Cycling and running are two of the most popular endurance sports worldwide. There are many aspects of each which make them attractive; notably the health and social benefits. You wouldn’t think that two such positive activities would have such a divide, but this seems to be the case. Or rather, this is what some would have you believe.

Certain groups within these communities begrudge the other, almost in a competitive manner, to prove that their choice of exercise is better than the other.

As a cyclist and runner, it’s very easy for me to see contrast between the sports, but it’s also much easier to appreciate the individual benefits of both. So we’re going to debunk some unfair perceptions, and highlight the benefits of each sport. To do so, we will be discussing the positives and negatives of each sort, simultaneously.

I have chosen to split this topic into three articles, covering three main arguments between the sports:

Health and Risks Financial Differences Social Aspects

Health and Risk

One of the biggest dividers between cycling and running are the health benefits, and risks, to each. It is widely accepted that both sports keep you healthy and fit, which should be enough to try either. Although, this doesn't stop either group promoting their own as the better alternative.

In Part One, I'll present you with some scientific research and experience based opinions. These opinions will be my own, and will only represent my own contrasts in the activities.

We'll first cover the calorific differences between running and cycling, the potential injuries of both, and the extent to which either sport stems hunger.

Calorie Consumption

Dr Edward Coyle (University of Texas) found that cyclists would need to ride at 15 mph for 20 miles in order to burn 620 calories (31 calories per mile). Whilst runners would burn this amount by running just 5.63 miles at any pace (110 calories per mile). This difference exists due to the number of resistances in cycling (mostly wind-resistance), which have an effect on total speed, and therefore on the amount of energy consumption. Where as runners will burn the same number of calories per mile, regardless of the speed they do it at.

[Coyle's research is based on the average-sized adult, of 155 pounds (11 stone).]

From this we can infer that, at the foundational level, true running does burn more calories than cycling.

However, this data is only comparable over distance, as you can ride much further than you can run.

Here is the above proposed results extrapolated into some of my average ride/ run distances. If I run, I usually tackle a 5 km or 10 km route as it's easiest to track my progress. Cycling is a little different, as routes and distance can change as your riding, but we'll use 15 and 30 miles as our example distances.

3.1 Mile (5 km) Run: 341 calories 6.2 Mile (10 km) Run: 682 calories 15 Miles (24.15 km) Bike Ride: 465 calories 30 Mile (48.3 km) Bike Ride: 930 calories

5 km takes a larger toll on my body than a 15 mile ride (even with hills), and the same would go for running 10 km over riding 30 miles.

If I were to only use this data set to choose whether I'd go riding or running, I'd always choose cycling. But this doesn't mean I'm going to.

Which ever you choose to do, on any day, will in some part come down to the surrounding circumstances, e.g. weather, daily health, traffic conditions, and time constraints.

If I know I have work in the morning, but want some exercise, then a run makes more sense than spending an hour on the bike. And that's without the added hassle of getting ready and out.

Equally, if I'm feeling under the weather, then a bike ride is a much easier experience for me to consider.

In reality, both sports will burn calories. And the rate at which they do so isn't comparable, as both activities require different lengths of time. So really, it depends how much time you have.

If we focus merely on the calorie consumption of each, and not the logistics of exercise, then we can highlight one of the trivialities of calorie culture. The truth of all of this is that, there are so many 'calorie conversion charts' and 'calorie calculators,' all with differing equations and methods, that it's hard to find a reliable source to evaluate our own data. So any argument based on calorie consumption seems pointless anyway.

At the end of the day, you'll get out what you put in.

[I chose the research of Dr Coyle as he has done extensive work in the fields of cycling and running, (and has been referenced by uncountable academic and informational articles) and therefore seemed a a trustworthy source.]

Risk of Injury

There are two types of injury which we will discuss here. The type of injuries caused by damage over time, and situational injuries. Injuries caused by damage over time are fairly self-explanatory; they are those caused by repeating activities which are inherently damaging to our physicality, regardless of the benefits of that activity. Situational injuries are those that take place by accident, or as a result of the activity’s environment or equipment.

Damage Over Time

One of the more prevalent arguments against running is the concern over long-term joint damage. There is very little reliable research to prove that running is a direct cause of joint-problems.

