Running V Cycling equivalents
Comments
-
1:6 might be right for 6 circuits of the same route using comparable effort - but most marathons are over much flatter courses than the average long bike ride, where hills are what keeps it interesting. I reckon that pushes the ratio down quite a lot.0
-
I think there's just too many variables. JibberJim and BArry Bridges make some very valid points.
For what it's worth I ran the 2009 Zürich Marathon in a not too shabby 4 hrs 5 mins. I was entered by a 'friend' after a slightly drunken evening 10 months earlier and I only found out when I received my number through the post 3-4 weeks before the race. I went out and ran a 10k in 50-odd minutes so then I tried to run 20 km which I did in around 2 hours (with a belly full of red wine and a thick head from the night before). I figured that I could make it round a marathon without killing myself, so I did it. My total training was about 35 km. That was in April so I was running on residual fitness from the previous years cycling.
Last year I did two long runs both without actually doing any running training. I did the Bern GP, which is 16 km in 90 mins a week after getting back from an 8 day cycling training camp. I did one 10 k run in an hour about 3-4 days before just to make sure that I could hold a 6 min/km pace which was my plan for the race. In October I did the Brienzerseelauf which is 35 km but has 500 m of climbing, most of which is in the first 12 km. That was after what could only be described as a perfect summer of cycle training and 6 weeks after completing the Ötztaler cycle marathon (238 km 5500 m climbing) in sub 10 hours. I completely blew up at around 25 km. I could barely run and limped round in a touch under 4 hours.
After Zürich, I always said that running was much easier as I knew that to complete an 8+ day in the Alps can only be done with training yet I had completed a marathon in a fairly average time. But after this summer, I've changed my opinion somewhat.
I now think it's really down to training. My muscles last year had developed purely for cycling and really couldn't cope with the effort and impact of running. I was never out of breath in the Brienzerseelauf, it was just my leg muscles that surrendered. When I did the marathon, my muscles weren't so 'specialised' and my general aerobic fitness got me through.
Hope someone can make some sense out of that ramble!0 -
Like I said before, It's down to training. If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy. The difficulty comes when you "Race". The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.0
-
I've done a few marathons, and cycled some long distances too. I don't think it is possible to compare general cycling with running. However, I do think it is possible to compare a long, consistent cycling climb with a running distance. I can only speak for myself, but I felt that cycling up Alp d'Huez in 1:09 (13km at 8.5%) was equivalent in terms of effort to completing my last half marathon (21km) in 1:34.
I think there is probably a gradient at which cycling becomes equivalent to running. My anecdotal evidence above suggests it is somewhere around 5.5%0 -
We should strive to provide a simple answer when the question is asking for a simple answer.
This is the answer:
Run: Hybrid bike: Road bike = 1:5:8
If you run 10km, you need to cycle 80km on a road bike to match that effort.0 -
nolight wrote:We should strive to provide a simple answer when the question is asking for a simple answer.
This is the answer:
Run: Hybrid bike: Road bike = 1:5:8
If you run 10km, you need to cycle 80km on a road bike to match that effort.
No chance. 6 mile run equivalent to a 50 mile bike ride? 50 mile ride is likely to be more like a half marathon.0 -
Not if you pace yourself during cycling and not push too hard.0
-
Not sure whether there is actually an equivalent itself but I can assure you that running is a less forgiving on the body (unless you crash, of course).
I had constant niggles as a runner, such as spraining my ankle when my foot has landed on some uneven terrain, or general wear and tear especially in the hip.
Hitting a wall was also quite demoralising, especially when you are unable to carry the adequate fuel and water during the run.
I've found that cycling can be less forgiving up hills, though. Also in treacherous conditions cycling can be a nightmare whereas with running, I always thrived training in such conditions.
It's easier to recover during a cycle than it is a run in my opinion. If your cadence drops to zero on a run, you've stopped running. Then again, if you're competing in a hill event you can't stop pedalling at all.
I've competed in cross country runs, but have never competed in a cycling event. I could image a hill event being tougher than cross country if raced properly.
