Why was I running all these years one week on a bike I'm hooked

[Anonymous]

Ehhh, glad it works for you, but the injury for me that pops up from running time and again is piriformis syndrome and getting on the bike is like instant ass pain for me. No thanks. I agree it may be a nice break from your personal set of running injuries but is by no means a holy grail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min)"

OP, that's great you found a new activity you enjoy. But the calorie expenditure is not what you think it is, either minute for minute or mile for mile (unless you're cycling hills). Running is much more efficient in calorie/minute burn, despite you cling longer or farther. By all means enjoy it (but be respectful to others on trails!), and the other benefits you get from it.

I assume OP is in metro DC. If they go any distance, hills are inevitable!

The other thing is, its very easy to combine riding with other life activities - you can do errands, go shopping, even commute by bike. I am sure some runners do that, but my impression is its much fewer than proportion of riders.

NP: Sure, but the point is still that biking burns significantly fewer calories than running. And you're also then working out for twice as long, which just isn't tenable for most people.

+1

Also, uh, unless OP is out in the Shenandoah, they're not getting much of a hill workout. Going up an overpass doesn't count. You'll burn more running up that overpass/bridge. Cycling can be a nice workout or way to mix it up, but the reason OP can bike 2-3 hours, is because it's much physically easier and does not use as much energy.

[Anonymous]

REI offers basic bike maintenance classes, either free or for a small fee, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at their offerings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min)"

OP, that's great you found a new activity you enjoy. But the calorie expenditure is not what you think it is, either minute for minute or mile for mile (unless you're cycling hills). Running is much more efficient in calorie/minute burn, despite you cling longer or farther. By all means enjoy it (but be respectful to others on trails!), and the other benefits you get from it.

I assume OP is in metro DC. If they go any distance, hills are inevitable!

The other thing is, its very easy to combine riding with other life activities - you can do errands, go shopping, even commute by bike. I am sure some runners do that, but my impression is its much fewer than proportion of riders.

NP: Sure, but the point is still that biking burns significantly fewer calories than running. And you're also then working out for twice as long, which just isn't tenable for most people.

Maybe at the margins, but the lower impact of cycling is also a major plus. Plus, if someone enjoys cycling more than running and therefore more likely to be active as a result, the minor difference in calorie burn efficiency is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min)"

OP, that's great you found a new activity you enjoy. But the calorie expenditure is not what you think it is, either minute for minute or mile for mile (unless you're cycling hills). Running is much more efficient in calorie/minute burn, despite you cling longer or farther. By all means enjoy it (but be respectful to others on trails!), and the other benefits you get from it.

I assume OP is in metro DC. If they go any distance, hills are inevitable!

The other thing is, its very easy to combine riding with other life activities - you can do errands, go shopping, even commute by bike. I am sure some runners do that, but my impression is its much fewer than proportion of riders.

NP: Sure, but the point is still that biking burns significantly fewer calories than running. And you're also then working out for twice as long, which just isn't tenable for most people.

Maybe at the margins, but the lower impact of cycling is also a major plus. Plus, if someone enjoys cycling more than running and therefore more likely to be active as a result, the minor difference in calorie burn efficiency is immaterial.

OP here on the calorie burn I was a 9 -9:30 miler 224 pounds ( clyde runner) that burn is 500 calories in 30 minutes 3.3 miles. My bike on half paved trail or road hills but not like Colorado elevation gain of 3,000 is 900-1000 cals per hour sbout 16 mph avg. I ride about 1 hour and 30mins so close to 1400/ 1500 calories. I'm eating more out of need but I am net calories minus 500-700 daily. If I could've run for an hour daily that would not have been nearly as dramatic of a difference. I think a 210 goal weight is not far off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min)"

OP, that's great you found a new activity you enjoy. But the calorie expenditure is not what you think it is, either minute for minute or mile for mile (unless you're cycling hills). Running is much more efficient in calorie/minute burn, despite you cling longer or farther. By all means enjoy it (but be respectful to others on trails!), and the other benefits you get from it.

I assume OP is in metro DC. If they go any distance, hills are inevitable!

The other thing is, its very easy to combine riding with other life activities - you can do errands, go shopping, even commute by bike. I am sure some runners do that, but my impression is its much fewer than proportion of riders.

Dc (outside of the mall) is one huge hill may not seem like it when driving in your car but everything north of Florida Ave is a huge hill.

[Anonymous]

I love biking outside — try to commute at least twice a week, 28 miles total to office and back, feels awesome when I do, like life-changing awesome ... except for hand numbness. Whenever I feel the numb coming I will take one hand at a time off the handlebars and shake the circulation back but obviously would be better to not have it in the first place. What gloves do people recommend for this? My Giro gloves don’t seem to help that much but their padding is pretty minimal. Although they are evocative of old Madonna (or current Ruth Bader Ginsburg) which is amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min)"

OP, that's great you found a new activity you enjoy. But the calorie expenditure is not what you think it is, either minute for minute or mile for mile (unless you're cycling hills). Running is much more efficient in calorie/minute burn, despite you cling longer or farther. By all means enjoy it (but be respectful to others on trails!), and the other benefits you get from it.

I assume OP is in metro DC. If they go any distance, hills are inevitable!

The other thing is, its very easy to combine riding with other life activities - you can do errands, go shopping, even commute by bike. I am sure some runners do that, but my impression is its much fewer than proportion of riders.

NP: Sure, but the point is still that biking burns significantly fewer calories than running. And you're also then working out for twice as long, which just isn't tenable for most people.

I'm a triathlete, but have been running the longest - about 23 years. I started seriously biking about 4 years ago and got a peloton 4 months ago. When people ask what to do to get in shape the fastest, I tell them to bike. Much easier on your joints and really hard. I would rather bike 50 miles than run 15 miles. I feel better and I can't remember who mentioned calories, but I can burn some serious calories on the bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the 3 mile runs 4-6 times weekly for 8 years, competed, finished a marathon, got runners high, check check. Also had plantar in both feet, IT band injury, other aches was never that lean but running helped control a few pounds. Then a road bike came into my life..for starters I can ride it hard for over an hour if not two hours so calorie wise its nearly triple vs run ( I could only run about 30-40 min). One week down i've done 110 miles! Don't feel my IT band! Legs look different, skin too I sweated out tons of water. I'm not tossing the running shoes out but they can have a break for a while. Wish I had gotten on a bike a loong time ago

If you like it more, awesome. But don't think you're burning any more calories. Riding a bike burns significantly less calories than running for the same amount of time does and most people don't want to work out longer for the same calorie burn. Either way, neither biking nor running is going to do much for your weight.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy biking more as well. But there aren't any dedicated bike trails near where I live and I hate biking on the side of the road.