Cycling vs Running

2»

Comments

  • kieranb
    kieranb Posts: 1,674
    Alwaystoohot wrote:
    I don't know about cycling but sports science experts rate swimming training at the ration 1 : 4.5 with running. So a 5 kms swim is the equivilent of 22.5 kms running.

    that seems generous to running, that about 1 hour 30min running (roughly a 40min 10k pace) and looking at tri times for the outlaw tri the iron man distance swim of 3.9km the vast majority of times are > 1hour 10 min add in another 1.1 km and your getting over 1.5 hours swimming (roughly 1km in 18min)

    From http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=269
    And that threefold difference in stroke efficiency is only half the story. A world-class runner is about 90% mechanically efficient, meaning that 90 of every 100 calories expended produce forward motion, while approximately 10 are lost to muscle heat, ground friction, wind resistance, etc.. Because water is 900 times thicker than air and highly unstable as a medium for applying power, a world-class swimmer is only 9% mechanically efficient -- which means the typical Beginner Triathlete probably has energy efficiency of about 3 percent.

    One reason I think people think cycling is much easier is because in a marathon there is no real rest (unless you stop and walk) whereas on the bike people will often coast for a bit and get a rest whilst still moving. But doing a TT you shouldn't be coasting so there is little rest, so the difference should not be so much.
  • kieranb
    kieranb Posts: 1,674
    Pep wrote:
    How many marathons do the best runner in the world do? Two a year, a dozen or two in their life.

    Including training, I would have thought a lot more than a dozen or two over the course of their career!
  • springtide9
    springtide9 Posts: 1,731
    Peddle Up! wrote:
    Hinzy9 wrote:
    Could I ride 100 miles tomorrow? Yes
    Could I run 26 miles tomorrow? Not a chance!
    Could a marathon runner ride 100 miles? Anyone know?

    It uses slightly different sets of muscles, but a decent runner will take to cycling fairly easily - and don't think 100 miles would be that much of an issue if you are reasonably fit.

    But I don't think they are not really comparable. Chalk and cheese.

    As above, it's the impact of running that is a killer. Have avoided running most of my life, but signed up for a Half M this year. My limitation when running was always from the impact - rather than fitness. I managed a sub 100 min Half M for my first ever event - which I was pretty pleased with as I'd only put 4 months training in - but there is no way you'd get me to run 26 miles - even if I only needed to do it in 5 hrs. The Half M really did break me - my knees took months to fully recover.
    On shorter distances, the impact is less of an issue. I am fine running distances up to about 10k with very little running training - but the once I get over the hour running - it takes its toll.

    I don't think it's because it's easier or harder... but I think the muscles and structures in your legs adapt to be able to cope with the impact over time.
    Simon
  • schweiz
    schweiz Posts: 1,644
    I ran the Zürich Marathon in April 2009 with something like 75km of running training since the start of 2009. My fitness all came from cycling. It was my first marathon and I did it in 4:05:54.

    I'll accept it's a flat course but a day in the Alps is harder. Just to be climbing at 8-12% for something like 1 to 1.5 hours without a break requires far more training. Then again, the average marathon runner will probably struggle on this: http://www.jungfrau-marathon.ch/ws2/en/ ... e/profile/ so maybe a a flatish marathon course should be compared to a flatish road ride.

    Either way, I reckon is closer to 4:1 than 10:1
    VN BMC Cube SS
    http://app.strava.com/athletes/30000
  • thescouselander
    thescouselander Posts: 549
    So, thought I'd use some of the many on line calculators they are available:

    For riding: http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

    and for running: http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/t ... ounter.asp


    Just messing about with it for my weight (about 80kg) if I ran at 10mph for 10 mins I'd use 221 calories. On a bike at the same speed for 10 mins it would be about 24 cal

    Now, if I were to ride the same distance at normal speed that becomes 67 cal

    So running looks anywhere between 4 and 10 times harder than cycling.
  • Speedmenace
    Speedmenace Posts: 97
    Peddle Up! wrote:
    Hinzy9 wrote:
    Could I ride 100 miles tomorrow? Yes
    Could I run 26 miles tomorrow? Not a chance!

    Could a marathon runner ride 100 miles? Anyone know?

    anyone can ride 100 miles. it all depends on how fast you are running/cycling

    calories burned during a quickish 100 mile ride is probably close to a marathon
  • nochekmate
    nochekmate Posts: 3,460
    Running a marathon is defintely harder than a 100 mile bike ride.

    Physically it's harder and psychologically it's much much harder. I have completed a number of marathons and despite a PB of 3hrs 15 mins, I've never managed to run the complete distance, without having a stop somewhere along the way to walk/jog (I know that I am not strong mentally).

