How much running equals how much cycling

A friend of mine is cycling from John O Groats to Land's End later this year, cycling about 70 miles each day. He reckons that's the equivalent of running a marathon every day. I beg to differ. I reckon it's closer to running a half marathon every day.If that! I mean - gears! sitting down! coasting down hills! its easy. Anyway...

What does everyone else think and is there any accurate way of comparing?

Comments

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    too many variables imo.

    hills?

    headwind?

    type of bike?

    amount of luggage? ie carrying it or going by support car?

     

     

     

  • There's a long running thread on the triathlon forum which tallies up training.  They use a '3 miles cycling = 1 mile running' and I've seen the same figure used elsewhere.

    In terms of elapsed time, 70 miles on the bike is going to take much longer than the equivalent time to run a half marathon (for me it would be about equivalent of an easy marathon).  The upside of cycling is you don't have the impact, so it will be easier to put back to back days in.

  • I've looked at one or two xtraining guides. John Shepherd wrote this:

    Running to cycling effort ratio

    It is recommended that running workout
    times should be multiplied by 3.5 when
    aiming for a similar training effect from
    cycling. Thus a 30 minute training run at a
    target heart rate range of 80% max, would
    be the same as 105 minutes of cycle at the
    same intensity.

    I guess the key here is maintaining the intensity.  This was from a rowing guide on cross training. It used a lot of the cycling // running research to back up some suggestions for rowing // running

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭
    Also-ran wrote (see)

    Running to cycling effort ratio

    It is recommended that running workout
    times should be multiplied by 3.5 when
    aiming for a similar training effect from
    cycling. Thus a 30 minute training run at a
    target heart rate range of 80% max, would
    be the same as 105 minutes of cycle at the
    same intensity.

     

     

     

    From personal experience this seems way out for me. I'd say maybe 3x distance rather than time, for a similar training effect.  (A 90 minute training run would be far easier than a bike ride of over 5 hours.) 

    That aside, the additional element when considering LEJOG is that of the effect of doing something day after day for a multi-day endurance challenge, for which I reckon cycling is a lot easier on the body than running - assuming you've got your bike set up properly for long distance comfort!  So in terms of energy requirements maybe it's closer to a marathon than a half marathon, but in terms of overall difficulty of completion I'd say it's a lot easier.  Especially as it's a lot easier to eat real food on the bike compared to running.  Maybe more like 15 - 20 miles a day?

  • I think its somewhere between 3 and 4 times.........

  • Thanks everyone for fascinating thoughts. I guess there are just too many variables to accurately compare - especially when considering consecutive days rather than a single event.

     

    This same thorny topic is something I always ponder when Tour de France comes around - and my regular muse: Could you stage a similar tour with running?

  • Hey Johnny, how about combining the Tour route with running. Zoe Romano did this last year. I wouldn't fancy some of those climbs.

    http://www.zoegoesrunning.com/the-run/

    http://www.marathontalk.com/podcast/episode_184_zoe_romano.php

  • I would have thought a running mile is more like 4 or 5 bike miles.

    So your pals 70 miles would be about 16 miles running.



    Definitely easier than a marathon. Probably harder than a half marathon.
  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭
    Johnny2323 wrote (see)

    Could you stage a similar tour with running?

    You could, but it would attract ultra-runners, and not (with the greatest respect to ultra-runners!) the best elite runners in the world. You simply don't get the same dynamics within running as with cycling (drafting in groups) so without any of the tactics that make team racing possible every day essentially becomes a time-trial, and elite runners just wouldn't put themselves through the damage that would inflict.

  • Plans with the longer runs 17 to 22 miles usually require runners running more easy/recovery days or taking more rest days unless they are gifted athletes. An argument could be made that cycling may be more beneficial than running slow easy recovery runs. Cycling exercises other parts of the body and is less impact upon knees.

  • It is far easier cycling 15 to 20 miles in an hour than it is running 15 to 20 miles in 2 hours. Running the same distance of 15 to 20 miles may take half the time or less cycling the exact same distance.

    An elite sprinter (Usain Bolt) can run 25 miles per hour for up to 10 seconds. A elite sprinter cyclist(Mark Cavendish) can hold 60 to 70 miles per hour for 20 seconds.

  • Cav is probably more like low 40s for a sprint.

  • I like cycling and it is better than running because <a href="https://medium.com/@susie1981/what-muscles-does-cycling-work-c58c92177c05">cycling builds muscles</a>. I have been into bike riding when I was a little kid and I have been doing it till I have reached the age of 35. It is amazing.
  • Running to Cycling is 1:3 ratio where in 1 mile runs burns calories almost equivalent to 3 miles cycling. But then it is easier to bike for 3 miles compared to run for 1 mile with good pace and speed.
    Both Running and cycling are part of aerobic activities with cardio benefits, although more calories a re burnt with running. So if you comfortable running and follow the right posture and right attire, you should run for effective weight loss.

    If not there is always biking especially when you are prone to knee and ankle injuries and cannot sustain impactions of the running surfaces!
Sign In or Register to comment.