# Running Vs Cycling (endurance)



## RitchieJoe (25 Mar 2015)

I just wanted to ask which of these you think is best for building endurance/ cardiovascular fitness? Please try to leave the bias at the door 

Well can I build a high level of cardiovascular fitness from cycling alone? I appreciate it may take longer than running. It may seem that the obvious answer would be yes, but from searching the internet I seem to be getting mixed responses.


----------



## Little Rach (25 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> I just wanted to ask which of these you think is best for building endurance/ cardiovascular fitness? Please try to leave the bias at the door


I'd be interested to know what people think as well as I completed my first trail race the other day and am now cycling around 60 miles a week - wondering whether I can get away with just running a couple of times a week and maybe swimming once a week as less impact on the old joints.


----------



## RitchieJoe (25 Mar 2015)

I have lower leg issues and I have been informed that cycling will cause less issues, but I am not intending to buy a bike for a leisurely ride..... I want to build endurance/fitness and really push myself.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

I think running used to be harder work on the cardiovascular system than cycling seems now, and in general really.

I would say go with whatever is more comfortable for you. Long distance running can come with a lot more drawbacks than long distance cycling in my opinion, especially when you're not young. I don't run any further than 3 miles regularly now, having done a half marathon which I did not really enjoy. On the other hand, I can quite happily cycle until exhaustion without any bad pain so for me cycling is much better as it results in far fewer injuries.


----------



## RitchieJoe (26 Mar 2015)

Do you really push yourself on your bike or is it just a leisurely ride? I'm thinking about doing a lot of hill climbing etc ( I live in a very hilly area) and I'm hoping that with enough intensity I will be able to bring my heart rate up to a similar rate to that which I run at


----------



## flake99please (26 Mar 2015)

I was told by a good friend who is a cardiologist, that 12 minutes running equates to 20 minutes in the saddle. Speed is relative in that if you're walking at 4mph then you need to cycle at 8mph for the effect to be the same.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Mar 2015)

Since we're on a cycling forum it's got to be swimming, kettlebells, gym balls and skipping.

No bike required to get good at riding a bike.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Mar 2015)

It's not all about heart rate.

But even if it were, cycling is not as hard on the heart as running. for endurance, this is a good thing.

Whats your starting level of fitness?


----------



## moo (26 Mar 2015)

Well it worked for me. One year ago I was an unfit, overweight, junk food loving slob who hadn't exercised in 20 years.

Today my resting heart rate is ~40 and my 1 minute heart rate recovery is ~60. I can hold 90% max for an hour, 85% max for 2-3 hours and think nothing of a 6+ hour ride. My preferred cadence at threshold power is >100rpm, which places a strong reliance on cardiovascular fitness.

Cycling is the only form of exercise I do, other than walking the dog.


----------



## Cush (26 Mar 2015)

Don't know where you live but before Arthritis hit my right knee, I did a fair bit of Challenge walking and found that the best way to build up the endurance for a challenge was a mixture of Power walking (with and with out poles) and slow fell jogging over longer distances. I think those work outs are now paying dividends with the cycling, so though I am slow (very) I can keep going for ten or more hours. Though I do not use one for cycling a good quality Heart Rate monitor will certainly help you, even if it is only used to keep your fitness journal up to date.


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> I just wanted to ask which of these you think is best for building endurance/ cardiovascular fitness? Please try to leave the bias at the door
> 
> *Well can I build a high level of cardiovascular fitness from cycling alone?* I appreciate it may take longer than running. It may seem that the obvious answer would be yes, but from searching the internet I seem to be getting mixed responses.



Of course you can!



RitchieJoe said:


> Do you really push yourself on your bike or is it just a leisurely ride? I'm thinking about doing a lot of hill climbing etc ( I live in a very hilly area) and *I'm hoping that with enough intensity I will be able to bring my heart rate up to a similar rate to that which I run at*



You will not get your heart rate up as high when cycling as you would when running, they are two very different sports with different muscle recruitment patterns, running utilises a far larger proportion of total musculature.



flake99please said:


> I was told by a good friend who is a cardiologist, that 12 minutes running equates to 20 minutes in the saddle. Speed is relative in that if you're walking at 4mph then you need to cycle at 8mph for the effect to be the same.



