Running vs Bike riding energy expenditure
Likes For SkinGriz:
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Distance is the wrong limit to impose, unless you're determined to make riding look as if it's a less energy-consuming workout intrinsically, which it is not. As has been pointed out repeatedly (and patiently) in this thread, ride and run at a rate of 200 watts for an hour, and you'll have used the same amount of energy.
As I have patiently pointed out, to make any sort of comparison you need an external parameter such as distance or time. Comparing 200watts running to 200watts cycling is nonsensical. They are the same. How much distance is covered in how much time determines the difference. Or, conversely, over a set time/distance which requires more energy can also be compared. Running requires more.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
They're comparing on the basis of energy expended over a period of time. I'm not sure why this isn't clear. Over a given (realistic) course, it's so obvious that running will require more energy that it's a complete non-starter as discussions go.
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
The muscles used when running are not just weight bearing, they are actively countering the body weight being thrown off balance.
One can skew results to get any result. For example, comparing gentle jogging to standing and mashing in a sprint. I imagine a 100m dash peaks more watts 4han a Sunday ride in the park.
But the OP is talking about how long they have to ride to get a comparable workout from running. This is correct. Run 10 kms and ride 10 kms. You expend more energy doing the former. To expend the same energy you have to ride a lot further/longer because the bicycle is providing a notable mechanical advantage over running.
You can max out the watts when cycling but the time to cover the distance will then be much less so your energy expenditure will, overall, be less.
Cover a set distance running or cycling. Your use more energy doing the former. That's it.
One can skew results to get any result. For example, comparing gentle jogging to standing and mashing in a sprint. I imagine a 100m dash peaks more watts 4han a Sunday ride in the park.
But the OP is talking about how long they have to ride to get a comparable workout from running. This is correct. Run 10 kms and ride 10 kms. You expend more energy doing the former. To expend the same energy you have to ride a lot further/longer because the bicycle is providing a notable mechanical advantage over running.
You can max out the watts when cycling but the time to cover the distance will then be much less so your energy expenditure will, overall, be less.
Cover a set distance running or cycling. Your use more energy doing the former. That's it.
If the OP is asking about how long they have to ride to get a comparable workout (as you put it above in bold) in terms of energy expenditure that means we are talking about TIME, not distance.
There is no need to keep explaining that a bicycle covers distance faster than running. I know that. Literally everyone in the world knows that!
#55
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,116
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1790 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times
in
934 Posts
Sigh... by this logic one would never determine which requires more energy because you are gaging output by energy expended.
As I have patiently pointed out, to make any sort of comparison you need an external parameter such as distance or time. Comparing 200watts running to 200watts cycling is nonsensical. They are the same. How much distance is covered in how much time determines the difference. Or, conversely, over a set time/distance which requires more energy can also be compared. Running requires more.
As I have patiently pointed out, to make any sort of comparison you need an external parameter such as distance or time. Comparing 200watts running to 200watts cycling is nonsensical. They are the same. How much distance is covered in how much time determines the difference. Or, conversely, over a set time/distance which requires more energy can also be compared. Running requires more.
I think you are meaning: Running requires more watts per mile. If so, that's true & no one disputes that.
But running 8 miles in one hour requires 1000 calories of total energy expenditure. Motivated cycling 1 hour requires the same 1000 calories in the same one hour. Ergo they are the same from an energy expenditure stand point.
The rub is in cycling, it is possible to expend, coast, repeat for a lower total. Cycling can made to be much more sustainable for a much longer period of time. The result is usually more time spent engaged.
__________________
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.
Car dependency is a tax.
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.
Car dependency is a tax.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
Sigh... by this logic one would never determine which requires more energy because you are gaging output by energy expended.
As I have patiently pointed out, to make any sort of comparison you need an external parameter such as distance or time. Comparing 200watts running to 200watts cycling is nonsensical. They are the same. How much distance is covered in how much time determines the difference. Or, conversely, over a set time/distance which requires more energy can also be compared. Running requires more.
As I have patiently pointed out, to make any sort of comparison you need an external parameter such as distance or time. Comparing 200watts running to 200watts cycling is nonsensical. They are the same. How much distance is covered in how much time determines the difference. Or, conversely, over a set time/distance which requires more energy can also be compared. Running requires more.
Likes For PeteHski:
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
A watt is defined as a unit of expenditure in a certain amount of time. A watt is a watt is a watt.
I think you are meaning: Running requires more watts per mile. If so, that's true & no one disputes that.
