hills into a marathon course. It's not about the distance so much it's about how hard you are riding it. I agree that running a marathon (no walking) takes more than just building up to ride a leisurely 80 miles or so but try racing 80 miles and it's a different ballgame.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • volvine
    volvine Posts: 409
    i bet a few people on here (not me btw) could RACE 80 miles on bike i bet not as many could RACE a marathon
    My bike
    http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj11 ... ike032.jpg
    Winter ride http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj11 ... ike019.jpg
  • Bodhbh
    Bodhbh Posts: 117
    jpembroke wrote:
    how about fell running?
    That stuff is just plain nuts. Me and a mate walked a chunk of the Cape Wrath Trail in June, about 90 miles, took approx 5 days wild camping etc. We were very pleased with ourselves finishing it, bit of a personal achievement etc - then got back googled a bit and found someone had RAN the same distance on a highland trail in 15hrs. Bonkers!

    Always naively thought a marathon was the peak of endurance, but some folks treble or quadruple it and then do it over hills...
  • nasahapley
    nasahapley Posts: 717
    Bodhbh wrote:
    jpembroke wrote:
    how about fell running?
    That stuff is just plain nuts. Me and a mate walked a chunk of the Cape Wrath Trail in June, about 90 miles, took approx 5 days wild camping etc. We were very pleased with ourselves finishing it, bit of a personal achievement etc - then got back googled a bit and found someone had RAN the same distance on a highland trail in 15hrs. Bonkers!

    Always naively thought a marathon was the peak of endurance, but some folks treble or quadruple it and then do it over hills...

    Would that be the West Highland Way race record you refer to? That is indeed a scarcely believable time, and I should know as I've done the same route in a comparatively tardy 22-and-a-bit hours! I really would recommend fell-running to anyone, contrary to popular belief you don't have to be superman, just have a love of the hills and be able to put up with some mild suffering now and again. I reckon there might be crossover benefits for cycling too - it doesn't seem to have done Rob Jebb too much harm!
  • Bodhbh
    Bodhbh Posts: 117
    nasahapley wrote:
    Would that be the West Highland Way race record you refer to? That is indeed a scarcely believable time, and I should know as I've done the same route in a comparatively tardy 22-and-a-bit hours!
    That's the one. I just re-googled it to check the memory not playign tricks, the record time is 15hrs 44mins more exactly.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    volvine wrote:
    i bet a few people on here (not me btw) could RACE 80 miles on bike i bet not as many could RACE a marathon

    Well it is a cycling forum - go on a running forum and see how many can finish a bike race in the bunch. I'm not saying one is harder than the other - but having done both I think there is more potential for suffering in a bike race - the marathon will take longer to recover from.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • randellp
    randellp Posts: 12
    I've run regularly up to 10k and 1/2 marathon distance and have usualy done it without much pain - as long as I've been running a fair bit already. Running after a couple of months off gives me incredible DOMS in teh legs which I never seem to get on a bike.

    However, if I've been off a bike for a while, climbing is very hard, although after a few sessions back in the saddle, that old training hill gets a lot easier, and I can usually burn up it in a much higher gear.

    I did the South Downs Way this year, 100 miles on a MTB, which was over 10k of climb, 6000 calories used and over 12hrs of effort (with food & puncture breaks). My knees were completely shot (left one still is), and wierdly, my wife reckoned I wasn't right in the head for a good few days afterwards. My friend who did it with me thought it was harder than running teh London marathon.
  • hammerite
    hammerite Posts: 3,408
    Bodhbh wrote:
    nasahapley wrote:
    Would that be the West Highland Way race record you refer to? That is indeed a scarcely believable time, and I should know as I've done the same route in a comparatively tardy 22-and-a-bit hours!
    That's the one. I just re-googled it to check the memory not playign tricks, the record time is 15hrs 44mins more exactly.

    How about this? The ultimate UK fell running challenge

    http://www.bobgrahamround.co.uk/
  • Steve2020
    Steve2020 Posts: 133
    After years of cycling followed by years of running I dont think there is much to choose between them. Running can get you more tired more quickly (although I remember having a job to stand up after 25 mile time trials in the past) but most runners never experience the long agony that cycling can induce (I think just by keeping you upright and rolling) - when you're cooked with two hours more to go.

    I did the dartmoor challenge 100km last year after not much cycling training. I felt great for the first 20 miles and then not so good. The last two hours were the worst of my life - I could barely stay on the bike let alone pedal. It was a relief to get to a hill steep enough to warrant getting off. Worse than any two hours of running I have ever had. But probably not as intensely bad as the last 20 minutes of a marathon.

    In terms of calories burned I dont see why there would be much difference - your maximal aerobic power is your maximal aerobic power. The difference is that you can do low intensioty cycling for hours and so burn loads of calories whereas leg fatigue and inability to eat would stop you running.
  • disney
    disney Posts: 51
    Maybe the final word could be from Mr L.A. himself who took up marathon running and said it was the hardest thing he had ever done 'sport wise'. If I remember correctly!

Categories