# Running to cycling conversion rate



## edvard22 (Aug 12, 2011)

I love cycling, but most of the time its just easier to throw on some under armor and a pair of running shoes than it is to suit up and saddle up my Scott. Because of this most of my experience and conditioning is in running. I usually run between three and four miles and I know exactly how much it should hurt, what my pace should be, and how i should feel afterward. What i'm trying to figure out is the conversion rate of distance between biking and running. How many miles do I need to ride to get the same workout as running? I just always seem to be more tired after I run than after I bike. Now, this is probably just because i'm not riding far enough, but what do you think a rough conversion rate is? I'm thinking its somewhere around 10:1, maybe a little more. 

I'm currently just training for 5k's, but I find cycling to be much more enjoyable than running. I know it doesn't target the same muscle groups, but if I can use cycling to stay in shape for The Color Run at the end of the month that would be great. (Running it with my girlfriend and her two sisters, two of them ranked in the top ten in the state... ought to be fun keeping up..)


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Easy. 

1 hour of running = 1 hour of wasted time when you could have been riding.

It all depends on intensity. I can make myself puke and nearly black out in 5 minutes while riding, if that's my goal. I can also ride easy and not get much other than active recovery out of it. 10 miles on the flats is not the same as 10 miles in the Alps.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

there is no conversion rate. Far too many variables in that equation that change with different individuals. Effort level, intensity, equipment, physiology, form (or lack thereof), etc., etc. They all introduce variables that make it impossible to make a direct correlation between the two activities. 

If you want "the same workout as running"...... you should probably go for another run.


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> Easy.
> 
> 1 hour of running = 1 hour of wasted time when you could have been riding.
> .


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

JustTooBig said:


> there is no conversion rate. Far too many variables in that equation that change with different individuals. Effort level, intensity, equipment, physiology, form (or lack thereof), etc., etc. They all introduce variables that make it impossible to make a direct correlation between the two activities.
> 
> If you want "the same workout as running"...... you should probably go for another run.


Agreed. Paying attention to time @HR is probably about as close as you can get to finding some sense of parity. But even there, running works a lot more muscles and takes a much greater toll on the joints, ligaments, etc.

No doubt, cycling isn't the most time-efficient exercise available. Just the dealing with equipment, tossing a leg over, and getting from the driveway and sufficiently out of the neighborhood to light the engines adds quite a bit. Running tends to have much less overhead in that regard.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

I've been told 5-1 cycling miles to running miles but as with everything, it depends on what you're doing running.

I do know running helps my riding much more than riding helps my running.

M


----------



## seemana (Jul 1, 2009)

In my experience, I feel like the cycling v. running ratio is 1:1 if I look at time as opposed to miles in most cases. If I only have 30 mins to get a workout in, I'm equally gassed at the end whether I bike or run just based on the level of exertion. Same goes for an hour or two hours. Once I get over 2 hours though, the running becomes more difficult than biking probably due to the extra impact.

I've never really thought about it in terms of miles, but I guess if I had to, it would look something like this if I wanted to feel about the same level of fatigue after 1 hr of exercise...

1 hr biking = approx 19 miles
1 hr running = approx 7 miles


so around 2.7:1

As others have said though, so many variables. Hills, wind, temperature....they all could change that ratio on any given day.


----------



## bike_guy (Mar 26, 2002)

Way too many variables, but it's nowhere near 10:1 unless you're running up a 20% grade and riding on a flat road with a tailwind. No way a 10 mile run equals a century. And this is coming from a cyclist turned runner.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2012)

seemana said:


> In my experience, I feel like the cycling v. running ratio is 1:1 if you look I look at time as opposed to miles in most cases. If I only have 30 mins to get a workout in, I'm equally gassed at the end whether I bike or run just based on the level of exertion. Same goes for an hour or two hours. Once I get over 2 hours though, the running becomes more difficult than biking probably due to the extra impact.
> 
> I've never really thought about it in terms of miles, but I guess if I had to, it would look something like this if I wanted to feel about the same level of fatigue after 1 hr of exercise...
> 
> ...


