BassClef

I've noticed a big difference in perceived effort while running vs. biking.

Doing both activities, my average HR generally gets in the 145-160+ range. However, after about 30 minutes of running at this level, my legs are tired, I'm getting out of breath, and I'm ready to stop. I'm sore and fatigued for a day or two afterwards.

On my bike, I go an hour or longer at the same level or higher, and I feel like I could go quite a while longer. It's *almost* effortless, and I never get sore.

This is surprising to me because I was under the impression that HR % was an indicator of the effort level, but the effort seems to vary a lot between the two activities. Not only that, but isn't your max HR while biking usually lower than the max for running, so the same HR would be a bigger percentage on the bike?

bikingMILF

my max HR on a bike is 201. LOL I use a HR monitor and consistantly ride with averages between 80-90% of my max HR. i used to really bug out about that, but after a couple of years, i have grown to accept that no, im not going to have a heart attack out there. i think its pretty spiffy that i can ride for 3+ hours with an average hr that high, considering the fact that before i started riding, i was an overweight pothead/weekend bar hopper/cigarette smoker. i have also noticed that i cant make it very far running with a HR average above say, 65%. its just different. id assume that if running was 'my' sport, id have better endurance doing that, and suck on the bike. LOL

pgoat

I used to run a lot in my 20s. Have always biked to work but started road biking for fitness the last few years ... bought a heart rate monitor for the first time at that point and was amazed how much fat calories I could burn on the bike - a "fun" activity. I'm talking riding with a good cadence for 3-5 hours. My HR usually stays around 120-130, and up around 160 for the hardest sprints and climbs (I don't push that hard). Commuting doesn't do much for me - too much traffic = stop & go.

I tried running again in the last few years and while it hurt a LOT more than the biking I barely burned anything. Maybe 200 cals for 3 miles. However I was anaerobic practically the whole way - during one hilly 5k race my HR hovered between 150ish and 190 - ouch! Even in my younger days, I recall it took about 6 initial months of steady base miles running before I could run three-5 miles+ comfortably and aerobically, burning fat. If I ever get that into it again, I imagine my heart rate will lower.

eviltwin

First there is a difference between the calculated Max HR 220-age and what the actual is. To get your true Max HR you need to get a VO2 max test done. The 220-age is just a guideline.

I am both an avid runner and mountain biker. I also notice a difference between effort and what my HR is during the two. I ran a Marathon with a PR of 2:59:32 last year and my avg HR was 159 for the entire race and I felt good during and after. Just a month before the Marathon I did a Mountain bike race that took 2:02ish and my avg HR was 180 and I was drained when I finished. Now doing the 220-age that means that my Max HR is 183. I just had a VO2 Max test done (a year after) and my Max was 192 (I am currently 38 yrs old).

Unless I am racing I find that it is almost opposite then when training or just out for a casual run or ride. Meaning that I find it hard to get my HR up while riding vs running at the same effort.

Some of it may depend on your efficiency i.e. running/riding style and some may be nutrition like not getting the right amount of cards for your body to burn making it less efficient and making it work harder rising you HR.

BassClef

I do realize that - I'm 46 y.o., almost 47, and I regularly hit 174+ walking on a treadmill.

I'm not sure where to get the VO2 max test. I tried to check my max running on a treadmill once - using a protocol I found on the net. I don't think I pushed myself hard enough, because I was leery of stumbling - I ended up with 185, but probably could have hit at least 190.

The higher effort/higher HR is what I would have expected. However, with me the bike ride seems easier at the same or higher HR.

I definitely feel less efficient running - and it seems like a lot of effort. I would have thought that translates into higher HR, but it doesn't for me. I think it's great - I recently took my bike out of storage (a little over a month ago) and I'm finding it much more enjoyable than running - and if I can work harder for longer with less or no pain, then I'll just stick to the bike.

agarose2000

I'm a marathoner with mtn biking experience, and since I've been injured (stress fx foot) lately, I've been doing nearly all cycling & mtn biking.

The HR doesn't have to be the limiting factor. In fact, for endurance (60+ minutes) events, your muscular efficiency/endurance will be more important than your HR.