On what basis do they equate? Quite frankly, I'd refer to a sports scientist, rather than a cardiologist on such a matter, those in the medical profession don't have a great track record for advising on sports matters, or better yet, I'd try not to compare two different activities in such a way. Where on earth are your coming up with these speed comparisons?



moo said:


> Well it worked for me. One year ago I was an unfit, overweight, junk food loving slob who hadn't exercised in 20 years.
> 
> Today my resting heart rate is ~40 and my 1 minute heart rate recovery is ~60. I can hold 90% max for an hour, 85% max for 2-3 hours and think nothing of a 6+ hour ride. My preferred cadence at threshold power is >100rpm, which places a strong reliance on cardiovascular fitness.
> 
> Cycling is the only form of exercise I do, other than walking the dog.



When you say things such as "I can hold 90% max for an hour" and "85 max for 2-3 hours" you are not really giving any indication of your fitness, since there are essentially the ballpark heart rate values anyone should be able to hold for those duration's, they are self referencing values. Similarly, your resting heart rate being ~40 bpm is not really indicative of your fitness. To illustrate my points, your resting heart rate is around 40 bpm, as is mine, I too hold around 90% MHR for an hour and 85% MHR for 2-4 hours. Does this mean we are both of similar fitness?


----------



## Turbo Rider (26 Mar 2015)

Completely different sports and will have completely different effects, as will swimming. Try all three and you'll know for yourself. 

Depends where you do those things too. I find cycling up a hill far harder than running up a hill but then find cycling downhill and flat works me far less than running would. As Rob says, different muscle groups, different stresses on different bones and joints and differences in breathing too. I can cycle for far longer than I can do either of the other two but, were it not fo the toll it takes on your body, I'd prefer running to either of the other two. My calves let me down these days though, so I can't be bothered, having torn muscles. 

Swimming is a different kettle of fish altogether as well. Far more exhasuting for me. Can come out of an hour swim shaking with exhaustion, whereas running I need a nice warm bath and for cycling, a nice stretch and a sit down is more than adequate. I'd probably say that if you're looking for pointers on which form of regular exercise is best for you all round, I'd go with cycling. Can't speak for anyone else, but it leaves me in less of a mess afterwards...and you also get to go really, really fast...if that's your thing


----------



## vickster (26 Mar 2015)

If you want to be pushed, join a club and ride with a fast group. Unless you are very determined, it's unlikely you'd push yourself as hard riding alone

Turbo training can be hard work too but most find it dull, killer videos can reduce the boredon


----------



## Citius (26 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> I just wanted to ask which of these you think is best for building endurance/ cardiovascular fitness? Please try to leave the bias at the door  .



If you want to build endurance/CV fitness for running - then run. If you want to build endurance/CV fitness for cycling - then cycle. If you want to improve at both, then do both. It really isn't as complex as you think.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> Do you really push yourself on your bike or is it just a leisurely ride? I'm thinking about doing a lot of hill climbing etc ( I live in a very hilly area) and I'm hoping that with enough intensity I will be able to bring my heart rate up to a similar rate to that which I run at


Most of my riding is with others so it's pretty variable. Some times it'll be at my upper limit for long periods but mostly I'd describe it as 'comfortable' with regular spikes for the hills which I sprint up, as they are short on the club run.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Since we're on a cycling forum it's got to be swimming, kettlebells, gym balls and skipping.
> 
> No bike required to get good at riding a bike.


I think he means cardiovascular fitness in general, not for cycling.
Obviously the best way to train for a sport is by doing that sport though.



Rob3rt said:


> Where on earth are your coming up with these speed comparisons?


