Run or Bike?

[BassBomb]

for Cardio which should I do?

I have a MTB and when I bike I normally do about 13km ~45 minute run

For a run I don't know how long I would last or how well. Probably something like 30 minutes.

I am thinking to run since I will get a partial upper body work out and it will help improve my form for running.

I am an avid biker so biking is not exaclty as intense anymore, but I have noticed I got a little better recently (might be a placebo effect with my refilled tires).

Also, should I do some weights before running/biking? My goal is to lose a tiny bit of the gut/muffin top I have.

I am 5'9 @150lbs

 

[Megatomic]

I'm gonna sound like a broken record here, but why not add running and swimming and go for a triathlon? Talk about whole body fitness....

 

[Deeko]

Depending on the level of intensity, running generally burns more calories in the same period of time.

 

[skace]

Well, the criteria would be:

- Whichever you enjoy more
- Whichever gives you the better total body workout
- Any other limitations that might cause you to choose one over the other

You could always bike somewhere and go hiking. That would be a killer workout.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: skace
Well, the criteria would be:

- Whichever you enjoy more
- Whichever gives you the better total body workout
- Any other limitations that might cause you to choose one over the other

You could always bike somewhere and go hiking. That would be a killer workout.

Never thought of that!

I bike towards a trail which is about 4km away then the trail itsself is about 3km, and I do the same thing on way back to ~13km.

I could bike to the trail, @ trail run that 6km and bike back.

Biking is definitely more enjoyable (especially at the trail) extremely boring until the trail is reached.

Too bad it rained last night so biking is out for today

 

[Capt Caveman]

How does running give you an upper body workout? If anything, if you're really mountain biking, having to maneuver the bike over rocks, bunny hopping, etc will provide you with an upper body workout.

 

[senseamp]

Biking is easier on knees. Also, biking in the mud is more fun. Nothing like being covered from head to toe in dirt and horsesheet when you come back

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
How does running give you an upper body workout? If anything, if you're really mountain biking, having to maneuver the bike over rocks, bunny hopping, etc will provide you with an upper body workout.

Moving of arms?

My trail is not technical at all. I do have to hop quite a few curbs though en route to the trail

 

[imported_Imp]

Run primarily. It's suppose to use up at least 1.5 times the energy.

I started biking on a stationary and on my cheapo mountain 2 months back. I regularly do at least 7km a week on my mountain, and about 10km every other day on a stationary/exercise bike. Despite this, I can still barely run 600m continuously without being ready to die. I think I can do 2.5Km in 25 minutes, which is an atrocity. Biking is definately more fun, but running is more intensive and you'll probably get quicker/better results.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Run.

FYI, I can bike 80-90 min on a road bike and not feel too tired at the end. In contrast, after ~42 min run I am ready to fall over.

 

[StageLeft]

Running is not an upperbody workout at all. Cycling is minorly more of one but generally not at all (even pro cyclists have pitiful upper bodies).

In regard to which is a better workout, impossible question. It depends which is done harder. I can run a mile flat out and I can ride flat out for the same period of time. In both cases my heart will feel like it wants to stop and I'll be in shatters, although the legs will be worked harder in the bike one, so perhaps that's the answer

If biking is not as intense for you, you're not trying hard enough.

Moving of arms?

No, you're merely counter balancing the torso, it barely works tham at all. Probably not much more than sitting at a computer or playing a video game!

Despite this, I can still barely run 600m continuously without being ready to die.

Biking will hit your cardio system but it won't give the specificity of movement you need for running, if that's your goal. The best cyclist in the world would be humiliated by a similarly proportioned elite runner because he'd lack the acclimation of movement. Also, weight of course is a big factor here: if bob weighs 150 lbs and Jim weighs 200 and in a race they're simliar cyclists, you'll find that bob humiliates jim in a running race, because with cycling weight is less of a factor (more so on hills, but on flat it becomes much less so).

FYI, I can bike 80-90 min on a road bike and not feel too tired at the end.

You guys need to try harder! Do hill repeats on the nastiest hill you can find or find a 15 mile loop and time trial it as quickly as you can, then continually work on that time. You'll find that a 45 minute ride suddenly busts you up.

