BY OMAR SAJJAD
Sixth-Year medical student in Shanghai Medical College (China), Intern at WHO, Farawaniyah Hospital (Kuwait), and Zhongshan Hospital (China).
Cardio is a timeless form of exercise and possibly the simplest. Rooted in the primitive nature of chasing to hunt food in order to survive, running survives today as a form of exercise or sport that expends energy from food consumed.
The creation of the wheel led to advancements for mankind, one of which was the bicycle. Not only can humans go from one point to another faster, but now the bicycle is the major tool to improve our everyday health. Although running is a phenomenal activity, is it truly the best form of cardio? And is cycling the best competitor, and perhaps an alternative to the ingrained and instinctual running?
Though this article is subjective, nevertheless it compares six main components in establishing the ‘ultimate’ form of cardio.
Calories Burned: Running will burn more calories compared to cycling for the same time duration in almost all cases. An 80-kilogram man, running at a moderate pace of 8 kilometers per hour would burn around 350 calories in 30 minutes, whereas the same man would burn 285 calories at a moderate 16 kilometers per hour pace while cycling. The lower calories burneds can be because running is a more strenuous exercise that involves the whole body, while cycling is a mechanical exercise where the pressure is largely centered around the lower half of the body.
Bone and Joint Health: When looking at the perspective of bones, running long term would result in improved bone health as compared to cycling. A study conducted by the European Society of Endocrinology concluded that the greater stress emphasized on bones from running leads to the bones preparing and responding for future stress better. Meanwhile, the magazine Sports Health released a study showing that cyclists may be at higher risk for low bone mass, especially for their lower spine, which can lead to higher risks for fractures.
But cycling on the other hand is not weight-bearing; The pressure is less on the bones, and most importantly, less stressful on the joints like the hip, knees, and ankles. On the other hand, running causes repetitive ‘trauma’ to the joints and over time it can deteriorate their function and condition; which can be heavily exacerbated if the running form is not correct.
Injuries: Running could lead to frequent joint injuries – most commonly the knee. On the muscle aspect, runners had greater damage and inflammation compared to cyclists; but cycling can increase the plausibility of lower back injuries, due to the higher risk of lower bone mass.
Mental Perspective: Running is a mentally grueling activity. Initially, it can be exhilarating, but the strenuousness involved in running can lead many people to give up quickly. Cycling being a non-weight bearing activity, is mentally more relaxing and enjoyable.
Arguably, it is easier to cycle for a longer time than it is to run. So even though running can burn more calories in a shorter time period, the ability to maintain a respectable cycling speed will allow an easier and longer exercise. For example, cycling for three hours sounds like a fun recreational activity, but running for three hours would be the equivalent to torture.
General Health Benefits: Both these activities provide significant health benefits, especially for the heart. There are two types of muscles: Fast- and slow-twitch fibers. Fast-twitch fibers allow for quick reflexes and give an overall bulkier frame, but burn out quicker; whereas slow-twitch fibers are smaller or leaner, yet can sustain for hours. In a simpler sense, a sprinter would have a larger focus on fast-twitch, hence, they appear more ‘muscular’, whereas a marathon runner has slow-twitch and appears leaner.
Both cycling and running for longer time durations or distances will not build a larger muscle frame as they do not focus on fast-twitch fibers, but rather give a stronger focus on slow-twitch fibers that will give a better shape or tone to the body.
Cost: Cycling requires an actual bicycle to perform the exercise along with sneakers and safety equipment such as a helmet or lights, not to mention maintenance costs all of which could add up to a tidy sum. On the other hand, running just requires sneakers and of course, a pair of legs.
Overall: The conclusion after considering all of the above is anticlimactic in that both forms of exercise are excellent. They both result in an individual moving instead of sitting idle, which always provides health benefits, and what is ideal depends on the individual’s case. If an individual is overweight and attempting to get into a rhythm of exercising, cycling would be less burdening and easier to manage. But if they have decreased weight, causing a lesser load on the joints, running would be the perfect challenge to further accelerate the weight loss and improve fitness. So perhaps the answer is not one or the other, but a combination of both cycling and running.