# Fitter doing running, rather than cycling ?



## _Chris_ (14 Oct 2009)

Been a fairly regular runner and footballer for many years, playing once a week, and running about 6km once a week, but with keep hearing about people having knee problems through constant running, made the switch from running to cycling about a month ago.

On my once a week cycling, (can't do any more due to lots of valid reasons), I'm now getting up to about 49 miniutes for about 9.5km.

Since doing this, I've noticed my fitness levels dropping ? ? Should they be dropping at all ?

Chris.


----------



## Funk-Meister (14 Oct 2009)

9.5k in 49 mins isn't a great time. 19k in 49 mins isn't too great. More time in the saddle should see improvements, but you gotta do the time, keep at it.


----------



## dodgy (14 Oct 2009)

That's about 7mph isn't it (9.5KM in 49 minutes)? Perhaps you've miscalculated as I expect a runner would achieve far better. 7mph is almost wobbling speed.


----------



## ASC1951 (14 Oct 2009)

10k on a bike will always be much less effort than 6k running, for the simple reason that on a bike you don't lift your bodyweight.

TBH neither is enough to have a great impact on your fitness. The recommended minimum is 30 minutes every day of enough effort to make you sweat.


----------



## I am Spartacus (15 Oct 2009)

Have a read thru'
http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home_Page&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7764
These guidelines... N.B. guidelines are recognised as a 'standard' even in the UK.
If you are concerned about your fitness levels then you need in 1st instance be honest about the quality and intensity of your current levels.
Then ask realistically yourself what you can do about them.

I'll be frank with you...(cheeky I know, as I havent even seen you  )if your job is sedentary .. and continuing on your current track, you have already lost lost your base fitness and will take some motivated action to regain it.


----------



## The Jogger (15 Oct 2009)

Hi Chris, 6k running a week is less than someone just taking up running would do, you need to do this 5 times a week, as for the cycling , that has to be an error. You are getting less fit because you don't really exercise !


----------



## fay144 (15 Oct 2009)

Firstly - the stuff about running being bad for your knees isn't really true. If you have good running shoes and are careful to address any injuries as they occur rather than running through them, then you should be fine. Certainly no reason to stop running if you enjoy it.

I've been thinking about this recently too, as I've recently cut my running mileage from 40 to 25-30mpw, in order to add 30mpw of cycling. I'm not sure the effect it will have - I think it will largely depend on how "good" I make my cycling miles. It's too easy to just amble along enjoying it, and not really put the effort in.

BTW, I don't think that 49min for 6 miles is necessarily *really* slow. I'm reasonably fit at the moment (just run a marathon) and my 7 miles to work can take me 45 minutes on a bad day. It has steep hills, lot of sets of traffic lights, shared bike lanes with children and dogs to dodge, etc, and I ride a heavy MTB (and am too lazy to put my slicks back on). So if you are doing a really tough or busy route that may well be a reasonable time?

Finally, I know you say that you can only cycle once per week, but I've been surprised at how easily cycling has fit into my life, with my commute, trips to night classes or the gym, and even to the pub. It's amazing how quickly the miles add up once you get into the habit of making those little journeys by bike.


----------



## accountantpete (15 Oct 2009)

As the others have said - once a week is not really enough. Have you thought about 3-4 shorter rides spread throughout the week?


----------



## Kirstie (16 Oct 2009)

OK so I'm about to go for a run, because I think I'll run out of daylight if I go out my bike now, and the roads are starting to get busy (I'm working from home today). 

What's the equivalent workload between biking and running? 1hr on the bike = how long running at the same intensity? 

I can cycle for long periods of time without a break (eg 4 hrs) but can only run for 3/4 hr at the most...


----------



## Pottsy (16 Oct 2009)

Kirstie - there's been a few threads on this before. 

I think the judgement varies on whether you're a cyclist who runs a bit or the other way round. Personally I'd consider a marathon run (26.2 miles) to be worth about 125 miles, so call it 5:1 ratio. A huge difference is made by the pace, intensity and frequency e.g. I can cycle 75 miles a day for many days in a row but I couldn't run 15 miles a day for too long! The impact and damage of running is much greater. 

I'm running a 10 mile race on Sunday, probably in about 75 minutes, which will hurt a lot more than a steady 70-80 mile ride, but might be comparable to a hard 50 mile TT perhaps.

Just observations really.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

^^ The equivalence figure I've seen a lot is x4. If that's right 3/4 hr running = 3 hr cycling, and 4 miles running = 16 miles cycling.

I've never got on with running, it gives me a headache very quickly and generally makes me feel rotten but I can pretty well go on all day on a bike, not as fast as I once did though!

Although an equivalence figure is useful a lot still depends on how it's done. I suspect that a couple of hours hard cycling in a velodrome would be a different story.

The speed given in the OP, the duration of the ride, and the once a week frequency don't sound like a regime for keeping fit, anymore than an amble round the local park once a week would.


----------



## Kirstie (16 Oct 2009)

OK then, that makes sense. Thanks for the info...and I'll remember to search for other threads before posting. 

I would agree that the OP shouldn't be surprised that his fitness levels are dropping.


----------



## Weegie (16 Oct 2009)

_Chris_ said:


> Been a fairly regular runner and footballer for many years, playing once a week, and running about 6km once a week, but with keep hearing about people having knee problems through constant running, made the switch from running to cycling about a month ago.
> 
> On my once a week cycling, (can't do any more due to lots of valid reasons), I'm now getting up to about 49 miniutes for about 9.5km.
> 
> Since doing this, I've noticed my fitness levels dropping ? ? Should they be dropping at all ?



Chris, just to give you a point of reference - I am _unbelievably _unfit, seriously overweight, and have not taken regular exercise for years. I started cycling 2 months ago, and I am currently cycling around 35km/week, averaging 17km/h (versus your 11.6km/h). And I am honestly not breaking a sweat that much. 

It's fair to assume that since you run & play football, you should be beating my numbers by a significant amount. So, either your numbers are wrong, or you underestimate how many km you need to put in on a bike to burn some serious calories.

I was amazed to discover how FEW calories are burned while cycling - although it makes perfect sense, when you remember that cycling is the most efficient form of human transport in the world.

I am sure someone who is _actually _fit will correct me if i'm talking bollocks


----------



## Garz (18 Oct 2009)

> Fitter doing running, rather than cycling ?



A direct answer would be yes assuming your keeping it a reasonably fair comparison. However cycling has its benefits predominantly (for me anyway) as its a low impact sport meaning less chance of injury.

When I was in schooling I was a handy footballer, picked up a couple of injuries then I gave up after university. Still play it now and again but prefer cycling as I get to see the country and go at my own pace.


----------



## Garz (18 Oct 2009)

Weegie said:


> I was amazed to discover how FEW calories are burned while cycling - although it makes perfect sense, when you remember that cycling is the most efficient form of human transport in the world.
> 
> I am sure someone who is _actually _fit will correct me if i'm talking bollocks



You are correct in its very efficient, however when you start exerting loads of energy steaming up hills and pushing a quad busting pace the efficiency drops as you try to speed up the ride.

If the OP considers himself fit then try halting all other sportive activities and do some TT loops of say 10 miles. Do this twice a week and add in a day of hill work and you should maintain a nice level of fitness compared to your sunday stroll you were on.


----------



## MacB (18 Oct 2009)

Kirstie said:


> OK then, that makes sense. Thanks for the info...and I'll remember to search for other threads before posting.
> 
> I would agree that the OP shouldn't be surprised that his fitness levels are dropping.



Kirstie, just to muddy the waters further, when equating running to cycling the effort level matters. A factor of 4-5 seems about right to me but only if you're putting in enough effort on the bike. Running, especially if unfit, requires a base level effort considerably higher than that required for moving a bike. If you only pootle on the bike then a factor of 10-15 might be more accurate.


