Cycling to running miles conversion
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2700 Post(s)
Liked 486 Times
in
351 Posts
Cycling to running miles conversion
How many miles cycled do you think it takes to equal 1 mile ran? In terms of difficulty, workout, time elapsed, or however you wish to compare. I think maybe 8 miles cycled = 1 mile on foot
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,893
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6974 Post(s)
Liked 10,975 Times
in
4,695 Posts
Likes For Koyote:
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3957 Post(s)
Liked 7,310 Times
in
2,950 Posts
N * sin (2 π t) *exp (- µ t) / sqrt (1 + t^2)
where t is the effective time, µ is Moehper's coefficient, and N is the meteorological distance. But it's only an approximation, good to 0.1% at best.
where t is the effective time, µ is Moehper's coefficient, and N is the meteorological distance. But it's only an approximation, good to 0.1% at best.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#5
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
Well if you run at 6 mph and ride at 18 mph then it is about a 3:1 ratio in distance. But in terms of energy used I would think the ratio is considerably higher. I can comfortably ride 100 miles at 18 mph, but I certainly can’t run 33 miles at 6 mph. I don’t do running, but Strava would probably provide a ballpark energy consumption per mile, which you could compare with your cycling consumption.
#6
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
For me as a cyclist who doesn’t run, a marathon would be a LOT harder. But a lot depends on how fast you ride. Running has a much higher minimum energy demand than cycling unless you are climbing a steep hill. Riding 100 miles on the flat at say a leisurely 12 mph is not very challenging. But at 20+ mph it becomes a lot harder. Running a marathon is hard work at pretty much any speed above walking pace.
Last edited by PeteHski; 02-07-24 at 08:25 AM.
#7
Happy With My Bikes
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,187
Bikes: Hi-Ten bike boomers, a Trek Domane and some projects
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 884 Post(s)
Liked 2,308 Times
in
1,118 Posts
Purely unscientific, but I've done 1 century and 3 marathons. How I felt after the century and the marathons was similar. I've done many half marathons and while I've never gave it much thought, I guess I guesstimate a half to be about 55 or so miles on the bike. One thing that is common to all those activities is I usually enjoy a beer afterwards.
__________________
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3957 Post(s)
Liked 7,310 Times
in
2,950 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 366 Post(s)
Liked 275 Times
in
176 Posts
I cycle 19 miles to work every day in a little under 1:40, including traffic and stop lights and such. An elite marathoner can do 26 miles in a hair under 2:00. It burns me up a little inside that there are people who could beat me to 19 miles without a bike.
Likes For ScottCommutes:
#10
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
There is no comparison.
Wait, there is. It's just that time, miles, and speed fail to really capture it well and the results are so easily skewed so as to be effectively meaningless.
Running is harder. The minimum energy expenditure to run, not jog, but run is much higher than sitting on a bike. Something on the order of 100-120-ish calories per mile. To "run" a mile with reasonable enough form to actually be "running" takes ~8 minutes or so at the slowest possible pace. An hour would take you 7.5 miles and about 750-900 calories.
The same number of calories expended on a bike might very well be a personal time trial of 30+ mph average speed for an hour. Impossible. A more reasonable 18-20 mph speed is (off the cuff) ~8 calories per minute equals a depressingly low 480 calories per hour. It would take about 1 hour 45 to 2 hours of reasonably high effort cycling to equal runnings 750-900 calorie expenditure. So...36-40 high effort cycling miles in 2x the time running takes to do 7.5 miles. 40 miles in 2 hours is awfully fast.
All variable and subject to externalities, of course.
I've been told that a 4 hour marathon (slow) is about equivalent to a double century. I don't know if that is true or not. The math suggests 3500-4000 calories to do a marathon depending on fitness. Personal experience of ~7500 calories measured for a double century in 3-4x the time is close enough to be plausible from an "effort x time" perspective.
Useful? I'm not sure.
Wait, there is. It's just that time, miles, and speed fail to really capture it well and the results are so easily skewed so as to be effectively meaningless.
Running is harder. The minimum energy expenditure to run, not jog, but run is much higher than sitting on a bike. Something on the order of 100-120-ish calories per mile. To "run" a mile with reasonable enough form to actually be "running" takes ~8 minutes or so at the slowest possible pace. An hour would take you 7.5 miles and about 750-900 calories.
The same number of calories expended on a bike might very well be a personal time trial of 30+ mph average speed for an hour. Impossible. A more reasonable 18-20 mph speed is (off the cuff) ~8 calories per minute equals a depressingly low 480 calories per hour. It would take about 1 hour 45 to 2 hours of reasonably high effort cycling to equal runnings 750-900 calorie expenditure. So...36-40 high effort cycling miles in 2x the time running takes to do 7.5 miles. 40 miles in 2 hours is awfully fast.
All variable and subject to externalities, of course.
I've been told that a 4 hour marathon (slow) is about equivalent to a double century. I don't know if that is true or not. The math suggests 3500-4000 calories to do a marathon depending on fitness. Personal experience of ~7500 calories measured for a double century in 3-4x the time is close enough to be plausible from an "effort x time" perspective.
Useful? I'm not sure.
Last edited by base2; 02-06-24 at 06:31 PM.
Likes For base2:
#11
Junior Member
In terms of difficulty: 20 miles cycling is 1 mile running.(but you still won't hurt as bad by cycling) Aand why in hell would you run?
Last edited by Bleu; 02-06-24 at 06:48 PM.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Thornhill, Canada
Posts: 754
Bikes: United Motocross BMX, Specialized Langster, Giant OCR, Marin Muirwoods, Globe Roll2, VROD:)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Liked 405 Times
in
246 Posts
I avoid running (not a fan)but I'll cycle for miles/hours. However, I'll skate for hours....does that count.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,807
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1944 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
A lot depends on whether you are going downhill.
John
John
Likes For 70sSanO:
#14
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'd say the best way to find out is to go to the local HS/MS track........and run a mile or two. That should give you a starting point. I've ran 18 marathons since 2013. Let me think about it and get back to you.
#15
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,111
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked 3,567 Times
in
1,793 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Likes For terrymorse:
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
Location: North Florida
Posts: 517
Bikes: 2019 Specialized Diverge, 2021 Cervelo Caledonia
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 378 Times
in
197 Posts
I've done both and I assure you it is much easier to cycle 100 miles than to run 26. I've completed five marathons, all between the ages of 38-40, and four centuries, all in my 70s. It took me several weeks to recover from each marathon. After my centuries, I was cycling as usual the next day.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,261
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18428 Post(s)
Liked 15,582 Times
in
7,337 Posts
I’m going to go out on a limb and say 1. After all, a ton of feathers weighs as much as a ton of bricks.
Likes For indyfabz:
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 514
Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 862 Times
in
349 Posts
I've been using the imperial system of measurement for quite some time now, this is the first time I've heard there are bicycle and running miles. I'm curious how these compare to a standard mile, i.e. 5280'?
Likes For phughes:
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,096
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 1,292 Times
in
744 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
#21
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile
Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.
Otto
Last edited by ofajen; 02-06-24 at 11:35 PM.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,261
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18428 Post(s)
Liked 15,582 Times
in
7,337 Posts
#24
Senior Member
Riding a century is far easier than running a marathon. Anybody in good shape can ride a century every day forever.
The record for daily cycling is 240 miles every day for an entire year straight. Running a marathon every day for a year has been done but it's on a whole other level. Let alone 2.4 times that distance.
The record for daily cycling is 240 miles every day for an entire year straight. Running a marathon every day for a year has been done but it's on a whole other level. Let alone 2.4 times that distance.
Likes For Yan:
#25
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