Running vs Biking

[MuleyFever]

For backpacking training what do you think is better? When I run I feel like I get a good cardio workout but I dont feel it in my legs like I do when I bike. Using a stationary bike with some resistance I feel the burn in my legs very quickly.

 

[Slim Jim]

I like to do both in the off season. But when I'm doing a lot of hiking with pack weight before hunts, I cut the running out. I started to develop Achilles tendinitis doing both running and hiking a few years ago but hiking and biking isn't a problem for me.
They both have their benefits

 

[djsmith46]

If I were to pick one it would be biking, simply due to the impact of running to the body. I.E., biking is something I could do everyday. Running, for me, is not.

 

[DWinVA]

If you start slow and do it correctly I think running gives the best work out for the time invested. I've done both extensively over the years and running provides me faster results than biking. I have a general feeling I need to bike 4X-6X longer than run for the same work out results. With that being said I enjoy biking much more and do know it's easier on the joints than running. I ride with a lot of bikers than used to be hard core runners but their knees gave out.

After a summer of biking and running I'm less than a month out from my first Colorado elk hunt and I've slacked off on the running and am almost exclusively hiking/walking with 50-80 lbs. in my EXO for final preparation. I still try to get on the bike at least once a week for a 30+ mile ride for a change of pace and to keep my rear end toughened up since my hunt is a horseback pack in hunt.

Good luck and God Bless.

 

[rodney482]

Running far better cardio

Biking far better thigh muscle condition/strength building.

A mix of both

 

[Jason Snyder]

I don't agree for a moment that running is better for your cardio. If you don't push hard on the bike, you won't get the cardio returns. I've done plenty of mountain bike rides where I averaged over 160 bpm on my HR for the ride.

I do agree that a mix of both is best.

 

[COlineman78]

I agree biking can give you just as much cardio if you do it right such as maintaining a high RPMs (90ish) for a half hour through varying resistance. There are also 2 different kinds of stationary bike: upright and recumbent. I feel that upright provides better cardio and recumbent better muscle fatigue. I do however feel that running is necessary for lower leg and lateral ankle strength as well as better for exercising your lungs. Biking, especially on a recumbent if you make the seat too far up by a notch or two, I find just as good as stair steppers (but easier on the joints) for working out those muscles necessary for carrying heavy pack loads (aka, gluteus maximus).

 

[Poser]

I think it would be generally difficult to put running vs cycling head to head without taking into consideration:

1. Whether or not we are talking about someone who is off the couch with no fitness history, someone off the couch with fitness history, or someone who is already in good shape
2. We talking steady state and moderate or intervals, hill repeats etc?
3. A person who needs to get stronger in the legs or someone who could benefit more from losing weight/getting smaller in general.

Cycling would probably generally be better for a person who is simultaneously lifting weights and trying to build some muscle. Running would probably generally be better for a person really trying to cut some weight. As I understand, lots of running under your own body weight will send a message to your body that it needs to get smaller and cut non essential weight (including muscle) to the task of running. Extreme example: This is why a lot of long distance runners look like broken down concentration camp victims. On a bike, much of your body weight is distributed through the mechanics of the bike itself propelled by your legs. It would seem to follow that the message to your body is grow stronger legs. Extreme example: This is why many high end cyclists look like sticks on a giant set of legs. Of course, both of those examples are dependent on volume, intensity and background, which goes back to the original question of what kind of running and biking exercise are we talking here, who is doing them and what kind of background do they have?

All that may even be a moot point because, no matter what, runners are going to tell you to run and cyclists are going to tell you to cycle.
-best just to experiment and see what works better for you.

 

[Ironman8]

Or maybe it's just better to do all the above. I've been scheduling my workouts pretty much a whole year in advance and rotate my months to focus on different forms of cardio. One month it might be running, the next it might be biking, rowing, or swimming. If the focus is on running for that particular month, I'll hit that three days a week while doing a different form of cardio the other 2 to 3 days a week. The closer it is to hunting season, the more heavy pack work I'll start doing. And of course this is all on top of a heavy strength program such as 5/3/1. If I'm doing CrossFit, depending on the programming, I might switch out some of the above.

I'll add one thing to the above. I'm not some endurance pro like some of the guys posting in this thread. Most of my cardio is done within 30 minutes. With the volume that I do in the weight room, I have to balance that out with less cardio than others might do. I'm slowly working that up to a higher capacity, but right now that's where I'm at.

 

[COlineman78]

Running would probably generally be better for a person really trying to cut some weight.

I agree, but it depends on your starting point. I cut 150lbs a couple years ago and the first 100lbs or so was done purely on the bike with an hour a day, 30 min on each type of bike. Also cut to 1500 cals. Took around 4-5 months to cut 100lbs. At 6'5" 350lbs I was able to run and was still fairly athletic (think football linemen), but I was able to do much more cardio without fatigue on the bike. Once I dropped under 250 I started mixing in elliptical and running and only then could my body hold up to a full 30-60 min of running. However once I hit bottom (200lbs) I stopped doing bike for a while and you're right I started to lose more muscle mass than I would've liked.

