Velo Vol 

From a comfort standpoint, I'd rather be running at 25F than cycling.

On the hot end, it's usually not necessary to run during the hottest part of the day--you can do it in the morning or late evening.

clink83

Not true. Heel striking you end up with about a 7x body weight impact force, with a forefoot strike its decreased, and some studies have found that there is no impact force with bare foot runners. https://thebodymechanic.ca/2011/03/19...anics-summary/ <--that has a pretty good illustrations and debate. As for tearing tendons, thats BS. You won't suffer any more injuries than a heel triker with a midfood strike. If you run too much to soon with any style, you're going to get hurt. Forefoot striking is how your body is designed to run. The only reason you have an arch in your foot is to absorb shock from running. Your calves are only there to absorb the shock of landing. No other primates have glutes, big calves, or arched feet. People didn't heel strike untill heavily padded shoes came on the scene in the 70s to allow them to do that.
Also, look at the dominant force in distance running(Africans), who spend their whole childhood and teenage years running barefoot. You think it's a coincidence they run so fast and effecient? You think its coincidence that the fastest american marathoner ever runs with a midfood strike also?

Runner 1

Did you see my post? Did you see the post on LetsRun? Like 10 million people have discussed this already, and just because you say the same thing 1/2 of the camp says doesn't automatically make it right.

I'll tell you what. If you give me a good reason to listen to you over the other 9,999,999 people I'll change my mind.

(I'm neither for nor against heel striking but to say one way is better than the other so matter-of-factly reminds me of a religious debate).

makeitso5005

Ok this post is going WAY off point now. So I'll make one post about this. Many people have been in shoes with 12+mm heel to forefoot drops and excessively heel striking. This in turn does not stretch the achillies tendon as much as a barefoot running gait. As a result when some people try and transition to a forefoot/midfoot strike that 7x (7x, 9x whatever. You're really just nitpicking at this point) not only are you now loading the achillies and calf muscle with 7x your body weight at impact, you're also putting a stretching force on the tendon. Many of these transitioning runners don't have the flexibility to put their heel down with a midfoot strike w/o stretching it in the process. If they don't have the flexibility guess what, with all these small stretching occurances you rupture the tendon or calf muscle as we're talking thousands of steps per mile. If you can't get into a baseball catcher's squat flatfooted then it's a sign you shouldn't transition to midfoot striking w/o some major stretching. This also goes for hip flexors as well but no where near as severe. If the hip flexors aren't flexible enough the entire gait is off kilter. Take a look at all the Chi and Pose running injury studies. They're primarily achillies and calf centric. We maybe 'born to run' as you say but changes in genetics, footwear, laziness changes things. Ever wonder why your pinky toe is (probably) somewhat deformed compared to the rest of your toes? It's been speculated the pinky toe is the next thing to go in our biological evolution. Just something to think about.

Your comparison to Ryan Hall (fastest american marathoner) is silly. Meb Keflezighi who's another Ryan Hall tier runner heel strikes. Lots of top racers heel strike. You ever wonder why it's such a grey area in running? Because both camps do well. If you actually look into the research being done into the Kenyan dominance of distance running footstrike pattern isn't really mentioned.

BTW: It's not possible to run with no impact force. An inherent part of running is you completely leave the ground thus you HAVE to have an impact force. Only way to have zero impact force is if you're always in contact with the ground aka a wheel or walking.

I_Like_Bike

I have been training for a tri and have been doing both. I love cycling and tolerate running. Running is better in the cold though, but I can cycle in 95 degree weather with only slight feeling over it being too hot. Cycling FTW.

clink83

I actually agree with you 100% on this, but IMO that's not a fault of barefoot running, thats a result of having poor overall flexability. If you don't have that flexability you're going to have a hard time doing other activities(skiiing comes to mind specifically). I was also pointing out that an effecient forefoot runner has much lower impact forced than the 7-9x quoted above, with some studies finding no increase in force for very effecient runners.

It's not a coincidence that many(but not all) of the elite distance runners run with a high cadence forefoot strike, and it's even more prevelant in runners from Africa who grew up without shoes. It's also not a coincidence that as race speeds increase, the prevelance of forefoot strikers increase, and vice versa.

hhnngg1

Despite being far off thread - here's a simple one, that pretty much bears out - "technique" for nonsprinting runners (5k+) is trivial, and in fact is thought to likely not matter at all. Your cerebelleum is hard-wired to pick out an 'optimal' cadence/stride for you - change it at your own risk. There are NO world champions or national level runners who dramatically improved after technique, be it heel strike, arm swing, etc. They devoted a lot of research to it in the late 80s as well and came up with - nothing.

