mleess

Hey all:

I'm a former runner who had to give it up because of a herniated disk and resulting back surgery this past February. So I turned to biking. So far I'm loving it. I've got a stiff back and neck a little, but I'm hoping that will ease over time as I get used to it.

My question: Is there a rule of thumb regarding transposing running miles into biking miles, e.g., riding 20 miles is equivalent to running X number of miles? I would think it would be hard to do because with running, even on descents, you're always exerting effort to move forward whereas on a bike you can sit and coast for periods of time.

Also, in running, you burn about 100 calories per mile (give or take) no matter what speed you're running. Is there a rule of thumb of calories burned while biking?

Thanks

EventServices

Apples and orangutans.

In terms of suffering, though, I can state from experience that I've done a lot of different sports, and none of them have put me into as deep a suffering as cycling.
By it's own nature, cycling can take you FAR PAST the point of exhaustion, where most other sports take you TO the point of failure.*
And I've heard that from almost every athlete who has come from another sport.

But to compare miles through some formula isn't eaily done.

*I've heard different theories as to WHY this is the case.
1. Because the front wheel acts as a gyro which helps keep the bike upright.
2. Because you can coast, which allows you to recover and continue, which prevents you from quitting when you're cooked.
3. Because other cyclists pressure you into going for a 60-mile ride when you only wanted to go 40 miles.

masi61

For me, its really hard to lose weight beyond a certain point with cycling. I've ridden over 2700 miles so far this year and I continually push myself to improve and my weight has basically been "plateau'd" all year. I ran (jogged I guess would be a more accurate term due to my weight and slow speed) 2 to 3 days a week last winter and got my weight down to 230#. I was really hoping with all the miles I have done to have my weight close to #200 at this point in the season. It just hasn't happened.

jrennie

I guess the closest I could come would be these numbers for myself(using HR monitor w/cal expenditure)

1/2 marathon trainning run:1560 calories burnned 1:35
45 mile ride with 3000 feet of climbing:1640 calories burned

When running, up or downhill, headwind or tailwind, you propel yourself foward thus resulting in a steady heartrate, or at least an elevated one. In cycling you hit downhill coasts or pack riding and cant hold you heart rate up at the levels that running produces(unless your on a nice breakaway and just hammering)

TCR

Flats while running are a lot easier to fix.

badkarma

I've heard studies based upon calorie expendature, and the rule of thumb is about 3-4 miles cycled equals 1 mile ran.

StanSeven

jrennie's data confirms my experience as well. I've heard people say running 1 mile is equivalent to cycling everything from 3 to 5 miles. I did testing measuring hr, power output (cycling versus treadmill), calories burning, perceived effort, etc. and found that 3 to 5 miles is equivalent depending on the conditions and the amount of constant effort I apply. As jrennie said, you constantly keep a steady hr running. In cycling you coast whether it's going downhill, drafting in a pack, or just slowing down for stops. Cycling also takes a concentrated effort to keep a steady pace and the hr up. Whwen I really push myself (21 - 23 mph average) on moderate hills, that's about the equivalent to running a 1/3 mile at my 6:40 to 7:00 per mile pace.

C Law

I'd say 35 calories per mile biking is a great estimate for most rides, unless they are uphill both ways.

I do know from running that I tend to burn closer to 150 calories per mile than 100.

that would put me at a 4.5-1 ratio for calories expended. i am 6'2'' and 180.

For me, the real test is calories per hour, which I know vary greatly on intensities, etc..but, I figure a 2-1 ratio (running to cycling) for calories burned in an hour and it seems to ballpark it pretty good.

merlinextraligh

While it may be true that calories burnt per mile running won't vary with speed (an assertion of which I'm not totally convinced) it's definitely not true cycling. Riding faster you burn more calories per mile. The most significant reason for this is that wind resistence is a squared function of speed. Thus riding 10 miles at 20 mph takes more energy than riding 10 miles at 10mph.

