Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Hearts of Swimmers vs Runners vs... Cyclists

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Hearts of Swimmers vs Runners vs... Cyclists

Old 06-24-19, 08:06 PM
  #51  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
If your cycling intervals don't feel as hard as your running intervals, you're geared too high. It's an easy mistake to make.
Trakhak is offline  
Likes For Trakhak:
Old 06-24-19, 11:46 PM
  #52  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 8,791
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 929 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Even I can run the 4-minute pace for some of it but I'm going to run out of "stuff" in maybe 20 seconds (at a guess) but I can go "all out" on a bike for a minute. It's not the same thing.
You're not making any sense. Start your 1 min biking interval at 650W and see if you can hold it for the min. If your 'all out' on a bike is only 450W of course it's not going to feel hard.
gregf83 is online now  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 06-25-19, 06:05 AM
  #53  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
You're not making any sense. Start your 1 min biking interval at 650W and see if you can hold it for the min. If your 'all out' on a bike is only 450W of course it's not going to feel hard.
"feels hard" is not what I'm talking about. Of course "it's hard". Please, just go out, today, and run 8-10 hard quarters or 12 1-1 intervals, and tomorrow report back that it's the same workout as 1-1 intervals on the bike.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 06:16 AM
  #54  
mcours2006
Senior Member
 
mcours2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 5,665

Bikes: Giant Rapid, Bianchi Advantage, Specialized Roubaix, 1985 Gardin Quatro, Norco Threshold, Raleigh Serengheti MTB

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1724 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by jadocs View Post
It depends how much effort you put into it. Riding 100 miles at a casual pace is easy, riding 100 miles at tempo or aerobic threshold is not easy.
Running 100 miles at any speed is hard.
mcours2006 is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 06:17 AM
  #55  
Garfield Cat
Senior Member
 
Garfield Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 6,846

Bikes: Cervelo Prodigy

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 352 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
That's what I said, near national class for 60 years old. I don't know how old you are, but do you think that makes it easy?
Not necessarily "easy" but it may become mentally doable.

Assume a runner (high school or college), who never did any kind of cycling except for kid's biking, then begins to cross train using cycling for the aerobic and anaerobic benefits.

Over some time, this runner/cyclist will get into the groove and discover the differences in the "all-out" sprint and the 90% effort sprints, etc. All this without the pounding of a run.

This could be viewed as a runners' new skill set. There are very few high school runners who can do a sub 4 minute mile. Then in college it narrows down to the athletic scholarship kids; a few of them can do sub-4's. After that, the Olympians time trials, more post-college runners.

Shorter distances, maybe more condensed, more relying on natural talent.
Garfield Cat is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:01 AM
  #56  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Garfield Cat View Post
Not necessarily "easy" but it may become mentally doable.


Assume a runner (high school or college), who never did any kind of cycling except for kid's biking, then begins to cross train using cycling for the aerobic and anaerobic benefits.


Over some time, this runner/cyclist will get into the groove and discover the differences in the "all-out" sprint and the 90% effort sprints, etc. All this without the pounding of a run.


This could be viewed as a runners' new skill set. There are very few high school runners who can do a sub 4 minute mile. Then in college it narrows down to the athletic scholarship kids; a few of them can do sub-4's. After that, the Olympians time trials, more post-college runners.


Shorter distances, maybe more condensed, more relying on natural talent.

I see - when I said " I remember when a 60 second quarter was an easy lap but that is not and can never be the case." it is in the context of MY running. I'm not running a 60 second quarter, period, because I am NOT a National class talent. Even though I remember it as a pretty easy lap.


Point being, if it's been years or decades it is not now the way you remember it. "Six in sixty" as my coach used to say may have been kind of fun at 18, when you're doing hard track workouts every day and ready to go again the next day, but anyone who thinks they can just take that up decades later, because "cycling intervals, hard is hard" is likely kidding himself.