A lot of people run with bad form, especially beginners, but the best way to fix it for distance running (not sprinting) is to run a LOT. Your body will naturally pick a great form. Ryan Hall's form can be criticized as inferior due to his low armswing, but it clearly works. Dathan Ritzenhein, USA's next greater distance runner, spent a controversial year working on technique with Salazar - and didn't get any faster in his goal race the marathon.

Now swimming - you need some SERIOUS technique there. It's like 75%+ of the result for beginners due to the high resistance of the water and our non-innate ability to adapt to it. You do not need coaches to 'fix' your stride unless you are a sprinter, in which some specialized drills can help.

makeitso5005

I just don't like people spreading incorrect information. Majority still heel strike. By the study conducted about 75% of elite runners heel strike.
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab..._Point.40.aspx

Even Ritzenhein (as you mention in your 2nd post) was a heel striker until last year when he decided to mess with his form. You're not really making a point anymore. But spew on as you wish, I'm not going into a running footstrike discussion on a bike forum. To make it relevant to the post... Running causes more injuries than biking thus a reason to like biking more than running.

Runner 1

You are well read young padawan. I think the main point is that there's never been convincing, peer-reviewed, repeatable evidence that footstrike makes a significant difference at all (Gebrselassie is a severe overpronator).

As for your note on swimming, you're right, it's all skill. And that's why I suck at it.

rat fink

Good post! Though, I didn't find myself agreeing with all the points, it was well thought out.

One more thought that I was reminded of:

A bike is a vehicle. In the sense that for some of us who are inclined to participate in various thrill junkie sports/hobbies, like auto/motorcycle racing, skiing, flying, luge/street luge, sailing/powerboating, and parasailing, and such, riding a road bike can make for some fairly inexpensive, readily available, and versatile thrills.

It's cool that I can go out on a high road bike and thrash around on roads, (like I used to in cars), zipping in and out of corners with the wind in my face, while at the same time, getting real exercise and not (technically) breaking the law. Also, my bikes are one toy I enjoy that I don't have to deal with DMV to use. That's a huge plus because the DMV (and the local constable) really seem to enjoy screwing with hot rod owners.

Runner 1

Wait... this is a bike forum?

pgjackson

What is so great about running? It's slow paced, you can't go very far, and it's very rare for anyone to blow out their knees, hips, or achilles from cycling. Virtually EVERY SINGLE DEVOTED RUNNER I know has bad knees. I've been in the Marines for almost 19 years, done my share of running, and I can tell you running-related knee and hip problems are VERY common among the senior ranks. You don't see many of 60+ year olds out running, but I see lots of them out on bikes attacking the hills. I see cycling as an investment in my healthy future. Running was doing more harm than good.

hhnngg1

This is the most common misconception out there - and heavily propagated by bike forums.

Running does NOT necessarily lead to degenerated knees. There was a large study tracking medium-volume runners (about 3 miles, 5x / wk) for over a decade, a LOT of them, and the runners ended up having better cartilage than the nonrunners. Of course, everyone will scream 'selection bias' meaning runners are the ones with the better cartilage to begin with, but there were enough runners in that study to make a pure selection bias unikely for accelerated wear.

For young folks (<45 yrs), most of the running injuries are due to temporary large rampups in training or are (more commonly) part of the necessary adaptation to becoming a better, stronger runner. I can't tell you how many folks I know who are in the 20s, and are convinced they get injured the moment they run but are grossly misinterpreting the normal adaptation to training loads as injury.

Running is actually one of the best things you can do - there was a very prestigious paper in the journal Science a few years back with strong evolutionary data that man was adapted specifically to run long distances (not just walk.)

Cycling is awesome and all, but your brain is programmed to get you to run - you don't even need to 'train' your technique - it's automatic. There's so much garbage info and anecdotal stories out there about "if you run you'll WEAR OUT your knees" when it's not true at all, and pretty much all the studies show the opposite - running (reasonable volumes) protects against cartilage loss.

Runner 1

It's possible to jinx yourself you know.