Using an online calculator, the numbers come out like this: 10 miles at 10mph, 38 watts, 131 calories.
10 miles at 20 mph, 172 watts, 296 calories, more than double calories per mile, and 4 times the calories per hour. https://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

same reason that driving 55mph gives you better gas mileage than driving 70mph.

miked528

Since I've been training for alot of years, I can honestly say I've gotten more out of cycling than I did running. First of all, running is very stressful on the joints(knees,ankles etc). As far as what's better, IMO cycling is tougher than running. When I use to run, I could never just jump on a bike and tackle hills, keep a steady speed. Now that I ride, I went to the track for the heck of it to see if I lost anything in the running department, I ran a 8 minute mile. Not bad for somebody who hasn't ran in three years. That's cycling that allowed me to do that. So, bottom line, A cyclist can do more things than a runner. Stronger legs, better cardio.

kosherdave

Don't assume we runners don't have the same issues with our running buddies. I went for a 9 mile run this weekend with some friends and we ended up doing 16.

number 2 is a good point though, you can recover a bit while riding, harder to do with running unless you're willing to walk, which I suppose would help you recover for more running.

brundle_fly

I used to be a track runner.
Cycling is a lot less stress on the joints,that's for sure.It's hard to compare the two,but I know you have to do a lot more cycling to maintain the same kind of fitness as running.It does legs well but not uper body.I'd say 20mph on a bike is equivalent to jogging 7-8mph

jrennie

As someone who does both fanaticly I would disagree. While cycling does keep you fit from a cardio stand point, the bulk and mass that most hardcore cyclists develop in their legs is a detriment to running(or at least running fast). When is the last time you saw a fast runner with tree trunk quads like a pro cyclist? In my own personal observations, I notice that cycling has taken a few seconds off my running pace but the extra miles have more than made up on the bike leg of tris.

kosherdave

Very true, but remember, cycling does nothing to build or retain bone mass. Running does. All the recent studies point to a need for at least SOME stressfull workout time to stave off the 5% per decade decrease of bone mass we all incure as we age. Cycling, while potentially saving your knees, won't help you there.

When I started cycling, after years of being runner, I owned a bike 1 month and then completed a century ride averaging 18mph with some cycling buddies. It was very hard to keep up, but I did, and we dropped one guy who races. So I think you're conclusion is rather spurious.

This is such a BS statement I'm laughing myself out of my chair.
I know it's cliche to quote LA, but even he said running is "WAY harder than cycling" (on his interview with Leno which was recently re-run about a week ago when talking about his marathon training)

Listen, both sports are pretty damn hard when you're doing them to exhaustion. Comparing them directly is nearly impossible. Different muscles used in both. As someone who competes very regularly in foot races, bike races and LOTS of duathlons, I can say that when you're in shape for both, training for either seems to be about the same difficulty. I'm training for the NYC marathon now and use my biking to suppliment some of the work so I don't get injured. Having said that, I can ride 3 hours at a hard pace a lot easier than running 3 hours!

brundle_fly

irennie Sprinters have massive quads.

Have you all noticed,also,that when you have just cycled you can't run well.Is this due to both working different muscles

kosherdave

It takes a few minutes for your legs to adjust back. In a dualthlon, you start off running, then you hop on the bike, then back to the run. The final run always takes a bit before your legs remember the right motion and at first it feels like running with lead shoes, but you shake that off and then you pick up speed.

mleess

After months of doing no exercise because of my surgery, I hopped on my old mountain bike and did 12 miles the first time out without much difficulty. And I was in lousy shape. I never would have been able to run three or four miles straight at that time. That tells me running is much harder as a baseline activity.

kosherdave

I'm Know I'm going way out on a limb I can't really back up, but I suspect most cyclists can't run too far, but ANY runner can pick up a bike and go pretty hard. ;-)

kensuf

Check the diet, as well as the pants fit.

Even though I was riding 150-170 miles a week, I thought I had plateau'd at around 220lbs but my clothes were getting baggier. I was still happy that I lost about 40lbs since January 1, but I hadn't hit my personal goal for mid-year (I wanted to be down 50 lbs by the end of August).

However, I was also eating like pig.

Two weeks ago I decided to "get serious again "about the weight loss, this time focusing on the diet in conjunction to my exercise. I'm using glycemic index ("sugar busters") as my guide (plenty of leafy greens, minimal starches/breads, _no sweets period_, some decent lean protein). With the exception of the century I rode on Saturday, I've ditched sports drinks on my rides (most are under 40 miles and I can do them with just water, sports drinks are high in sugar). I've dropped 5 lbs since going back on the diet (and here I thought I was stuck).