However, in a study piloted by Professor Nieman (Appalachian State University) found that cyclists and runners exercising for 2 and a half hours a day, for 3 days, found that long-distance runners suffered more than long-distance cyclists:

Muscle Damage: between 133% and 404% more Inflammation: 256% higher rate Muscle Soreness: 87% more

Nieman went on to state that “[t]here’s just a lot more trauma involved with running. It’s harder for the immune system to take the damage.”

It’s likely that this damage is caused by the constant direct impact between our bodies and hard surfaces, which is something that cycling avoids.

(It is important to note that cycling can cause joint problems if you haven't had your bike properly fitted. I.e. if your bike isn't the right size for you, or your frame/ handlebars/ seat aren't aligned for your use, you run the risk of serious long-term damage.)

Situational Injuries

This is a slightly one-sided section, as there aren’t many situational risks to running. These are some weak arguments for people to use against either activity, but they are some that appear a lot. Some runners believe cycling to be more unsafe than running, due to the number of risks involved with being on a bike.

Falling

In my humble 5 years of riding, I’ve fallen off my bike a grand total of 3 times. None of them were serious, and in fact they were all caused by my lack of attention. It’s exactly the same as tripping whilst running: pay attention to each step/pedal, stay aware of your surroundings, and you’ll be fine.

On this same train of thought, all things in life come with risks. It's up to us to determine whether or not the reward is worth it.

Crashing

This is something else I find odd, there’s as much potential risk of crashing a car as there is a bike. But I never hear a runner say they wouldn’t drive a car because they might crash. Of course, not all runners drive, but I feel that this is fairly pervasive logic.

Maybe the real root of this concern is the element of trust involved with cycling. As road users, cyclists are vulnerable to traffic and collision incidents, and so there is a certain amount of trust cyclist have to place in other road users to obey the highway code. Unfortunately, that trust is sometimes taken advantage of, by both cyclists and motorists, which leads to accidents.

This is an unavoidable risk to the activity, unless you always use cycle paths and routes, which many infrastructures make impossible.

Alternatively, Mountain biking and Cyclocross both situate themselves off-road. They also build muscle and burn calories quicker than road cycling, due to the increased resistance of non-smooth surfaces.

The Cleat Conspiracy

This is something I’ll bring up again in a future part of this series, as it’s heavily used in arguments against cycling. From my personal experience, many runners I speak to are terrified (or superficially put off) of the idea of cleats. I can see why this might be daunting, but guess what… you can learn to use them in 2 minutes.

When I bought my first bike, I knew nothing about cycling. I went into Evans, bought a road bike and all the gear, with absolutely no idea how to use it. I was a downright Fred. However, the sales assistant showed me how to clip in and out; took me for a 30 second spin in an industrial park; and then I was on my way home. This wasn’t bad or rushed service. It’s just that simple to do.

Any argument based on superficial or mechanical differences just highlights an individuals inability to adapt, and says nothing about the sport.

There’s risks to everything we do, nothing keeps us perfectly healthy and safe, but that’s part of the fun.

Hunger Control

For a long time, researchers believed that running helped control hunger hormones more sufficiently than cycling. Recent research has proved that cycling and running control the hormone in an almost equal fashion over an hour of vigorous exercise.

This hormone is called ghrelin, and is responsible for regulating hunger levels in your body. When the stomach is empty, the hormone is released by the brain so we know to eat. Conversely, when the stomach is stretched, the hormone stops being secreted.

It was long believed that exercise helped reduce the amounts of ghrelin released, which is true. However, it was also believed that running was better for controlling this hormone than cycling, perhaps because bikes support the body weight of riders, leaving one less stimuli to interfere with secretion.

A group of sports researchers at Loughborough University studied the levels of ghrelin secretion across a control group, cyclists, and runners after an hour of intense exercise.

It was found that, although there was a small difference, there was no notable contrast between the levels of ghrelin secreted during running and cycling. If you'd like to see the study's abstract: follow this link.

Knowing that the difference isn't notable, and that it's easier to ride a bike for an hour than it is to run, then we can conclude that cycling more efficiently controls your hunger. Although, you can take that conclusion with a pinch of salt.

But remember: coasting doesn’t count.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's about all I'd like to cover for this Part. However, if you have any questions or concerns about the information and opinion in this article, please do feel free to get in touch.

In the next part, we will be discussing the financial comparisons between running and cycling. So keep your eyes to the sky, and your ears to the ground.