Page 2 of 3

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 10 Sep 2021, 12:50pm
by Flanman
Mile for mile, running is certainly harder than cycling. I think the main mistake new or inexperienced runners make is not warming up or thinking that because of high fitness from other sports running should be easier.

The first mile is always the hardest, much more than cycling. I’m sure loads of people are put off running by the first 15-20 minutes and don’t realise that their body needs time to adapt and acclimatise.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 10 Sep 2021, 1:17pm
by mattheus
Flanman wrote: 10 Sep 2021, 12:50pm The first mile is always the hardest, much more than cycling.
Have you ever competed at a Hill Climb?

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 10 Sep 2021, 1:51pm
by Marcus Aurelius
You use different muscles in different ways between running and cycling. Cycling power relies mostly on buns and guns ( glutes and quads ) and is concerned with (almost exclusively) up and down motion. Running engages a lot more muscles to provide forward thrust as well as up and down ( oo er missus ) and also brings muscles that help stabilise the various joints in the leg and ankles into play. When running, the muscles also act as shock absorbers to a far greater extent than with cycling, as running is a high impact activity. Pound for pound, you tend need better aerobic endurance for cycling, than running, excluding short sprint running events ( 100-800m sprinting ) for example. I used to run in cross country events until my ankles were destroyed by a car running them over after knocking me off my bike years ago, and leaving me with something looking like Robocop meets the terminator in my ankles, and the difference between cycling and running ( in terms of muscle usage / feeding / fuelling) is night and day different.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 11 Sep 2021, 6:56am
by gbnz
Marcus Aurelius wrote: 10 Sep 2021, 1:51pm Cycling power relies mostly on buns and guns ( glutes and quads )
Depends on the bike set up. I haven't used the light road bike for several years and thousands of miles on another bike with the saddle at a maximum elevation, have led to huge lower leg muscles (Nb. It's attracted comments), some quads but non existent glute muscles :(

A pity, as a huge mileage for several years as a teenager, with an incredible 1:3 climb to get back home and the saddle set several inches too low (Nb. I'd never realised you had to raise the saddle!), resulted in huge glutes. Which as they haven't been used for years now, are purely a notably sized bum on an otherwise exceptionally slim and fit man :wink:

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 11 Sep 2021, 9:05am
by Cowsham
Used to run but cycle now -- but I think it is is playing havoc with my conjunctions though. Conjunctivitis probably.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 11 Sep 2021, 10:19am
by Tangled Metal
I used to do a lot of walking, I mean a lot. I was the fittest I've ever been. I tried running for when I couldn't get onto the fells. First run I did a mile or so but could only run for a few minutes before it became top hard. I was better at cycling and walking, but running it took me a few trips before I found run continuously. I packed it in as I realised I am not a runner, I just don't like it anymore. I used to orienteering for fun. Really enjoyed that so it's not like I couldn't run just that I didn't enjoy it and I needed to train up my muscles to get used to the differences in movement.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 22 Sep 2021, 10:09pm
by David2504
I’ve done both. Mainly running when younger but now more cycling as it’s kinder on joints and an ageing body. Both are aerobic exercises so they’ve got that in common. In cycling you’re sat down and some of your weight is supported by the bike. When running you stand on your own two feet. That’s why trained cyclists come in wider range of sizes and shapes than trained runners. In cycling power is more important than in running, unless you’re a sprinter that is, but I think we are talking of distance running. If a typical distance runner tries cycling they will probably find themselves relatively better on climbs than flats. If a typical cyclist or non-runner starts running, they will probably set off too quickly using their power and soon run out of steam and conclude running is too difficult. You recover much quicker from cycling than from running, probably because there is much less much muscle damage due to cycling’s lack of impact and less weight bearing nature. So they are different but do share a need for aerobic fitness.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 10 Oct 2021, 2:16pm
by mac
Get yourself an adult scooter/kickbike - you'll soon learn that different muscles are used in your legs, kick scooters are more akin to running than cycling. :mrgreen:

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 12:02am
by ChristopherN
I don't think there is a big difference between them. These are similar exercises related to cardio and weight loss. But if I had to choose between cycling or running, I would choose cycling. And not because it's easier but because it's more enjoyable. I love to ride my bike, and I do it quite often. It's just that in the country where I live, time is not so good that I always have the opportunity to ride a bike. My dream is to live in the Netherlands and ride a bike every day. Wow! It would be simply wonderful, and besides, I will lose a lot of weight.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 1:26pm
by axel_knutt
At a time when I was still able to cycle up to 150 miles in a day, I couldn't run more than a few hundred yards. My HR would just keep rising until it forced me to stop, even jogging at a slower speed than I could walk all day.

Table 4.9 in the ACSM handbook shows population fitness data based on the time taken for a short run. From that, my fitness was on the 15th centile, anything below the 20th centile being indicative of a sedentary lifestyle and increased mortality.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 2:09pm
by Mick F
Yep.
I could cycle all day, every day, 100+miles.
Lost that fitness now though!

As for running, I doubt I could run to catch a bus, but put me on a bike, and I would shine! :D

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 5:05pm
by mumbojumbo
You cannot make general statements about running.If you lined up medal winners by increasing distance you would see both a change in configurati toon and a reduction of weight ie from Bolt to Farrah.Similarly Chris Hoy could not do a Tour de Rotherham.I doubt hecould ride 30km without blowing up.Bradley Walsh would easily beat him.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 5:44pm
by Slowtwitch
I've done both also, that are certainly different disciplines, but they both require good cardiovascular strength and bags of stamina to even participate, never mind compete. I'd say at a pinch cycling was definitely a more technical discipline, as there are road conditions, inclines, mechanical resistance, and wind resistance to contend with. These are applicable to running also, but they need more effort and concentration to manage, on a bicycle. That's my tuppence worth.

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 23 Feb 2022, 6:05pm
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
gbnz wrote: 11 Sep 2021, 6:56am
Marcus Aurelius wrote: 10 Sep 2021, 1:51pm Cycling power relies mostly on buns and guns ( glutes and quads )
Depends on the bike set up. I haven't used the light road bike for several years and thousands of miles on another bike with the saddle at a maximum elevation, have led to huge lower leg muscles (Nb. It's attracted comments), some quads but non existent glute muscles :(

A pity, as a huge mileage for several years as a teenager, with an incredible 1:3 climb to get back home and the saddle set several inches too low (Nb. I'd never realised you had to raise the saddle!), resulted in huge glutes. Which as they haven't been used for years now, are purely a notably sized bum on an otherwise exceptionally slim and fit man :wink:
My emphasis above, just caught up on this thread :)

I like others (I am sure) are struggling to understand your huge muscle development through apparent overworking the legs :? :P
I am curious, but do not want or need over exaggerated bumps in my lower body :mrgreen:

Re: Is is cycling fitness so different to running?

Posted: 24 Feb 2022, 8:00am
by Slowtwitch
A big bum is nothing to be scared of! :lol: