Running helping cycling?

CyclingObsession

I know to get better at cycling you need the base miles and training, I run and cycle but lately increased my running miles, I founds an improvement in my cycling with regards to cycling in head wind and my overal average went up, is this possible or just a coincidence?

Buckled_Rims

Well speak to triathletes and Cyclocrosses and they will tell you the same. You simply cannot get biking fit by cycling cycling and cycling. You need other forms of resistance and endurance. In what percentage I cannot tell you as we are all different and many spend years perfecting a racing training plan for themselves.

Herbsman

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Well speak to triathletes and Cyclocrosses and they will tell you the same. You simply cannot get biking fit by cycling cycling and cycling. You need other forms of resistance and endurance. In what percentage I cannot tell you as we are all different and many spend years perfecting a racing training plan for themselves.

jibberjim

CyclingObsession wrote:

I know to get better at cycling you need the base miles and training, I run and cycle but lately increased my running miles, I founds an improvement in my cycling with regards to cycling in head wind and my overal average went up, is this possible or just a coincidence?

Always harms mine.

However if you're aerobically unfit, the crossover benefits of most sports are considerable. So it really does depend on what your limiters are.

twotyred

I run and cycle but lately increased my running miles,

If instead you'd increased your cycling miles or structured your cycling training better then your cycling would also have improved maybe beyond where you are now.

You simply cannot get biking fit by cycling cycling and cycling.

LMAOROTF

:roll:

dave35

If you want to be good at cycling then ride a bike,if you want to be good at running the. Run.
Don't see Wiggo/Cav out running.

caledonian1

dave35 wrote:

If you want to be good at cycling then ride a bike,if you want to be good at running the. Run.
Don't see Wiggo/Cav out running.

At elite level yes but for most amateur cyclists I see no harm whatsoever in doing some cross training. Running can only get you fitter (lighter) and for many can keep training interesting (a wee bit of variety never hurt anyone) Also at this time of year at can be a great alternative if the roads are icy or snow covered (obviously dependant on where you live but I am in the north of Scotland and would say it would be dangerous to cycle most days from November to late March)

If the man wants to compliment his cycling with running then I say that should be encouraged...just go out and enjoy it.

dave35

If the o.p isn't intersted in racing bikes,then yes a good mix of both will keep the weight down/fitness up.
I personally have packed up racing for now,so I do 2 runs a week of no more than 30 minutes and ride the bike 3 times a week-on one of those rides i head off through the forest a la cyclocross,so some running helps with that.
Running is better for weight loss than cycling.

chrisaonabike

dave35 wrote:

Running is better for weight loss than cycling.

Eh?

Herbsman

You burn more calories per minute running.

jibberjim

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

No you don't, or yes you do, or ... Intensity is what defines calorie burn not activity.

I find running of no benefit to weight. It is a good weight bearing sport that will help bone density issues in aging...

Herbsman

jibberjim wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

No you don't, or yes you do, or ... Intensity is what defines calorie burn not activity.

I find running of no benefit to weight. It is a good weight bearing sport that will help bone density issues in aging...

True.

But I think minimum running effort is higher than minimum effort cycling. I can only run for about 40 minutes!

Cookie91

Running is using your entire body weight, where cycling the bike supports your weight hence why per hour you burn more calories running than cycling.
Also hence why you tend to see around 10% higher VO2 max value from the same individual on a treadmill than a cycle ergometer.

CyclingObsession

I used a polar watch to monitor calories burned running and cycling. I found I burnt the same cycling per hour than I did running. Do any of u train when u have a cough r cold or do u pack it in? I've been sick nearly over a month now

chrisaonabike

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

Sure, but that's hardly the only variable.

From this and this, it seems that it's about 840 ish calories per hour running at my weight and speed (160 lb, 8.5 minute miles).

Bike calories seem to vary more from the online calculators I've found - this suggests 610 cals/hr on the bike, again at my weight and speed, and this suggests about 770.

So from about 40% more to about 10% more cals/hr running than cycling.

Speaking for myself, I used to run 5-10k, so up to about an hour at a time. More than that, and more often than a couple of times a week, and I'd get injuries - I was very susceptible to shin splints, and latterly I was getting calf strains too.

Whereas on the bike, I can do a couple of hours several times a week, and longer at weekends, without any injury at all (so far!). I also enjoy it a lot more, so I'm a lot more motivated to do it.

So I burn way more calories cycling than running.

Calories per hour on its own is an extremely crude measure, and since there are other considerations as well, saying that running is better for weight loss than cycling is simply a nonsense. Obviously, running would be better for weight loss if time was the limiting factor, and injuries didn't occur, and motivation was equal... but it's very much horses for courses.

Herbsman

CyclingObsession wrote:

I used a polar watch to monitor calories burned running and cycling. I found I burnt the same cycling per hour than I did running. Do any of u train when u have a cough r cold or do u pack it in? I've been sick nearly over a month now

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Herbsman

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

Sure, but that's hardly the only variable.

From this and this, it seems that it's about 840 ish calories per hour running at my weight and speed (160 lb, 8.5 minute miles).

Bike calories seem to vary more from the online calculators I've found - this suggests 610 cals/hr on the bike, again at my weight and speed, and this suggests about 770.

