Road Cycling - 34 miles = ?

I am not a real serious rider, riding at most about twice a week. Instead, im running, six days a week (50-55 miles/week) I have a good feel for how long a run is long, but no feel for cycling. Is there anyone out there who rides well and runs well (as well)?

I did 34 miles this morning, in about 2 hours. What is the equivilent of this in running; in terms of mileage, calories burned, and speed?

When I try to compare apples and oranges I use overall exertion level for the workout period as measured in average heart rate.

Example: Today's workout was 21.59 miles of trails in 1:53:33 for an average speed of 11.41 MPH at a heartrate equal to 80.5% of MHR. If I want to compare that to road riding I go to my log and do a search for "80.5" in the "Average Heart Rate" column.

I find today's trail workout exertion level is near two road rides I did this year, one in May that was 34.27 miles in 2:01:29 for an average speed of 16:93 MPH at 80.5% of MHR the second comparable ride was in September and shows 39.97 miles in 2:13:49 for an average speed of 17.92 MPH also at 80.5% of MHR.

To me this method makes sense and should give a pretty good measure of equivalence between different types of workouts.

I have seen tables of calories burned per hour at different speeds. I'm afraid I can't offer a specific link to them, but they are out there.

Here's a chart of calories burned/minute/per pound. I forget the actual source, but it was based on serious scientific study. Looks like you averages about 17 mph, so, take your weight (in pounds) *0.0675*120 minutes (or your actual time). Technically you should add the weight of your bike and gear. tehre are also much more complicated formulae that account for wind speed/direction, terrain, etc. I think htis is a good basic chart.

mph rate (cal/min/lb)
10 0.0351
11 0.0401
12 0.0426
13 0.0475
14 0.0512
15 0.0561
16 0.0615
17 0.0675
18 0.0741
19 0.0811
20 0.0891

Here is a fun site: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/ :)

Last fridays ride:
List total: 3,304 calories in 4 hr
Male 24, 6' 4", 178 lb BMI=21.7 BMR=1,982
Bicycling - 14-15.9 mph (vigorous)
3,304 calories in 4 hr
This activity list is equivalent to:
3 Cinnabon Caramel Pecanbons or
5.6 McDonald's Big Macs or
41 Washington State Apples

Phatman,

well, it's hard to compare. I'm a cyclist who used to run quite a bit (triathlons and hill-climbs) but after some back and knee problems i had to take a break from running and now only run 1 to 2 times per week and often go up to 3 weeks w/o a run... whereas i cycle 3-6 days/week, over 10,000km/yr (mostly offroad XC on mountain bike with lots of climbing - 50,000m vetical so far 2002!)

i think the 2 are hard to compare and the main difference is that in cycling it's comparitively easier to do a long ride than a long run:: i.e. doing a 4-6 hr ride is not a big deal, but doing a 4-6hr run is a MAJOR undetaking even for those who are well-trained. for my TransAlp tour i was on the trail about 8 hours per day, probably actually riding about 5-7 hours per day -- FOR 8 DAYS STRAIGHT! i know i could not do that running. you simply need more recovery! (sure i've heard about these ultra-marathonners but even they don't do it more than a few days back-to-back)

i think there are 2 main differences: while running it's almost impossible to eat enough to keep going (even if you break for 5 minutes and scarf down some food -like a sandwich that i often eat on my longer rides- your stomach will probably not be able to handle it)... plus, on the bike it's easier to rest a little coasting or reducing the intensity a little whereas in running, dropping your pace to a 10 or 12min mile still isn't much of a "rest" -- and the beating of foot-impact is just harder on the body

then you also have the fact that much more often cycling is done with climbs and hills and also as with running, it is hard to compare a flat run or ride with one with 1000m (3300ft) vertical climbing...

so for short rides up to 90 minutes, i would think intensity is a decent measure. HR is a decent indicator, BUT remember that the Lactate Threshold (and maximum HR) for cycling is usually about 3-5 beats lower than for running.

as far as calories burned i think running is slightly higher but i don't know and it's not something i track much.

just for a general guideline: each person is different, but on flat ground for a short time like 30-50 minutes, an 8 min/mile running pace is something close to 18mph road bike effort for me.... BUT i could ride the road bike so for close to 3 hours or more with a few breaks and i don't think i could as easily run that long (never have run more than 2 1/2 hours at a time)

When I try to compare apples and oranges I use overall exertion level for the workout period as measured in average heart rate.

just thought i'd add:

for me, except for during races, average HR is usually of little use b/c you have either breaks (to put on a jacket or look at a map or stop for a light or whatever). I set my HR monitor to record time in zones (my max is 194, my LT 165) and i use the time in aoerobic training zone (for me 135-165) and most importantly time above LT (over 165) as my measures. as i said above, i have to adjust the numbers up a few beats for running, but when i do, 20 minutes above LT for either running or cycling is a hard workout and 30 minutes or more is a VERY hard workout where i need some recovery the next day or 2.

Thanks for your help, the reason for asking was that I was trying to see if my 34 mile ride (which sounds impressive to my xc running teammates, who run, at max, 12 miles at a time) was as hard-core as it sounds.
I suppose that it was about about as hard as an average xc workout.

I posed a similar question about 4 months ago, specifically asking what ratio one could use for cycling distance to running distance. A lot of folks said 4 or 5 to 1. But, I kept stumbling over the thought that such a ratio would mean that the riders in the Tour de France are riding the equivalent of a marathon virtually every day for 21 days.

I used the calorie / speed chart above and calculated that I would use about 1033 calories for a 2 hour ride at 27 kmh (54 km = 32 miles). My finacée has a formula for running which is weight in kilograms * dist in kilometers. So, for me to consume 1033 calories by running, I would have to run 16 km. This yields an approximate 3.5 to 1 ratio. This would mean that the Tour de France boys are doing well more than a marathon a day.

My fiancée and I have talked about this problem a lot. I have concluded that a truly meaningful comparison is pretty elusive.

Cheers,
Jamie

You are too obsessive ! You just can't compare cycling & running, far too different.