Fitter doing running, rather than cycling ?

[_Chris_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.