There are similarities of course - you'll see similar gains in peak VO2 uptake, similar changes in fat metabolism. Differences in blood glucose levels, differences in capillary adaptations. Running generally produces more stress in more diverse systems. Running is more metabolically efficient believe it or not, which means you can produce more power running than cycling. Internal temperature control is different. I was hesitant to go into any of that because I'm sure that all of it will prompt arguments, but the simple "try it and see" should be sufficient to get the point across. My point there is, remembering what it was like just isn't going to be very accurate.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:16 AM
  #57  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,574
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 881 Post(s)
Liked 217 Times in 157 Posts
Running is really, really, really hard. And runners are tough as nails. Running > Cycling. We get it.

Running is more metabolically efficient believe it or not, which means you can produce more power running than cycling.
Pay no mind to that cyclist sprinting past at 35 mph, the runner plodding along at 15 mph is actually producing "more power."
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:24 AM
  #58  
Rje58 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Southeast U.S.
Posts: 287

Bikes: 2011 Fuji Absolute 3.0 -- 1997 Trek 830 (modified to hybrid)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 34 Posts
Are there any statistics available that report the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular runners (who didn't bike much, if any), versus the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular cyclists (who didn't run much, if any) ?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that the people who run a lot have more knee problems, up to and including knee replacement surgery.

That's not to say that cycling is better than running, only that a balanced approach and consequences of specific actions should help us determine our own individual choices and course in life. The likely consequences to my knees and my back are things that I strongly consider, because both of those areas are so critical to quality of life, and because I've seen so many other people struggle and suffer with problems in those areas.
Rje58 is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:24 AM
  #59  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
Running is really, really, really hard. And runners are tough as nails. Running > Cycling. We get it.



Pay no mind to that cyclist sprinting past at 35 mph, the runner plodding along at 15 mph is actually producing "more power."
No, you don't get it. More power produced (among all of the other differences) means different physiological adaptations which is the point of this thread. Some of those differences are surely going to be related to cardio.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:29 AM
  #60  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Running is more metabolically efficient believe it or not, which means you can produce more power running than cycling.
Bicycles are more energy-efficient than dragsters, which means that you can produce more power riding a bike than driving a dragster.
Trakhak is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:32 AM
  #61  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
Bicycles are more energy-efficient than dragsters, which means that you can produce more power riding a bike than driving a dragster.
Which means that riding a bike produces more cardio adaptation than driving a dragster. You're starting to get it!
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:32 AM
  #62  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,301
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Running is more metabolically efficient believe it or not, which means you can produce more power running than cycling.
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
Pay no mind to that cyclist sprinting past at 35 mph, the runner plodding along at 15 mph is actually producing "more power."
I'm not sure why you're rolling your eyes here. This is pretty much common knowledge. And no one would say someone running at 15 mph is "plodding along".
OBoile is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 07:43 AM
  #63  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,301
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 745 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by Rje58 View Post
Are there any statistics available that report the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular runners (who didn't bike much, if any), versus the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular cyclists (who didn't run much, if any) ?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that the people who run a lot have more knee problems, up to and including knee replacement surgery.

That's not to say that cycling is better than running, only that a balanced approach and consequences of specific actions should help us determine our own individual choices and course in life. The likely consequences to my knees and my back are things that I strongly consider, because both of those areas are so critical to quality of life, and because I've seen so many other people struggle and suffer with problems in those areas.
Cycling is, no doubt, easier on your body (until you crash that is). However, this is both good and bad.

The Good:
Less likely to get hurt.
Can ride for several hours without taxing your recovery ability too much, this allows for you to keep your HR up for a long time.

The Bad:
Doesn't strengthen your bones, tendons etc. because it doesn't stress them.

As with many things relating to the human body, some stress is generally good, but too much is bad. My parents have been runners for ~45 years. In general, they have been fine, and at age 70 they're still jogging regularly. My dad had one minor knee issue (small torn meniscus) that didn't happen while running about 10 years ago, but that is the only really major injury either one has had. The key was, they kept their mileage to a reasonable amount and they did other things as well. Many of their friends who ran 50-80 miles a week are now cyclists because they overdid it and got hurt.
OBoile is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 08:40 AM
  #64  
texaspandj
Senior Member
 
texaspandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Heart Of Texas
Posts: 3,366

Bikes: '86 , '87 , '88 , '89 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman.

Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1138 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times in 44 Posts
I started training for triathlons in 1985. I started swimming, biking and running at the Same time. So I have no horse in this race. Admittedly I enjoy cycling the most. But I was cycling when I injured my knee. Adding to that is people who have never ran yet still needed a knee replacent. However, I was able to continue biking but couldn't run for a long while.
I think what we've proven here is triathletes make the best athletes

Last edited by texaspandj; 06-25-19 at 08:55 AM.
texaspandj is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 09:02 AM
  #65  
TimothyH
- Soli Deo Gloria -
 
TimothyH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,528

Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix

Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6660 Post(s)
Liked 535 Times in 338 Posts
Originally Posted by texaspandj View Post
I think what we've proven here is triathletes make the best athletes
I tend to agree.

Gymnasts as well. The guys who do the rings are amazing.



-Tim-
TimothyH is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 09:11 AM
  #66  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 8,791
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 929 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
"feels hard" is not what I'm talking about. Of course "it's hard". Please, just go out, today, and run 8-10 hard quarters or 12 1-1 intervals, and tomorrow report back that it's the same workout as 1-1 intervals on the bike.
I don't really know what your point is. Everyone accepts running is harder on the body than cycling and runners generally put in fewer training hours per week.

You're on a bike forum so most people here ride more than they run so running at any pace is likely to be painful.

Doing 12 1min intervals with 1min rest is not representative of what a 1 min all-out effort feels like. To do 12 with only 1 min rest would limit your efforts to around 75% of all-out.
gregf83 is online now  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 06-25-19, 10:11 AM
  #67  
Hermes
Version 3.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,416

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 578 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 55 Posts
Below is the max one minute cycling effort.

Hermes is offline  
Likes For Hermes:
Old 06-25-19, 10:20 AM
  #68  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,753

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
In S. Cali I've seen many >60 year old runners and definitely see all of them as on the tail of superior fitness compared to the general population but... giving all of them their well-deserved due, my feeling is that, going on 70 -- assuming I could perform at their level in a pair of running shoes -- I'd get more exercise cycling than running. My guess is, a dedicated training program that included swimming probably would be ideal and perhaps only swimming if cycling becomes impossible due to injuries that just won't heal up fast enough due to age... I've been struggling with a pulled goin and it feels like forever to heal when you're champing at the bit to resume your old schedule.
McBTC is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 10:59 AM
  #69  
TimothyH
- Soli Deo Gloria -
 
TimothyH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,528

Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix

Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6660 Post(s)
Liked 535 Times in 338 Posts
Running definitely takes less time and money.

Shoes, shorts and out the door. Done. Maybe some stretching but cyclists should do that too.

Anything over an hour is a very long session. Most decent runners can do a 10k in under an hour.

I've tried to replicate a runners high on the bike. The closest I've come is riding fixed gear but it isn't the same. I don't think it can be done on a bike with a freewheel.

Trail running at night with a headlamp is a blast.


-Tim-
TimothyH is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 11:29 AM
  #70  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
I don't really know what your point is. Everyone accepts running is harder on the body than cycling and runners generally put in fewer training hours per week.

You're on a bike forum so most people here ride more than they run so running at any pace is likely to be painful.
You're in a BF thread that asks what the difference is in training adaptations for the heart. If most people here find running painful at any pace, they probably aren't right that there's no difference because "all out is the same".

If you want to know what *my* point is, go back to my first post. It's what everyone is arguing with, and I haven't said "it is harder on the body" because I don't necessarily believe that, if you're talking about injuries. More stress yes, which produces different training adaptations. That's what this thread is about.

Doing 12 1min intervals with 1min rest is not representative of what a 1 min all-out effort feels like. To do 12 with only 1 min rest would limit your efforts to around 75% of all-out.
It's more like 90%. You're not going to start it at 100% flat all out and hold the best you can for a minute unless you're training specifically sprints.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 06:52 PM
  #71  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,753

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
You're in a BF thread that asks what the difference is in training adaptations for the heart. If most people here find running painful at any pace, they probably aren't right that there's no difference because "all out is the same".

If you want to know what *my* point is, go back to my first post. It's what everyone is arguing with, and I haven't said "it is harder on the body" because I don't necessarily believe that, if you're talking about injuries. More stress yes, which produces different training adaptations. That's what this thread is about.