In November I was running with a friend, and I said I was sick of everyone telling me how running would ruin my knees. I'd been running 8 years with no injuries AT ALL, and out of hundreds of runners I'd met, not one had knee issues.

6 months of knee pain later...

pgjackson

I don't care about your studies. This is my 19-year observation being surrounded by people who run all the time. I just started cycling about 6 months ago...I'm no cycling homer, but I do know that running took it's toll on my body and many of my peers. I'm just saying, you don't see a lot of older runners. I wonder why.

makeitso5005

This screams "duh." You stress your body, and your body becomes more resilient. Much like if you do any exercise, you're less likely for heart disease. Couch surfing vs ANY activity in such low volumes (15 miles a week is low) I'm pretty sure every study will show couch surfing results in worse joints. To make your citations of all these studies relevant apply it to 'real' runners. You and I both know 15 miles per week is nothing for someone who calls themselves a runner. Marines, marathoners, cross country runners, will run double or more than that a week. Many times more than 15 miles in one run. For you to dismiss pgjackson's observations completely is an indication of how open of a minded you are on the subject. There's a reason why there's injuries specifically called "runners knee," a reason why IT band syndrome and plantar fasciitis are tied primarily to running injuries. Same with "tennis elbow," as you see it occurring most often in tennis. Ever hear of a bike centric injury aside from breaking collarbones? (which is tied to falling, not the motion of cycling) I haven't. Take 100 people of varying levels of running and cycling and track them over 5 years. I GUARANTEE that the running group will have more injuries than the cycling group during that span.

Yes, we're bipedal, upright, with a pelvic structure that supports an S shape back structure. You're saying this study concluded the evolutionary difference between **** Sapien vs **** Erectus was to allow humans to run long distances... While I haven't seen this study and you haven't been able to cite it (like most of your studies thus far), that's quite a stretch esp considering humans probably are in the lower half of mammals in relation to ability to run distance.

Yet you talk an awful lot about technique...?

It seems you waffle a bit and go back on a lot of the things said. Pulling a lot of unsupported studies out doesn't help your cause, nor does ignoring people's direct experiences. Heck, there's a bunch of running supporters in this thread that say they can't run anymore and have turned to cycling. If running is such a miracle exercise as you're attempting to make it out to be those issues should be a rare occurrence. Fact is, they're not. LOTS of lifetime runners deal with injuries suffered from running, not just cartiledge breakdown causing bone on bone issues. Many have to retire from running and turn to other activities because of those injuries. Ask yourself this... Which is a more common for someone to hear? "I can't (RUN / BIKE) anymore because of it hurts my ________" If you seriously think that you're filling in "BIKE" on the majority you live in a very different world than I do.

AdelaaR

I don't get why many here seem to find that running gets you a better and quicker workout than cycling.
My advice is to HTFU and cycle harder!
Try to keep your speed over 25mph all the time ... get out of the saddle on hills and pound the pedals like there's no tomorrow ... keep pounding 'em when going down to descend even faster and after about half an hour, depending on your fitness level, you'll be completely wasted like if you were running.
Cycling gives people the option to coast and rest once in a while but that doesn't mean you have to.

hhnngg1

@maketiso:

Your arguments are REALLY weak. You are valuing anecdotal evidence and personal experience over systematic, peer-reviewed studies? And regarding that SCIENCE journal paper I referenced - SCIENCE and NATURE magazines are the #1 highest biomedical scientific articles out there - it truly is the GOLD STANDARD for biomedical research. There is no higher standard in the field. For you to value your own unsubstantiated OPINION versus work which as been reviewed by all the world experts in the field shows your complete ignorance of how scientific standards work.

Furthermore - I've made ZERO recommendations on technique in running (or cycling). You're misinterpreting eveyrone else's technique heel-strike stuff for my posts, when my post above shows the complete opposite.

Lastly - I have never made the claim running injures LESS than cycling - I know for sure it is the opposite. Triathletes' #1 problem when ramping up is adapting to the stress of running - the pounding is definitely harder on the body. However, this does NOT mean that running = accelerated joint failure, and the studies I mentioned all show the opposite. Despite the short-term injuries, research shows that running may actually be better for joints, as it may be forcing your body to react in a good way to the stresses.

