If you are comparing like for like. e.g. a regular runner of these forums and an average cyclists then I would bet that the cyclists has a lower HR and a higher v02max.TJD wrote:Agree with the lower resting heart rate for cyclists (however, note that this is at elite level ie Tour de France standard so you can consider many of those cyclists as gentic freaks), however, the highest VO2 max scores have been attributed to cross country skiers and runners not cyclists
Care to explain how you worked this out?TJD wrote:Also attainable VO2 max scores between running and cycling differ by between 7-10% in favour of running
Richard Stern Training wrote: in trained cyclists their VO2 is equivalent or higher than when running
He trains professional cyclists so I would agree more with what he said than any kid of here.
[quote="TJD']You will still get a good Aerobic workout from cycling.[/quote]
And you can also get just as much of an anaerobic workout from cycling as running.
Are you being serious? If you clued up on your training and gained some mental strength then you will finally be able to see what proper training consists of.speed freek wrote:Ive never found cycling hard, even when my heart rate is way up
speed freek wrote:Im sorry, I just think cycling is pointless unless your comming back from an injury, To get fitter on the bike it takes hours of riding each day to improve alot... With running all u have to do is half hour a day to get fitter.
Again. A stupid statement. Hours each day to improve alot? So what about those interval sessions which can include:
10 minute warm up (same as running)
10 x 2 minute with 3 minutes recover
10 minute warm down (same as running)
So that equals just under one hour. So basically the same as running?
Yes ok, running will get your heart rate up quicker because of you using a larger amount of muscles. Like the stupid guy above, if you go out 'cycling' you may not get that tired. But that is only because you are not putting in the effort. Why not stop hanging about and try doing it properly?
When you are out running and trying to set a new PB for 3miles you will probably see your HR around the 95% of max. Now go out on your bike and cycle at the same HR. I bet you won't come back onto here and say cycling is easy. (I assume you guys that say running is better for you do have a HR monitor? And have tested your theory out?)
If you think running at 90% of your v02max is better for you (CV wise) than cycling at 90% v02max, would you care to explain to me why? Yes it may 'feel' harder because you are using a larger variety of muscles but that isnt what we are talking about. At the end of the day you are making your CV system work exactly the same so therefore the benefits are the same.
I really can't be arsed with narrowminded people who dont know what they are saying

