Miles running to miles cycled

danburke

Hey Guys,

Planning on putting a session on the bike into my training plan...

I want to replace a 3 Mile run with a session on my rollers..

My Q is what would ye scale distances running up to for cycling?

I'm thinking maybe 4:1??

RacoonQueen

The general consensus is 4:1.

BeepBeep67

I've heard 3:1 based on time so about 6:1 in distance - depends if you ask a cyclist or a runner

Jumpy

Wait. So cycling 100km is running a marathon?

That doesnt seem right. I do it often enough and Im not at all fit.

YFlyer

Would not that be >160 Km cycle?

Jumpy

Having never run a marathon, I had thought it was 26km. I just googled and saw its actually miles.

My bad.

BeepBeep67

So doing a little research on this there doesn't seem to be a like for like compare, as your cycling speed increases other factors like wind resistance come into play, so 4-5: 1 at the lower end and 2:1 at the higher end.

gerard65

For burning calories its 3:1 or 4:1. But if your spinning and your heart rate is in the same zone as it would be when your running would it not be 1:1 for cardio fitness?

danburke

gerard65 wrote: »

For burning calories its 3:1 or 4:1. But if your spinning and your heart rate is in the same zone as it would be when your running would it not be 1:1 for cardio fitness?

That is what I had thought I could also do...

I use a HRM on the bike as well as running but I don't think the zones exactly match up as I have a different lactate threshold on the bike and running

kennyb3

Let's be honest there is no direct comparison if you want to run better (or alternatively cycle better).

If your aim is to lose weight you can compare calories. If you plan a recovery run a cycle can be used to get blood flowing to muscles to help.

But no 200km cycle is going to replace a 15/16m long run at the weekend. In fact with most cycling your heart rate will be too low to match to any form of running.

The only cycling i find of any use to my running would be hill intervals as they raise your hear rate sufficiently.

danburke

kennyb3 wrote: »

Let's be honest there is no direct comparison if you want to run better (or alternatively cycle better).

If your aim is to lose weight you can compare calories. If you plan a recovery run a cycle can be used to get blood flowing to muscles to help.

But no 200km cycle is going to replace a 15/16m long run at the weekend. In fact with most cycling your heart rate will be too low to match to any form of running.

The only cycling i find of any use to my running would be hill intervals as they raise your hear rate sufficiently.

To be honest I was just thinking of the equivalent aerobic performance required to run 3 miles i.e. approx 12 miles cycling on the flat..

My heart rates are usually close enough (165 aerobic running, 155 cycling)

tunney

kennyb3 wrote: »

Let's be honest there is no direct comparison if you want to run better (or alternatively cycle better).

If your aim is to lose weight you can compare calories. If you plan a recovery run a cycle can be used to get blood flowing to muscles to help.

But no 200km cycle is going to replace a 15/16m long run at the weekend. In fact with most cycling your heart rate will be too low to match to any form of running.

The only cycling i find of any use to my running would be hill intervals as they raise your hear rate sufficiently.

Running is useless to cycling training (bar weight loss), cycling is complementary to running however in terms of muscles used etc etc.

kennyb3

tunney wrote: »

Running is useless to cycling training (bar weight loss), cycling is complementary to running however in terms of muscles used etc etc.

Tunney, would you have a decent link, i'd just be interested in reading a bit more on what you ve said.Cheers