But running 8 miles in one hour requires 1000 calories of total energy expenditure. Motivated cycling 1 hour requires the same 1000 calories in the same one hour. Ergo they are the same from an energy expenditure stand point.
The rub is in cycling, it is possible to expend, coast, repeat for a lower total. Cycling can made to be much more sustainable for a much longer period of time. The result is usually more time spent engaged.
I think you are meaning: Running requires more watts per mile. If so, that's true & no one disputes that.
But running 8 miles in one hour requires 1000 calories of total energy expenditure. Motivated cycling 1 hour requires the same 1000 calories in the same one hour. Ergo they are the same from an energy expenditure stand point.
The rub is in cycling, it is possible to expend, coast, repeat for a lower total. Cycling can made to be much more sustainable for a much longer period of time. The result is usually more time spent engaged.
But let's have a look at more sustainable power. A 70 kg runner needs to average around 440W to run a 4 minute mile and that would be a serious maximal effort. But a 70 kg elite cyclist would be able to hold 440W for the best part of an hour. So it seems apparent to me that cycling would expend more energy over any sustained length of time.
#59
Hack
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,265
Bikes: TrueNorth CX bike, 88 Bianchi Strada (currently Sturmey'd), Yess World Cup race BMX, Pure Cruiser race BMX, RSD Mayor v3 Fatbike
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 191 Times
in
132 Posts
You get plenty of weight bearing just walking around. I can't imagine cycling would be detrimental to knee health through lack of weight bearing. If that was the case we would have pro cyclists all over the place with bad knees from too much cycling.
And high volume running subjects your joints to a great deal of pounding. The same thing that makes running bad for people with major knee issues but cycling good for those same people holds true for healthy knees as well.
And high volume running subjects your joints to a great deal of pounding. The same thing that makes running bad for people with major knee issues but cycling good for those same people holds true for healthy knees as well.
Impact causes strengthening. Same as muscles - it just happens FAR slower. First couple years I was 40-60km weeks, then up to 80km steady, then peaked around 120km.
Many people (especially cyclists who already have good cardiovascular fitness) start running, do too much volume, at too fast a pace, and predictably get hurt.
If you don't enjoy it, then don't bother, but proper running training isn't bad on healthy knees. Knees that have previously been seriously injured don't heal and adapt the same way, which is why it's not quite the same.
#60
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
All I know is that running for 30 minutes kicks my butt way more than riding for 30 minutes.
I think the difference is that running just never eases up.
I think the difference is that running just never eases up.
#62
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
Your rule is that running one mile in 7 or 8 minutes is equivalent to riding 20 miles in 60 minutes? I think that's more than "possibly" incorrect. OTOH, running at a pace of 7 or 8 minutes/mile is probably in the ballpark of riding at a pace of 20mph.
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
...
But let's have a look at more sustainable power. A 70 kg runner needs to average around 440W to run a 4 minute mile and that would be a serious maximal effort. But a 70 kg elite cyclist would be able to hold 440W for the best part of an hour. So it seems apparent to me that cycling would expend more energy over any sustained length of time.
But let's have a look at more sustainable power. A 70 kg runner needs to average around 440W to run a 4 minute mile and that would be a serious maximal effort. But a 70 kg elite cyclist would be able to hold 440W for the best part of an hour. So it seems apparent to me that cycling would expend more energy over any sustained length of time.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 09-28-21 at 12:27 AM.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
VO2max is similar, so oxygen consumption at threshold to VO2max is similar, and hence energy expenditure is similar. In the end it boils down to basic physics.
400W is not only sustainable for 4 minutes. Running a marathon in 2 hours and small change is a 400W kind of effort. Maybe slightly less for a very light runner.
400W is not only sustainable for 4 minutes. Running a marathon in 2 hours and small change is a 400W kind of effort. Maybe slightly less for a very light runner.
Last edited by Branko D; 09-28-21 at 03:38 AM.
#65
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,852
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked 1,647 Times
in
829 Posts
My goal, in both my marathons and my century, was just to do the distance. I agree that I could have exerted more effort in my ride. So this might be a better comparison. The Tour de France cyclists do 21 centuries in a month. There's no way a marathoner could run 21 marathons in a month.
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
It is almost impossible to compare energy expenditure between the two because one involves the use of a machine that is literally devised to decrease energy expenditure.
Take a group of people that have never ridden or run regularly and see what each can do.