Don't worry too much about performance loss. During the century I went ahead and took myself off the diet, I drank my normal amount of gatorade, plus ate some oreos, an apple, and some peanut brittle. I felt fine during the ride and still averaged a decent pace (19.6) even though it was 98F at the end.

Keep a log of everything you eat. Look up the calories, as well as the fat/protein/carbohydrate content. If you can find the glycemic index, look it up. Eat a healthy snack in between breakfast and lunch (I like an apple), and a few hours before dinner.

And good luck!

Ken

Pizza Man

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm a former runner too.

I ran track and XC in HS, JC and then at UC Davis. After graduation I continued to run and race for another 12 years, completing over 20 marathons, 3 50K trail races and a few hundred shorter races, then last summer I bought a road bike and decided to try a race. As my interest in cycling took over, I was running less and less. I went from tracking running miles to just tracking cycling miles and multiplying my few running miles by 3.

In addition to 30 bike races, I have done 2 running races this year. A flat 5K race that left me sore for 2 days, and a hilly 7 mile trail race that made me so sore I couldn't walk down stairs for 3 days. I used to get sore from races, but never nearly this bad. Bike races tire me out, but I never have problems walking or going down stairs the next day.

I agree with what Event Services said about suffering - I was never able to push myself as much in running races as I have been in cycling, probably because my legs always gave out before my lungs. In running, I've raced every distance from 800M to 50K and I always thought that the mile was the most painful distance. Bike racing is like doing 20 times a one mile race back to back with about 1-2 minutes rest between each one.

Also, I had back and neck pain during the first few months I was riding, but that's gone away completely (probably due to the professional bike fit I had done after the first few months)

jeffsw

That's definitely true for me! I've been a dedicated cyclist for over a year doing 150+ miles a week. (17mph average with lots of climbing.) If I go out for a run, I feel like I'm going to die after the first mile.

kmkurdone

I run NCAA D1 Cross Country and am pretty much a newb to cycling. I will say this.....overall, i feel like I get a better workout running for 12 miles then I do biking for 30-40. That being said, the first time I went for a 50 mile ride, I came back and have never felt my legs more on fire then they did on that ride. I think it all really just depends on what you are doing on the bike or on the run. It is impossible to say one is harder then the other, because running to me is not hard, but to some it is a death sentence.

As for the "tree trunk legs" comment. Cycling does not help your DISTANCE running speed, in fact it decreases it from what I have read/experienced. And of course sprinters have massive legs, they are sprinting which requires a lot more power then endurance. The top distance runners in the world are usually very thin. I would go out on a limb and say that cycling regularly is not a good thing for competitive distance runners. (or at least someone like myself while I'm in competition)

zimbo

I don't think science backs this up. VO2Max numbers for sports like skiing and running are typically slightly higher than for cycling.

I enjoy cycling more than running--but I know lots of people who like running more than cycling.

--Steve

jrennie

I agree with most of what you said in previous posts but endurance runners are mostly very thin and have very little mass on the lower half(upper half too for that matter), this would be advantageous in a climbing situation but not in general cycling. This has been my first year of serious cycling and I could not even hang off the back of the pack at my running weight(139) but as the season draws to a close I have logged a lot of miles and put on a little mass and it has helped(146).
Runners may be able to hop on a bicycle and "go hard" but that doesn’t mean they will be competitive with cyclists without proper training, they are very different activities. As to the question asked about bike to run transitions, this is aided greatly by having a tri bike and proper fit but it mostly breaks down to training for the discipline. I have done a couple of duathlons now(my preferred race) and it dose get easier each time.

Finally:
sprinters w/ tree trunk legs= max effort for short bursts usually under a minute(like bunch sprinters in cycling)
Marathoners and endurance runners look more like the infamous Rasmussen pic, skinny and wiry

WCroadie

Having casually cycled and ran for a few years, I took all of 2005 off from cycling to train and complete 2 marathons. I thoroughly enjoyed all the running I did, I lost some much needed weight and loved every mile of those 2 marathons (the first one was painful). After the 2nd my knees were really sore so I decided to get serious about cycling. I trained a lot and recently competed in a few races, here's what I found:

Running a marathon is harder then riding a century. In my bike races my average heart rate and max heart rate were a good bit higher then any of my running races. Cycling does not hurt my knees like running did.

Running helped me take my cycling to a higher level, it got me in better shape and gave me a lot more endourance. I loved running long distances but my joints just can't take it. I will stick to bike racing for now.