Comments on: Bikers Versus Runners

By: LL

LL — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:09:26 +0000

I want to resurrect this thread another two years later to point out how stupid Nzz’s analogy is. Of course runners aren’t going to race in hunting boots anymore than bikers will race on a touring bike loaded down with filled saddlebags. Boots or wingtips will slow you down more than no shoes at all, the same as filled saddlebags will slow a biker down more having no saddlebags! And you analogy shows your ignorance (as well as the failure of the analogy) of running as there are cheap and expensive running shoes, like there are cheap and expensive bikes (though bikes are much more expensive), but running a race in boots or wingtips would be like bike racing on a beach cruiser or bmx bike; they are designed for completely different purposes than racing.

And you missed out on the fact that people have not just run marathons barefoot, but in fact WON them barefoot (the most famous being the 1960 Summer Olympic marathon). Try winning a bike race with no bike. That is the main point. Shoes are just a tool to help the runner along; there is no biking without bikes.

By: Nzz

Nzz — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:00:11 +0000

This is moronically wrong. I don’t see sprinters blazing down the track in a pair of brown wingtips. Marathon runners pounding out the miles in hunting boots. I’d bet the percent a good pair of running shoes increases a runners speed would be comparable to a cyclist on a 10,000 bike instead of a 1,000 bike. Your article reminds me of a quote from an old movie I saw, “You act as if stupidity were a virtue.”

By: Jank

Jank — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:22:03 +0000

What I meant to add was that Armstrong could clean my clock if he were riding a Schwinn from Target.

By: Jank

Jank — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:21:23 +0000

heretick…

The bike makes a difference in much the same ways shoes make the difference to runners. Well, except for barefoot pose types. But, given a bike that fits and is in decent shape, it’s all about the engine regardless regardless of being a $500 or $10K bike.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:30:16 +0000

If we’re going to dis biking because it requires equipment, are we also going to dis rowing? Biking and running are different sports. Period. ‘Nuf said. There are plenty of non-sports (usually forms of moving art) masquerading as sports to complain about. Take synchronized swimming for instance…

By: bex

bex — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:49:10 +0000

Hear hear! Yes, you do have to be athletic to race bikes competitively. But it IS somewhat about the bike. I’ve ridden a couple of different bikes in 40-50 mile rides, and unequivocally, it was easier on the lighter, more streamlined bike.

With running, it’s just you and the road. You don’t even have to have shoes to do it.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:03:08 +0000

At least biking requires significant physical exertion. I still don’t get why NASCAR is 1) a sport and 2) fun to watch.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:22:38 +0000

not that anyone is denying competitive cycling is easy.

oops…I meant difficult. It’s hard, not easy, at that caliber athlete. (And to think, this time I thought I’d proofread first.) Sorry, folks.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:18:36 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Jon’s point is that the bike provides mechanical assistance to get the job done. Running does not. And that makes it fundamentally more difficult a challenge — not that anyone is denying competitive cycling is easy.

Even Lance Armstrong recently admitted to Runner’s World Daily that the body works differently without that assistance:

RWD: How do you view running differently than cycling?
LA: Being on the bike is so much different than running. Your heart rate is lower, your stress level is lower on the bike. It’s harder to eat on the run, there’s a lot more impact on your body while running. On the bike you don’t ever hit that weird euphoria that runners talk about. That runner’s high. I’ve never had that. And it wouldn’t be good to have it on a bike. Imagine if you got that euphoric runners high as you’re climbing a big hill and then you have to go downhill at 70 mph. That’s not a good combination.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:04:18 +0000

I run and I bike. I’ve raced my bike. I disagree with you completely: racing bikes is extremely hard, and 99% of it is the athlete, not the machine. Of course if you’re riding something welded together from drainpipes it’ll make you slow, but most people who bother to race have already got bikes that are sufficiently good that the quality of the machine makes only a small difference between them. I suggest that you get yourself one and see what it’s like.