Old 09-28-21, 05:30 PM
  #80  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,573
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4476 Post(s)
Liked 4,949 Times in 3,059 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Paraphrasing for emphasis.
I totally agree with this. The machine takes away much of the auxillary action of dynamically maintaining balance, countering and supporting more weight upright.

On a bike (unless one is standing and mashing) the weight and balance is supported by three points (hands, pelvis, feet) and not thrown that far off of the COG (center of balance). Running, all weight and balance is supported by the feet only and many muscle groups from there up have to act to maintain balance while the body is thrown farther off of its COG.

How that is expressed specifically is up for debate I suppose but it demonstrates the main sentiment expressed that running gives a more intense workout in a shorter time.

Per hour spent in the activity I find recovery time from running greater because it is higher impact. For example, when cycling commuting to work I ride one hour per day. This I can do indefinitely. At my age, if I ran one hour every day I would soon need a recovery period. As it is I alternate cycling and trail running to achieve this effect.
Again that just comes down to running requiring a higher "minimum effort" than cycling. If you turned your 1 hour commute into a full-gas TT effort I'm sure it would be just as intense as a 1 hour run. But I do agree about the recovery probably taking longer from the higher impact in running. That's just one of the reasons I don't run.
PeteHski is offline