It's more like 90%. You're not going to start it at 100% flat all out and hold the best you can for a minute unless you're training specifically sprints.
Go going back to the original article, however accurate or inaccurate it may be, it was pointed out that the longevity of cyclists is greater than that of runners... They're definitely are trade offs and some of them are hard to calculate but perhaps, 'longevity' is the final arbiter. I don't know what the statistics are but as far as actually engaging in the sport, I can imagine that there probably are greater numbers of cyclists in old age than runners...
McBTC is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 08:23 PM
  #72  
guachi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by texaspandj View Post
Athletically, I've participated in a few events, swimming, cycling, running, grappling, boxing, karate, triathlon. But Cycling is without a doubt is the most difficult sport in comparison, competitively speaking.
What made it so difficult in your estimation?
guachi is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 10:01 PM
  #73  
FrenchFit 
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,733

Bikes: Bulls, Bianchi, Koga, Trek, Miyata

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Rje58 View Post
Are there any statistics available that report the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular runners (who didn't bike much, if any), versus the number of knee replacement surgeries performed on senior citizens who were regular cyclists (who didn't run much, if any) ?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that the people who run a lot have more knee problems, up to and including knee replacement surgery.

That's not to say that cycling is better than running, only that a balanced approach and consequences of specific actions should help us determine our own individual choices and course in life. The likely consequences to my knees and my back are things that I strongly consider, because both of those areas are so critical to quality of life, and because I've seen so many other people struggle and suffer with problems in those areas.
LOL, all the knee replacement buddies I can think of are or were cyclists. hardly scientific, but I know of no runners that have more than the periodic aches and pains. But truth be told, marketing and media got a lot of runners injured young by promoting bad practices and techniques. I think those of us that run, some running competitively in our 60s, somehow survived decades of indoctrination into stupid, stupid, stupid. (And, it's still out there.)
__________________
There is more to life than simply increasing its speed. - Gandhi
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 06-25-19, 10:14 PM
  #74  
FrenchFit 
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,733

Bikes: Bulls, Bianchi, Koga, Trek, Miyata

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by texaspandj View Post
Swimming and cycling have a gravitational device/cheat, (water and bicycle). So when you get thru cycling or swimming, you're starving. You're body is saying if you're gonna do that day in and day out I'm gonna need calories. But you run you're body says if you're gonna do that, I'm gonna need to lose weight or I'm gonna get injured, so it doesn't trigger the hunger mechanism.
If this isn't the absolute truth! I added days of swimming laps each week, and the most dramatic after effect is I am starving. On top of that, I'm a long -term IF'er, so waiting around until 5pm to eat something becomes pure torture. Perhaps the trick is to swim in the am, then switch to running the afternoon to suppress that post-swim hunger.

Not to pile on, but after swimming and running, biking seems a bit tame and torturous. But, I am probably channeling some Dave Scott this year.
__________________
There is more to life than simply increasing its speed. - Gandhi
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 06-26-19, 06:42 AM
  #75  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,529

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Go going back to the original article, however accurate or inaccurate it may be, it was pointed out that the longevity of cyclists is greater than that of runners... They're definitely are trade offs and some of them are hard to calculate but perhaps, 'longevity' is the final arbiter. I don't know what the statistics are but as far as actually engaging in the sport, I can imagine that there probably are greater numbers of cyclists in old age than runners...

It's a good question and since I've already posted too much, here's my two cents on this. While it HAS long been thought that running produces more wear and tear on our joints (aka osteoarthritis) and it is still the prevailing common knowledge, there are strong indications otherwise. OA refers to generally "fluid accumulation, bony overgrowth, and loosening and weakness of muscles and tendons".


With regards to statistics, runners had a lower incidence of knee pain, minor OA and serious OA than non-runners (https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1116094058.htm)


Here's another one, more recent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27333572, mean age was 64, showing that runners had lower incidence of knee pain and knee problems than non-runners.


Are there more older cyclists than older runners, I don't know. But whenever numbers of cyclists comes up I tend to step back and consider triathletes - who are ALSO cyclists and whose numbers dwarf those of pure cyclists. So I'm a little skeptical that there are fewer older runners. Anecdotally, on my little stretch of shared path, my impression is about equal.
wphamilton is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.