 

[Poser]

I agree, but it depends on your starting point. I cut 150lbs a couple years ago and the first 100lbs or so was done purely on the bike with an hour a day, 30 min on each type of bike. Also cut to 1500 cals. Took around 4-5 months to cut 100lbs. At 6'5" 350lbs I was able to run and was still fairly athletic (think football linemen), but I was able to do much more cardio without fatigue on the bike. Once I dropped under 250 I started mixing in elliptical and running and only then could my body hold up to a full 30-60 min of running. However once I hit bottom (200lbs) I stopped doing bike for a while and you're right I started to lose more muscle mass than I would've liked.

Again, back to the individualization factor: If you needed to lose 150 pounds, biking was probably a far better option in your case because running at 150 pounds overweight, at least for most people, is probably going to be a disaster for the knees. I guess it would be worth clarifying that the concept "running and getting smaller" likely only applies to people within a certain body mass spectrum. Needing to drop 150 pounds is a entirely different "sport" than dropping 25 pounds as part of a program to get in shape for a elk hunt.

Body type is a big factor here as well because some people do a lot of running and manage to stay "thick", but running unto itself doesn't require a tremendous amount of muscle, not even leg muscle. Most of the best runners in the world have fairly to extremely skinny legs with good muscle endurance. They are also very lightweight since it requires less leg muscle to haul a 135 pound frame up a hill than it does a 195 pound frame. Mile after mile of endurance running tells your body to get lean and light as possible. Again, that's an extreme example, but that outcome is probably not the best body profile for backpack hunting.

Body type and fitness background are big factors here so one size doesn't fit all when it comes to getting into shape for something specific. Weight lifters tell you to lift weight, runners tell you to run, cyclists tell you to cycle, crossfitters tell you to crossfit, backpackers tell you to backpack. Everyone tends to default to what they do personally and it may even work well for them, but that doesn't mean it will work well for anyone. Of course, if someone is out of shape and has little to no fitness background, they just need to get moving and anything is better than nothing so long as they aren't hurting themselves.

 

[land cruiser]

Ran to lose weight years ago. Been biking since and loving it. Running is boring

 

[MuleyFever]

Thanks, good info. I am trying to decide what to do. We have a treadmill and of coarse I could run outside but I just dont like running. I like biking but it can be hard to control your ride due to traffic or whatever. I have been thinking of getting a stationary or a stand for my bike. I feel like I can get a more consistent intense workout inside than dealing with unknown factors on an outdoor ride.

 

[Poser]

If you are going to ride indoors, I'd consider an Airdyne. Even though it is not pure "cycling", you have a lot more potential to jack your heart rate up. It looks like a toy, but it can be a miserable torture device. A rower/Erg might be another consideration. In both cases, they have an onboard computer and resistance so that you can program workouts and track your progress. You would have that same benefit with a stationary bike, but if you are going to spend the money on one of these machines, you'll get a better conditioning workout on a Airdyne or Rower. A SkiErg would also be a contender for a general breathing machine, but leg propulsion is more important for hunting.

 

[BeWitty]

If you're going to bike, do it on trails or indoors, not street. Works more muscles, generally requires more control and thinking. Just this past Monday I found a cyclist that was hit by a car not 10 seconds before I arrived. Did compressions for ten minutes before I had relief. Too much damage to be saved and with that experience alone I dont think I'll ever ride a bike on a street again.

 

[Poser]

If you're going to bike, do it on trails or indoors, not street. Works more muscles, generally requires more control and thinking. Just this past Monday I found a cyclist that was hit by a car not 10 seconds before I arrived. Did compressions for ten minutes before I had relief. Too much damage to be saved and with that experience alone I dont think I'll ever ride a bike on a street again.

Yeah, I live in a large city and bike around a good bit just to avoid putting trivial miles on my truck. We have bike lanes etc, but it can be a full on war zone with vehicle traffic. You definitely have to maintain your awareness at all times. its exercise (as in burning calories), but I wouldn't consider it "training." Maybe if you live in San Francisco or another city with steep hills. If you are going to use a bike for training purposes, you need to be getting after it, which is difficult to do when there are red lights, stop signs, and speeding beer trucks.

 

[SMITTY1HUNTER]

I'm not an expert by any means but what I find best is to mix things up. My first year I did more biking and running and was not in as good of shape as last year when I really mixed things up. I ran stairs at work, I walked up the stairs skipping a step each time with my pack on, I hit the gym hard doing lunges and squats, and would also run and bike among other things. Hit your weak spots and take a day or two each week to just go on a long hike with your pack on at the weight you're going to be using. Find some hills if you can also. A purely running physic is not what works best for hauling out elk quarters.