----------



## Kirstie (18 Oct 2009)

MacB said:


> Kirstie, just to muddy the waters further, when equating running to cycling the effort level matters. A factor of 4-5 seems about right to me but only if you're putting in enough effort on the bike. Running, especially if unfit, requires a base level effort considerably higher than that required for moving a bike. If you only pootle on the bike then a factor of 10-15 might be more accurate.



Well I'm certainly not a pootler...


----------



## Davidc (18 Oct 2009)

MacB has to be right about the base effort level. The OP appears to have had a reasonable fitness level in the recent past, so I would have thought he'd have needed very much higher performance and duration than he says he's been doing in order to maintain that, let alone improve it.


----------



## MacB (18 Oct 2009)

Kirstie said:


> Well I'm certainly not a pootler...



sorry, wasn't suggesting you were that bit was more a general response re the OP. The posted average speed was very low for someone who has recently led an active life. It was even lower than my average when I started cycling and that was from true couch potato land. Going at that pace would probably be outdone by running by a factor of 15 to 1. Maybe there should be some sort of scale that equates the two, purely on effort level alone, distance would be another factor. But effort could be expressed in a form like:-

5mph bike = slow shuffling walk
8mph bike = reasonable paced walk
10mph bike = fast walk or gentle jog
12mph bike = jogging
15mph bike = medium run
18mph bike = running
20-25mph bike = serious running
25mph+ bike = athlete and not to be confused with the likes of me

obviously this has been calculated using the most stringent of scientific methods


----------



## Perfect Virgo (19 Oct 2009)

MacB said:


> Kirstie, just to muddy the waters further, when equating running to cycling the effort level matters. *A factor of 4-5 seems about right to me but only if you're putting in enough effort on the bike. Running, especially if unfit, requires a base level effort considerably higher than that required for moving a bike.* If you only pootle on the bike then a factor of 10-15 might be more accurate.



Yes this is a much closer comparison MacB and your proviso is right too, I believe. I know how I feel after a 15 mile run and it's similar to a 75 mile ride. Whenever I read these cycling/running posts I am always tempted to repeat that a good runner can turn to cycling and get going at a fair pace but a cyclist might take time to build the strength and stamina needed for running. As others have mentioned, this is because there is no respite in running and each stride launches both feet off the ground.

The OP's approximately 10k bike ride in 50 minutes can't be right surely. Most fair runners would expect to *run* 10k in that time. I can do it in 55 minutes but I'm 52!


----------



## jimboalee (19 Oct 2009)

Pottsy said:


> Kirstie - there's been a few threads on this before.
> 
> I think the judgement varies on whether you're a cyclist who runs a bit or the other way round. Personally I'd consider a marathon run (26.2 miles) to be worth about 125 miles, so call it *5:1 ratio*. A huge difference is made by the pace, intensity and frequency e.g. I can cycle 75 miles a day for many days in a row but I couldn't run 15 miles a day for too long! The impact and damage of running is much greater.
> 
> ...



Which means a bicycle is 2.5 times as fast as a runner for half the energy per time.


----------



## Davidc (19 Oct 2009)

MacB said:


> obviously this has been calculated using the most stringent of scientific methods



It'll never get past peer review.

25 mph is impossible (unless going down a steep hill). It used to be possible on bikes made 30, or even 20 years ago, but there's something about new ones that stops them averaging over about 15 mph.

I used to be able to average 20 mph over 50 miles on bikes from the 60s, 70s, 80s. I can only just about manage 50 miles, and that at between 10 and 15 mph average, on bikes from the past 5 years!

It has to be the bikes, after all it's the same rider, so I've controlled for that, and some of the routes are the same.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Oct 2009)

A definitive explanation.

To quantify the efficiency COMPARISON of running vs cycling, it is necessary to measure the effort of the athlete.

This can be done by analysing the CO2 and O2 going into and out of the patient's lungs.

Then when the poor sapper is extracting the same O2 from the inhaled air, take a note of his speed of forward motion.