 

[brikis98]

to a large extent, it really doesn't matter, unless you're training for something specific - ie, a sport like soccer would probably benefit more from running, where as, uh, a bike race would obviously benefit from biking

otherwise, if your goal is cardio improvement, just bike or run at whatever speed & intensity necessary to achieve the desired heart rate. or, if burning calories is your goal, then bike at the combination of speed/intensity and time it takes the burn the desired number of calories. hell, do both on alternate days and be more well rounded in your fitness.

the only other factor to consider is stress on your joints. Running is more high impact than biking and over time, especially when running on hard surfaces (asphalt) or in crappy shoes, may cause some discomfort/damage in your ankles, knees, hips, etc. Of course, mountain biking on big enough drops and rugged terrain may contain a decent amount of impact as well. Moreover, if you're young, not severely overweight and don't have preexisting injuries to consider, this shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[BassBomb]

ended up running almost 4km

i almost died.... definitely more intense for me than biking is

it was more like walk run walk run walk job walk jog walk job

it started raining too

 

[MegaVovaN]

Skoorb: I say running is better because it is easier to maintain high heart rate. For example, when I run, my HR is about 150 bpm.
When I bike, it is 80-90 bpm (not counting sprints). I would have to force myself to sprint all the time, and this is harder than running lol. BTW, where I live it is ALL flat, and there are no loops - just straight stretches of road with occasional stoplights. Plus, I don't really need to do really HARDCORE cardio - I'm a skinny kid trying to bulk up.

OP, I know you're ROARIN' TO GO!!!, but you have to ease into running, or else you will hate it. This is 2 month program to get you from couch to 5km. Do not rush it!
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml

If you wanna ROAR TO GO, spend that energy on bike rides on alternate days. On running days, follow couch-to-5k strictly.

 

[quest55720]

When every people ask me I always tell them the same thing. Do what ever you enjoy more because if you don't enjoy it the odds are you will not stick with it for very long. If you love to run do that if you love to bike do that if you like to swim do that.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Running is not an upperbody workout at all. Cycling is minorly more of one but generally not at all (even pro cyclists have pitiful upper bodies).

From Wikipedia:
"Upper body motion

The motions of the upper body are essential to maintaining balance and a forward motion for optimal running. They compensate for the motions of the lower body, keeping the body in rotational balance. A leg's recovery is matched by a forward drive of the opposite arm, and a leg's support and drive motions are balanced by backward movement of the opposite arm. The shoulders and torso are also involved. Because the leg drive is slower than the kick of recovery, the arm thrusting backward is slower also. The forward arm drive is more forceful and rapid.

The more force exerted by the lower body, the more exaggerated do the upper body motions have to be to absorb the momentum. While it is possible to run without movements of the arms, the spine and shoulders will generally still be recruited. Using the arms to absorb the forces aids in maintaining balance at higher speed. Otherwise, optimal force would be hard to attain for fear of falling over.

Most of the energy expended in running goes to the compensating motions, and so considerable gains in running speed as well as economy can be made by eliminating wasteful or incorrect motions.

For instance, if the force vector in the drive phase is aimed too far away from the centre of mass of the body, it will transfer an angular momentum to the body which has to be absorbed. If a free body in space is struck off-centre by a projectile, it will rotate as well as recoil. If the projectile strikes the body's centre of mass exactly, the object will recoil only, without rotating.

The faster the running, the more energy has to be dissipated through compensating motions throughout the entire body. This is why elite sprinters have powerful upper body physiques. As the competitive distance increases, there is a rapid drop in the upper body and overall muscle mass typically exhibited by the people who compete at a high level in each respective event."

It is an upper body workout. Or, more importantly, it is a total body workout, one of the best in fact. And yes, someone will mention swimming, swimming is up there too, however as it will be argued now until forever, swimming is far less accessible than running. You can run everywhere, you cannot swim everywhere... unless you live in the ocean.

The best way to think about running is that it is an exercise that, when done properly, is basically throwing yourself into the air and catching yourself continuously. This is why it tires the body and why balance is important.

 

[MegaVovaN]

skace: thanks, interesting explanation of running mechanics.

OP: don't forget DIET! And I don't mean starve yourself. Read sticky in this forum for diet.

Updates?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Running is not an upperbody workout at all. Cycling is minorly more of one but generally not at all (even pro cyclists have pitiful upper bodies).

