# 30 minute jog...equivalent bike ride?



## lantern rouge (30 Mar 2011)

Hi People....long time no post, but still enjoying the info on here!

Riding time this spring is well down on last year for various work and family reasons, so I've been "jogging" as the odd spare 30 mins became available.

So the question is, what is this the equivalent of in terms of a bike ride?? (calories burnt etc)

doing roughly 9 - 10 minute miles to replace a 16-17 mph average ride of 20-25 miles?

Aplologies if this has been covered in a similiar thread.............mods feel free to delete if this is a duplicate topic


all the best

LR


----------



## ian turner (30 Mar 2011)

calorie calculator


----------



## lantern rouge (30 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> You seem to be comparing a 3 mile run in 30 minutes to a 1½ hour bike ride, I would have thought two very different things.



yeah sorry about that......thanks for the link to the calorie counter IT

I think the comparison reference point I wanted was "How does 30 mins jogging compare to 30 mins on the bike?"

Thanks to that calculator I've now got it...... 480 (bike) vs 419 (run)....thats with my weight details, ride and run details.

That'll do me.......noticed they also had a category of "orgasm"........didn't dare look any further






(it's just before orienteering if anyone's interested)

LR


----------



## jay clock (30 Mar 2011)

I do both (plus swimming, it is called triathlon.)

Based upon a farily detailed analysis of the online tools I came up with (for me) 100 cals per km for running (so about 550 per half hour) and about 32 per km for cycling (so about 400 per half hour). After a few years that still feels right when I think about calorie requirements.

Still knackers me though! Yesterday my plan said 30 min cycle and out within 60 secs on 12k run. Ouch


----------



## ColinJ (30 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> Thinking about it in terms of walking, I guess walking at 4mph is similar energy output to cycling on a level road at 12 mph. Therefore about 3x more efficient.
> 
> So if my wild of the cuff assumption is anything to go by, jogging at 6mph for 30 minutes would be equivalent to pedaling at 18mph for 30 minutes.


4 mph is a brisk walk. 12 mph is an easy cycling speed. Try doing 8 hours of walking at 4 mph and 8 hours of cycling at 12 mph and you'd find that the cycling was much easier.

Jogging isn't the same as walking. I think that your legs would get more tired jogging a certain distance than they would walking it.


Finally, you can't scale the effort of riding at different speeds linearly - there's a power law involved. I plugged the numbers into an online cycling calculator. For a particular cyclist and bike, riding at 12 mph required a power output of 59 Watts. That same cyclist at 18 mph would be using 159 Watts. 1.5 times the speed but 2.7 times the power.


----------



## rjwilki3 (30 Mar 2011)

when I pop to my local gym I normally do a 10KM ride in just over 15 minutes and then a 5KM jog in about 35, with the ride buring off roughly 340 calories and the jog doing about 600.

These numbers are based on what the machines are telling me after inputting my bodyweight of 105KG

it all depends on intesity of the jog/ride really, for me the ride gets my heartrate into the range of about 165-175 and it stays there for the full time whereas the jog only about 150ish, I have been riding a lot longer than running though so this could explain a bit


----------



## ColinJ (30 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> The big difference here is wind resistance, i think it is proportional to the square of the increase. 1.5[sup]2 [/sup]= 2.25, a little less than your 2.7, I wonder what causes the extra calories to burn, human inefficiencies?


According to this, it follows a cube law - no wonder riding at 30 mph is hard work!


----------



## Keith Oates (30 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> walking at 4mph for 8 hours (32 miles) is certainly a very big day out, but then again averaging 12mph for 96 miles would also be a very big day out. A proficient walker may find the first easier, a fit cyclist may find the second easier.
> 
> 
> The big difference here is wind resistance, i think it is proportional to the square of the increase. 1.5[sup]2 [/sup]= 2.25, a little less than your 2.7, I wonder what causes the extra calories to burn, human inefficiencies?




Increased mechanical resistances with more power being used on the pedals plus increased resistance from the tyres!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## slowmotion (31 Mar 2011)

My sister is a doctor, a fearsome marathon runner, and quite competitive. I mentioned that I might ride two and a half times more miles than she runs, and she didn't punch me. Not exactly peer-reviewed science, but a first stab/jab at the figures.


----------



## Boyfrom64 (31 Mar 2011)

I use to run anything between 6 miles and 8 miles three times per week. Currently whilst looking for a road bike I am riding 12 miles three times per week.

Firstly, I am not experiencing any pain in my kness but possiblt more importantly ovthe last month I have lost 4 pounds in weight and I find the cycling easier to do.

Not much help but just my two peneth.


----------



## Tasker (31 Mar 2011)

Perhaps not actually what you were asking but when I was younger and a mad keen cyclist I found that running a circuit of 1.5 miles or so really improved my cycling - particularly hill climbing. In fact, it ended up with me actively searching out the most brutal hills I could find to beat!

The thing is I hated - and still do - jogging/running. I find it absolutely Purgatory but I'm seriously considering taking it up again for a few weeks simply because I want to build up enough stamina to do loaded up cycletouring again.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Mar 2011)

slowmotion said:


> My sister is a doctor, a fearsome marathon runner, and quite competitive. I mentioned that I might ride two and a half times more miles than she runs, and she didn't punch me. Not exactly peer-reviewed science, but a first stab/jab at the figures.


You've got the right order of magnitude, but the wrong number!

A flat 50 mile run even at an easy pace would be a killer. A flat '200' (kms - 125 miles) ride on good roads with no wind wouldn't be.


----------



## snailracer (31 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> In a way this would tie in better with the calories burn't and wattage figures that have been quoted, as wind resistance is not the whole story. However the classic formula is
> drag = -½CPAV[sup]2[/sup]
> [sup]hence proportional to the square.[/sup]
> 
> ...


Power=drag x velocity. 
So cube law is correct.


----------

