Running vs Cycling - the debate...

[Brakkies Sport Fotos]

running is harder on the body and mind.

 

In my mind (doing both) running taking lesser time, but your body is more sore that from cycling

 

Doing the Double Century (200km Swellendam) is equel to about a 25 - 30km steady run.

[scuzzy]

1. running, 2. MTB'ing, 3. Road cycling

[Wyatt Earp]

Come and do 24hr solo and you might have a different view. Apart from the length of the event, I think the body goes through a similar beating. Lower back, hands etc take strain from the repetitive pounding. Takes a month to fully recover after the event.

 

It's hard, I run a lot, 24 hour MTB is tough.

We are not talking about racing for bedtime or the first beer or the braai.

When you race for the win, you will feel it, and as you said, a month to recover (regardless of conditioning BOB )

[TNT1]

(regardless of conditioning BOB )

 

 

Ah, you know me, tongue usually firmly in cheek...

[SwissVan]

go and try the 100 miler in pe

 

Would luv to run comrades to say I have done it but alas the one year I commited to it I went about the training all wrong and ended up not starting due to injury and sickness.

 

Subsquently I've realized that long distance running (ultras)is not going to be possible and TBH I have very little desire to ever run the Washie or any other 160km event.

[Berg Man]

How about a good cyclist and runner goes and runs for an hour and measures HR, Calories etc over that time and then does a comparable test for an hour cycle. Obviously on different days.

 

I think that the difficulty will depend on whether or not you are a good/efficient runner or cyclist. Time IMHO doing either would be the fairest test.

[Seeker911]

Never done an full Iron man before but boy after finishing a 90km cycle and then telling your body it now needs to run a 21km my body seems to go into complete shock, it takes a good 5 to 10 minutes before muscle memory kicks in and the body then realizes this is is actually something it has done on many occasions before. Getting out of the water and then cycling is not so bad but the cycle run changeover can be quite a shocker.

[Bennie Dikwiel]

There is no cycle race in SA that can be compared to Comrades

 

In total effort Trans Baviaans would probably take more out of you...

[The Saint]

Running is harder - nuff said

[Wyatt Earp]

Running is harder - nuff said

I tend to agree here.

However I will say, it's easier to condition one self to ride the MTB distances we do.

Look at runners like Anton Kupricka and Catra Corbett, they run and train distances pro cyclists do.

 

Just to add, if Catra was my running partner, I would never stop running

 

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pV6qiByixbo/SXjcnorN0UI/AAAAAAAAE_Y/Xq83FwEYHc0/s400/hurt09+040.jpg

 

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2380/2265127603_73857535e3.jpg

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hah, I have been running for over 35 years, probably longer than most folk on here have been alive, so listen to Pop's - there is just no comparison, train to run just one Comrades and if you finish, and can even think clearly for the next week you can count yourself fortunate, - it will take another week to just stand up straight and walk without pain, and another two weeks before you can even think of putting on your shoes again and heading out the door, thats forgetting about the blisters and the bloodied and loose toe nails afterwards.

 

I know Nick Bester well, I ran with him (or should I say in the same race as him) cos the only time I saw him was at the beer tent for many years, ask him how long it took to recover from just one Comrades, and he is an elite athlete, not a plodder like me and the rest of the middle of the packers.

[Starvin' Marvin]

Running hands down is harder. I run 5km and sweat like a Thai whore on pay day. The thing that gets me most is the impact on my body, don't like it at all.

[RaeTrewBrowne]

I was having dinner with a runner friend of mine last night and the topic got onto the usual Runners vs Cyclists - who/which is harder...

 

I told her that I did a 200km ride on the weekend (Ironman training), and she asked, "What would that equal in running kilometres?"

 

I said 50kms. My reasoning was that a 90km cycle is like a 21km run, so times that by 2 and you hit a marathon = 180km, so add a few for luck!

 

Although i do think i'm favouring the cyclist here.

 

I also don't think anyone can judge unless they've riden at least 150kms and run a marathon.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

as a triathlete who trains both, I'd have to a distance run is slightly tougher than a distance, but i think your ratio of 200km cycle vs 50km run is pretty accurate!

[IMan777]

Let me put it this way.... I am really happy that the marathon is after the 180K bike because if it was the other way around I don't know if I would be able to cycle 180Ks after a marathon at pace. i think running is a lot harder....

[headhunter]

Let me put it this way.... I am really happy that the marathon is after the 180K bike because if it was the other way around I don't know if I would be able to cycle 180Ks after a marathon at pace. i think running is a lot harder....

 

Interesting thought...what if the original Ironman Tri guys, actually started the craze with running the marathon first, then bike ,then swim.....how popular do think it would have been ? Me thinks not so much .... Running blitzes ya.

Edited February 23, 2011 by headhunter

[Shebeen]

duh, there's obviously no answer to this one.

 

we are all different.

some are natural runners

others are natural cyclists

the lucky are natural both

most are natural to neither.

 

for me, i reckon an argus is similiar to a half marathon. but that's just me