    I did my first 100 mile bike ride 3 years ago in 6hrs after just 8 weeks preparation (and I was pretty unfit prior to the event, having stopped running some years beforehand). I thought initially that it would prove to be as hard as a marathon but it seemed much easier to build up stamina on the bike than it ever was when running.

    No comparison in my view with these distances. Running 26 miles is a hell of a long way - especially if you can do it without walking!
  • schweiz
    schweiz Posts: 1,644
    nochekmate wrote:
    Running a marathon is defintely harder than a 100 mile bike ride.

    Physically it's harder and psychologically it's much much harder. I have completed a number of marathons and despite a PB of 3hrs 15 mins, I've never managed to run the complete distance, without having a stop somewhere along the way to walk/jog (I know that I am not strong mentally).

    I did my first 100 mile bike ride 3 years ago in 6hrs after just 8 weeks preparation (and I was pretty unfit prior to the event, having stopped running some years beforehand). I thought initially that it would prove to be as hard as a marathon but it seemed much easier to build up stamina on the bike than it ever was when running.

    No comparison in my view with these distances. Running 26 miles is a hell of a long way - especially if you can do it without walking!

    Now do 100 miles on a bike in 3 hrs 15 mins!
    VN BMC Cube SS
    http://app.strava.com/athletes/30000
  • alwaystoohot
    alwaystoohot Posts: 252
    kieranb wrote:
    Alwaystoohot wrote:
    I don't know about cycling but sports science experts rate swimming training at the ration 1 : 4.5 with running. So a 5 kms swim is the equivilent of 22.5 kms running.

    that seems generous to running, that about 1 hour 30min running (roughly a 40min 10k pace) and looking at tri times for the outlaw tri the iron man distance swim of 3.9km the vast majority of times are > 1hour 10 min add in another 1.1 km and your getting over 1.5 hours swimming (roughly 1km in 18min)

    From http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=269
    And that threefold difference in stroke efficiency is only half the story. A world-class runner is about 90% mechanically efficient, meaning that 90 of every 100 calories expended produce forward motion, while approximately 10 are lost to muscle heat, ground friction, wind resistance, etc.. Because water is 900 times thicker than air and highly unstable as a medium for applying power, a world-class swimmer is only 9% mechanically efficient -- which means the typical Beginner Triathlete probably has energy efficiency of about 3 percent.

    One reason I think people think cycling is much easier is because in a marathon there is no real rest (unless you stop and walk) whereas on the bike people will often coast for a bit and get a rest whilst still moving. But doing a TT you shouldn't be coasting so there is little rest, so the difference should not be so much.

    I dug the info out Kieran:

    http://www.marathonguide.com/training/c ... aining.cfm

    "Make Time For Crosstraining"
    by Mindy Solkin


    The most complimentary exercises for runners are cycling and swimming. These two sports are both non-weight-bearing activities, simply meaning that you are not using your entire body to support the full weight of your body, as you do with running. To figure out the amount of time you should engage in a specific cross training activity you need to know the time comparisons between the sports that will ultimately provide the ratios.

    CYCLING
    Since cycling requires a high level of aerobic conditioning, it is most akin to running. It also allows you to add intensity to your training without putting extra stress on your leg muscles. Although it is best to use cycling as an "active-recovery" day of exercise whereby you cycle at a moderate pace (one that would equal an easy run) you can also do intervals on a bike. This is beneficial to your training because it enables you to get a high intensity workout, without the impact of running.

    CYCLING BY THE NUMBERS

    The run to bike ratio is about 1:3, meaning that one mile of running equals three miles of cycling. At 8:00 to 10:00 pace, you'd be running 24 to 30 minutes (respectively) for approximately a three-mile run to equate to nine miles of biking.
    Try to maintain a cadence of 90 revolutions per minute (rpm) that will mimic the optimal stride rate for running of 90 single footsteps per minute.
    Aim for an intensity of 15 to 18 miles per hour.
    Just like in running, if you are cycling outside you will encounter wind and air resistance that will be harder than indoor cycling.
    Stay away from the recumbent stationary bikes, as they put too much pressure on your lower back and make it more difficult to keep the 90-rpm cadence.
    SWIMMING
    The therapeutic nature of swimming makes it an excellent choice for cross training. Besides the actual fitness that it gives you, swimming (and just being in the water) is a great way to self-treat the inflammation of running. In addition, if you're lucky enough to have a hot tub nearby, you can incorporate contrast baths into your training program. Start with a swim, then proceed to the hot tub for 10 minutes, and finish off with some light stretching in the pool.

    SWIMMING BY THE NUMBERS

    The run to swim ratio is about 4:1, meaning that four miles of running equals one mile of swimming. At 8:00 to 10:00 pace, you'd be running 32 to 40 minutes (respectively) for approximately a four-mile run to equate to one mile of swimming.
    Counting your strokes will enable your workout to be more efficient. Aim for 24 strokes in a 25-meter pool.
    Breathe every two to three strokes when swimming freestyle. You'll tire too quickly if you breathe less often. When taking a breath, turn your head just far enough for your mouth to clear the water. Your hips and legs will sink if you turn too far.
    To improve your freestyle stroke, alternate swimming with your fists closed for one lap, then open for the next. This helps your hands develop a feel for the water. Don't begin stroking with one arm until the other one is fully extended in front of you.
    Swimming with fins can increase ankle flexibility and strengthen muscles in the quads, hamstrings, calves and abdomen, all beneficial to runners.
    If you're new to swimming, aim to swim for 15 to 20 minutes. Start by resting for just five to ten seconds at the end of each lap. Your goal should be to eventually swim without taking any rests.
    'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'
  • silverpigeon
    silverpigeon Posts: 327
    If you look at ironman races - it's 112 miles bike and then 26.2 miles run and they feel about as hard.

    Or even triathlon races. 6 mile run, 25 mile bike ride.

    Both are easier than the swimming leg though
    Basso Astra
    Principia Ellipse SX
    Kinesis Racelight 4S
    Kinesis Crosslight Pro Disc
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    No the swimming is easy on a triathlon by comparison.
    Even a crappy swimmer like me can swim the IM distance swim (2.4m) of an evening. I've never run 26.2 miles or biked 112 miles after work.
  • tigerben
    tigerben Posts: 233
    I love the swimming leg hate the running - dodgy knees
  • alwaystoohot
    alwaystoohot Posts: 252
    cougie wrote:
    No the swimming is easy on a triathlon by comparison.
    Even a crappy swimmer like me can swim the IM distance swim (2.4m) of an evening. I've never run 26.2 miles or biked 112 miles after work.

    You're not comparing like with like, 2.4 miles swimming is equal to 9.6 miles running, not a marathon.
    'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    kieranb wrote:
    Pep wrote:
    How many marathons do the best runner in the world do? Two a year, a dozen or two in their life.

    Including training, I would have thought a lot more than a dozen or two over the course of their career!

    Agreed! A friend of mine used to run a marathon every weekend, either an official event or simply a 26 mile run round the streets. Until he did his knees in that is..... 2 marathons a year is way too low a number...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • nochekmate
    nochekmate Posts: 3,460
    Headhuunter wrote:
    kieranb wrote:
    Pep wrote:
    How many marathons do the best runner in the world do? Two a year, a dozen or two in their life.

    Including training, I would have thought a lot more than a dozen or two over the course of their career!

    Agreed! A friend of mine used to run a marathon every weekend, either an official event or simply a 26 mile run round the streets. Until he did his knees in that is..... 2 marathons a year is way too low a number...

    Clearly his mileage contributed to that issue! I don't think that the human body and particularly the joints that are stressed through running will stand that sort of mileage for too long.

    2 competitive marathons a year might be the aim of the very elite runners, although they will of course be covering high weekly mileage regularly (although this will not necessarily mean running the full 26 miles - most will incorporate two daily running sessions into their programme. Such runners are also backed by a coaching/medical team but even with this in place, the mileage takes its toll - see Paula Radcliffe's problems over recent years)
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    nochekmate wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    kieranb wrote:
    Pep wrote:
    How many marathons do the best runner in the world do? Two a year, a dozen or two in their life.

    Including training, I would have thought a lot more than a dozen or two over the course of their career!

    Agreed! A friend of mine used to run a marathon every weekend, either an official event or simply a 26 mile run round the streets. Until he did his knees in that is..... 2 marathons a year is way too low a number...

    Clearly his mileage contributed to that issue! I don't think that the human body and particularly the joints that are stressed through running will stand that sort of mileage for too long.

    2 competitive marathons a year might be the aim of the very elite runners, although they will of course be covering high weekly mileage regularly (although this will not necessarily mean running the full 26 miles - most will incorporate two daily running sessions into their programme. Such runners are also backed by a coaching/medical team but even with this in place, the mileage takes its toll - see Paula Radcliffe's problems over recent years)

    I still think that 2 marathons per year is way too low for any half decent runner. yes, doing more may do your joints in but it is possible and normal for many runners to run marathons much more regularly than twice a year...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • silverpigeon
    silverpigeon Posts: 327
    I get out of breath eating a marathon.
    Basso Astra
    Principia Ellipse SX
    Kinesis Racelight 4S
    Kinesis Crosslight Pro Disc
  • holker
    holker Posts: 88
    markos1963 wrote:
    A lady in our club runs and cycles, she did the London marathon and reckons it's far harder than any 100miler she has done(she's a gold standard TTer so she knows her stuff) Roughly about 6 to 1 I think the figure is.