On average they will all be able to cycle a fair amount of time and distance at a slow speed but they most certainly will not be able to run more than a few moments at any speed.
Take a group of people that have never ridden or run regularly and see what each can do.
On average they will all be able to cycle a fair amount of time and distance at a slow speed but they most certainly will not be able to run more than a few moments at any speed.
Likes For downhillmaster:
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
You are suggesting that a runner can only sustain 400watts for 4 minutes (serious maximal effort) but a cyclist can sustain the same output for the best part of an hour. Basically that a cyclist has 15x the endurance than a runner has. 60/4=15. How do you explain that is possible? Could it be that somehow running requires more effort than cycling? Otherwise, why does the runner burnout 15x faster?
The same 70kg runner would need to be averaging around 385W to complete a marathon in 2 hours. Nobody of that weight has ever achieved that.
The WR marathon holder actually weighs 52kg and would need to average just 285W for 2 hours. Only the elite of the elite runners can get close to that.
Comparing that to cycling, putting out 285W for 2 hours is quite achievable by a lot of amateur riders and pros can be well into the mid 350W range for that length of time
If you want to win Paris Roubaix, you need to be averaging over 300W for nearly 6 hours.
So what I'm suggesting here is that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy per unit time than running. I don't know the reasons for that (I'm an engineer, not a physiologist), but it's probably something to do with using all those muscle groups together while supporting your weight vs mashing circles with your legs and the ability to take micro-breaks. From a personal perspective when I go on my elliptical machine I put out around half the power I do on my equivalent bike machine for the same perceived effort. I'm sure that's partly because I do far more cycling than elliptical training, but I'm pretty sure I would never be able to push the same wattage on an elliptical or running on a treadmill as I can on the bike.
Last edited by PeteHski; 09-28-21 at 04:33 AM.
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
It is almost impossible to compare energy expenditure between the two because one involves the use of a machine that is literally devised to decrease energy expenditure.
Take a group of people that have never ridden or run regularly and see what each can do.
On average they will all be able to cycle a fair amount of time and distance at a slow speed but they most certainly will not be able to run more than a few moments at any speed.
Take a group of people that have never ridden or run regularly and see what each can do.
On average they will all be able to cycle a fair amount of time and distance at a slow speed but they most certainly will not be able to run more than a few moments at any speed.
It sort of endorses my point that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy than running for most people.
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
For sure cycling is "easier" than running. So if you took that totally untrained group, do you think they would expend more energy riding a bike for a "fair amount of time and distance" or running for "a few moments at any speed"?
It sort of endorses my point that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy than running for most people.
It sort of endorses my point that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy than running for most people.
And almost certainly beat up their bodies much more.
#70
Newbie
I'm in my 50's now I am fortunate I can still run. Cycling is my first love, but running has some advantages. Cost is a big one. Generally the only expense is a good pair of shoes. Another advantage is you can get a good work out quicker. For me 20-30 minutes of running will do it.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
VO2max is similar, so oxygen consumption at threshold to VO2max is similar, and hence energy expenditure is similar. In the end it boils down to basic physics.
400W is not only sustainable for 4 minutes. Running a marathon in 2 hours and small change is a 400W kind of effort. Maybe slightly less for a very light runner.
400W is not only sustainable for 4 minutes. Running a marathon in 2 hours and small change is a 400W kind of effort. Maybe slightly less for a very light runner.
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,516
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3241 Post(s)
Liked 2,512 Times
in
1,510 Posts
I don't think the 7-8 minute pace = riding at a pace of 20mph is accurate either, not even close. It's a whole lot easier to cruise at 20mph pushing a big gear than run at a 7-8 minute pace, at least for me. Not every cyclist out there is a high spinning flyweight. It will be different for each individual.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
That's not very convincing at all. If you can only run for a few moments, not much energy will be expended. Whether or not you are more beat up is not very relevant to energy expenditure.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,456
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
I'm in my 50's now I am fortunate I can still run. Cycling is my first love, but running has some advantages. Cost is a big one. Generally the only expense is a good pair of shoes. Another advantage is you can get a good work out quicker. For me 20-30 minutes of running will do it.
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
And imo the amount of energy expended in those few moments of running will on average exceed the amount of energy expended in any ‘few moments’ on the bicycle.
FWIW I ran track and x-country in HS and have done my fair share of running.
All that being said, I think that earlier in the thread you were implying that the amount of energy expended could be equal between the two depending on circumstances and I definitely agree with that.