Fudbeer Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20707959-23218,00.html Think thats quite an achievment to say he had only done 16 miles before. Think it proves the point running is definatley tougher on the body than cycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 No it just proves that running a marathon without doing much training is tough, which is hardly surprising. I expect a retired pro runner would say much the same thing after spending a day (never mind 3 weeks) trying to keep up with Lance on a bike. Running is certainly puts more stress on your joints than cycling but pro-runners and cyclists both get everything possible out of their bodies, I don’t think you can meaningfully say one discipline is tougher than the other they’re just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmite Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 That man is a legend, it doesnt make much difference, but i wish he was British. True inspiration, and sheer talent. ..but enough about me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.