Running or Biking?

Question

My husband swears up and down that riding a bike is more work. I tried to explain to him that the ratio for running and riding on a bike is not the same, but he says none the less riding a bike does more for you and you burn more. I can't find any articles online or proof of me being right or wong. Do you know of a place that has all this detalied info because I dont think word of mouth is proving my case any.

Answer 1

The amount of work is entirely dependent on the amount of effort you put in to it. As far as the low end of effort you can put less effort in to cycling than running and still "move". However at the top end of effort it's the cardio vascular system that limits the top end of both. So weather running or riding if your system is at max it's at max.

Running uses more muscle groups and is an impact as listed above to help bones, but you should temper this with the fact that it also is very hard on joints and organs. There are many an ex-runner riding now because of knee surgery or hip replacements, etc. Most ex runners wonder why the spent so many lonely years running when they could have fun riding with a group. I'm not talking down running just be sure that's what you want to do then expect to pay the price later.

Answer 2

No, running is harder and you burn more calories hands down.
I run and I bike (and also swim) and running is by far the harder of the two. When you ride a bike you can slow down, not pedal and coast. When you run you must keep your body in motion, and the more body you have the harder it is to keep it in motion.

If you want to get the roughly the same workout on a bike you generally have to go spend at least twice as much time on the bike.

This is just a general observation, and if your hubbie is a pro rider or fast club rider it might be true that he has to work pretty hard on the bike. But for the average Joe running is harder.

Take a heart rate monitor on your next bike and compare it against a run. I think he will be supprised

Answer 3

Having done both , running and trail biking , i have to say that its not really fair to compare the two directly. But here is my analysis anyway :P

Biking up a slope vs running up a slope = Bike is more terrible because you have to maintain a constant speed, while running you can go as slow as you want, even walk if your so inclined

Bike down a slope vs doing down a slope = Running is more work, obviously but the bike is much more fun

Running on flat ground consumes more energy then biking because while your on the bike you have more momentem

The primary advantage that running has over biking is that it is a load bearing exercise , it helps to build strong bones A bike is good if your in need of low impact activities.

In terms of calaries burned , running definately wins in the long run because it is a whole body activity. Muscles all the way from your hip to your shoulders are activated thus burniing more calaries.

Cycling primaryly uses the quads and hamstrings with few other muscles. This is what gives pro riders like lance a somewhat stiff legged running gait.

If all else fails , tell your husband that constant pressure on the groin during cycling has been proven to cause erectile dyfunction =)

Answer 4

It can vary from person to person. Why don't you use a heart rate monitor and see for yourself? They are not very expensive; you can get a really good one for less than $100. It will intensify your workouts because keeping an ey e on your heart rate is great motivation. I was very surprised to find out that I had a much higher sustained heart rate with running.

Answer 5

It is both the same i guess.. Running and biking is very healthy. I think biking takes less energy than running.

Answer 6

Running

Ask Lance about his NYC Marathon experience.

Answer 7

Forget it! Cold beer, hot pizza and a wide-screen plasma!