Just my 2pence0 -
It's hard to fully explore that dynamic because I'm well used to competing at running and giving it welly so that I am on my knees at the end. Running aggressively against others and looking for points and positions in age categories. Racing at that level seems to be far more elite in cycling to the extent that you have to be at the very top level in order to do it, or so it seems to me. The prospect of being in a pelaton and doing a mass sprint would utterly terrify me. Therefore ambling around a 60 or 100 mile sportive course while admiring the scenery and chatting to your mates with nice cake stops along the way is not in the least bit challenging other than doing the distance. So I can't compare and have no opportunity to compare0
-
mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.0 -
At present I run almost exclusively because for the military I am required to run not ride. As such I'm quite a good runner. However I wouldn't consider myself capable of a competent marathon, not without some specific training at least.
However, having done very little cycle training for years and almost none in the months beforehand, I managed to ride 110miles+ a day for 6 days last year. I would have said that you need to be well into high 100s before it's classed the same, maybe even 200miles.
Something to consider though is the time aspect. If you did a 100mile stage at an average 20+mph then it could be considered 'as hard' as a marathon whereas at the pace I was riding (16mph) it was quite easy. Swings and roundabouts"Of all the paths you chose in life, make sure some of them are dirt..."0 -
Had this debate many times, being a runner and cyclist always makes it interesting hearing other people argue, as I don't really mind who's right.
I've signed up to both the Strava base mile challenges for January, for what it's worth I've done 500 so far riding and 73 running, the running has taken it out of me a lot more in terms of the impact on my body.0 -
ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.
Any triathlete will tell you that the transition from cycling to the run is hell. Cycling makes greater demands on the quads, running hammers the hamstrings.
When I was running every day, using a bike when injured was a very humbling experience. I had the lungs but not the legs, as they say.0 -
mike6 wrote:ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.
Any triathlete will tell you that the transition from cycling to the run is hell. Cycling makes greater demands on the quads, running hammers the hamstrings.
When I was running every day, using a bike when injured was a very humbling experience. I had the lungs but not the legs, as they say.
Really? Explain0 -
Gabbo wrote:mike6 wrote:ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.
Any triathlete will tell you that the transition from cycling to the run is hell. Cycling makes greater demands on the quads, running hammers the hamstrings.
When I was running every day, using a bike when injured was a very humbling experience. I had the lungs but not the legs, as they say.
Really? Explain
As an ex competitive runner, and now cyclist, I can tell you, cycling is quad heavy, running uses more of the back of the thighs. Hamstring problems are very much, but not exclusively, a running problem.
I have friends who are very good cyclists but can hardly run a step. I have friends who are top veteran triathletes and dread the transition from cycling to running, even though they are good runners, because the change of muscle groups is difficult.
Cardio wise they are both good disciplines, but place the emphasis on different muscles.0 -
mike6 wrote:Gabbo wrote:mike6 wrote:ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.
Any triathlete will tell you that the transition from cycling to the run is hell. Cycling makes greater demands on the quads, running hammers the hamstrings.
When I was running every day, using a bike when injured was a very humbling experience. I had the lungs but not the legs, as they say.
Really? Explain
As an ex competitive runner, and now cyclist, I can tell you, cycling is quad heavy, running uses more of the back of the thighs. Hamstring problems are very much, but not exclusively, a running problem.
I have friends who are very good cyclists but can hardly run a step. I have friends who are top veteran triathletes and dread the transition from cycling to running, even though they are good runners, because the change of muscle groups is difficult.
Cardio wise they are both good disciplines, but place the emphasis on different muscles.
I'm totally aware that the two different sports recruit different muscle groups, I'm just interested in how you think running hammers the hamstrings. Not having a go, that's all.0 -
Gabbo wrote:mike6 wrote:Gabbo wrote:mike6 wrote:ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:If you do a lot of structured running training, running is easy. If you do a lot of structured cycle training, cycling is easy... The problem is mixing the two, as they require different muscle groups.
Is this really true? I prepared for a marathon mostly by cycling, as it's much less likely to give you injuries. Cycling and long distance running seemed to need fairly similar types of strength/fitness to me - but I'm no expert.
Any triathlete will tell you that the transition from cycling to the run is hell. Cycling makes greater demands on the quads, running hammers the hamstrings.
When I was running every day, using a bike when injured was a very humbling experience. I had the lungs but not the legs, as they say.
Really? Explain
As an ex competitive runner, and now cyclist, I can tell you, cycling is quad heavy, running uses more of the back of the thighs. Hamstring problems are very much, but not exclusively, a running problem.
