A question for those who run as well

[RoboLuke]

I love Tim Noakes book on running. But how do I translate it to cycling? I think Im asking how many kms of cycling translate to one km of running as an equivalent in terms of effort/effect on the body ? 2km ? 4 km?

Marathon running is on tar roads so I guess Il have to settle for opinions as though it was on a smooth road, and not dirt.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I love Tim Noakes book on running. But how do I translate it to cycling? I think Im asking how many kms of cycling translate to one km of running as an equivalent in terms of effort/effect on the body ? 2km ? 4 km?

Marathon running is on tar roads so I guess Il have to settle for opinions as though it was on a smooth road, and not dirt.

 

Yeah, a super book, "The lore of running" one of his best and I have used it to do all my training for all my marathons, ultra's I have ever run, its like a runners bible.

 

Theres lots of people who ask comparative study and no doubt you will get some answers here, but I am not sure its a comparative subject, when you stop peddling on a bicycle you glide a bit, you can free wheel down hills, drafting is a big helping factor - none of this really applies to running, basically if you stop turning over your legs.....you stop dead .

 

In my opinion and I am sure most will agree, running is much harder mentally and physically, most folk can ride and finish a 100 km cycle event without much saddle time and still go to work the next day with no injuries, almost impossible with a 42 km event and definitely impossible for a 90 odd km event.

[JasonDunwiel]

Agree fully with the above from GrumpyOldGuy as I have done a couple ultras and one Comrades.

To answer your question from my perspective, a 21.1Km half-marathon run has the same effort and effect as a 100km cycle race.

The only difference for me is the time, half-marathon = 1h45 and 100km = 3h50.

[jmaccelari]

I'm not a pro/great/whatever runner, but in my opinion there are two aspects:

- I reckon cardio vascular effort in cycling is greater than running

- impact wise, running is much greater than cycling.

 

So cycling gives more cardio, but less impact. I think most people concentrate on the "difficulty" (impact) of running compared to cycling.

[Wyatt Earp]

I'm not a pro/great/whatever runner, but in my opinion there are two aspects:

- I reckon cardio vascular effort in cycling is greater than running

- impact wise, running is much greater than cycling.

 

So cycling gives more cardio, but less impact. I think most people concentrate on the "difficulty" (impact) of running compared to cycling.

Not so.

[Mojoman]

I don't think the cycling totals me as much as running does, then again I am not the worlds most efficient runner!

[FanieFiets]

I also think it depends on the person. Running to me is VERY hard. My gf again prefers running.

Did a 1h40 2 oceans last year and was broken, after sub3 argus many moons ago I felt ok.

 

Remember that running is a weight bearing sport that makes it that much harder. Like GOG said....you stop moving you stop, no rest!

 

Also busy with lore of running, Jack Daniels training method and Born to Run. All of them are unbelievable books.

[8848]

I have done some ultras comrades etc as well as Cycle traces and Triathlons.

 

I reckon (personal opinion) assuming it is a moderate run course vs a moderate bike course, you can multiply the run distance by about 4-5. so a half marathon is roughly a 100km cyle, but a lot depends on the intensity and the persons ability / personal strengths and weakneses.

 

I reckon that Bruce fordyce will find a marathion almost easier than a fast argus as an example. but this would not be the case for most of us.

 

as an example, i think comrades is at least 5-6 times harder than Amashova whoch is over similar terrain for the simple reason that on a bike you can freewheel and recover a bit.

 

I cannot believe that cycling is better cardio training. if you run hard, running is equally if not more cardio tough.

[jmaccelari]

Not so.

Does so. Read the post: "in my opinion". Your opinion may differ...

 

I should also say that I am more of a jogger as opposed to a runner...

Edited March 15, 2012 by jmaccelari

[Pronutro]

I'm not a pro/great/whatever runner, but in my opinion there are two aspects:

- I reckon cardio vascular effort in cycling is greater than running

- impact wise, running is much greater than cycling.

 

So cycling gives more cardio, but less impact. I think most people concentrate on the "difficulty" (impact) of running compared to cycling.

 

A comparison of average HR on cycle versus run should clarify this is simply not true. My statement itself is very simplified and laden with some assumptions, but on average, I think it holds.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Pronutro

[Pronutro]

I would agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that a 21km run is more or less comparable to a 100km ride. Perhaps, for me, it is 21km run = 90km cycle or so. But that is subjective experience.

[Wyatt Earp]

Does so. Read the post: "in my opinion". Your opinion may differ...

 

I should also say that I am more of a jogger as opposed to a runner...

The substantial porridge answered you before I could

[Pronutro]

Does so. Read the post: "in my opinion". Your opinion may differ...

 

I should also say that I am more of a jogger as opposed to a runner...

 

Of course, if you are naturally a better runner than cyclist, then it will probably hold true that cycling gives you a better cardio workout.

 

The most correct answer would be that in whichever discipline your heart rate is higher on average, is giving you a better cardio workout. For most, that would be running when compared to cycling.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Pronutro

[Seeker911]

I'm not a pro/great/whatever runner, but in my opinion there are two aspects:

- I reckon cardio vascular effort in cycling is greater than running

- impact wise, running is much greater than cycling.

 

So cycling gives more cardio, but less impact. I think most people concentrate on the "difficulty" (impact) of running compared to cycling.

Not so.

 

 

+1 Got to agree with Dangle here. At my age my HR is in the 122 to 175 (max) range. At last nights Kinetic run I can tell you my HR never fell below 165. When I cycle I find it extremely difficult to get my HR up to 165 unless of course i'm doing some serious hill work

[ADe]

21km running for me equals about 100km cycling. My average heart rate for running is about 10 bpm higher that for cycling. Running definitely gives me a much better cardio workout than cycling.

[fandacious]

21km running for me equals about 100km cycling. My average heart rate for running is about 10 bpm higher that for cycling. Running definitely gives me a much better cardio workout than cycling.

 

wtf? when I run, i'm always at LT. When I cycle I might hit LT a few times on some hills or sprints, but most of the time its well below LT.