You can compare running and cycling energy consumption based on speed on the flat but I doubt it would work for heart rate as well.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> Do you really push yourself on your bike or is it just a leisurely ride? I'm thinking about doing a lot of hill climbing etc ( I live in a very hilly area) and I'm hoping that with enough intensity I will be able to bring my heart rate up to a similar rate to that which I run at


Most of my riding is with others so it's pretty variable. Some times it'll be at my upper limit for long periods but mostly I'd describe it as 'comfortable' with regular spikes for the hills which I sprint up, as they are short on the club run.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Since we're on a cycling forum it's got to be swimming, kettlebells, gym balls and skipping.
> 
> No bike required to get good at riding a bike.


I think he means cardiovascular fitness in general, not for cycling.
Obviously the best way to train for a sport is by doing that sport though.



Rob3rt said:


> Where on earth are your coming up with these speed comparisons?


You can compare running and cycling energy consumption based on speed on the flat but I doubt it would work for heart rate as well.


----------



## RitchieJoe (26 Mar 2015)

Citius said:


> If you want to build endurance/CV fitness for running - then run. If you want to build endurance/CV fitness for cycling - then cycle. If you want to improve at both, then do both. It really isn't as complex as you think.



Truth be told I don't particularly want my fitness levels to be for something specific. I have an over active nervous system which has caused numerous medical symptoms which lead to me actually being tested for Multiple sclerosis and other associated conditions. The neurologist has tried many medications ranging from central nervous system suppressants to anticonvulsants.... all of which provided negligible effects. So In October I started running as I had been piling the weight on/depression was setting in.....pushed my self to the limit and after a few weeks my symptoms started to dissipate as I was running faster and further. Running proved to be the best drug I have ever taken, unfortunately due to tight calves I find myself embroiled in an on-going fight with the nhs for treatment.What I am hoping/praying for is that I will be able to achieve the same results on a bike.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Since we're on a cycling forum it's got to be swimming, kettlebells, gym balls and skipping.
> 
> No bike required to get good at riding a bike.



I think you missed my point, but you replied at 04:58 so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you was still half asleep. 



Tin Pot said:


> It's not all about heart rate.
> 
> But even if it were, cycling is not as hard on the heart as running. for endurance, this is a good thing.
> 
> Whats your starting level of fitness?



When my calves allowed it I could run at a decent pace for 60 - 70 minutes, I would do 45 minutes on a particular route then the last 20 minutes or so on my local estate which is a steadily increasing gradient then down a very steep hill then back round for more laps until I could endure no more. Perhaps in hindsight I pushed a little too fast too soon but I became addicted to the relief it provided. It also resulted in me losing 16lbs since Christmas without following too strict a diet program. Whether this will help on a bike I guess there is only one way to find out.



vickster said:


> If you want to be pushed, join a club and ride with a fast group. Unless you are very determined, it's unlikely you'd push yourself as hard riding alone
> 
> Turbo training can be hard work too but most find it dull, killer videos can reduce the boredon



I would consider myself quite highly motivated but I am going to look at joining a group once I feel ready, as you said it may help me push myself that bit further but it would also be good to be around people with similar hobbies.

@Rob3rt Thank you for the reply, your post was very encouraging. I think once my Achilles tendinitis resolves I will run two times a week to supplement my cycling regardless of the pain I experience in my calves.


----------



## ANT 666 (26 Mar 2015)

Cross country skiing!!! Best endurance sport of all, but it helps if you live in Norway.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

Obvious comment, but I take it you have tried regular stretching for the calves?


----------



## vickster (26 Mar 2015)

I have tight calves too. Be very careful to ensure that the bike is set up right so as not to kill your knees, which seems to be what I may have inadvertently done  Fortunately, I don't have to battle with the NHS, just Bupa!

And don't overdo it !


