Cycling vs. runnng

[briggs]

I'm sure this question has been asked many times... but can someone tell me the relationship between cycling and running. As in, what is the equivilent distance road cycling for running 10 miles. Assuming that you are doing both at the same level. Say a moderate level.

 

[ebrunner]

Originally posted by briggs
I'm sure this question has been asked many times... but can someone tell me the relationship between cycling and running. As in, what is the equivilent distance road cycling for running 10 miles. Assuming that you are doing both at the same level. Say a moderate level.

I've heard that you need to ride 3-4 times as far to get the same benefit. However, it is unclear to me what physiologists mean by "benefit." If you are looking at cardiovascular benefit, then one hour at a given heart rate is the same cardiovascular stress regardless of the mode of exercise. In my case, one hour at 145 bpm is about 8 miles of running or 18-20 miles of riding; a ratio of ~2.5 (cycling to running). However, I am first and foremost a runner, so I'm more efficient at running. At 175-180 bpm, I run about 10 miles/hour, but could not ride for an entire hour at that heart rate, unless I was riding uphill, which would throw off the distance. I suppose that unless you have equal abilties in both sports, it is tough to make a comparison.

 

[briggs]

Originally posted by ebrunner
I've heard that you need to ride 3-4 times as far to get the same benefit. However, it is unclear to me what physiologists mean by "benefit." If you are looking at cardiovascular benefit, then one hour at a given heart rate is the same cardiovascular stress regardless of the mode of exercise. In my case, one hour at 145 bpm is about 8 miles of running or 18-20 miles of riding; a ratio of ~2.5 (cycling to running). However, I am first and foremost a runner, so I'm more efficient at running. At 175-180 bpm, I run about 10 miles/hour, but could not ride for an entire hour at that heart rate, unless I was riding uphill, which would throw off the distance. I suppose that unless you have equal abilties in both sports, it is tough to make a comparison.

Thanks, I think that makes sense having been a runner "first and foremost" for 20 years but now a cyclist primarliy I have been trying compare running to cycling. My best guess having done both has been running a marathon is equal to riding a century. Which is pretty much what you say.

 

[ebrunner]

This subject really interests me. I would say your marathon/century equation is a good one. Of course, if you factor in the pounding of running, things change--Tour cyclists do the "equivalent" of a marathon for 3 weeks straight; elite runners do it 2-3 times per year.

Also if you have Lance Armstrong and Paul Tergat each run a marathon and ride a century, Lance will find the century to be much easier, and Tergat will have more ease with the marathon. I'm guessing Lance would probably need to ride 200 miles to feel the equivalent of a marathon, while Tergat would only need to ride 75.

 

[Ratface]

Don't think distance - think time and exertion. Distance is a bad yardstick (pun intended) for training. Try looking at some triathlon sites for information on balancing training levels between different disciplines.

 

[briggs]

Originally posted by briggs
Thanks, I think that makes sense having been a runner "first and foremost" for 20 years but now a cyclist primarliy I have been trying compare running to cycling. My best guess having done both has been running a marathon is equal to riding a century. Which is pretty much what you say.

Your right it's the "pounding" part of the equation that isn't factored in. I think also the repetiveness of running is a factor. You don't have to many option for redistributing your
weight. When your'e cycling you have many options to relocate your weight even if it's only
for a couple of minutes it can be a make a huge difference.

 

[jollydog]

Originally posted by briggs
Thanks, I think that makes sense having been a runner "first and foremost" for 20 years but now a cyclist primarliy I have been trying compare running to cycling. My best guess having done both has been running a marathon is equal to riding a century. Which is pretty much what you say.

A century is a piece of cake compared to marathon. I had been a runner for 5 years and completed a marathon in COOL weather Nov 02 - leaving me totally exausted. This spring had to switch to road biking due to knee injury (running can to that to you!) - by October I completed my first century in WARM temperature 80F+. I could not believe how well I felt afterwards since I was expecting the total decompensation I felt with marathon

 

[briggs]

Originally posted by jollydog
A century is a piece of cake compared to marathon. I had been a runner for 5 years and completed a marathon in COOL weather Nov 02 - leaving me totally exausted. This spring had to switch to road biking due to knee injury (running can to that to you!) - by October I completed my first century in WARM temperature 80F+. I could not believe how well I felt afterwards since I was expecting the total decompensation I felt with marathon

Thanks for the definitive answer.