People who cycled to work had a 41 percent lower risk of dying from any cause over five years than non-active commuters, a UK study of 263,450 adults published in BMJ found. The same cyclists had a 52 percent lower risk of cardiovascular death and a 40 percent lower risk of cancer death.
Runners see similar longevity gains. A study of 55,137 US adults followed for an average of 15 years found runners had a 30 percent lower risk of all-cause death and a 45 percent lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with non-runners.
That group also lived about three years longer on average. Both activities move the needle on longevity. Where they part ways is in how they treat the body along the way.
Heart and calorie burn
Both cycling and running raise cardiorespiratory fitness, but running burns more calories per minute at similar effort. A 155-pound person running at 6 mph burns about 704 calories in an hour, while cycling at 12 to 13.9 mph burns roughly 563, according to figures compiled by Medical News Today.
Also read: How eating onions every day can affect your blood pressure, heart and bones
Bones: running has the edge
Weight-bearing impact matters for the skeleton. Bone remodels in response to the ground forces of running, which cycling largely bypasses.
Norwegian researchers who compared 19 elite road cyclists and 21 elite runners aged 18 to 35 found that 10 of the cyclists had low bone mineral density by American College of Sports Medicine criteria, with one meeting the threshold for osteoporosis.
"The surprising thing was that these 10 cyclists had low bone mineral density despite doing heavy weight training for a minimum of two months per year," said Oddbjørn K. Andersen, who led the research.
For adults worried about fracture risk, the takeaway is that cyclists who never load their bones with impact or resistance work may need to compensate elsewhere.
Also read: Here is the healthiest cooking spray, according to dietitians
Joints: cycling is gentler
Cycling loads the legs without the ground reaction forces of running, which can reach two to three times bodyweight per stride. That makes it easier to sustain for people with arthritis, prior injuries or chronic knee pain.
After intense training, runners had greater muscle damage, soreness and inflammation compared with cyclists, Medical News Today reports, and lower-impact cycling may help reduce symptoms of arthritis.
Which one for you
For healthy joints and goals of calorie burn, weight management or stronger bones, running does more per minute. Cycling delivers most of the cardiovascular payoff at a fraction of the impact, and it is easier to keep doing decade after decade.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Alternating impact and non-impact days protects the joints while still stressing the skeleton, and adding a couple of weekly resistance sessions helps cyclists offset the bone cost of a non-weight-bearing sport.
Also read: Coconut oil: most people think it's heart-healthy, but the AHA says otherwise
Older adults with existing knee, hip or back problems should talk to their doctor before ramping up either activity, and start with short sessions that let the body adapt.
Also read: Burnout or depression? Here is how to tell which one you're dealing with
This article is made and published by Jesper Bengtson, who may have used AI in the preparation.