----------



## Crackle (26 Mar 2015)

My habit is to run autumn to spring and cycle spring to autumn. My experience is there's some overlap of cv and endurance going from running to cycling but only an overlap of cv from cycling to running. Each autumn and spring I have to build up in each discipline. I also may change my habits and keep my running brief after injuring my knee last year trying to get to level where I could run a half marathon. Running is definitely harder on my body. The advantage is it's quicker to get out for a run and even twenty minutes is a good workout, whereas on a bike 20 minutes is not so much. I may in future use an elliptical trainer during the winter.

I'd look up foam rolling for keeping your legs in good shape. something I discovered last year after screwing my knee and a few other bits running. Foam rolling has got me back on the bike but not yet running.


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Mar 2015)

crazyjoe101 said:


> Most of my riding is with others so it's pretty variable. Some times it'll be at my upper limit for long periods but mostly I'd describe it as 'comfortable' with regular spikes for the hills which I sprint up, as they are short on the club run.
> 
> 
> I think he means cardiovascular fitness in general, not for cycling.
> ...



Can you please provide the basis for said comparison. As you can probably tell, I am skeptical, especially so of any fixed relationship such as cycling at 8 mph = running at 4 mph!


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Mar 2015)

RitchieJoe said:


> Truth be told I don't particularly want my fitness levels to be for something specific. I have an over active nervous system which has caused numerous medical symptoms which lead to me actually being tested for Multiple sclerosis and other associated conditions. The neurologist has tried many medications ranging from central nervous system suppressants to anticonvulsants.... all of which provided negligible effects. So In October I started running as I had been piling the weight on/depression was setting in.....pushed my self to the limit and after a few weeks my symptoms started to dissipate as I was running faster and further. Running proved to be the best drug I have ever taken, unfortunately due to tight calves I find myself embroiled in an on-going fight with the nhs for treatment.What I am hoping/praying for is that I will be able to achieve the same results on a bike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So I took up running a couple of years ago, then triathlon - why? Because I wanted to, and the variety of activity appealed.

Also, in terms of cv endurance they lend them selves to food training. I subscribe to the school of thought that a lot of really hard activity is the worst way to train for endurance.

Running is essentially harder, cycling is essentially easier. Combine the two in the right proportion, train in the right manner and you'll get the optimum benefit.

I would warn against running hard when you start off, but I guess you've already got that message.  Smaller strides made a big difference to me.

I like heart rate based training, and I'm convinced diet is more important than exercise through science and experience, for weight change.

Enjoying it is the key


----------



## RitchieJoe (26 Mar 2015)

crazyjoe101 said:


> Obvious comment, but I take it you have tried regular stretching for the calves?



Stretching gives me dead calves, this was under the supervision of a physio


vickster said:


> I have tight calves too. Be very careful to ensure that the bike is set up right so as not to kill your knees, which seems to be what I may have inadvertently done  Fortunately, I don't have to battle with the NHS, just Bupa!
> 
> And don't overdo it !



I literally just got off of the phone with bupa, they quoted me £56.60 for full cover including cancer etc, unfortunately it will not cover this issue. I also just spoke to the secretary of a Dr Rhidian Thomas who specialises in injuries from the knee down and he is more concerned with treating the actual cause than the symptoms. If I pay for a private consultation with Dr Thomas, apparently if he thinks I will require any procedures he will put me onto his NHS Caseload which will save me a fortune. Your comment has regarding the knee's has also scared me enough to have a bike fitting done lol


----------



## vickster (26 Mar 2015)

Paying a few hundred for the private consult may be worthwhile

My private cover is rather more, but covers everything fortunately (other than the usual chronic stuff). Bupa are expensive apparently, there are brokers who can get you quotes. Also double check you can't do it through work

You probably need a sports physician not an orthopaedic surgeon, or an MSK rheumatologist


----------



## RitchieJoe (26 Mar 2015)

vickster said:


> Paying a few hundred for the private consult may be worthwhile
> 
> My private cover is rather more, but covers everything fortunately (other than the usual chronic stuff). Bupa are expensive apparently, there are brokers who can get you quotes. Also double check you can't do it through work
> 
> You probably need a sports physician not an orthopaedic surgeon, or an MSK rheumatologist



I forgot to add that if after the consultation that I would be best served seeing a colleague or another consultant in another part of the country he would pass me on to them


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Mar 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> So I took up running a couple of years ago, then triathlon - why? Because I wanted to, and the variety of activity appealed.
> 
> Also, in terms of cv endurance they lend them selves to food training.* I subscribe to the school of thought that a lot of really hard activity is the worst way to train for endurance.*
> 
> ...



