# What is Cycling's equivalent of the 3 mile run?



## mm9 (Jul 20, 2009)

For a few decades I often ran for fitness. If I could run 3 miles 3X a week and get to the gym for strength training 2 - 3 times a week, I was good for sports that I participated in and it kept me in shape. Regular 3 mile runs seemed to offer the most benefit in the least amount of time. 

Is there a cycling equivalent of the 3 mile run?


----------



## eugenetsang (Jun 9, 2011)

Would you happen to know your heart's BPM during your 3 mile run? Or do you use a HRM? Since cycling uses different muscle groups, its hard to put running into the same category as cycling.

But I would guess, 15 mile ride on flat terrain w/cadence at 100... That should get your heart pumping


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Not exact equivalent, but 10-15 miles sounds about right. doing that 3x a week, with an occasional longer ride, will keep the fitness pretty much like those runs would.


----------



## chudak (Jul 28, 2012)

JCavilia said:


> Not exact equivalent, but 10-15 miles sounds about right. doing that 3x a week, with an occasional longer ride, will keep the fitness pretty much like those runs would.


This sounds about right but I'd probably say the high end of this range, maybe 15-20? When I ran I could barely do 2-3 miles after a long layoff but after working at it could do 5 miles several times a week. On the bike that would translate to me to about 15 miles working up to 30.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

eugenetsang said:


> Would you happen to know your heart's BPM during your 3 mile run? Or do you use a HRM? Since cycling uses different muscle groups, its hard to put running into the same category as cycling.
> 
> But I would guess, 15 mile ride on flat terrain w/cadence at 100... That should get your heart pumping


+1 on this as well. When I lived in Oregon, this was my pre-work ride during the week and it was more than enough (surprisingly) to really impact my fitness when done 3-4 days a week + one long (40-70) mile ride on the weekend. We had great climbing in our backyard out there though and many of those rides involved two Strava time trials and at least one tough (cat 4 or so) climb. I lost a bunch of weight (30 or so lbs) and got pretty fit and strong in one year.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

I can ride 100 miles but barely run a single mile...literally...for what that's worth.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

You want to get and stay fit, then ride and climb (a lot):

Peloton


----------



## eugenetsang (Jun 9, 2011)

^ HOLY mother of all climbs!!


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

mm9 said:


> For a few decades I often ran for fitness. If I could run 3 miles 3X a week and get to the gym for strength training 2 - 3 times a week, I was good for sports that I participated in and it kept me in shape. Regular 3 mile runs seemed to offer the most benefit in the least amount of time.
> 
> Is there a cycling equivalent of the 3 mile run?


For a 150 lb person, running is about 100 calories per mile. 300 calories on a bike is about 10 miles or a little less depending on how fast you go.

If you have heart rate, then the same amount of time at the same heart rate would be very close to equivalent running or riding.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

eugenetsang said:


> ^ HOLY mother of all climbs!!


I know! They are clearly bonkers (I love it though). I truly haven't found many things in my life that helps burn fat and achieve fitness the way climbing on the bike does. I guess the closest is running hills or stadium steps, but the stuff works.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I train based on time. Including some goofy walks and ankle exercises, I spend about a half hour on a run of a little over three miles. There are two routes near my office where I do that.

Cycling, it usually takes me longer to stabilize at an effort level. So my maintenance rides tend to run longer, more like an hour. I feel like it also takes me longer to get out the door for a ride.  Though lately I've been doing a 30-minute interval workout on my trainer that still feels like a "real" workout.

I find I also tend to run at a steady pace pretty easily if I run on a flattish route. I recover more easily on my bike, which I suspect contributes to how much easier it is to do a long ride - I can pretty much ride as long as I keep eating, but an hour run still feels pretty long. Trying to run fast, like when I decided to PR my 10k last month, feels really relentless, more so than doing a threshold test on my bike.

Not sure if that helps or not. Bottom line is basically that they're different sports. Similar, but I think it's relatively typical for cyclists to put in more time every week.


----------



## eugenetsang (Jun 9, 2011)

Rashadabd said:


> I know! They are clearly bonkers (I love it though). I truly haven't found many things in my life that helps burn fit and achieve fitness the way climbing on the bike does. I guess the closest is running hills or stadium steps, but the stuff works.



Not that i would want to attempt that route on the regular. But that sure looks like fun! Not to mention, INTIMIDATING!

I guess thats why California and Colorado are the meccas of cycling! Being in the NYC area, we have a few "intense" climbs... But nothing amounts to that one in the Bay area! 

I think I am going to give that a shot on my next visit to SF. Ride up into Marin County, Berkeley, and up into Walnut Creek area! On separate occasions of course


----------



## eugenetsang (Jun 9, 2011)

Rashadabd said:


> I know! They are clearly bonkers (I love it though). I truly haven't found many things in my life that helps burn fit and achieve fitness the way climbing on the bike does. I guess the closest is running hills or stadium steps, but the stuff works.



I kinda giggled when the guy was describing the route and when he was laughing at the riders' misery! I thought to myself... DAMN! That guy is awful! Leading a group climb... Just to watch them fail! Awful! haha


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

eugenetsang said:


> Not that i would want to attempt that route on the regular. But that sure looks like fun! Not to mention, INTIMIDATING!
> 
> I guess thats why California and Colorado are the meccas of cycling! Being in the NYC area, we have a few "intense" climbs... But nothing amounts to that one in the Bay area!
> 
> I think I am going to give that a shot on my next visit to SF. Ride up into Marin County, Berkeley, and up into Walnut Creek area! On separate occasions of course


Yeah, that's on a whole different level. It's not for the faint of heart at all. Don't count out places like Oregon, Virginia, and Utah either, they have climbing just as intense as well. The truth is you don't need that much to get fit. You just need a tough climb or two on each route and some sprints/ time trials. Getting and staying fit is more about consistency than it is one huge climb (or a dozen). I'm still at the cat 3 level, so I'm not ready for the Nifty 1050 yet (and it is quite possible I will never be). I still hate myself almost every moment of the time I am on the cat 3 climbs I ride. I am definitely not ready for some of the cat 1 and HC level stuff they were probably doing (and I am fine with that).


----------

