Cycling to running miles conversion
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2748 Post(s)
Liked 493 Times
in
357 Posts
Cycling to running miles conversion
How many miles cycled do you think it takes to equal 1 mile ran? In terms of difficulty, workout, time elapsed, or however you wish to compare. I think maybe 8 miles cycled = 1 mile on foot
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7163 Post(s)
Liked 11,368 Times
in
4,858 Posts
Likes For Koyote:
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,152
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4079 Post(s)
Liked 7,666 Times
in
3,077 Posts
N * sin (2 π t) *exp (- µ t) / sqrt (1 + t^2)
where t is the effective time, µ is Moehper's coefficient, and N is the meteorological distance. But it's only an approximation, good to 0.1% at best.
where t is the effective time, µ is Moehper's coefficient, and N is the meteorological distance. But it's only an approximation, good to 0.1% at best.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,876
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4644 Post(s)
Liked 5,178 Times
in
3,200 Posts
Well if you run at 6 mph and ride at 18 mph then it is about a 3:1 ratio in distance. But in terms of energy used I would think the ratio is considerably higher. I can comfortably ride 100 miles at 18 mph, but I certainly can’t run 33 miles at 6 mph. I don’t do running, but Strava would probably provide a ballpark energy consumption per mile, which you could compare with your cycling consumption.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,876
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4644 Post(s)
Liked 5,178 Times
in
3,200 Posts
For me as a cyclist who doesn’t run, a marathon would be a LOT harder. But a lot depends on how fast you ride. Running has a much higher minimum energy demand than cycling unless you are climbing a steep hill. Riding 100 miles on the flat at say a leisurely 12 mph is not very challenging. But at 20+ mph it becomes a lot harder. Running a marathon is hard work at pretty much any speed above walking pace.
Last edited by PeteHski; 02-07-24 at 08:25 AM.
#7
Happy With My Bikes
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,219
Bikes: Hi-Ten bike boomers, a Trek Domane and some projects
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 888 Post(s)
Liked 2,359 Times
in
1,139 Posts
Purely unscientific, but I've done 1 century and 3 marathons. How I felt after the century and the marathons was similar. I've done many half marathons and while I've never gave it much thought, I guess I guesstimate a half to be about 55 or so miles on the bike. One thing that is common to all those activities is I usually enjoy a beer afterwards.
__________________
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,152
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4079 Post(s)
Liked 7,666 Times
in
3,077 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 639
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked 315 Times
in
203 Posts
I cycle 19 miles to work every day in a little under 1:40, including traffic and stop lights and such. An elite marathoner can do 26 miles in a hair under 2:00. It burns me up a little inside that there are people who could beat me to 19 miles without a bike.
Likes For ScottCommutes:
#10
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,195
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1839 Post(s)
Liked 1,723 Times
in
983 Posts
There is no comparison.
Wait, there is. It's just that time, miles, and speed fail to really capture it well and the results are so easily skewed so as to be effectively meaningless.
Running is harder. The minimum energy expenditure to run, not jog, but run is much higher than sitting on a bike. Something on the order of 100-120-ish calories per mile. To "run" a mile with reasonable enough form to actually be "running" takes ~8 minutes or so at the slowest possible pace. An hour would take you 7.5 miles and about 750-900 calories.
The same number of calories expended on a bike might very well be a personal time trial of 30+ mph average speed for an hour. Impossible. A more reasonable 18-20 mph speed is (off the cuff) ~8 calories per minute equals a depressingly low 480 calories per hour. It would take about 1 hour 45 to 2 hours of reasonably high effort cycling to equal runnings 750-900 calorie expenditure. So...36-40 high effort cycling miles in 2x the time running takes to do 7.5 miles. 40 miles in 2 hours is awfully fast.
All variable and subject to externalities, of course.
I've been told that a 4 hour marathon (slow) is about equivalent to a double century. I don't know if that is true or not. The math suggests 3500-4000 calories to do a marathon depending on fitness. Personal experience of ~7500 calories measured for a double century in 3-4x the time is close enough to be plausible from an "effort x time" perspective.
Useful? I'm not sure.
