Cycling UK Forum

Good Morning
I have just joined there is some very helpful advice here
Sadly after 40 years of being a distance runner I have had to pack it in with a worn hip !

I have treated myself to a carbon fibre road bike and have been doing about 40 k a day this week since getting it and my running injury's don't effect my riding thankfully !

I am wondering what sort of training ride would replicate closely to a 40 minute run
One of the rides I have done is the hills here in Mid Devon these were on the first hour of the ride and I felt like I was on the limits the same as running on the hills

I believe that triathletes reckon on a factor of 4 between disciplines for training purposes.. i.e 1 mile swim = 4 mile run = 16 mile cycle
I think it is not possible to say 40 minutes run = so many minutes cycling, just too many variables, like those hills. Also, you have obviously become efficient at running, but I doubt you have yet found your efficient pedalling style etc when cycling. I don't run, never have, and would be useless after a few yards - but I know how to be efficient when cycling with almost 60 years experience.

Many Thanks
You are right I don't feel I have found any efficient peddling style yet but I know exactly what your talking about because it is what I have always called Pace and Rhythm in running . The ability to flow rather than force !

I am a runner and cyclist and find cycling about 15-20% easier for the same timeframe. Cycling up hills is marginally more difficult than running up them, but one gets a chance to recover downhill.

I find running a better all round workout and more efficient time wise. Less clobber to wear and bike to maintain.

Running is for exercise (or catching buses), cycling is for going places, and getting some exercise thrown in for free.

In terms of energy consumption, somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1 for the same distance.

It's very difficult to generalise, because it's very easy to go a long way at a gentle pace at a relatively low heart rate when riding, and much harder to do that when running.

So I think the only meaningful way to compare is using some kind of heart rate data.

Of course, it's different if you're racing as a triathlete for example, because going at a gentle pace isn't really an option.

I have friends who want a running/walking type workout but without the impact issues that use an Elliptigo

I note they have bikes too, and find the Elliptigo useful for a more running-like exercise mode.

Pete.

The ACSM Compendium of Physical Activities lists human energy consumption for just about any activity you care to name: walking, running, cycling, watching TV, driving, washing the pots, gardening, playing the piano, whatever. The link to the database is in this paper.

If you're not familiar with METs, 1met = 3.5ml O2/kg/min ≈ 1kcal/kg/hr.
So for example, someone weighing 74kg exercising at 6mets burns 74x6 = 444kcal/hr, or 518W.

A couple of plots of some ACSM data for a body mass of 79kg:

I’ve seen something very like that before, and TBH I’m very sceptical of it. Maybe it works out right for people who are practised runners, but un-practised cyclists or something.

Take 10mph, for instance. Assuming that it’s been equalised to flat and smooth surface, with no significant headwind, and at a moderate temperature (not today!), then 10mph is a fair old trot when running, only a very good runner could maintain that for an hour, yet on a bike it is an “all day” pace for even a moderately practised person.

Or maybe it works out right in calories burned, but simply overlooks the endurance/sustainability question altogether.

PS: notice how nearly flat the energy/mile vs speed plot is for cycling, only sloping up a tiny bit as windage comes into play. Again, that doesn’t quite feel right to me, but maybe it is right once lots of real-world factors (hills and wind mostly!) are factored-out.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 5:09pmMaybe it works out right for people who are practised runners, but un-practised cyclists or something.

"Although the Compendium was not developed to determine the precise energy cost of activities within an individual, we recognize that there are situations when one may want to use the MET values to estimate an individual energy cost of PA as multiples of measured or predicted RMR. Thus, for someone who has an RMR less than 3.5 mL−1·kg−1·min−1, the standard MET overestimates the individual's RMR, resulting in an underestimate of the ratio (total EE/resting EE). Readers interested in learning more about use of the "corrected MET" to account for differences in individual RMR values are referred to Byrne et al. (9) and Kozey et al. (22).

As noted in the 1993 (1) and the 2000 (2) articles, the Compendium MET values are intended for use in able-bodied adults who are 18-65 yr old and do not reflect the energy cost of children and youth, older adults, and persons with disabilities."

It matches my own data pretty well.

pjclinch wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 12:16pm I have friends who want a running/walking type workout but without the impact issues that use an Elliptigo

I note they have bikes too, and find the Elliptigo useful for a more running-like exercise mode.

Pete.

Is there a UK dealer?

tenbikes wrote: ↑12 Aug 2022, 2:36pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 12:16pm I have friends who want a running/walking type workout but without the impact issues that use an Elliptigo

I note they have bikes too, and find the Elliptigo useful for a more running-like exercise mode.

Pete.

Is there a UK dealer?

I don't think so. Last pal that got one (a couple of years back, I think) had to import

axel_knutt wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 3:07pm The ACSM Compendium of Physical Activities lists human energy consumption for just about any activity you care to name: walking, running, cycling, watching TV, driving, washing the pots, gardening, playing the piano, whatever. The link to the database is in this paper.

If you're not familiar with METs, 1met = 3.5ml O2/kg/min ≈ 1kcal/kg/hr.
So for example, someone weighing 74kg exercising at 6mets burns 74x6 = 444kcal/hr, or 518W.

A couple of plots of some ACSM data for a body mass of 79kg:
ACSM.png

The almost flat graph of kcal/ mile vs speed for cycling seems very unlikely to be representative surely?

Air resistance dominates at higher speed and is proportional to the square of speed (for force, so work, not power, would be the cube for power).

So you'd expect kcal/hr near double from 15 to 21 mph (15 squared is 225, 21 squared is roughly double at 441). The graph shows almost no change.

I'm rather sceptical.

As an ex fell runner,now mt/road biker,I,ve found a hilly mt bike ride a good substitute for an off road run.In adition,hill sprints on a bike can be as hard as hill sprints on a run,judged by heart rate.I do believe it can take some time(months,years)before you maximise ability/comfort on a bike ,despite being a superfit runner.My biggest issue was persuading a 48yr old ,not that flexible,lower back,to adopt a bent over posture whilst pushing hard on the pedals.Acquiring the fitness was not a problem,getting comfortable was.

Cyclewala wrote: ↑11 Aug 2022, 11:01am I am a runner and cyclist and find cycling about 15-20% easier for the same timeframe. Cycling up hills is marginally more difficult than running up them, but one gets a chance to recover downhill.

I find running a better all round workout and more efficient time wise. Less clobber to wear and bike to maintain.

The latter is certainly true! But it is linked to the flip-side: you can combine a cycling workout with commuting, a shopping trip, going to see friends (or friends who are scenic views )

If you think cycling is "15% easier", you need to practice riding 25mile TTs - the flat ones - at your limit. No resting there; but of course less long-term damage on our joints.