Interesting. IME I find I'm able to push myself much harder over shorter durations running. For one thing it doesn't take me nearly as long on a run to get "warmed up" as compared with cycling. If I'm limited for time, I'm also unlikely to go for a ride as there's a risk of things like flat tires that could cause me to get back late. This is part of the reason why I usually go on rides in the afternoon (when I can stay out as long as I like) and go for runs when I'm pressed for time. 

Another issue is I find I'm able to push myself quite a bit harder doing things like intervals on a running track as opposed to doing them on the road where I have to keep a fraction of mental energy and strength in reserve to deal with negotiating with traffic. On foot I find it much easier mentally to give 100% as there's no traffic shenanigans to worry about.


----------



## Rich_Racer (Jul 12, 2002)

If you use an app like Endomondo you could collate and compare all the exercise you do by calories burned (if you believe the rates they have).


----------



## seemana (Jul 1, 2009)

PhotonFreak said:


> Interesting. IME I find I'm able to push myself much harder over shorter durations running. For one thing it doesn't take me nearly as long on a run to get "warmed up" as compared with cycling. If I'm limited for time, I'm also unlikely to go for a ride as there's a risk of things like flat tires that could cause me to get back late. This is part of the reason why I usually go on rides in the afternoon (when I can stay out as long as I like) and go for runs when I'm pressed for time.
> 
> Another issue is I find I'm able to push myself quite a bit harder doing things like intervals on a running track as opposed to doing them on the road where I have to keep a fraction of mental energy and strength in reserve to deal with negotiating with traffic. On foot I find it much easier mentally to give 100% as there's no traffic shenanigans to worry about.



I can agree with this. This is exactly why if I have under an hour, I'll just throw on the running shoes and head out. I have 3 blocks before my feet hit the pavement on the MUT and the workout can begin...compared to the 15 minutes of riding before getting out of town to good roads on a bike.

They each serve a purpose for me. When time is limited, running shoes always win for me.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Approx 3:1

In 2005, the average marathon time in the U.S. was 4 hours 32 minutes 8 seconds for men, 5 hours 6 minutes 8 seconds for women. 
So that is an average speed of 5.2mph to 5.8mph
An average pace for cyclists is around a C pace (14-15mph)

The fastest marathon ever was at 13mph.
The fastest Tour De France was 25mph.
The fastest Tour De France flat stage was 31mph (@120mi)

Usain Bolts 100m, 150m, and 200m sprints are all right around 23mph.
I don't know what the fastes bike sprint is.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

It's a lot easier to develop an efficient pedal stroke than it is to develop an efficient running stride. The right stride, IMO, is something you're born with.

You can run 100 miles a week, run all the track intervals you want to develop speed, and if you're a heel striker/pronator, you're always going to be a mediocre runner at best. Look at your dress shoes. Where is the heel wearing? If it's the outside of the heel, don't think that you're ever going to win the NYC marathon.

That's why I don't think running vs cycling comparisons mean very much.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Alaska Mike said:


> Easy.
> 
> 1 hour of running = 1 hour of wasted time when you could have been riding.


Rep worthy. :thumbsup:


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Approximately rigt*



tlg said:


> Approx 3:1.


Yup. Cor a 150 lb. (68 kg) person, running burns about 100 calories per mile (62 calories per km). Riding at 20 mph (32 km/hr) burns about 35 calories per mile (22 calories per km). 3 to 1 is pretty close. Ride harder and the burn per mile/km goes up. I don't think running faster causes the same degree of change. 

Suggesting ten to one is beyond preposterous.

People who feel they get a harder workout running need to learn how ride faster. The only thing intrinsically harder about running is the pounding of the body, but not the intensity of the workout.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> Yup. Cor a 150 lb. (68 kg) person, running burns about 100 calories per mile (62 calories per km). Riding at 20 mph (32 km/hr) burns about 35 calories per mile (22 calories per km). 3 to 1 is pretty close. Ride harder and the burn per mile/km goes up. I don't think running faster causes the same degree of change.


I tihnk this mainly has to do with aerodynamics, which are much more significant at ~24 mph than ~9mph. It's going to take a larger relative power increase to go xx faster cycling compared to running because the speeds are higher. The statement that running burns the same amount of energy per mile is only true if power production/calorie consumption scales directly with speed. For a typical recreational runner on a flat non-windy course this is true.