UC Santa Cruz did this with gas analysers on the back of a truck following runners and cyclists, and a flexible hose apparatus to the victim.

Ref. Albert C. Gross, Chester R. Kyle and Douglass J. Malewicki


----------



## jimboalee (19 Oct 2009)

Read through this.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false


----------



## _Chris_ (19 Oct 2009)

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this, I haven't been receiving emails to say replies have been posted, but will look into that straight away.

Many thanks for the very informative replies, and yes, I may have got my calculations a little wrong - I took the calculations a couple of years ago, but didn't start the cycling until a short while back.

Will update by the weekend, when I have another chance to get out in the car.


----------



## ASC1951 (20 Oct 2009)

_Chris_ said:


> Will update by the weekend, when I have another chance to *get out in the car*.


??

You don't mean you drive to where you start exercising? Rather defeats the point.


----------



## _Chris_ (20 Oct 2009)

ASC1951 said:


> You don't mean you drive to where you start exercising? Rather defeats the point.


? ?

Not quite - I need to drive round the circuit first, to measure the distance !


----------



## I am Spartacus (20 Oct 2009)

Not such a strange behaviour.
When out cycling, I do get passed by many a car loaded with MTBs (usually) on the rack.
I also live in a less than salubrious part of the UK....running around is a pain.. 
dog shoot... pissed up teenagers... feckless unemployed ( oh feck .. that's me) ...MTBers riding on pavements ...arsey dogowners .. more arsey doggers... I can go on.. get the picture?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (20 Oct 2009)

_Chris_ said:


> ? ?
> 
> Not quite - I need to drive round the circuit first, to measure the distance !



a bike computer will be more accurate. allow for 10% deviation with the car…


----------



## fay144 (20 Oct 2009)

Hi Chris, I use the gmap-pedometer or mapmyrun websites to map out routes to find distance. It's a lot quicker than driving it. And it's handy to be able to plan runs/bike rides in advance.

I was thinking about this thread when I was running up a big hill on the way into work this morning. Maybe it's because I'm a runner who is new-ish to cycling, but I am certain that there is no way I was exherting 4 or 5 times the effort of cycling up the same hill. I wouldn't even have said it was double. Cycling up steep hills really takes it out of your legs... with running you can just plod away at it. On the flat, then I can see there is a difference... 5 times still seems a lot though, to me.


----------



## dodgy (20 Oct 2009)

Crikey, imagine if every cyclist mapped out their rides before hand in a car!

That's what the Internet is for!


----------



## jimboalee (20 Oct 2009)

I had mentioned on another thread there are two ways by which we 'work'.

One is lifting mass against gravity, and the other is moving air around an object as we propel it along the Earth's surface.

When riding a bike along the flat, it is not being lifted, only pushed through the air. In a crouched position with one knee high up near the body, the cross section area is less than the same person running.
A runner lifts their mass with every stride in addition to cutting through air.

Up hills however, the speed difference is less, therefore the forces due to aerodynamic drag are closer.
A cyclist has to lift the weight of the bike in addition to their bodyweight.
There comes a point at which the cyclist will be exerting more than the runner, or walker in most cases.

It is the total mass involved and the time it takes to get to the top of the hill which determine the total work done ( J/s = W ).

If the cyclist climbs at 8 mph, but the runner at 3 mph, because the cyclist has the mass of the bike, the power will be close to double.

So Fay is not far wrong.

If I have to take my bike to the top of the hill and I haven't got a gear low enough, I will get off and push. The total energy is the same but the time involved is longer, therefore less Watts and kinder to my heart.


----------



## _Chris_ (20 Oct 2009)

I am Spartacus said:


> Not such a strange behaviour.
> When out cycling, I do get passed by many a car loaded with MTBs (usually) on the rack.
> I also live in a less than salubrious part of the UK....running around is a pain..
> dog shoot... pissed up teenagers... feckless unemployed ( oh feck .. that's me) ...MTBers riding on pavements ...arsey dogowners .. more arsey doggers... I can go on.. get the picture?