As to more old folks cycling than running - I'm not even sure that's true as well, although for this one, I have no concrete numbers. But I'm someone who bikes and runs equally, and there's no shortage of uber-fast 50+ year old runners at any race - just look at the Boston Marathon stats for senior runners (thousands!) In the run groups here in CA, it's actually more 45+ year old runners showing up than <35. But I'll agree that since there's less impact with cycling AND you can go easier due to coasting/downhills, there may be a lower barrier to entry for cycling for older folks. I'm still not sure there are more overall older cyclists than # of runners, however.

ravenmore

You realize that in the first sentence of this post you freely admit you don't know what you're talking about?

ravenmore

Don't see a lot of broken collar bone injuries in running. Just sayin'.

makeitso5005

You've yet to provide anything other than "a study in ______" By whom? What was the intent of the study? What did the STUDY conclude? You've been drawing your own conclusions of studies you claim to exist to cover your claims. You've yet to cite a single study by name or researcher. And while you put so much blind faith in your conclusions of these studies you fail to realize that many of these studies don't prove a single thing. It's like a study that shows if you drink no water during the first 20 minutes of exercise makes no difference to your performance than if you drank water. Then having someone like you conclude (15 miles a week vs a more normal 40+ miles a week for true runners) that same correlation extends out to 2+ hours which we all know isn't right. In the end that's all you're doing while ignoring first hand experiences from people contributing to this thread. Your credibility decreases every time you bring up another study to support your claims where you're concluding the study yourself. Becomes readily apparent that you're a reader but not a scientist by how you're presenting and interpeting these studies.

I apologize for that, replying too many posts @ the same time waking up early to watch the French open.

Using that logic it doesn't really mean much. Having a few thousand baby boomers (one of the largest sections of our population) qualify for Boston just shows there's a few thousand 50+ year olds out of 70+ million able to qualify. It has little if any bearing upon the true population and running based injuries. It just indicates there's a few thousand healthy enough to qual & run the race. If you want a biased 'study' go to a cycling masters division race and interview all the participants as to if they were once runners and if they had to give it up due to injuries. As again, for every study you can bring up there's one equally qualified study to disprove it. EVERY industry has been doing it for years which is again why I won't put a ton of credit to studies you can't cite and you really have to pick the study apart to really know what's going on. Case and point (and pretty common knowledge) for this is chocolate milk as a recovery drink study then go into every study conducted trying to debunk that study.

In any case I'm retiring from this thread. It's way off course and being how you're continuing to dismiss many of the posters first hand experiences by using studies where you interpet the results for yourself (of studies that may or may not be legitimately conducted) there's just no point to continue. I've got most of the original intent of Why people would decide to spend more time cycling than running down to which many here agree. Of course not all will, as both have a certain place in people's lives, but as with the original intent of this thread... there's plenty of reasons to like cycling.

Runner 1

Tim Noakes - Lore of Running. Excellent 900 something page book. It has a very detailed section on injuries.

In fact, out of 16 people on my team, I feel like at any given time 3-4 of them are unable to train because of an injury.

hhnngg1

My last post here to your incorrect responses -

As said again, SCIENCE and NATURE are the PREMIER journals. We're not talking random sports journals here (as is most research about sports) - these are the MOST peer reviewed journals. I seem to have to repeat myself ad nauseum for you.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/30.../1283.citation

But you can go trust your anecdotal evidence whenever you want whenever you please. You're obviously smarter than 1000 MDs, PHDs, and engineers combined with your wisdom.

And in the equally prestigious journal, Nature

https://www.unews.utah.edu/releases/0...runevolve.html

clink83

The two are interrelated. I'm not saying that one foot strike is faster than the other, because they aren't really in practice. You look at elite runners and most of them run pretty much with the same form, no matter if they are heel strikers or forefoot strikers. If you can heel strike and not get any injuries, I encourage you to keep running that way. However, the statistics say there isn't many people who can do that.

The problem is that people have been running in shoes for 40 years that allow them to run unnaturally. Before heavily padded running shoes, there wasn't anyone heel striking. Anyone that takes a honest look at the physics of running could figure out that having 7-9x of your body weight traveling up your heel into your knees, hips and spine is a bad, bad idea, and a little foam in your heel isn't going to do much to protect your body. I think anyone can agree that landing on your forefoot and allowing your calf and leg muscles absorb the impact instead of letting your bones absorb it all is much better for your body, and most of the scientific studies coming out in the past 5 years or so support that 100%.

Runner 1

Incorrect.