Running V Cycling

dormer88
dormer88 Posts: 110
edited August 2012 in Road beginners
Im sure this has been spoken about many a time but am interested to see the comparison between the 2. I used to run around 3.5/4 miles 3 times a week. Due to poor knees and ankles I have decided to bike 12/15 miles 3 times a week. In terms of weight loss etc how does that compare. It used to take me around 24/30 mins running and 45/1hr biking

Comments

  • speshsteve
    speshsteve Posts: 352
    depends on what you are trying to achieve however I reckon the bike feels like half the intensity of running so I usually burn very roughly the same calories on a 30 min run as a 50 min to an hour run.

    Hope this helps

    Steve
    My Marmotte 2012 Blog:
    http://steve-lamarmotte2012.blogspot.com/
    cervelo R5 VWD
    Spesh Roubaix
    Genesis Equilibrium
    Spesh FSR Stumpy Expert
    Spesh M4 Stumpy
    Brompton SL2
    Giant TCX
    Canyon Grandcanyon 29er
  • stronginthesun
    stronginthesun Posts: 433
    robb jebb who is the only person to win the 3 peaks running and cycling reckons its 2 to 1 , and i wouldnt argue with that
  • the_cyclist_of_catan
    the_cyclist_of_catan Posts: 354
    edited August 2012
    It depends upon what speed you cycle at (although oddly enough, not what speed you run at), together with other variables like wind speed, rider weight, drafting and hills.

    4:1 is pretty close to being right for most of my riding, at around 16mph in small groups. It's more like 3:1 if cycling alone and doing 20+mph, and you need to be averaging 30mph for it to fall to 2:1.
    They use their cars as shopping baskets; they use their cars as overcoats.
  • richh
    richh Posts: 187
    The Cyclist of Catan wrote:
    4:1 is pretty close to being right for most of my riding,
    yep, same here
  • danowat
    danowat Posts: 2,877
    Running is MUCH more intensive on the body compared to cycling, I'd say maybe 4:1, but even then I am not sure it's enough....
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    i am generally cycling at about twice the pace as i run and am out for about twice as long. my heart rate is way lower though, so i suspect that i am only working at about 75% of the intensity
  • crescent
    crescent Posts: 1,201
    On a purely non-scientific basis, I always think people who are out running generally look as though they are hating every minute of it whereas cyclists tend to look as if they are enjoying it. Certainly sums up my experience of both activities.
    Bianchi ImpulsoBMC Teammachine SLR02 01Trek Domane AL3“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. “ ~H.G. Wells Edit - "Unless it's a BMX"
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    yup thats what i was finding having it done it for some years. wasnt enjoying it and working very hard to stay competitive. now i can do something i enjoy, cover greater distances, see more countryside and share it with the missus
  • the_cyclist_of_catan
    the_cyclist_of_catan Posts: 354
    I should have made it clear, but the figures I gave are for energy use; wear and tear is *much* higher for running. Many fit cyclists can ride 100 miles a day for several days in a row, or at least week after week after week; but running a marathon generally takes a much bigger toll on the body ad I don't see many runners managing three or four marathons in a week!
    They use their cars as shopping baskets; they use their cars as overcoats.
  • stronginthesun
    stronginthesun Posts: 433
    The Cyclist of Catan wrote:
    I should have made it clear, but the figures I gave are for energy use; wear and tear is *much* higher for running. Many fit cyclists can ride 100 miles a day for several days in a row, or at least week after week after week; but running a marathon generally takes a much bigger toll on the body ad I don't see many runners managing three or four marathons in a week!
    eddie izzard
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    Crescent wrote:
    On a purely non-scientific basis, I always think people who are out running generally look as though they are hating every minute of it whereas cyclists tend to look as if they are enjoying it. Certainly sums up my experience of both activities.

    I am not sure my 'race face' gives any indication that I am enjoying my cycle!
  • the_cyclist_of_catan
    the_cyclist_of_catan Posts: 354
    stronginthesun wrote:
    The Cyclist of Catan wrote:
    I should have made it clear, but the figures I gave are for energy use; wear and tear is *much* higher for running. Many fit cyclists can ride 100 miles a day for several days in a row, or at least week after week after week; but running a marathon generally takes a much bigger toll on the body ad I don't see many runners managing three or four marathons in a week!
    eddie izzard
    And that's one of the things that made Eddie's feat so exceptional!

    Lots of people can run a marathon, then take a week or more to recover. But a marathon every day is a huge task. Whereas lots of people can cycle 100 miles. And I bet that most of them could cycle 100 miles for several days in a row. The energy requirements might be similar, but one activity is a lot harder on the body than the other. Which is why I cycle, and only run if I'm going to miss my bus!
    They use their cars as shopping baskets; they use their cars as overcoats.
  • stueyboy
    stueyboy Posts: 108
    Not massively accurate but Endomondo calculates I sweat about 1000 calories on a 10km run and I did 1600 on a 40Km ride this morning so that's a ratio of about 2.5:1 running:cycling all other things being roughly equal (which they're not). +1 for running taking more of a toll on the body as well. It's why I have taken to road cycling.

Categories