Excuse me, what school of thought is this...


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Mar 2015)

Rob3rt said:


> Excuse me, what school of thought is this...


I guess Maffetone is the most well known or at least most talked about, but I'm not that specific about it to call out a specific persons methodology.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

Rob3rt said:


> Can you please provide the basis for said comparison. As you can probably tell, I am skeptical, especially so of any fixed relationship such as cycling at 8 mph = running at 4 mph!


A quick Google provided pages like this comparing miles per unit energy expended depending on the speed of cycling.

http://www.active.com/articles/convert-your-cycling-miles-to-running-miles-and-vice-versa
http://www.livestrong.com/article/500994-comparison-of-a-five-mile-run-to-biking/


----------



## flake99please (26 Mar 2015)

I didn't question the basis of my friends answer. I know he studied some sports science at Loughborough Uni many years ago. His figures were a 'general guideline' for average weight person running/riding on flat ground with zero wind speed. Obviously with the huge number of variables possible the figures could change somewhat significantly, and I'm sure there would be a law of diminishing returns once a certain speed/time threshold were applied. 

I hope that clears things a little.


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Mar 2015)

crazyjoe101 said:


> A quick Google provided pages like this comparing miles per unit energy expended depending on the speed of cycling.
> 
> http://www.active.com/articles/convert-your-cycling-miles-to-running-miles-and-vice-versa
> http://www.livestrong.com/article/500994-comparison-of-a-five-mile-run-to-biking/



I remain skeptical, however I will read in more detail later. All I will say atm is that calories consumed is not necessarily an indication of training stress thus is unlikely to be predictive of aerobic adaptation so even if you can find a relationship between calories consumed in differing sports, you are not really finding a relationship between their impact on "fitness".


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Mar 2015)

utterly subjective comparison...

ime a half-marathon is about as exhausting as cycling 100km.


----------



## buggi (26 Mar 2015)

My brother who is in medical profession tells me that the only sport where your heart actually grows in size is cycling (hence Pro Rider heart rates being so low). So in terms of cardio vascular, I'd chose cycling. Running probably builds your muscles quicker tho as you are physically lifting your own weight off the floor. Just my opinion.


----------



## Sea of vapours (26 Mar 2015)

Your heart grows in size from altitude too, so anything involving being high (3,000m and upwards, but the higher the 'better') is going to do that too; mountaineering, for example.


----------



## Citius (26 Mar 2015)

buggi said:


> My brother who is in medical profession tells me that the only sport where your heart actually grows in size is cycling (hence Pro Rider heart rates being so low). So in terms of cardio vascular, I'd chose cycling. Running probably builds your muscles quicker tho as you are physically lifting your own weight off the floor. Just my opinion.



Not sure what your brother does in the medical profession, but athletic heart syndrome (ie the thing where your heart gets bigger) is induced by exercise (any exercise) not just cycling.


----------



## buggi (26 Mar 2015)

Ah well its a while since he told me, I'll ask him about it again. But I'm sure he said something about all sports make your heart stronger but cycling makes it grow. He's not prone to bull shoot so its probably me that has got it wrong.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Mar 2015)

Cardiologists are not endurance training experts.

There's a great article somewhere about how we confer expertise far beyond that which logic would dictate.


----------



## doog (26 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> utterly subjective comparison...
> 
> ime a half-marathon is about as exhausting as cycling 100km.