From Wikipedia:
"Upper body motion

The motions of the upper body are essential to maintaining balance and a forward motion for optimal running. They compensate for the motions of the lower body, keeping the body in rotational balance. A leg's recovery is matched by a forward drive of the opposite arm, and a leg's support and drive motions are balanced by backward movement of the opposite arm. The shoulders and torso are also involved. Because the leg drive is slower than the kick of recovery, the arm thrusting backward is slower also. The forward arm drive is more forceful and rapid.

The more force exerted by the lower body, the more exaggerated do the upper body motions have to be to absorb the momentum. While it is possible to run without movements of the arms, the spine and shoulders will generally still be recruited. Using the arms to absorb the forces aids in maintaining balance at higher speed. Otherwise, optimal force would be hard to attain for fear of falling over.

Most of the energy expended in running goes to the compensating motions, and so considerable gains in running speed as well as economy can be made by eliminating wasteful or incorrect motions.

For instance, if the force vector in the drive phase is aimed too far away from the centre of mass of the body, it will transfer an angular momentum to the body which has to be absorbed. If a free body in space is struck off-centre by a projectile, it will rotate as well as recoil. If the projectile strikes the body's centre of mass exactly, the object will recoil only, without rotating.

The faster the running, the more energy has to be dissipated through compensating motions throughout the entire body. This is why elite sprinters have powerful upper body physiques. As the competitive distance increases, there is a rapid drop in the upper body and overall muscle mass typically exhibited by the people who compete at a high level in each respective event."

It is an upper body workout. Or, more importantly, it is a total body workout, one of the best in fact. And yes, someone will mention swimming, swimming is up there too, however as it will be argued now until forever, swimming is far less accessible than running. You can run everywhere, you cannot swim everywhere... unless you live in the ocean.

The best way to think about running is that it is an exercise that, when done properly, is basically throwing yourself into the air and catching yourself continuously. This is why it tires the body and why balance is important.

Sprinting and long-distance running are two completely different workouts using different types of muscles(fast vs slow twitch). Long-distance running is not an upper body workout.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
skace: thanks, interesting explanation of running mechanics.

OP: don't forget DIET! And I don't mean starve yourself. Read sticky in this forum for diet.

Updates?

My diet is pretty good. I have been reducing the fatty things I eat and increasing the amount of fruits and veggies I eat (which I severely lacked before).

My old diet was mostly high meat, high dairy, high grain content

My legs are still recovering from the run. During the run I had cramped in my sides which hurt and reduced my performance. I will need to start slower.

Where its hurting is the thighs just above the knees.

I have a question regarding how doing different exercises changes your physical set:

For example, I love riding my bike long distances and it is great fun. I have pretty good endurance in that regard, not the same for running however.
I know that sprinters and marathon runners run quite differently in the feet position and probably muscle composition (the calf muscles). If I start doing runs now as part of my routine (along with biking) will it change or reduce my biking endurance? I was hoping for running to improve my overall leg power/ability while not compromising my biking ability.

 

[edcarman]

At the same level of intensity (heart rate), running and cycling should be equivalent. Over a certain time, running wouldprobably, however, give a better workout since it is easier to maintain that intensity (you can't freewheel). On the bike you'd really need to concentrate on maintaining the intensity or start doing some sprints etc. to compensate for resting on the downhills. This would increase the average intensity of the ride.

PS. MTBing might give a slightly better arm workout since you need to maintain control and absorb shocks on the bumpy trail. Of course, if you really want a cardio workout for the arms, go and row.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
for Cardio which should I do?

I have a MTB and when I bike I normally do about 13km ~45 minute run

For a run I don't know how long I would last or how well. Probably something like 30 minutes.

I am thinking to run since I will get a partial upper body work out and it will help improve my form for running.

I am an avid biker so biking is not exaclty as intense anymore, but I have noticed I got a little better recently (might be a placebo effect with my refilled tires).

Also, should I do some weights before running/biking? My goal is to lose a tiny bit of the gut/muffin top I have.

I am 5'9 @150lbs

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=88&threadid=2194354

Definitely biking. Walking will burn more calories but will not throw your body into aerobic respiration, where you burn fat. Walking is not intense enough; you will burn more calories and get hungry.


If you want an aerobic workout and want to burn fat then go with biking.

If you want to metabolize a meal you just ate then go with walking.