Most people seem to agree that (apart from in certain circumstances) time spent training on a bike doesn't equal time spent running.
I'm interested to know what ratio people apply to this. The most common one I've heard is Run = Bike X 2.
Any opinions out there?
Ask our resident Coach Christopher Leigh...he talks senseOriginally Posted by Trundler
I'm not convinced of this. I think that a 20 minute run = a 20 minute bike ride if you're putting the same amount of effort in. Obviously, in that 20 minutes you'll go further on a bike, but it's taken the same effort to get there.
Running may feel harder due to the impact possibly - or because you can access tougher terrain that you can't on a bike, but assuming you're pushing your HR to the same level, surely it's the same?
20 minutes running may be more beneficial as training for a runner, but that's because you're using the exact same muscles and movement in training as you would in a race.
"The best shield is to accept the pain, then what can really destroy me?"
http://garyufm.blogspot.co.uk
I think it depends where you go biking. I (rather stupidly) MTB'd up Pen Y Ghent and across to Ribblehead last weekend - to run it would take me circa 1:50 whereas on the bike it took me 2:30! On a (much) more bikeable MTB route like the Settle loop out and back towards Malham I suspect that running and biking are about the same for me at 2 hours. I wouldn't say that MTB'ing is harder overall but over rough ground, and especially rough ground up hill, its much slower and its not always that much faster going down hill either.
Biking on the road is faster than running for sure but, even then, if your look to ride in a heavy gear for full effect it can still frigging hurt.
I think it depends to what the ultimate aim is.....are you cycling on the road for 2 hours to become a better runner and running up hills to become a better cyclist???? This would surely not be the case?
It's all relative is it not?
I can appreciate those runners that are injured and using cycling as a purpose to cross train as opposed to doing nothing perhaps wanting to equate a regular 'run' in terms of effort/time in the saddle but by virtue of not being able to run but being able to cycle does this not demonstrate that a different set of primary muscles are being called upon??
Ok so cycling is not weight bearing therefore being an option following a 'running' injury perhaps but I know for a fact my leg muscles (and I'm not going to start naming all the groups etc) are used differently for both sports....
If I'm training to be a better cyclist then I'll cycle...likewise running.
I do think they can compliment each other however, and am not necessarily of the opinion that running is harder....clearly you're not peddling hard enough!!
surely the downhill on a bike is easier than running downhill ?
depends which hills!!
The impact aspects of running (absent in cycling) are a bit of an unknown quantity. Running is harder on the legs so maybe harder on the body overall (?)
I think you can equal the effort involved in running if cycling up a big climb or time-trialling on the flat. Off-road cycling will also involve extra energy expenditure simply due to the effort of handling the bike on difficult terrain. On a typically hilly road-bike route though, there must be an element of resting on the descents - something not possible as a runner!
Of course, as emmilou says, it's a matter of what you are training for. I guess a runner needs to be careful not to rely on cycling too much. On the other hand, it does enable you to do more cardio-vascular training with less impact fatigue (hence pro cyclists having the highest VO2 Max figures ever recorded).
The reason I asked the question in the first place is that if I decide my training volume needs to be (say) 6 hours a week, 6 hours of cycling is unlikely to equal 6 hours of running. If I do 4 hours of running and 2 hours of cycling is that equal to my 6 hours of running? I don't think so, but what ratio should be applied?
I should add that I'm training purely for fellrunning and all my biking would be on the road.
Last edited by Fellhound; 10-07-2008 at 12:50 PM.
From what I've read you're unlikely to cycle to them same intensity as you run. In effect, you have 2 max heart rate readings as you'll never hit your running max heart rate - which is probably your 'true max heart rate' whilst cycling. I've previously heard that 1 mile run equals 3 miles cycled.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote