Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

New study shows cycling really is better than running

US professor confirms what we all knew, says cycling “a lot easier on the muscles” than running & has science to back it up

A new study shows that cycling is better exercise than running. The researchers say runners should include cycling as part of their training, and people taking up exercise should choose cycling over running to avoid injury. 

Research carried out by Appalachian State University’s (ASU) Human Performance Laboratory (HPL) showed that long-distance runners experienced more muscle damage, soreness and inflammation than cyclists after a period of intense workouts.

The study analysed blood samples from cyclists and runners aged from 19 to 45 who regularly compete in races. The athletes exercised for 2.5 hours per day for three days in the lab at 70% VO2max. Their blood was then taken after one, 14 and 38 hours to determine that the runners were in a significantly worse state.

The actual science bits are here for those of you who can make head or tail of biochemistry.

According to principal investigator Professor David Nieman at the ASU HPL the results showed that cycling allows the body to exercise for longer because it causes less damage than its impact-heavy counterpart.

He said: “Runners just can’t put in the same volume of exercise as cyclists without experiencing more inflammation, soreness and muscle damage.

“Long-distance runners are encouraged to vary their training schedules, mixing higher and lower exercise workloads, and to include other training modalities like swimming or cycling to maintain the highest level of performance.”

Nieman went on to recommend cycling over running for beginners as a way to get fit.

He said: “It is going to be a lot easier on the muscles."

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
Critchio | 10 years ago
0 likes

Its not better for burning calories, but I'll take the bike over my Asics runners any day  1

Avatar
alexholt3 replied to Critchio | 10 years ago
0 likes
Critchio wrote:

Its not better for burning calories, but I'll take the bike over my Asics runners any day  1

Not that calories mean anything, my average weekend ride burns between 2500-3000. You'd have to run a hell of a long way to do that.

Avatar
Dr.Galactus replied to alexholt3 | 10 years ago
0 likes
alexholt3][quote=Critchio wrote:

my average weekend ride burns between 2500-3000. You'd have to run a hell of a long way to do that.

Only around 2-3 hours, which I'd wager is around the length of your weekend ride?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to alexholt3 | 10 years ago
0 likes
alexholt3 wrote:
Critchio wrote:

Its not better for burning calories, but I'll take the bike over my Asics runners any day  1

Not that calories mean anything, my average weekend ride burns between 2500-3000. You'd have to run a hell of a long way to do that.

My understanding is that cycling and brisk walking use about the same calories per hour, its just that the former lets you travel a lot further (which makes it less boring, in my view). But running seems to be the best of all as far as calories burnt per unit time.

Though nobody seems to use running as a means of every day travel, it seems to be something you have to do for its own sake. I don't know of anyone who swims to work either, come to that.

Pages

Latest Comments