Running is a better exercise than biking

A study by the American Council On Exercise (ACE) explains why indoor gym cycling is a better exercise for the recreational cyclist (magazine.foxnews.com). As it explains in this source, the indoor biking is even more benefitial for the recreational cyclist, than biking outdoors. Whereas running on treadmills in the gym, according to Runner's World (runnersworld.com), is not the same as running outdoors, on treadmills it is easier, meaning less effective (mind you I tried my best to find an objective source).Thus, for the recreational cyclist, biking is a means of transportation rather than exercise, though in this case one does not exclude the other. It is not a choice u can make, as you cannot choose between biking or running as a means of transport. Reminding the proponent that this debate is running vs. biking as a better exercise, thus comparing these two as a form of exercise, hance the opening statement of this debate is "Running is better exercise than biking", and not, for example, "Running at work is better then biking at work", simply because one would not run at work. That being said, I want to clarify some things:1. Yes, "[I am] trying to nullify the 700 per year number...", not because they are not serious bikers, but because most of these bikers did not choose biking for being a better exercise than running, but for the purpose of transport, thus being off topic. For a better understanding, two examples could be analysed, A.: "I consider myself a runner, because I run for exercise everyday, but bike to work as my prefered means of transport." As opposed to B.: "I bike everyday for exercise and I take the bus to work." The first would be a runner and the second a cyclist, always for the purposes of this debate, these two concepts are narrowed down to these definitions. Qonsequently, the statistic you present is invalid in this context, because person A, who is a runner, can be injured on his way to work, and it would be considered as a cycling injury, while he did not choose cyclying as an exercise, but as a means of transport. Similarly, person B, who is a cyclist, can be injured by running from the police, while he did not choose running as an exercise in this case, but as a means to escape the police.Moreover, if we were to compare the number of deaths per means of transport, walking would take the lead, with more than 4000 deaths and 60000 injuries in 2011. (pedbikeinfo.org)2. To counter the proponents argument that "...in a 2012 report on cyclist accidents, it is shown that cyclist accidents are on the rise[1]." there are a few points I want to make. First, the number of cyclists has increased and is rapidly increasing, thus the number of accidents will increase as well. "More than 200,000 people bike every day in New York City. Cycling has increased 26% between 2008 and 2009." (gethealthywashoe.com). Second, similarly to the walking argument made above, walking has much more fatalities than cycling, bacause there is a much larger number of people walking then cycling, but this does not mean that walking has a higher risk of fatality than cycling. In the source they cannot give an answer to this question because there is missing data, and the question is too complicated. Thus, the thing we need to look at is not the numbers of deaths, but the percentage of deaths from the total number of cyclists or the distance cycled. So, who is to say that the percentage of deaths or injuries of runners is not higher than the percentage of deaths or injuries of cyclists?Third, the data taken from he US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that from 2001 to 2010 the number or fatalities in 2001 (732) was higher then 2010 (618), with swings in between. (cyclingresourcecentre). However, keep in mind that the number of cyclists has vastly increased, shown in (gethealthywashoe.com) and (TheGuardian), making the percentage of cycling fatalities to the number of cyclists or distance cycled much lower.Despite all arguments above, I still feel on the defending side of the debate due to an emphasised focus on the number of accidents cyclists have, which is the proponents sole argument about this debate, and in which many cases of these accidents include factors that deviate us from the original topic at question.So, here are some facts that make cycling a better exercise than running.1. Cycling causes less injuries than running, as it is a smoother more natural movement of the body, and if you are worried from the risk factors of accidents caused by external or even internal factors, you can always "hit the gym" and try spinning. (menshealth.co.uk). By the way, there is a simple yet very beautiful statistic from this source: "Cycling: Injuries per 1000 hours: 6""Running: Injuries per 1000 hours: 11"2. Running too much is bad for your health, while in most cases there is no such thing as "cycling too much". (running.competitor.com)3. This is my personal opinion, I think running is boring, whereas cycling is joyful and exciting, and you can even go sightseeing while training.Anyways, thanks for a good debate.Sources:(http://cyclingresourcecentre.org.au...)(http://www.gethealthywashoe.com...)(http://magazine.foxnews.com...)(http://www.menshealth.co.uk...)(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org...)(http://www.runnersworld.com...)(http://running.competitor.com...) TheGuardian, (https://docs.google.com...), or through (http://www.theguardian.com...)