    Horses for courses. I come from a running background. For me a marathon would be a stroll in the park compared to 100 miles on the bike. It really depends on what your main sport is and your physiology. Although both running and cycling are both about aerobic fitness and stamina rather than strength, I think running is more so. Cycling makes more demands on core and muscular strength than running. Also cycling is more forgiving to those carrying a few pounds over fighting weight, probably coz the bike carries some of the body weight. Running is more stressful on the body and it takes longer to recover mainly coz of the impact
  • stronginthesun
    stronginthesun Posts: 433
    running is cheaper
  • anto164
    anto164 Posts: 3,500
    Brommers76 wrote:
    Impact is the killer with running. I could cycle 100miles then cycle the next day. I couldn't run a marathon and then run the next day.

    This is also a factor when considering long term running. If you don't get your technique correct when you start running (i.e. on the ball of your foot, not landing on your heel like you see a lot of people doing) then you are putting a lot of stress on your knees and hip joints, so this is potentially more damaging than cycling and can lead to problems.

    Get your technique and you're fine.

    I've suffered a serious hip injury recently (At age 24) and got told by the doctors/ physio that running is a no-no, but cycling is fine and i could do it all day if i wanted!
  • lvquestpaddler
    lvquestpaddler Posts: 416
    This is also a factor when considering long term running. If you don't get your technique correct when you start running (i.e. on the ball of your foot, not landing on your heel like you see a lot of people doing) then you are putting a lot of stress on your knees and hip joints, so this is potentially more damaging than cycling and can lead to problems.

    I gave up running after just a short while in 1993 when I took my worn out shoes to Dundee Runner(specialist place with an ex athlete owner), he examined the soles to see how my gait was and said "Hmmm.....you run completely on the forefoot like a sprinter, there's no wear whatsoever on the heels" I thought "Oh well, I'm obviously crap at this can't even land on my heels I'll jack it and take up MTB'ing!"

    It's amazing how things change and all the runners are trying to adopt this more natural running style. And I wonder how many people have ruined their joints with heel striking who will have problems stored for later life...

    I've been trying to get back into running again but only trails/forest stuff, never tarmac/concrete again. I'm trying the Fartlek and HIIT style with a hope that one day running quickly the intervals between may lessen and it might stay continuous. I love running flat out, it feels good and natural(even though I'm slow!), but slowing it down to an "endurance" pace for a lengthy jog just feels awful. I reckon running is far harder than cycling- but then I'll never be at a level where I can make a real comparison will I? :wink:
    And it's cos I'm carrying excess weight too.....! :oops:
    (Did anyone watch Mo Farrah at yesterdays athletics on the telly? Unbelievable!)
  • captainhastings
    captainhastings Posts: 4
    Running is far harder on the body. I completed an ultra in may and picked up an injury that now stops me dead after about 4 miles. Luckily it has no affect on my cycling so I can at least get on with that.
    I think the running is also better for weight loss or at least makes it easier too lose weight
  • the_spooks
    the_spooks Posts: 190
    Having completed the c2c recently over 2 days, my companions then did 5 back to back marathons and they were surprised at how much the bike took out of them. The running was harder there is no doubt but still it does show that cycling is not easy for runners. Ratio wise I reckon 4:1 is about right, but I know I can cycle 80 miles but I would be lucky to run 1 mile.
  • captainhastings
    captainhastings Posts: 4
    Yes I agree neither really helps the other apart from giving you a general base fitness. If you want to be a better runner just run and same for cycling. If you want to better at both then just train a lot in both disciplines
  • hammerite
    hammerite Posts: 3,408
    Brommers76 wrote:
    I would put cycling up Alp d'huez (flat out, racing similar ability mates) at a similar pain level to running a 5k. Muscle soreness would be apparent the day after the 5k but not after Alp d'huez.

    How about doing both in the same day? Last Monday we did the ride up to Alpe d'Huez, then 7k run. On the Wednesday I had to swim badly for an hour, haul my arse over 2 climbs then up Alpe d'Huez before finishing off with a half marathon at altitude.


    A lot of the comments from marathon runners on here mention racing a marathon, but then going out for a 100 mile bike ride. How about racing the 100 miles like you might a marathon, would be a big difference. In training I've run 20+ miles on a Sunday and then done 5-6 the following day, the pace/effort level made it possible. Same as I can ride 100 miles, then ride a bike the next day for any distance no problem.

    This man knows a thing or two... he's raced 10 marathons in 10 days, and also done 10 Fred Whittons in 10 days.... http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-fred-whitton-10-in-10-conqueror-leon-bond-30545/

Categories