Fitter doing running, rather than cycling ?

[dodgy]

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

That's what the Internet is for!

 

[jimboalee]

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_]

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_]

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_]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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