szrob

I was told some time back that rinning one mile is the same as cyclilng seven miles. Is that true? if not , how many miles on the bike does it take to get the same exorcise as running one mile? Thanks in advance.

DnvrFox

Interesting question because there are so many variables. I, for one, couldn't run very far at all, given my knees, body build (I am the prototype for a Sumo wrestler - short legs, long torso, lots of muscle), and lack of running practice.

Uphill?

Wind?

etc., etc.

Well, a google search showed 6 miles to one, and also the following

https://run-down.com/cgi-bin/faq/db.c...D=*&nh=14&mh=1

Now, I can bike for many hours, but not sure I could run for 30 minutes - so, how would I know?

Other thoughts?

Pat

The two activities put different amounts of stress on the body so they are not really directly comparable. A marathon is about as much as a runner can practically do and runners take a fair bit of time to recover from the pounding. A century is almost certainly more exercise from just a calorie point of view and cyclists can do centuries day after day after day because cycling is low impact.

In running, you pretty much have to put in constant effort and any loafing becomes painfully obvious. In cycling, you slow down for road hazards, coast etc. So you are usually not really putting in effort all the time like running. Also since cycling is not weight bearing, it does not stress the muscles and joints like running does.

I would think that running makes it easier to get a good aerobic workout however cycling allows you to do far more quantity then running.

RiPHRaPH

you can't coast whilst running.
seriously, from a cardio point of view that ratio sounds right, as long as you are well trained in both endevours and give similar efforts.

szrob

thank you for the response. This begs the question, why should one ride for exorcise and fat burning? Isn't running "better" in the sense of time and results than ridding a bike? Or should one ride a flat landscape and turn the cranks constantly, keeping within one's target heart rate?

mentalsplit

Great post and great questions. I am a newbie cyclist, and a semi-veteran runner. I am a bit out of shape right now, so in trying to get my cardiovascular fitness up, I have been alternating: (two days cycling and one day running). Both excercises work different muscles and at very different intensities. Biking is definately lower impact, but I think that with running, it all depends on what surface you run on :ie. asphalt is better than cement, and dirt is better than either. Also, a good amount of the impact from running can be mitigated by making sure that your shoes are up to the task of absorbing some of the pounding. Three years ago, when I got into running for the first time, I was getting really bad shin splints to the point where I would have to stop my runs about 10 minutes into them. To see if I could correct this problem, I went to a store which specializes in running shoes, where I discovered new balance. After I got my first pair of new balance, I never had a hard time again. Also, it goes without saying that with running that stretching is of paramount importance (I stretch for about 15 minutes before I got out for my runs).

Now, onto the subject as to what activity is more efficient in terms of fat burning. It is my contention that running ultimately because it is harder on the body, and more weight bearing is more "effecient" in getting in shape. However, with running it is hard to maintain the same intensity day after day. I find that with cycling it is easier to go everyday. So, in sum I would say that both activities are great, and that alternating works very well because of the eb and flow of recovery time.

good luck.

Jzika

I find it much easier to ride my bike than go running. So if it takes me more miles to get the same result. I don't really mind because it's a better experience. I get to see more, am decently comfortable. Running can be torture.

PGZX3

Being in the military and a former bmx racer i can definately agree that running is torture on the body, the impact can have lasting effects, and the way I have seen some people pushed to accomplish fairly small goals through running is horrible, however in contrast I have never seen such damage and pain inflicted from a bicycle. Rather useless post, but I must say, I dread every running evaluation the air force throws my way!!

Jzika

Not to mention, from watching the Tour. It seems that the cyclists have much better bodies than runners. Runners look lean and cut, but the Tour riders are ripped. I have no facts behind this but it seems that the motion of cycling would be a better motion for toning muscles anyways.

bubber

Here is some information on how to equate running to cycling that you may find useful:

https://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=5941

Nelf

Running is boring as hell.

