# Running vs Biking



## bchy (Dec 29, 2006)

With two toddlers and a full time job, I've been having hard time finding time to get on the bike consistantly during the weekday. So whenever I have some time but not enough time to get on the bike, I've been jumping on the treadmill. After few mintues of warm up, I run pretty hard on an incline for about 30-40 minutes. I have noticed that I can maintain a higher heart rate for a longer period on the treadmill versus on the bike. For instance, I can maintain my heart rate in the mid-160s on the treadmill for 15 to 20 mintues without a problem, but on the bike, I be lucky if I can maintain it for more than 10 mintues.

Why do you think this is? Would I be better off riding on the trainer for 40 mintues rather than getting on the treadmill? I just feel like I get a better workout running with the limited time.

Thanks for reading,
bchy


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

Running HR will vary compared to a cycling HR due to the amount of muscles you are using while running. It's similar to your HR rising while standing on your bike compared to sitting because your now supporting more of your weight rather than resting it on the seat. Nothing to worry about and continue doing what your doing.


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

No doubt you get get a quicker workout running than biking. That is why we can ride for 2 or 3 hours several days straight, but can't run that long. With limited time I run rather than bike


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

bchy said:


> Would I be better off riding on the trainer for 40 mintues rather than getting on the treadmill?


For general fitness and weightloss, no.

To become a better rider, yes.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

bchy said:


> With two toddlers and a full time job, I've been having hard time finding time to get on the bike consistantly during the weekday. So whenever I have some time but not enough time to get on the bike, I've been jumping on the treadmill. After few mintues of warm up, I run pretty hard on an incline for about 30-40 minutes. I have noticed that I can maintain a higher heart rate for a longer period on the treadmill versus on the bike. For instance, I can maintain my heart rate in the mid-160s on the treadmill for 15 to 20 mintues without a problem, but on the bike, I be lucky if I can maintain it for more than 10 mintues.
> 
> Why do you think this is? Would I be better off riding on the trainer for 40 mintues rather than getting on the treadmill? I just feel like I get a better workout running with the limited time.
> 
> ...


Go find a fast group ride and try to keep up with the front group. You won't have any problem keeping your heart rate up.
I do think that little bit of running wouldn't hurt although it probably won't make you a better rider. I do have 2 kids/demanding job as well and I squeeze in a few run if the time/weather don't permitting riding....


----------



## netlobo96 (Aug 7, 2007)

I am not a big fan of running favoring the low impact nature of cycling. It may take time but running wears out joints. My neighbor used to run ten miles a day everyday. Now at 85 he can hardly walk. I intend to ride into my nineties and and beyond.


----------



## HSalas (Sep 23, 2005)

*Do some of both.*

Running, although still a primarily leg activity, does give a more "all over" workout than cycling - usually for a given percieved effort, my running HR is about 10 beats higher than cycling HR.

It is a lot easier to work hard running - you can't coast. But it is a bit harder on the joints, especially if you're a bit on the larger side. (Note, though - I'm 5'10" and 153 lbs.)

As for myself, I run about 30 miles a week and also cycle 4-6 hours a week, with at least one ride in a fast group of around 2 hours. And, a good portion of my workouts is indoors - I also have kids and a time-intensive job, so I'm often doing my thing before sunrise. The two activities seem to work well together for me; I've dropped my times in the 10K and half-marathon in the last two years and I can hold my own rather well on those fast group rides.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

vanjr said:


> No doubt you get get a quicker workout running than biking. That is why we can ride for 2 or 3 hours several days straight, but can't run that long. With limited time I run rather than bike



Incorrect..


It depends on the intensity of your rides.


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

Of course intensity of any workout affects how much you do, but it would be much easier to ride (at almost any intensity) 2 hours a day rather than run even at an easy intensity 2 hours a day. that is why there is a tour de france and not a 3 week tour de boston marathon...

defense rests.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

vanjr said:


> Of course intensity of any workout affects how much you do, but it would be much easier to ride (at almost any intensity) 2 hours a day rather than run even at an easy intensity 2 hours a day. that is why there is a tour de france and not a 3 week tour de boston marathon...
> 
> defense rests.


Zone 5 HR is zone 5 regardless of what the activity is. Cycling itself is easier on the body thus we can go much longer than a runner (we sit for one thing) but if you get out there and RIDE HARD your cardio will be the same as RUNNING HARD.


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

agree entirely. the reason you can't run as long as you bike is due to connective tissue/muscle injury from trauma. certainly your CV fitness can be exercised by a number of methods.


----------

