Strong Bad

I don't really "prefer" running. In fact, riding is more fun to me. But the truth is that, for most people, most of the time, they are riding at a heart rate lower than the heart rate they would be at running.

DrPete 

Very true. For a roadie who can take to the road and hammer, sure, you can get your HR up and burn some calories. But if you use the general population's definition of cycling, i.e. 10mph on a MUP, the HR is about the same as for a casual walk up a hill.

merlinextraligh

Which leads to the perception that cycling is easier than running, and that you have to ride longer to get a workout. If you want a compact workout on the bike, one merely needs to push themself.

agarose2000

Cycling and running can both be hard - but make no mistake, the pounding on joints on running definitely makes it "harder" to cross over from cycling->running versus the reverse.

Marathons are WAY harder than century mile bike rides. It's not even close, in my book, and I've done both. That said, you can definitely bike for much longer than you can run during training - 6 hr bike rides are longish but routine for serious cyclists, whereas 3 hr+ runs are simply too long for runners for training, even at the elite level. (They do multiple shorter runs during a day to get 4-6 hrs total.)

HR definitely goes higher for running than cycling. This has been well shown.

For sure though, a good runner (sub 20min 5k) will be a good cyclist within 2-3 weeks of moderate bike training. I crossed over to cycling after running sub20min 5ks, and within 2 weeks of cycling (<150 miles total training) I could beat a lot of Cat5s and even some slower Cat4s on the hammerfest hillclimb here. It's very rare, however, for pure cyclists crossing over to running within a month to be able to remotely hang with me on the run - there was one Cat1 guy who managed it barely, and I'm definitely not a "Cat1" equivalent on the run. (Probably Cat4 runner if there was such a thing.)

In triathlons, this phenomena tends to be pretty clear. Lots of pure fast runners going into tris for injuries, and you can be sure that if they're FOP on the run, they're FOP on bike. Not so true vice-versa - lots of FOP cyclists falling to MOP or even BOP on the run.

TRaffic Jammer

I have no cartilage in my knees from over 20 years of hardcore skateboarding..... I'll run 1/2 block for a streetcar... that's about it. A century would hurt, but totally doable..and I like to hammer and push on the bike/getting the heart rate up there. A marathon would kill me.

dstrong 

I ride and run. 3 mile jogs (9 minute mile pace) on the hike & bike trail 2-3 times a week. I try to do hill repeats on my bike 2-3 times a week and then take my longer ride (25 - 35 files) on Saturday morning. I will occassionally go 4 miles on a run but want to not be too tough on my knees.

The runs and the hill repeats each take about an hour, door to door. They are similar in that both elevate the heart rate and keep it high for the bulk of the workout. The long rides give me saddle time and let me cycle through different levels of exertion.

Oh...and I run because I have a good running buddy and we have great conversations and motivate each other. When I go do my hill repeats, he goes out on the trail on his MTB.

Walter

Running had always been a means to an end: Conditioning for football, conditioning and/or cutting weight for wrestling or just overall weight control. More intensity in a shorter time period than cycling (exception for velodrome racing) but I never much cared for it. I'd do it and be glad when it was over but that was it. I did love sprint work though. I was faster than many would expect but, ultimately, not fast enough so that didn't last past high school.

The motorcycle accident that paralyzed my left arm has made that shoulder too unstable to take the pounding associated with running and now I sort of miss it.

StanSeven

It all depends on how you do each. Running a comparably fast marathon (under 3 hours) is about the same as a solo century under 5 hours riding time. Both take some hard training and both will leave you exhausted at the end. The perception that marathons are harder is running is a weight bearing activity so your body feels beat up.

One can "do a marathon" by walking and slow running. Someone can also "do a century" by slow riding and resting at stops. So the comparisons need to be on a common point of reference

Youngin

I used to run. Then I took up rowing. My knees don't get weird pains anymore and I'm a youngin.

patentcad

Because all you need to run is a pair of Nikes, not all the expensive, annoying, irritating, detonating, unfathomable techno-crap we have to deal with as bike weenies. If I hadn't wrecked my knee in a motorcycle crash in 1989, I'd still be running, and you wouldn't have me to kick around on this stupid think tank.

andr0id

Maybe they don't own any bicycles or cars and don't have money for the bus and have to be somewhere in a hurry. That's the only reason I would ever run.

mjdwyer23

Running is convenient and gives me a good workout in a shorter period of time with less equipment required.

chadteck

There is thinking going on here?

exRunner

Fixed.

exRunner

And if you are a weight weenie, you only have to worry about your shoes.

patentcad

Maybe somebody is chasing them.

merlinextraligh

Fixed that for you. Running a sub 3 hour marathon puts you in a pretty elite group. Sub 5 hour solo century not quite so elite.
https://www.marathonguide.com/results...?MIDD=15080421

fauxto nick

Running trumps cycling easily.

Bah Humbug

To add detail, shoes don't get flats while you're out running. Shoes don't bend out of true. Shoes don't drop or snap chains. The list goes on.

Oh, and you don't need to lock your shoes when you go somewhere and hope the lock holds. All of these factors look quite intimidating to someone looking to get into this sport.

StanSeven

I've done both and felt they were equal efforts. I hardly think my run time puts me in an elite group. If fact, it wouldn't have even qualified me for Boston when I did it - 2:50 was the qualifying time then.

patentcad

Fixed.

saratoga

I can run just fine. In rerurn, I can't walk for the next 3 days.

merlinextraligh

Sub 3 hour marathon puts you around top 5% of marathoners, and starts winning age groups in some marathons.

Armstrong, a gifted aerobic athlete, struggled to finish the NYC marathon a few seconds under 3 hours.

Many many people could train diligintly for years and never run a sub 3 hour marathon.

Its 26 sub 7 minute miles. Fair number of people that run, can't run one 6 minute mile.

A century at 20.1 mph is just not that hard. Many people with a bit of training can do that.

In fact, I would bet you that the majority of bike racers can do a sub 5 hour century without much trouble
(and I'd argue bike racers is a fairer comparison group to marathoners, than cyclists in general).

patentcad

I completely disagree. I don't know if that puts you in the top 5% of recreational cyclists, but certainly the top 10%.

P.S. Lance ran a 2:45 marathon his second time out.

StanSeven

Couple of things - the majority of people entering marathons are joggers that just add distance. Their goal to just try and finish. Bicycling racing represents a challenge and commitment to most cyclists. You are there to race. Very few cyclists enter a race just to see if they can finish.