Augie

Ok, as an obsessive runner I HAVE to defend my sport against you cycling-psychos (just kidding, I'm one of you...). For those of us who love to run, running is nirvana. There is nothing more natural, in my opinion - you need only your body with which to run, and nothing puts you into your body (makes you aware of it) faster and more intensely than running does. Running offers no quarter - if you don't eat right, don't hydrate properly, rest properly, etc, your workout will let you know. I love that immediate result. Further, because you usually don't have to stop very often while running, you reach a zen-like meditative zone in which the only thing you're really aware of is the rhythm of your heart, your feet hitting the pavement, and the breath entering and leaving your chest. (Which may partly explain the swearing and obscene gestures you'll encounter if you accidentally cause a runner to have to break stride. Frankly, it's akin to interupting sex, for me. A really good run can be orgasmic. ) Cycling, I enjoy for different reasons. But if I don't get my run, you don't want to be around me. It's like a drug.
As for the OP, however, cycling really may be better as far as weightloss and fatburn. Running can give you quick results but it's relatively hard on your body until your body becomes accustomed to it. If you're lucky, like me, and your biomechanics are relatively normal (aside from some mild chondromalacia patella, which I manage to control with muscle strengthening), running can be wonderful. When I began, I weighed 265 lbs (and I'm female). I chose running because I had no patience for something I felt wasn't going to give me the maximum results for my maximum effort. But if you're new to working out it can be very hard work to get yourself to a place where running is enjoyable and possible without injury. You have to increase your mileage very gradually, so to get yourself to a point where you can efficiently burn fat during a workout can take some time. (I most efficiently lose weight while running 30 mpw - beginning runners usually can't and should not try that.) With cycling being very low impact, you can spend much more time on the bike working out from the start than you can spend running. For people who are severely overweight, too, for whom running might cause join concern (though even at 265 lbs, so long as I increased my mileage gradually, I was fine), cycling could be the perfect solution.

DnvrFox

Must be a bad day. For some reason, exercise is really bugging me.

Sorry!


Okay, some of us have bodies that run easily - some of us (me, for example) have bodies that literally hate running! I can tell a "runner's body" as they go by me in perfect rhythm, everything coordinated and flying like the wind. It is a beautiful sight. Then there are folks like me who look as if every step is an agony. And it most likely is.

Augie

I tend to think most people's bodies hate running to begin with. I know mine did. And even now, after running consistently for 4 years, I don't have a "runner's body" - I tend to load on a lot of muscle without much effort, have a fairly stocky build, and I look nothing like Pre (or, since I'm a woman, FloJo either!). I am probably not "built to run" - I've never run fast, but I run long distances very well. Sorry - just had to get that in!

DnvrFox

Well, believe it or not, I used to do 7 mile runs pretty regularly - until my knees started swelling. It was never "natural" or easy for me. But, I actually enjoyed it, and know what you mean by the "nirvana." However, I get exactly the same feeling when bicycling! And, my knees don't swell!

Boomer

I used to run 20 - 25 miles a week. Like many of you runners, I would get grumpy if I didn't get in my scheduled run. But last year I developed runner's knee. I tried to tough it out but it got to a point where I couldn't even walk up and down the stairs without using the rails (and I'm only 41 y.o.). That's when I turned to cycling as a alterative. My knees are recovering slowly and I can actually do 10 mile runs a week. I alternate it with 60 miles of biking a week.

Without scientific backing, I think a one mile run is equivalent to a 5 mile bike ride, IMO.

DanFromDetroit

The rule of thumb for running vs. cycling that I have used is 4 miles on a bike = 1 mile running. Your heart rate will not be as high on a bike as with running. The bike vs. run calculation will be slightly different for each ride or person depending on hills and if you spin or mash. I tend to mash and vary my cadence with speed rather than spin and vary gearing.

I am a utility cyclist and avid runner. I run the local road races and am training for a marathon this fall, so I am running 40-50mpw these days. I will probably peak at near 70mpw off singles before my taper.

Dan

yikes

Just curious.....what marathon are you running in the fall and what kinda time are ya looking for?

Hitchy

g'day,

but wheres the oh so beautiful carbon fibre frame.....the texture so smooth that it creates almost no resistance when you run your hand over it?.....the polished Dura ace 10 speed cranks, that you can see your reflection in?....the understated strength & beauty of the Cosmic carbone wheels?......the smell of the oil can as you lube the chain?.....bars & stems, so strong & light that it almost seems impossible?.....hmmm.....the touch of lycra against the skin....puttin' on the Rudy's, knowing that you is the coolest dude ever to throw a leg over a top tube?......hmmm...& all this is before I even wheel it out of the garage!!!.......

cheers,

Hitchy

Augie

LOL, Hitchy. As much as I love running, well... it does lack a certain j'ne sais quois, does it not?

beowoulfe

I run 9 min miles and according to my HR monitor I burn 175 cal/mile. I ride at 17/18 mph and burn 60 cal/mile.

DanFromDetroit

I am running the Free Press Marathon in October. This will be marathon #3 for me. I hope to better my PR of 3:50. It is two years old and I think it is kind of stale. My training has been going well. At this point 3:30 would be about the best I could hope for. 3:40 or so is the more likely result though.


Dan

szrob

well....... is the hart rate range the same? If my tainning range is 150 bpm for example, shouldn't I be burning the same calories no matter what activity I am doing? I ride on the flats, no hills, and I do NOT coast. I am always working the cranks... so, if I run or ride, as long as I am in my "zone" the out come sould be the same. No?

beowoulfe

No, it isn't. Running absolutely cranks up the heartrate higher. It's harder for me to get the HR up cycling. It'll get up there after an hour or so. Running only takes 15 min to get it going.