I run fairly fast, with 18:00 5ks and 7:20/mile x 26 miles on the marathon, so I'm fairly strong on the mountain bike. Still, on running, the limiting factor for me is HR for all races under 13 miles, since my legs can go the distance, even for 90 minutes.

In contrast, HR is never really a limiting factor for me on the bike - because my quads build up so much lactate that they are ALWAYS the limiting factor. I can go faster than my friends because I operate at a much higher aerobic level, but I can't hold a candle against a pure cyclist who trains similar volume to my running (in terms of time) due to their vastly superior cycling efficiency and muscular specificity.

As a result, even when I go to near my maximal effort for a 45-60 minute bike ride, it tends to not be as hard a VO2/oxygen workout as a 45-60 maximal run for me, as my quads give out first on the bike. It will be vice versa for cyclists going to running.

I'm still not experienced enough on the bike to accurately judge which is "harder"; they are definitely DIFFERENT. So far though, I find that I use fewer muscles on the bike (mostly quads and some calves) where as on the run, I use more glutes, calves, hamstrings, and stabilizing muscles. I'm still in pretty good running shape since my stress fx was only about 3 weeks ago, and I find that I can never bike myself into soreness, even with all-out short distance sprints and longer 2hr hill climbs in the mountains, whereas I just hopped on the treadmill for the first time in 3 wks last week, and found myself quite sore in most of the muscles not used for cycling. (Even quads!) Granted, I'm not clearly a much worse cyclist than runner, so you also have to take that into consideration, but I suspect running does recruit a few more leg muscles than cycling.

Sjared

Could it be a matter of posture?
I was reading on a posturologist book that runnning is considered an activity with an high risk of injuries because of shock absorption. Most at the stake zones are the lombar back, the achille tendon, the shin, the knee, the neck. But the book explained that it's not the activity to be risky per se but the fact that most of us run with wrong posture balancing weight in the wrong zones and overarching the lower back. This would cause energy waste and muscle soreness. Biking seems to force a better posture on you except for when we round the lower back too much in bending excessively.

slim_77

^that could be, but I think it is more a matter of stabilization, like agarose2000 said. If you think about it, to balance yourself you use far many muscles that are not needed to ride a bike. They are just different sports.

pgoat

someone like me (large bone structure, poor flexibility) could never be a 'natural' cyclist but my problems are far more significant when running. Lots of weight and pressure on my joints with each step. I also have flat feet - I see these slender gazelles out running and you can tell from their shoes they have high arches and lots of natural foot cushioning.

agarose2000

I don't think flat feet correlate with slowness. I'm as flatfooted as you can possibly be (ZERO arch), and I can still win my age division in many local races.

Body weight does seem to correlate though ; strong runners generally tend to be light and THIN. Big quads like mine do not help for running, since you rarely need to generate so much power unless you're specializing in <800m sprints. (Look at the elite runners - only the <400m runners are superbuff.) So big heavy guys will defiinitely do better on the bike than the run if genetics are the dominant factor. Almost zero clydesdale (200lbs) guys in the nation can beat me in the marathon, and I'm not even considered to be a particularly fast marathoner.

I think running can strain your leg muscles more than biking as well since the impact from the step onto the road is equal or greater than 3x body weight per step. Try "running" on your bathroom scale, and you'll get an idea of what kind of high-force impacts are involved. Cycling also involves lots of force, and possibly more so on hills that running, but the force is usually distributed over a longer pedalstroke with the result of not getting that super high 3x body weight force in 1/50th second, but probably 2x poundage distributed over 1/2 a second or so. Hence more stress fractures in runners than cyclists - it's well known that cyclists can train for HOURS; 6+ per day is not unusual for elite cyclists for training volume, whereas even for elite runners, anything over 3+ per day is seriously inviting injury, even when split into double and triple sessions.

pgoat

all of which explains why so many of us would prefer to bike than run!!

H2Row

Well I row - a LOT which requires a lot of fitness and I can be at my peak fitness for rowing and for cycling then go run on the road and I'll be totally dead after about 5km, even if I take it easy. I think general fitness doesn't carry onto running. You could probably take someone who runs for an hour a day and someone who does another sport for the same amount of time, if not more and the runner will beat the other athlete at running.