biking-running
 

i know regular biking doesn't even come close to running but what do you think running one mile is equal to biking on a fixie?

depends on your intensity. 5 minute mile or 10 min mile?

idk i guess like a 12-15mph adv

12-15 running? you serious?

Don't think in terms of speed or distance, think in terms of time and intensity of your heart rate. If you ride your bike for one hour consistently around 160bpm, you will get a similar level of workout as if you were to run for one hour also consistently around 160bpm. Do both and see how far you biked and ran and you will have your answer.

Are you serious with that picture in your signature?

obviously on the bike x]

yes maam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUdtOVdTIA

Fail on two levels. First: those are olympic runners. Second: they are running for only several hundred meters, if even. Not for one hour.

Stop talking and save what's remaining of your dignity.

but id think riding a fixie would be closer to jogging than a regular bike just cause your forced to keep pedaling the whole time

dude, calm down.

the first message was interperated wrong. second one was a friendly joke. take it easy man

They're running 1600 meters.

Which is equivalent to a mile, what the op said.

Save your dignity and go back to hopping curbs on your langster.

1 mile running is the same as 1 mile riding a fixie. Duh guys. This is like that ton of feathers riddle. Or balloons, depending on the version.

lol obviously, bur were talking on terms of cardiovascular exercise not distance
like the amount of calories you burn jogging one mile is equal to biking 3 miles on a fixie, something like that

That sounds good, yeah! 1 to 3 ratio. I like that.

I'm at the gym right now, maybe I'll go test this out on the treadmill and cycling machines today and post my findings.

yeah do that, just no coasting haha

I've forgotten how!

Someone's snappy. I was trying to help you out by pointing out that 1600 meters is more than a "only several hundred meters, if even". So, you're welcome, I guess.

My post was in agreement, no hard feelings directed toward you. Sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Second one was to csavioa.

Anyways. I can bike 4 hours at 15mph but I can only run 15 min at 6mph. My cardio is messed up.

You mean go out and bike instead of sitting on a chair checking forums?... Will do.

In winter when I use the stationary bikes at the gym they say I am burning 450-530 calories an hour, iirc. That is with a constant cadence, so I would assume it would be about the same as riding a fixed gear. I have no idea what the numbers are for running, but like was previously mentioned it obviously depends on your intensity.

However this calorie calculator says that I'd be burning like 900 calories an hour, which I don't think is right. But it's top allowable speed is 17.5 mph.

i think all those calorie measurements on gym equipments are too high. But that's just me.

I have always wondered how they equate. I alternate days of running and riding fixed to work. It's 8 miles and riding usually takes 25 minutes with running taking 70-75 minutes. By that time differential, would it be 1 mile run equals 3 miles bike, assuming you do them both at the same effort level? I have no idea. I try to do both in the same cardio zone but I'm generally a faster cyclist than I am runner. Running takes significantly more out of me.

For me 1 mile jogging = ~10 miles riding.

It also depends hugely on the person. Riding fitness has almost no relation to running fitness.
There are tons of "weekend warrior" types who can ride a century every weekend but would collapse in a heap if they tried to run a mile in under 10 minutes.

---

The problem with cycling as a cardio workout is that it's way too easy to take breaks without having to admit you're taking a break. With running, if you're running and not walking, you'll be at 70-80% MHR. If you want to take a break, you walk. Everyone sees you walk. You see yourself walk. You go more slowly. Your heart rate drops.
You're walking. You're going slow and you feel like a loser, so you wanna keep running. Keep going fast.

On a bike you can be cruising at 24 mph on the open road, and maybe when you are putting the hammer down you still hit that 80% MHR, but if you take it easy for 5-10 seconds your momentum still carries you along at that same speed. Maybe you drop down to 23.6 mph, but no one noticed, you don't look like you're working less, you still feel like you're going fast.
But you're slacking. And it's easier to do, because you're still going fast. So you do it more often.

I think cycling has a couple good niches in a cardio/weight loss regimen. One is for long duration, low intensity aka fat burning. It takes a special kind of person to run at a low intensity for 2 or 3 hours. Anyone can ride their bike for a few hours. Mostly because of the above: even when you're mailing it in, you still go fast, which is fun.

The second niche is in interval training. Ride up the hill, ride down the hill... ride up the hill, ride down the hill... ride up the hill, ride down the hill...
Disciplined people can accomplish the same thing on flat ground with sprints, but the thing about a hill is that you can see the top, and that motivation keeps you from lessening your intensity before you crest.
Plus, on a steep enough hill, you know that if you don't power through to the top you'll stall out and have to get off. That's an even more effective motivator than the walking-while-running-loser thing.
Fixed gear and single speed interval hill training is even more effective, because you don't have bail-out granny gears.

I've always heard that the rule of thumb is: 3 miles biking = 1 mile running. Obviously this can vary widely depending on intensity, but it's pretty good as a general estimate anyways.

Another poster stated that time and heart rate are a better indicator. This is also true. However, since cycling isn't a weight bearing exercise, if you run and cycle at the same "exertion" level (aka how hard it feels), cycling will usually yield a slightly lower heart rate than running. Meaning you would have to cycle for a longer amount of time to burn the same # of calories.

Of course, all of this is based on hearsay and conjecture, and is therefore probably useless.

interesting question, but I can't answer it. but I will share that walking 3 miles burns the same number of calories as running 3 miles. it just takes longer to walk.

there's an added benefit to running due to what it does to your metabolism. there's an added benefit to walking cuz of what it doesn't do to your knees and feet.

you run 8 miles to work? So awesome. Good for you!
i can't even run 2 miles without dying i think. Biking is a whole different issue.