Absolutely brill - love the sense of humour


----------



## _Chris_ (20 Oct 2009)

alecstilleyedye said:


> a bike computer will be more accurate. allow for 10% deviation with the car…


Thanks, will bear that in mind, I don't quite have one at hand at the moment, but will look when out shopping next.


----------



## _Chris_ (20 Oct 2009)

fay144 said:


> Hi Chris, I use the gmap-pedometer or mapmyrun websites to map out routes to find distance. It's a lot quicker than driving it. And it's handy to be able to plan runs/bike rides in advance.
> 
> I was thinking about this thread when I was running up a big hill on the way into work this morning. Maybe it's because I'm a runner who is new-ish to cycling, but I am certain that there is no way I was exherting 4 or 5 times the effort of cycling up the same hill. I wouldn't even have said it was double. Cycling up steep hills really takes it out of your legs... with running you can just plod away at it. On the flat, then I can see there is a difference... 5 times still seems a lot though, to me.


Many thanks for that info - much appreciated.


----------



## _Chris_ (20 Oct 2009)

dodgy said:


> Crikey, imagine if every cyclist mapped out their rides before hand in a car!
> 
> That's what the Internet is for!


Crikey, it's not that tricky, I'm only going to do it the once!

How would you do it on t'internet ? How accurate ?


----------



## 4F (20 Oct 2009)

_Chris_ said:


> Crikey, it's not that tricky, I'm only going to do it the once!
> 
> How would you do it on t'internet ? How accurate ?



log your route on http://www.mapmyride.com and it is very accurate. Gives you an elevation profile as well


----------



## lukesdad (20 Oct 2009)

_Chris_ said:


> Thanks, will bear that in mind, I don't quite have one at hand at the moment, but will look when out shopping next.



tescos do an accurate one for 6 quid


----------



## lukesdad (20 Oct 2009)

4F said:


> log your route on http://www.mapmyride.com and it is very accurate. Gives you an elevation profile as well



Distance is accurate elevation certainly isn t.


----------



## Fiona N (20 Oct 2009)

fay144 said:


> I was thinking about this thread when I was running up a big hill on the way into work this morning. Maybe it's because I'm a runner who is new-ish to cycling, but I am certain that there is no way I was exherting 4 or 5 times the effort of cycling up the same hill. I wouldn't even have said it was double.



Hi Fay
you've sort of got the wrong end of the stick - it's the comparable distance for the same perceived effort that's a factor of 4 or 5 different. E.g. if you run hard up a steep hill at say 3 kmph but can cycle it at 12kmph using the same level of effort, you can see there's a factor of about 4 in the distance for the effort. Conversely, it will take you about 4 times longer to cover the same ground by running as cycling, so you need to cycle about 4 times further (or more if there are downhills where cycling becomes vastly more efficient than running) to get a similar expenditure of effort. 

Scientifically, it's more complex as Jimbo's wild and woolly posts don't hesitate to indicate


----------



## jimboalee (20 Oct 2009)

Fiona N said:


> Hi Fay
> you've sort of got the wrong end of the stick - it's the comparable distance for the same perceived effort that's a factor of 4 or 5 different. E.g. if you run hard up a steep hill at say 3 kmph but can cycle it at 12kmph using the same level of effort, you can see there's a factor of about 4 in the distance for the effort. Conversely, it will take you about 4 times longer to cover the same ground by running as cycling, so you need to cycle about 4 times further (or more if there are downhills where cycling becomes vastly more efficient than running) to get a similar expenditure of effort.
> 
> Scientifically, it's more complex as Jimbo's wild and woolly posts don't hesitate to indicate



"Wild and wooly" hey, repeat that to Sir Isaac and the two James'.

If a cyclist and his bike are to rise up the hill by the same elevation as the runner without a bike, the poor cyclist with the weight of the bike like a millstone round his neck is going to exert more energy (taking the pair have the same bodyweight).