Nice comparison, i used to run and equate a marathon to 225Km (140 miles) in the saddle ..not far off


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2015)

Rob3rt said:


> I remain skeptical, however I will read in more detail later. All I will say atm is that calories consumed is not necessarily an indication of training stress thus is unlikely to be predictive of aerobic adaptation so even if you can find a relationship between calories consumed in differing sports, you are not really finding a relationship between their impact on "fitness".


I wasn't the guy earlier who compared HR of cycling to running, I just said you can compare the energy consumption per flat mile relative to speed.


----------



## Little Rach (26 Mar 2015)

A few years back I went on a fitness drive and managed to go from 11 stone down to 8.5 stone in 6 months through a combination of running, cycling, skipping, walking and eating 1600 calories a day. At the time I measured everything dogmatically. I discovered that to walk at 4mph for any distance is actually quite difficult for me and feels like a work-out. At my usual dog-walking pace in mixed terrain a mile takes me roughly 17-18 minutes. I was always cycling as a kid and teenager and thought nothing of cycling 20-30 miles first thing on a weekend getting home in time for my mum making family breakfast. By contrast, although quite a good sprinter, I really struggled with running a mile as a teenager and years later discovered this was all down to poor technique and lack of faith in my own ability. I learned to swim in the sea as a child and can swim miles without feeling tired - although I do get hungry. Now I find it quite difficult to cycle at more than 12-14 mph (although this is improving) but I can run faster than I've ever run before at the age of 45 and I can still swim a mile without much effort at all and in less than 40 minutes. So I take the comparison statistics with a pinch of salt as I think it depends a lot on the individual. It's still interesting to see what people think though i.e. a marathon being the equivalent of 140 miles on a bike. That sounds plausible.


----------



## Dan B (26 Mar 2015)

moo said:


> Today my resting heart rate is ~40 and my 1 minute heart rate recovery is ~60. I can hold 90% max for an hour, 85% max for 2-3 hours and think nothing of a 6+ hour ride.


Well done on the turnaround, obviously. how did you measure your max heart rate?


----------



## User16625 (27 Mar 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> It's not all about heart rate.
> 
> But even if it were,* cycling is not as hard on the heart as running*. for endurance, this is a good thing.
> 
> Whats your starting level of fitness?



Thats because you can coast on a push bike. No such thing when your running. However I would imagine this can be compensated for by pushing harder when cycling. Ironically I often push my hardest on downhill sections chasing big numbers on my speedo. 

I definitely agree that cycling is easier but probably because I do a significant amount of it and therefore more adapted for doing it. I do sod all running and I literally cant run more than a few hundred metres without *****in myself up. Yesterday I happily cycled 40 miles without any significant fatigue.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (27 Mar 2015)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Thats because you can coast on a push bike. No such thing when your running. However I would imagine this can be compensated for by pushing harder when cycling.


IIRC, I think the maximum heart rate for cycling is always about 5bpm below that of running, for me that implies that running puts a greater load on the cardiovascular system for a given effort.


----------



## Citius (27 Mar 2015)

Running involves lifting your entire body weight off the ground with each stride - the forces in cycling are much less than that.


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Mar 2015)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Thats because you can coast on a push bike. No such thing when your running. However I would imagine this can be compensated for by pushing harder when cycling. Ironically I often push my hardest on downhill sections chasing big numbers on my speedo.
> 
> I definitely agree that cycling is easier but probably because I do a significant amount of it and therefore more adapted for doing it. I do sod all running and I literally cant run more than a few hundred metres without *****in myself up. Yesterday I happily cycled 40 miles without any significant fatigue.



There is an element of that - different muscles in running and cycling, but even when training regularly cycling is a lower heart rate activity and it is harder to maintain as high a heart rate (Z4/5) on the bike.


----------



## RitchieJoe (3 Apr 2015)

I did see that you can get within 5-15bpm of your running heart rate whilst cycling. Not sure how true that is though


----------

