Cycling Vs Running

jonesey10

How far do you think you'd have to ride before you used the same amount of energy as someone running a marathon?
I think it'd be about 100 miles but a runner at work thinks it would be over 200 miles.
any ideas or definate scientific answers?
Ta muchly

hammerite

This question comes up regularly.

I think from an energy point of view about 4 miles on a bike = 1 mile run has been quoted before as a rule of thumb, it depends on terrain, weather and the person though.

But there are a lot of other things to take into consideration. For example, the pounding your legs take through the impact of running is phenomenal.
At the top end marathon runners race 2-3 times a year (and train about 100-150 miles per week), where as top end riders race 100 miles+ for 21 days in grand tours.

redddraggon

Cycling is "easier" than running for loads of reasons.

It's not as boring. You can freewheel (to have a small rest) It doesn't hurt as much (unless you fall off) Travelling 100miles sounds far better than 26 miles It's easier to carry food and drink on the bike Cycling

can be more sociable.
If your bike fits/cleats aligned correctly, there should no real physical damage on your body

pedylan

Depends how fast. For example, and very crudely, cycling at 15mph requires approaching twice the calorie burn per mile compared to 10mph. 20mph (which would be near racing speed over moderate distances) nearly doubles it again compared to 15mph.

However, say a trained or fit cyclist could maintain 18mph over a long distance and a trained or fit runner could maintain 7mph. They would both require around 800 cals per hour. The runner would do his marathon in under 4 hours at 7mph whilst the cyclist would cover 67 miles in the same time. They'd both consume nearly 3000 cals.

More knowledgeable trainers or nutritionists might come up with more informed answers - I just did the empirical calculations!

pedylan

redddraggon wrote:

Cycling is "easier" than running for loads of reasons.

It is certainly easier. I can cycle 100 miles OK and my gym routine regularly involves 20 mins on a treadmill at 12.5km/hr.

Last weekend I said to my son (who's doing Great North run but not IMHO training enough) "let's get out for a run". Went for 4 miles at what i thought was a reasonable pace and I enjoyed it. Next day I had to go downstairs backwards. :oops:

jimmythecuckoo

From a motivational and freshness point of view, I am enjoying mixing my training and doing a little running now.

A bit of rounded fitness is my aim.

Parsnip49

Running absolutley destroys your body. i hurt for a few days afer a 10k race, and after my last half mary i walked like i had no joints for a week.

Conversley, a 40K TT hurts untill my HR is back down and im done boaking.

Pain on the bike feels good in a perverse sort of way. Sprinting up a hill with the legs burning feels kind of good.

Pain when running isnt fun, and usually leads to a trip to ibuprofen land.

Calorie wise, running is around 100kcals/mile.
Cycling 50 miles burns aroud 2000.

jonesey10

Are you sure those figures are correct Parsnip?
A runner would only burn 2600 calories running a marathon?

idaviesmoore

jonesey10 wrote:

Are you sure those figures are correct Parsnip?
A runner would only burn 2600 calories running a marathon?

It's only a guide, but not too far off the mark actually.

I did 3400 last year at Blackpool marathon. It was hot and I was going for a PB. I'm also on the heavy side (72kg) for a marathon runner. :roll:

Jez mon

If cycling isn't hurting, you aren't going hard enough :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I would say they are nigh on impossible to compare, one slowly distroys your body and the other is a fantastic sport....

ean

This webpage gives the following coefficients - running 0.653 calories/mile/pound and cycling 0.28 calories/mile/pound which means you'd have to cycle 60 miles to use the same energy as running a marathon.

Dunno how accurate the coefficients are though.

Not Another Hill

Running for me = (pain + intense pain + agony + knee damage) x a trillion.

Biking = (pain x pleasure) - the hours of sunlit riding.