The number of Joules are Newtons x vertical distance, and the Wattage is Joules per second.
The cyclist, by having the 90 Newton bike to heave, has a greater task.

Completing the task quicker only means the Joules are exerted in less time, therefore a higher Wattage.


There,
The Wild and Wooly Wonderful Wattage Wizard.

PS The calorie counter on your Garmin uses these principles, so why shouldn't I.


----------



## fay144 (21 Oct 2009)

Fiona N said:


> Hi Fay
> you've sort of got the wrong end of the stick - it's the comparable distance for the same perceived effort that's a factor of 4 or 5 different. E.g. if you run hard up a steep hill at say 3 kmph but can cycle it at 12kmph using the same level of effort, you can see there's a factor of about 4 in the distance for the effort. Conversely, it will take you about 4 times longer to cover the same ground by running as cycling, so you need to cycle about 4 times further (or more if there are downhills where cycling becomes vastly more efficient than running) to get a similar expenditure of effort.
> 
> Scientifically, it's more complex as Jimbo's wild and woolly posts don't hesitate to indicate



It's the "perceived effort" that's the key I think. On a bike, I just can't get my heart rate to the same level as running unless I'm on a steep hill, no matter how hard I work. Going up steep hills feels much harder on a bike than running up (and my heart rate tends to match that of running). So one hour of running would generally take more effort and than one hour of cycling unless it was a very hilly course, as no matter how hard I worked it is just not comparable in terms of effort on the flats. 

But if I was in a lazy mood, and was given the choice of running up a particular steep hill or cycling it, I'd go for running as while it would take longer, it would seem easier overall. 

(BTW I commute on a heavy mountain bike, so there is no way it is anywhere near 4 times as fast as running! It's not even double. I need a road bike...).


----------



## RATCHET (21 Oct 2009)

I seemto remember reading an article in a running mag that to get the same exercise level eg running for 30 mins you need to cycle for 60 mins at the same intensity.Not sure if this was a controlled eperiment


----------



## J4CKO (27 Oct 2009)

For me cycling is many times more beneficial than running, as I will cycle, running just isnt going to happen 

I love the fact its so efficient, its transport.


----------



## mad al (29 Oct 2009)

I have done loads of running and can guarantee you I was much fitter as this was my main activity and cycling came second as I found it really easy due to the running, so much so that I hardly had to train on the bike and could get under "evens" off no bike training. Just don't ask about the swim stuff!!!!!!

These days, I cycle more than run and the reverse is quite the opposite. Now I hadn't run in a long time but last night got the urge to run, so as it was fairly late and in the past as nearly all my running was in the forests, I opted for the treadmill, 2.26 miles in 20 minutes which included the warm up/cool down stuff, which is under 9 minutes a mile overall and the bulk of that time was sub 7 minutes per mile and it












nearly killed me.

The same would never have happened the other way around. Now we all have a different pace that we are comfortable at in all sports but in my opinion a combination of several sports improves all activities and is a good base for getting and staying fit, with running unless some upper body work is done you will be as weak as a kitten so unless you do manual work, some sort of weight/circuit training will see an improvement and swimming is also another 1st class ingredient.

Going back to the "comfort zone" we all have, no matter what your sport, if you don't intend to put yourself into the *"uncomfortable zone"*, there will be no drastic improvement so it's horse for courses I'm afraid.

I have been laid up of late, managing only one or two rides a week so know that it will be uphill and don't bother worrying about it as there will be nothing easy until I get more miles racked up.

Alan


----------



## mad al (29 Oct 2009)

RATCHET said:


> I seemto remember reading an article in a running mag that to get the same exercise level eg running for 30 mins you need to cycle for 60 mins at the same intensity.Not sure if this was a controlled eperiment




Bang on, 100% true


----------



## mad al (29 Oct 2009)

J4CKO said:


> For me cycling is many times more beneficial than running, as I will cycle, running just isnt going to happen
> 
> I love the fact its so efficient, its transport.



This so *soooooo *true, cycling is in a different league in the enjoyment stakes


----------