So from about 40% more to about 10% more cals/hr running than cycling.

Speaking for myself, I used to run 5-10k, so up to about an hour at a time. More than that, and more often than a couple of times a week, and I'd get injuries - I was very susceptible to shin splints, and latterly I was getting calf strains too.

Whereas on the bike, I can do a couple of hours several times a week, and longer at weekends, without any injury at all (so far!). I also enjoy it a lot more, so I'm a lot more motivated to do it.

So I burn way more calories cycling than running.

Calories per hour on its own is an extremely crude measure, and since there are other considerations as well, saying that running is better for weight loss than cycling is simply a nonsense. Obviously, running would be better for weight loss if time was the limiting factor, and injuries didn't occur, and motivation was equal... but it's very much horses for courses.

First of all, I didn't say running was better for weight loss than cycling. I don't know if it is or not - I simply gave a possible reason why other people say it is.

Secondly, you cannot realistically expect an online calorie calculator or any calorie estimator to be anywhere near accurate. They do not take into consideration any measure of the actual energy output or the individual's metabolic efficiency. For example, without using a power meter, Strava and my Garmin both overestimate the calories I use on rides, especially Strava which tends to overestimate by around 50%.

chrisaonabike

Herbsman wrote:

First of all, I didn't say running was better for weight loss than cycling. I don't know if it is or not - I simply gave a possible reason why other people say it is.

I didn't say you did, but my apologies - for clarity I should have quoted the person that did...

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

dave35 wrote:

Running is better for weight loss than cycling.

Eh?

Herbsman wrote:

Secondly, you cannot realistically expect an online calorie calculator or any calorie estimator to be anywhere near accurate.

Agreed, which is why I looked at several (for my specific weight and running and cycling speeds). I'd be surprised, given that all the ones I looked at were within about 30%, if the actual difference was a factor of, say 3 or 4.

My point is really that whether or not one or the other burns more calories per minute, it's almost unrelated to which is better for weight loss for a given person, since there are so many other variables.

ilovegrace

A little background, I have run competitively for 20 years .running weekly mileages of 60 to 120 miles per week.
racing road and fell , I am at present cycling up 180 mpw and running 2 x 7 miles , I can say in my experience that minute for minute cycling is no were near running for calories burnt.
A GB tri athelete friend of mine told me that his group work on the theory of 1 - 2.5 for eg one hour run is equal to 2.5 hours cycling , this was for training comparison and not necessarily calorie comparison but i think the point is the same.
With regard to the OP I would say that for competing the maximum time allowed for training should be spent on your main event .
Longevity however is another matter,if the goal is long term non competitive cycling then running /cycling is the way to go.

dkoor

Herbsman wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

No you don't, or yes you do, or ... Intensity is what defines calorie burn not activity.

I find running of no benefit to weight. It is a good weight bearing sport that will help bone density issues in aging...

True.

But I think minimum running effort is higher than minimum effort cycling. I can only run for about 40 minutes!

Just popped in to say that I disagree.
Although amateur, I have a lot of experience in running, less so in cycling.

I can tell you by my experience that you will burn calories easier on the bike than by running.
And that is I guess what really counts for most. No one wants extra hard ways to do things when it can be accomplished more easily.

Saying this I don't regard cycling as being easier than running, but I promise you that large majority of those that are interested in burning calories will do it more effectively on the bike.
Main reason is really extra simple... most of them are overweight and by running they are almost constantly in pain, and therefore in higher injury risk due to not running in the right way.
Plus running is way more intrusive as you leg joints are under constant mini strikes, where you strike not with your weight but with even more force, depending how fast you run and some other factors.

It's also good thing to put in more time into aerobic workouts supports fast metabolism and such stuff... also easier done on bike.

From my PoV running vs cycling for weight loss aka burning calories is really black/white issue, cycling wins by far.

dkoor

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

You burn more calories per minute running.

Sure, but that's hardly the only variable.

From this and this, it seems that it's about 840 ish calories per hour running at my weight and speed (160 lb, 8.5 minute miles).

Bike calories seem to vary more from the online calculators I've found - this suggests 610 cals/hr on the bike, again at my weight and speed, and this suggests about 770.

So from about 40% more to about 10% more cals/hr running than cycling.

Speaking for myself, I used to run 5-10k, so up to about an hour at a time. More than that, and more often than a couple of times a week, and I'd get injuries - I was very susceptible to shin splints, and latterly I was getting calf strains too.

Whereas on the bike, I can do a couple of hours several times a week, and longer at weekends, without any injury at all (so far!). I also enjoy it a lot more, so I'm a lot more motivated to do it.

So I burn way more calories cycling than running.

Calories per hour on its own is an extremely crude measure, and since there are other considerations as well, saying that running is better for weight loss than cycling is simply a nonsense. Obviously, running would be better for weight loss if time was the limiting factor, and injuries didn't occur, and motivation was equal... but it's very much horses for courses.

Just saw this... yeah it's really NOT about which activity burns faster / minute, but which burns faster BY YEAR.
If you get injury or crush mentally under constant pain, and thus stop with your workout, that will take some recovery time both mentally and physically.

charliew87

Personally, I like to do a bit of running each week in addition to cycling purely because I find my knees get a bit week without any impact going through them.