That said while aero is less significant running than cycling, it very much does make a difference in running events. I recall a 10,000m race in college in fairly strong winds. I worked my way up the field of superior runners by pacing/drafting runners when going into the wind, then opening up a gap and advancing when going the other way (with the tailwind). Winds that day were measured at 5m/s (~11mph)at the track with gusts significantly higher. When running into the wind, that's a net air-speed of significantly over 20mph. Consider also that the drag profile of a runner (in an upright position) is much larger than that of a cyclist (leaning forward).


----------



## PowerGoat (Jul 2, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> It's a lot easier to develop an efficient pedal stroke than it is to develop an efficient running stride. The right stride, IMO, is something you're born with.
> 
> You can run 100 miles a week, run all the track intervals you want to develop speed, and if you're a heel striker/pronator, you're always going to be a mediocre runner at best. Look at your dress shoes. Where is the heel wearing? If it's the outside of the heel, don't think that you're ever going to win the NYC marathon.
> 
> That's why I don't think running vs cycling comparisons mean very much.




I agree with the first part--developing an efficient pedal stroke _is_ easier than developing an efficient running stride--and the last sentence (the comparisons don't mean very much), but the second paragraph is, IMHO, complete nonsense. 

First, if you can run hundred mile weeks w/intervals and w/o getting injured, you're going to be a very good runner. Second, the high speed cameras find that almost all marathoners are heel-strikers. Third, those same cameras find that almost all marathon winners are heel-strikers. Fourth, since not even 5% of runners supinate, 95% of all heel-striking runners are either neutral or pronators. Since most neutral runners wear the heel on the outside more than the inside, the majority of all heel-strikers wear the outside of the heel more. And fifth, let's go through the list of winners of the NYC Marathon to find out if any of them are heel-strikers. Okay, the guy who won the first NYC Marathon...1970...Gary Muhrcke...is a heel-striker! 

Just because your heel touches the ground first doesn't mean you're destined to be slow.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Finally got my running pacing under control enough to breathe through my nose. 

OP, just track time and don't worry about it.

Don't fool yourself that running a lot will give your legs the pop or endurance on a bike that cycling will. By the same token, if you want to have a good 5k, you don't do it by riding a bike.

But they'll both develop your aerobic system.

I like that I can fit all the rigamorale associated with running inside of an hour. I went for a run this morning. Sort of a pathetic one by the standards of a real runner, I didn't run for a long time and am having some trouble building up the stability in my ankles to do it again. But still. I can get a good bike workout in an hour or less, but it's harder for me and I do find it's harder for me to get organized and out of the house.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Alaska Mike said:


> 1 hour of running = 1 hour of wasted time when you could have been riding.


----------



## Vayinafash (Oct 16, 2007)

Though I do not have scientific proof, I think it is difficult at best to establish a ratio of running to cycling. Based on my experience, the big difference is that in cycling there are more opportunities to recover - flats and downhill. If you constantly push on the bike, then the effort becomes more similar. When running, I can take a break by jogging a bit, but I am still upright moving my legs - on a bike I am sitting and can get more rest. Obviously climbing on bike gets the heart rate going. 

This is off point, but doing both is a good workout.


----------



## wgeorge111 (Nov 27, 2010)

If you base it from the bike and run portions of a half ironman or full ironman you get a ratio of 4.27/1


----------



## Duane Gran (Feb 3, 2004)

Running feels harder because you have to be a very strong runner to experience recovery or tempo runs, whereas the novice cyclist can (and often does) easy rides. On the flip side the ability of the bike to support your body enables you to reach levels of fatigue that aren't practical when supporting your upright body on a run. They are quite different physical activities.


----------



## Pyrogerg (Jul 14, 2012)

Funny that I stumbled across this thread, I just switched from trail riding to roads because I'm looking for rides equivalent to steady-state runs for building my aerobic base and I've found that to be nearly impossible on trails. Of course it doesn't help that the trails I know all have a lot of steep and technical sections. Can't keep my heart rate up going downhill because I'd loose control. Can't keep it down going up hill. That's all easy on foot.


----------



## durianrider (Sep 26, 2009)

I do competitive running and cycling. There is no conversion rate as there is so many variables.


----------