Wait, there is. It's just that time, miles, and speed fail to really capture it well and the results are so easily skewed so as to be effectively meaningless.
Running is harder. The minimum energy expenditure to run, not jog, but run is much higher than sitting on a bike. Something on the order of 100-120-ish calories per mile. To "run" a mile with reasonable enough form to actually be "running" takes ~8 minutes or so at the slowest possible pace. An hour would take you 7.5 miles and about 750-900 calories.
The same number of calories expended on a bike might very well be a personal time trial of 30+ mph average speed for an hour. Impossible. A more reasonable 18-20 mph speed is (off the cuff) ~8 calories per minute equals a depressingly low 480 calories per hour. It would take about 1 hour 45 to 2 hours of reasonably high effort cycling to equal runnings 750-900 calorie expenditure. So...36-40 high effort cycling miles in 2x the time running takes to do 7.5 miles. 40 miles in 2 hours is awfully fast.
All variable and subject to externalities, of course.
I've been told that a 4 hour marathon (slow) is about equivalent to a double century. I don't know if that is true or not. The math suggests 3500-4000 calories to do a marathon depending on fitness. Personal experience of ~7500 calories measured for a double century in 3-4x the time is close enough to be plausible from an "effort x time" perspective.
Useful? I'm not sure.
Last edited by base2; 02-06-24 at 06:31 PM.
Likes For base2:
#11
Junior Member
In terms of difficulty: 20 miles cycling is 1 mile running.(but you still won't hurt as bad by cycling) Aand why in hell would you run?
Last edited by Bleu; 02-06-24 at 06:48 PM.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Thornhill, Canada
Posts: 763
Bikes: United Motocross BMX, Specialized Langster, Giant OCR, Marin Muirwoods, Globe Roll2, VROD:)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked 414 Times
in
250 Posts
I avoid running (not a fan)but I'll cycle for miles/hours. However, I'll skate for hours....does that count.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,846
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1956 Post(s)
Liked 2,201 Times
in
1,339 Posts
A lot depends on whether you are going downhill.
John
John
Likes For 70sSanO:
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,573
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3261 Post(s)
Liked 2,583 Times
in
1,535 Posts
I'd say the best way to find out is to go to the local HS/MS track........and run a mile or two. That should give you a starting point. I've ran 18 marathons since 2013. Let me think about it and get back to you.
#15
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,314
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked 3,795 Times
in
1,889 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Likes For terrymorse:
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
Location: North Florida
Posts: 544
Bikes: 2019 Specialized Diverge, 2021 Cervelo Caledonia
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 388 Times
in
204 Posts
I've done both and I assure you it is much easier to cycle 100 miles than to run 26. I've completed five marathons, all between the ages of 38-40, and four centuries, all in my 70s. It took me several weeks to recover from each marathon. After my centuries, I was cycling as usual the next day.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,669
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18596 Post(s)
Liked 16,096 Times
in
7,558 Posts
I’m going to go out on a limb and say 1. After all, a ton of feathers weighs as much as a ton of bricks.
Likes For indyfabz:
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 652
Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked 1,173 Times
in
445 Posts
I've been using the imperial system of measurement for quite some time now, this is the first time I've heard there are bicycle and running miles. I'm curious how these compare to a standard mile, i.e. 5280'?
Likes For phughes:
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,178
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1088 Post(s)
Liked 1,358 Times
in
780 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
#21
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 2,000
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 650 Post(s)
Liked 1,071 Times
in
682 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Otto
Last edited by ofajen; 02-06-24 at 11:35 PM.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,669
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18596 Post(s)
Liked 16,096 Times
in
7,558 Posts
#24
Senior Member
Riding a century is far easier than running a marathon. Anybody in good shape can ride a century every day forever.
The record for daily cycling is 240 miles every day for an entire year straight. Running a marathon every day for a year has been done but it's on a whole other level. Let alone 2.4 times that distance.
The record for daily cycling is 240 miles every day for an entire year straight. Running a marathon every day for a year has been done but it's on a whole other level. Let alone 2.4 times that distance.
Likes For Yan:
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,573
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3261 Post(s)
Liked 2,583 Times
in
1,535 Posts