Needless to say the last run I did was about 6 years ago whereas I enjoyed a pleasurable Sunday Club ride yesterday

scottjessuk

Sounds about right all of the above, I have started running because If you want to get fit it's one of the best forms of exercise, I cycle too but I'm always a lot more tired after a run than I am a cycle. Maybe I'm just not pushing myself enough when I'm on the bike. Anyway I think I will try and keep both up and hopefully become better at both, and maybe one day enjoy running as much as cycling, very much doubt it though.

nwallace

Running is for chasing the bus
Cycling is for avoiding the bus

Lagavulin

I'd rather go out for 3, 4, 5 or 6 hours on my bike than run a sodding mile nowadays. I was rather good at 100's, 200's and 400's - and still have a fair lick of pace in a quick sprint (not on a bike though ).
However, I think it was distance runs and primarily the nightmare of cross country at school during the winter put me off running for life as form of exercise. :evil:

il_principe

I hate running. Something I think people have missed though is the terrain. Marathons are pretty flat in general, so how would a marathon compare to say a 110 mile cycle ride in the Pyrenees/Alps - eg the Etape. Of course on a bike you do get to go downhill but that's having gone up in the first place, and going up means carrying the weight of your bike as well as your body and makes for very hard work! Personally I think something like the Etape is harder than a marathon - of course I've never done a marathon as I'm not completely daft.

Now real men do the Ironman!*

*clearly I'm not a real man, the idea of competing in an ironman scares the cr@p out of me. :oops:

jpembroke

Due to time constraints (new baby) I'm almost entirely running these days. I only run offroad on hills between 4 and 8 miles with about 1000-1500' of ascent. It does hurt but you adapt and I absolutely love it. Done some hill races and got some good placings. Now looking forward to a weekend of running in North Wales in a few weeks. I just love the simplicity of it.

Hate road running though. Yawn.

Parsnip49

a marathon is much harder than the etape.

a 110 mile ride up hills (all be it big mountainy ones) will be hard, and you will burn a huge ammount of calories doing it.

a 26.2 mile run will burn far fewer calories (1/2 at most) but will be much harder on your body. A moderatley fit roadie could ride the Etape maybe 3-4 times in a week. A pro tour rider will manage it 7 times. Compare this to a marathon runner's season and you will see how much harder a marathon is.

richa

Parsnip49 wrote:

a marathon is much harder than the etape.

a 110 mile ride up hills (all be it big mountainy ones) will be hard, and you will burn a huge ammount of calories doing it.

a 26.2 mile run will burn far fewer calories (1/2 at most) but will be much harder on your body. A moderatley fit roadie could ride the Etape maybe 3-4 times in a week. A pro tour rider will manage it 7 times. Compare this to a marathon runner's season and you will see how much harder a marathon is.

I think you have to define "harder" to answer this.

The reason that running is harder on your body is the impact, not the effort, thus recovery is quicker. Hence Etape requires more exertion, more energy, more effort than Marathon, yet recovery is quicker. Should we include the 'damage' done to the body as how hard an event is?

Parsnip49

I would argue its harder on both counts.

The recovery - no question - a marathon ruins you for a good while.

As for the actual difficults, i would still go with running - there is no let up - you are either running or you are not, there is no freewheel option - even if you dont freewheel much, over a 6 hour ride it will add up - standing in the pedals to stretch, taking on food etc. If your in a group, sitting in for recovery between pulls will help a lot too.

Having never ridden the etape, i cant really coment on how hard it is, but personlly, a long run for me is more physically and mentally demanding than a long bike - in both the recovery and during the activity. When im running hard, my whole body is screaming to stop and it takes all that i have to keep going. When im cycling and my body starts complaining, i tell it to HTFU and try to make the numbers with the big W after them go bigger.

Parsnip49

As for the energy burned argument, it doesnt hold water.

By that argument, sitting doing nothing for 24 hours is about as hard as a marathon due to the fact they burn the same calories.

redddraggon

Parsnip49 wrote:

As for the actual difficults, i would still go with running - there is no let up - you are either running or you are not, there is no freewheel option - even if you dont freewheel much, over a 6 hour ride it will add up - standing in the pedals to stretch, taking on food etc. If your in a group, sitting in for recovery between pulls will help a lot too.

This is why cycling is better for fitness in my opinion - I couldn't run for much more than 30mins without getting bored/tired/pain - I could cycle for 6 hours I might freewheel for 20% of the time but I would still have done nearly 5 hours of effort.

Running is definitely some sort of masochism. Cycling is far more fun, which means you are likely to put into it and get more out of it.

ride_whenever

howabout fixie riding?

jpembroke

how about fell running?

Lagavulin

jpembroke wrote:

how about fell running?