I have friends who are very good cyclists but can hardly run a step. I have friends who are top veteran triathletes and dread the transition from cycling to running, even though they are good runners, because the change of muscle groups is difficult.
Cardio wise they are both good disciplines, but place the emphasis on different muscles.
I'm totally aware that the two different sports recruit different muscle groups, I'm just interested in how you think running hammers the hamstrings. Not having a go, that's all.
You do realise the Hamstring runs from the Buttocks to the back of the knee? Go outside run for a bus and tell us what hurts tomorrow.0 -
Depends how you run what muscles take the hammering. Most running injuries are due to poor technique and/or too much too soon.
Cycling or running harder? Neither if you compete to your limit you should be wasted at the end anyway. Racing never gets easier, if it does you aren't trying hard enough ;-PWeaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel0 -
d87heaven wrote:Depends how you run what muscles take the hammering. Most running injuries are due to poor technique and/or too much too soon.
Cycling or running harder? Neither if you compete to your limit you should be wasted at the end anyway. Racing never gets easier, if it does you aren't trying hard enough ;-P
Quite agree, apart from the "most running injuries are due to poor technique and/or too much too soon". Most running injuries, if you train to a competitive level, are overuse injuries. Running is an impact activity and if you do enough mileage, to be competitive at the endurance events, injuries are inevitable.
There is a very fine line between being super fit or injured.
I have had most running injuries and I only weigh a tad over 9 stone, so I am far from overweight but I did train very hard.0 -
Too much too soon is overuse. You haven't adapted to the requirements you have made of the body. Given more training volume you will have adapted to greater stress. Overuse and misuse have a great crossover. Poor form (misuse) will lead to overuse much quicker. Just because someone is quick doesn't mean they run well. Most clients I see want a quick fix from injury. Those who invest in some technique coaching reap the benefits long term and I repay that faith with ongoing support.Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel0
-
Actually a lot of injuries are down to poor technique and mechanics. As you'd know, no one is anatomically perfect therefore we are all predisposed to one musculoskletal condition whether that is a hamstring tear or rupture to a cruciate ligament. The hamstring is more commonly injured in football with an out stretched leg or during sprinting when decellerating abruptly.
And in response to the person lecturing me on the attachments of the hamstring.. thanks, but that I already know in detail0 -
I would say hamstring in sprintimg is whilst accelerating but decelerating the swing leg due to overuse of the hip flexor or staying on support too long.Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel0
-
d87heaven wrote:Too much too soon is overuse. You haven't adapted to the requirements you have made of the body. Given more training volume you will have adapted to greater stress. Overuse and misuse have a great crossover. Poor form (misuse) will lead to overuse much quicker. Just because someone is quick doesn't mean they run well. Most clients I see want a quick fix from injury. Those who invest in some technique coaching reap the benefits long term and I repay that faith with ongoing support.
Not so. Overuse is merely repetition. I trained and ran for over 25 years and always built up the mileage, hills, repetitions, gradually, but when training for distance events, at a decent level, the amount of mileage required sometimes leads to overuse injuries. hence the term.
Overuse injuries tend to be ones, according to physio's, that come on gradually, whereas other injuries tend to happen almost instantly, like muscle pulls and tears.
Injuries from doing too much too soon are just that, and caused by not training properly. Not by overuse but by misuse.0 -
mike6 wrote:Not so. Overuse is merely repetition. I trained and ran for over 25 years and always built up the mileage, hills, repetitions, gradually, but when training for distance events, at a decent level, the amount of mileage required sometimes leads to overuse injuries. hence the term.
Which is why - for me - training for a marathon on a bike made sense (as well as being more fun).0 -
ooermissus wrote:mike6 wrote:Not so. Overuse is merely repetition. I trained and ran for over 25 years and always built up the mileage, hills, repetitions, gradually, but when training for distance events, at a decent level, the amount of mileage required sometimes leads to overuse injuries. hence the term.
Which is why - for me - training for a marathon on a bike made sense (as well as being more fun).
Well done anyway.
I would think that training on a bike would be a good way to prepare to "Run" a marathon, but "Racing" a marathon always needs lots of specific running training. Running at a decent level needs very specific training.
Sean Kelly did some running in the Winter, when the weather was bad, but training for the pro events needs lots of time on the bike.
That is why triathletes dont just cycle and swim for preparation, they have to do specific running training.0
