Runners and cyclists are often pitted against each other. The outdated stereotype being that runners are thrifty, solitary creatures, pounding the pavements in worn-out clobber, while cyclists are moneyed, Lycra-clad coffee enthusiasts, riding bikes worth more than most family cars. The truth is, of course, rather different. The modern runner, with access to super shoes and hi-tech clothing, is now likely to be just as kit-obsessed as their cycling equivalent. Moreover, cycling is an excellent cross-training activity, with many top athletes, including Team GB’s Georgia Hunter-Bell, topping up their weekly mileage with time in the saddle. But in the spirit of friendly competition, let’s see how these two noble activities compare.

Calorie burn

Both running and cycling score big when it comes to calorie burn. Due to the weight-bearing nature of running, though, you’ll burn a few more calories doing a bit of the ol’ left-right-left than you will turning the pedals. There’s also a bit more ‘free speed’ in cycling – for example, when you’re going downhill you might not be peddling at all. Running, meanwhile, requires constant energy expenditure.

That said, calorie burn is dictated to a large extent by the duration and intensity of an activity. Tour de France riders can burn up to 10,000 calories a day – considerably more than you would running a marathon. Keen amateur cyclists will often go on weekend rides in excess of three hours, during which time they’d likely burn more calories than a runner doing a 90-minute long run. But when compared over the same duration, running trumps cycling in the calories burn stakes, as it does pretty much any activity.

What everyone's reading

Bone density

Pounding the pavements can create its own problems in the shape of impact-related injuries, but it can also create stronger bones. A study published in the European Congress of Endocrinology found that exercise that puts strain on your skeleton, such as running, is a boon for bone health. This led the study author, Dr Giovanni Lombardi, to conclude this: ‘Our finding suggest that those at risk of weaker bones might want to take up running rather than swimming of cycling.’ However, more running won’t necessarily lead to bulletproof bones. It needs to happen gradually and be supported by good nutrition and recovery – two important things that contribute to bone health.

VO2 max

Sorry, there’s no clear winner here. Reason being, VO2 max – the measure of how much oxygen you can utilise during exercise – is specific to the activity. In other words, when VO2 max is tested on a treadmill, runners tend to fair better. When it’s tested on a bike, cyclists have the advantage. As with calorie burn, VO2 max improvements will be governed to some extent by how much and how hard you exercise. In this sense, you could argue that cycling has the advantage as you can push harder and for longer without it taking quite the same toll on the body. But it’s probably fair to call this one a draw.

Injury risk

Here’s where cycling comes into its own. The low-impact nature of the activity – which makes it inferior to running in the calorie burn and bone health stakes – means that it inherently has a lower injury risk. Runners can, of course, mitigate the risk of injury through sensible training, good nutrition, strength and conditioning and adequate recovery. But cycling still takes the win here.

However, it is worth noting that cycling carries some injury risk. An ill-fitting bike and inefficient pedalling action can place stress and strain on joints and muscles and there is a much higher risk of serious injury through falls and accidents, so road safety is paramount.