That's insane!
Last time I was in the Lakes I witnessed fell runners while climbing Cat Bells, Barrow and Blencathra. It had rained quite heavily and I wasn't all that sure footed and I was just hiking.

idaviesmoore

Now real men do the Ironman!*

*clearly I'm not a real man, the idea of competing in an ironman scares the cr@p out of me. :oops:[/quote]

:shock: Actually, real men do Deca Ironman :shock: :twisted:

hammerite

idaviesmoore wrote:

Now real men do the Ironman!*

*clearly I'm not a real man, the idea of competing in an ironman scares the cr@p out of me. :oops:

:shock: Actually, real men do Deca Ironman :shock: :twisted:

They certainly do. I'm toying with the idea of doing an ironman (when the little one is older and I have a bit more time) but I am attempting a half ironman next month.

As for fell running, it's bloody good fun (if not bloody hard work!). Unfortunately my fell shoes haven't seen daylught after tearing my ankle ligaments last year (not caused through fell running!).

I have a former running club mate who before he was known in his first few fell races managed to upset some fell running "legends" by breezing past them up some fells in the lakes (my clubmate is a very good runner), he still finished a couple minutes behind them though as he just didn't have the guts as they did to just let himself go on the downhills!!

idaviesmoore

hammerite wrote:

idaviesmoore wrote:

Now real men do the Ironman!*

*clearly I'm not a real man, the idea of competing in an ironman scares the cr@p out of me. :oops:

:shock: Actually, real men do Deca Ironman :shock: :twisted:

They certainly do. I'm toying with the idea of doing an ironman (when the little one is older and I have a bit more time) but I am attempting a half ironman next month.

As for fell running, it's bloody good fun (if not bloody hard work!). Unfortunately my fell shoes haven't seen daylught after tearing my ankle ligaments last year (not caused through fell running!).

I have a former running club mate who before he was known in his first few fell races

managed to upset some fell running "legends" by breezing past them up some fells in the lakes (my clubmate is a very good runner), he still finished a couple minutes behind them though as he just didn't have the guts as they did to just let himself go on the downhills!!

They don't run down hills they 'Fall With Style'

Which Half IM are you doing?

hammerite

idaviesmoore wrote:

They don't run down hills they 'Fall With Style'

Which Half IM are you doing?

I'm doing New Forest Middle Distance (not official IM 70.3 race, but the correct distance). I've only done sprints so far, got an Oly in 2.5 weeks time, then New Forest at the end of September.

I can do all the elements individually for a half IM, just need to stick it all together now!

idaviesmoore

hammerite wrote:

idaviesmoore wrote:

They don't run down hills they 'Fall With Style'

Which Half IM are you doing?

I'm doing New Forest Middle Distance (not official IM 70.3 race, but the correct distance). I've only done sprints so far, got an Oly in 2.5 weeks time, then New Forest at the end of September.

I can do all the elements individually for a half IM, just need to stick it all together now!

Nice 1!! I'm doing Bala Oly in Septemebr and the UK half IM next year. Good luck

disney

After 10 Londons and many half m's I can definately state that running is far far tougher. I can go out and ride at a reasonable pace for miles and miles with very little training.I can even be very silly and go from a 50 miler at a fast pace and go straight to 80 or more. Recovery is simply get off the bike and eat and drink, lubricate the saddle sores and then carry on as normal more or less. Try that with the marathon/half etc or suitable distance and you will feel like death for days. It takes me 3 months to train to reach marathon distance at even a slow speed (4hour). I have a lovely fitness test I use which involves my running flat out for 3 miles and then I measure off a chart my fitness v age aerobic level and I try to keep above the 90% level. After such a run I have to walk back home with just a slow recovery jog eventually. I have tried to do the same with cycling and do at least 15 miles flat out.Hills seem to show some emulation if they have a big gradient. But yet again recovery is very fast. I can even carry on cycling a long distance. I have yet to find the distance that will emulate a marathon. It probably must be at least 150 miles or more( who knows?), at a level of effort that requires you to hit the wall and then carry on in an exhausted state where you can hardly push the pedals around and your body actually tries to make you stop. There is simply no comparison between how you feel and the recovery required from running to cycling. Infact I still have to run to keep up a reasonable level of fitness. IMO, so take it with the proverbial pinch of salt.