Cycling Versus Running

18-06.-2007, 03:49 PM	#1
Stu07 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 25	Cycling Versus Running Is there a rule of thumb anyone would use to work out the equivalence of cycling to running (i suppose in terms of energy usage)? How long a ride would be the equivalent of completing a marathon? (I realise that there would be lots of variable here, like how hilly, how fast etc, but any basic rule of thumb that anyone uses that comes up with a reasonable guesstimate?)

18-06.-2007, 05:36 PM

NomadVW

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2005

Location: Japan

Posts: 434

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu07

Is there a rule of thumb anyone would use to work out the equivalence of cycling to running

cycling = fun
running = not fun

therefore

cycling != running

Q.E.D.

__________________
Cycling Blog - Training with Power

18-06.-2007, 05:43 PM

RChung

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 200

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu07

Is there a rule of thumb anyone would use to work out the equivalence of cycling to running (i suppose in terms of energy usage)?

McArdle, Katch, and Katch use the rule of thumb that running on firm, level ground has a net energy expenditure of about 1 kcal/kg/km, regardless of speed. For example, a 75kg guy running on firm level ground would expend 750 kcal above basal expenditure to cover 10 km.

For cycling, there are several cycling power calculators on the net. Most of those calculators will include a kcal calculation.

18-06.-2007, 09:14 PM

Alex Simmons

Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Sydney, Australia

Posts: 1,736

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by RChung

Someone correct me if I get this wrong:

750kcal = 3,142,500 joules (4.19 j per cal)
At an efficiency of 23%, that would mean only 722,775 j made it to the rear wheel (rest is body heat mostly)
At 250 watts that would take
772,775 j /250 watts = 2891 seconds = little over 48 minutes

So at
150W = 1:26 hrs:min
200W = 1:04
250W = 0:48
300W = 0:43

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

18-06.-2007, 10:25 PM	#5
Skoorb Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 200	Re: Cycling Versus Running It sounds simple, but I really do think about 3:1 bike:run mileage is fairly reasonable. This depends on the person and their weight, running form, etc., though. A 275 lb guy will be able to bike 30 miles without a lot of difficulty but will require tons of energy to run 10, since it's so weight bearing.

19-06.-2007, 01:22 AM

blkhotrod

Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 128

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu07

Is there a rule of thumb anyone would use to work out the equivalence of cycling to running (i suppose in terms of energy usage)?

How long a ride would be the equivalent of completing a marathon? (I realise that there would be lots of variable here, like how hilly, how fast etc, but any basic rule of thumb that anyone uses that comes up with a reasonable guesstimate?)

i asked this same question back in 1984 when i started triathlons. by correlating the world record times for running and biking at various distances and venues (track, road) the ratio was dam close to 3:1.

sure the pole hole diggers (PhD) will say this is wrong it's actually 2.76972........but WTF i like things simple.

19-06.-2007, 03:23 AM

RChung

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 200

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Someone correct me if I get this wrong:

It's sightly simpler if you use a gross efficiency of .238 rather than .23-- in that case a kcal converts to a kJ. In that case, one way to think of this is that a 65kg guy running 20k would use 1300 kcal. If he could run that 20k in world record time of 56 minutes he'd be putting out 1300 kJ / 3360 seconds = 387 watts. A 65 kg guy putting out 387 watts averages 6 watts/kg. So bottom line, the 1 kcal/kg/km seems to be ballpark valid: it makes a world-class running effort look pretty much like a world-class cycling effort.

19-06.-2007, 04:14 AM	#8
dhk2 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Huntsville, AL, USA Posts: 722	Re: Cycling Versus Running Interesting comparison here; had never seen power figures for runners, but it makes sense that they would be similar to cycling. Just to go one step further, a bike calculator program shows that 387 watts is good for about 26.5 mph. If true, the cyclist would cover 20K in 28 minutes, or half the time of the world-record runner.

19-06.-2007, 04:25 AM

Skoorb

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2007

Posts: 200

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhk2

Interesting comparison here; had never seen power figures for runners, but it makes sense that they would be similar to cycling. Just to go one step further, a bike calculator program shows that 387 watts is good for about 26.5 mph. If true, the cyclist would cover 20K in 28 minutes, or half the time of the world-record runner.

I suppose this is true, the best cyclists are pretty close to twice as fast as the best runners (a bit faster than twice), from world record 5ks (about 13.5 minutes, ~13.8 mph) to marathons (smidge over two hours, ~12.5 mph).

I suppose this is why triathlons generally favor, if one had to pick a discipline, a strong cyclist.

19-06.-2007, 06:18 AM

#10

RChung

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 200

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhk2

Interesting comparison here; had never seen power figures for runners, but it makes sense that they would be similar to cycling.

Based on data grabbed from some random duathlon, with two runs sandwiched around a bike leg:

19-06.-2007, 07:34 AM

#11

blkhotrod

Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 128

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhk2

confused, if your comparing apples to apples wouldn't a world class biker do 20k in 21-23 minutes and a world class runner do 20k in 59-61 mins??

19-06.-2007, 11:28 AM

#12

dhk2

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: Huntsville, AL, USA

Posts: 722

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkhotrod

confused, if your comparing apples to apples wouldn't a world class biker do 20k in 21-23 minutes and a world class runner do 20k in 59-61 mins??

Yes, suppose you're correct on the "world class" or record 20K TT's times being over 30 mph average. I was just taking the 26.5 mph avg speed from a bike calculator program @387 watts: that speed equates to a 28 min 20K. This estimate was based on figures for a standard bike, "racer's tuck" position that I plugged in.

Would expect an elite TT rider on a TT bike with skinsuit and aero helmet would go a 2-3 mph faster on the same wattage. Plus, the top record holders may be able to sustain more than that 387 watts output for 20K.

Suppose saying cyclists go twice as fast as runners is a pretty rough comparison.

19-06.-2007, 11:37 AM	#13
dhk2 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Huntsville, AL, USA Posts: 722	Re: Cycling Versus Running RChung, if I'm interpreting the graphs correctly, the "two-to-one" factor seems to hold up for the 55K bike to 3K run. But comparing the bike portion to the 15K run speed, the factor is about 2.5.

19-06.-2007, 02:28 PM

#14

RChung

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 200

Re: Cycling Versus Running

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhk2

RChung, if I'm interpreting the graphs correctly, the "two-to-one" factor seems to hold up for the 55K bike to 3K run. But comparing the bike portion to the 15K run speed, the factor is about 2.5.

Yeah, you're interpreting the graph correctly, but I think the graph emphasizes something slightly different. However, before we get into what that is, note that these were the same athletes doing two activities, not two world-class athletes each doing their own activity. That's important because the OP was interested in how to compare his own running and cycling energy expenditures -- I gave the original McArdle, Katch, and Katch rule of thumb and example to show that 1 kcal/kg/km met a face validity test.

The real lesson of the graph is that a simple rule of thumb is just a rule of thumb, and that while fast runners tend to be fast cyclists, there is a great deal of individual variability around the fitted lines. We know that at the speeds cyclists go, power increases with the cube of speed, so the bottom line is that if you're interested in making cross-sport comparisons of energy expenditure, you're probably better off using the 1 kcal/kg/km rule of thumb for running and actually calculating the cycling expenditure from an on-line calculator.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode