running versus cycling fitness distances and effort requir

disney

Hi all,
just joined as have become a cyclist again after a thirty year absence(age 50+ ) and (found this very nice forum) having promised to give up the marathon running etc to my family.
My question is related to the fact that I have found that I must now continue running standard 10 km distances frequently because I have found that my fitness has gradually deteriorated over the past few months as i have increased my cycling and decreased my running. I cycle 4/5 times a week about 16 miles a session at at a fast rate taking about one hour in time approximately on an undulating course.
Can anybody tell me if there is any standard comparison between cycling distance and running using similar efforts? I have even gone up to 25 miles but still find the distance not comparable to a 10km run at a faster pace. My running pace WAS 3 miles 100% in 22 minutes and 7 miles at 80% in under an hour on hilly terrain. This has deteriorated on 4 cycle rides and 2 runs per week. Any ideas or suggestions most welcome. I am trying to find a sort of time in saddle to time running ratio.

penugent

Many years ago I read a running mag article that suggested cycling 4 miles was equal to running 1 mile. Can't recall if there was any scientific basis.

Toks

disney wrote:

Hi all,
My question is related to the fact that I have found that I must now continue running standard 10 km distances frequently because I have found that my fitness has gradually deteriorated over the past few months as i have increased my cycling and decreased my running..

Welcome aboard, are you talking general fitness or cycling fitness? Which one has deteriorated?

I cycle 4/5 times a week about 16 miles a session at at a fast rate taking about one hour in time approximately on an undulating course.
Can anybody tell me if there is any standard comparison between cycling distance and running using similar efforts? I

It sounds like you're trying to compare oranges with apples?

stevejmo7

Difficult to say as my running was done about 15 yrs ago. Did 53 for 10 on 70ml/wk at 6min miles inc speedwork once a week, but now do 180 ml/week on the bike at 16 - 21 mph. I would think that 53 for 10 equates to 21 on the bike. I find that cycling is far more demanding certainly on time as I feel that 1 hour running is worth 2 or more on the bike. Hills certainly get me into oxygen debt quicker and intervals are probably harder on the bike - my main interval session running was 10 x 200 building up to 20 x 200 where I would be tired at the end of each one but not as in bent over gasping as the quality couldn't be maintained. On the bike I do 10 x half miles where I can be bent over the bars gasping at the end of each one, recover and still maintain the same speed over the session. After doing nearly 20 years running I must say that I enjoy riding the bike more !

disney

quote:
Welcome aboard, are you talking general fitness or cycling fitness? Which one has deteriorated?

I equate all my running/cycling efforts with my general fitness.



I have noticed the extra effort of 'out of the saddle riding up a steep hill 'as requiring 100% effort quickly causes oxygen debt, but I am looking for a general average

Could we say a ratio of 4/5 miles riding for 1 mile running as an average starter and that to maintain my 10km fitness I would need to cycle at least 25 miles per session.

A 3 mile run at 100% has always meant a gentle jog back home with tired legs, maybe I need a steep 3 mile hill on each cycle ride.

Turnbull2000

Difficult to tell.

I usually prefer my Sunday rides to be quite demanding, covering as many hills plenty of hills and at a decent pace over roughly 70-80 miles. Whereas with running, I tend to vary the intensity. After a 20 mile jog, my legs would certainly feel more tired than say a 60-80 mile ride on the same terrain. But I jog these distances less frequently, so again cannot compare to a well maintained riding fitness.

But...

I'd been out of running action for three weeks as a result of an injury. When I donned the trainers for the first time again on Friday, I discovered that my running pace and stamina suffered a noticeable drop - even though I had continued cycling in those intervening weeks.

Mike Willcox

10 miles cycling is the same as 2 miles running.

Also if you can do the indian rope trick then it's also the same as climbing 20 metres up a rope, or if you can do a handstand, walking 30 metres on your hands. It all depends what you fancy doing and what you want to be fit for.

Fitness is dependant on the discipline you are measuring. They all use different muscles so to my mind it's totally meaningless. It's like asking if I can hop on one leg for 100 yards pushing a wheelbarrow full of carrots, is that the same as riding a bike for 3 miles? Er no it's 4 miles.

disney

I have noticed the different muscular needs with cycling, but I wish to continue running less to save the joints, but continue with the same cardiovascular fitness levels so that I could switch easily from one discipline to the other and enjoy the benefits of each.
I note that Lance Armstrong just did the New York marathon in 2.45, an improvement over his first marathon. His comments about the effort required were interesting.
Am I getting a consensus of 4/5 to 1 ratio on average or as suggested 'just pie in the sky'.

Toks

disney wrote:

Could we say a ratio of 4/5 miles riding for 1 mile running as an average starter and that to maintain my 10km fitness I would need to cycle at least 25 miles per session.

.

Er no its not gonna work. If you want to maintain 10k running speed you're gonna have to keep running and if you want to be good at cycling...mmm exactly :? . Different sports, different muscle groups, different lactate thresholds, more than likely different VO2max's. Fitness is very sports specific end of...

BlackHelmet

Welcome to the forun Disney.

A 4:1 ratio is good enough. But this is really only good for measuring your overall training volume when you crosstrain a lot.

If your goal is to maintain 10k running fitness whilst substituting some run training with cycling, then yes that's possible.

The key is to make sure every run has a purpose. At a minimum, I'd say every 10-days aim to do a tempo run, intervals and a distance run. Use cycling in between as both recovery rides and to build/maintain general fitness.

Good luck.

ut_och_cykla

My guesstimate would be a ratio of 1:3 based on time. I can't see any real reason why you can't be pretty good at running and cycling - triathletes manage and swim as well! but I think you need to be a bit inventive when it comes to training. It's easy not to work quite hard enough LONG enough on a bike thanks to micro rests, freewheeling etc. Experiment a bit to see how LITTLE running you need to do to keep a reasonable running fitness and then add teh bike stuff around that; perhaps just once a week is enough?Best cycling replacement would be an hour into a head wind or up a hill - to avoid micro rests etc! Or an hour on thedreaded turbo.
I don't like running but its easier to fit in in the winter 2C, horizontal sleet and running is ok compared to the same on a bike!

timestar

This issue has come up before on various threads. If you run, then you will train your body to run. It is a muscle specific exercise, although things such as cardiovascular fitness and so on will also improve. Cycling is even more muscle specific as it is quite a unique action. From my own experience I always find it "easier" to run the cycle - rather than the other way around. I have nothing but admiration for all triathletes who of course cycle then run.

disney

Many thanks for the replies so far.
it looks like I will have to up the running again. Probably follow the Furman institute plans and taper them until I find a nice balance as I really enjoy the cycling now.