Cycling whilst injured + cycled miles against running miles.

6 watchers

50ft jesus Mar 2014 1:12pm, 17 Mar 2014 81 posts	0 50ft jesus I've picked up a potential stress fracture (ok, not physically picked it up) or it might be a really bad shin splint. So to recover from the injury I thought I would treat it as a stress fracture and not run for a few weeks. But the weather is getting better and I yearn to be out there, so yesterday I went for a 15 mile bike ride which I did in 50 minutes and burnt about 950 calories (according to Garmin). I didn't hang aroung and tried to push myself on the flats and attacked the hills. What I want to know is how does this equate to running? I average about 125 calories per mile whilst running, so 950 divided by 125 gives me 7.6 so could I work on the vague theory that as long as I work as hard each time I'm on the bike, that for every two miles cycled it is equivalent to one mile of running? Additionally, I appreciate that different muscle groups are working whilst I'm cycling but will the bike training help me get back upto speed when I'm back running? Advice would be greatly appreciated. 50ft J.
DeeGee Mar 2014 1:20pm, 17 Mar 2014 15,576 posts	0 DeeGee Your CV system can't really tell the difference between cycling and running, so I assuming equal effort I tend to equate bike as having the same effect over time. Therefore, if I cycle for 30 mins, I can equate that to 4 miles running, regardless of how far I cycled. You'll keep your CV fitness up with cycling, but you will need to get back into running eventually to work on your specific muscular strength for running.
CStar Mar 2014 2:09pm, 17 Mar 2014 2,881 posts	0 CStar Generally accepted rule of thumb is about 3:1 rising to 4:1 as distance increases, but there are so many factors involved, size, weight, hills, type of bike etc. Again perceived wisdom is that doing a Century is similar to running Marathon. I'll let you know when I do my first one in the summer...
Son of a Pronator Man Mar 2014 2:15pm, 17 Mar 2014 7,742 posts	0 Son of a Pronator Man Don't think about distance, think about time. I'd train at about 7:30 run pace, would cycle at about 4:00, so I'd think about each mile on the bike as 0.5 mile running
50ft jesus Mar 2014 2:48pm, 17 Mar 2014 82 posts	0 50ft jesus Thanks for the replies I like the idea of time. What are you doing in the Summer CStar 100 mile bike, a marathon or an awesome dualathlon? Good luck with either/both. 50ft J.
southcoastclaret Mar 2014 3:02pm, 17 Mar 2014 236 posts	0 southcoastclaret Don't forget that descending on the bike is somewhat easier than cdescending whilst running! I wouldn't really try to do any meaningful comparisions - they are different disciplines, using different muscle groups. Yes, there is some overlap, and I am sure that your cycling will mean you are in a better place when you restart running. However, I'd just focus on enjoying the cycling for what it is.
Velociraptor Mar 2014 3:14pm, 17 Mar 2014 29,245 posts	0 Velociraptor The bike training may help to give you a head start when you're back running. FWIW, and we're all different and all that, I mostly cycled last year and my running training was trivial, but I managed three decent half marathons that were no more than a couple of minutes off the times I might have expected to do if I'd targeted and trained for them with lots of running mileage and some speedwork. I'm not convinced about any of the calories and equivalent distances and the like. In theory, at racing weight I'll burn around 2,000 calories running a marathon, and on a reasonably hilly bike ride my power meter calculates that I burn about 2,700 calories over 100 miles. But I'm less battered after the bike ride. And if the main consumer of glucose in your body is your brain, steep descents are going to be bigger calorie-burners than ascents
eL Bee! Mar 2014 3:39pm, 17 Mar 2014 19,339 posts	0 eL Bee! I love the thought that fast descents use more calories than climbing up the buggers.
Velociraptor Mar 2014 3:43pm, 17 Mar 2014 29,246 posts	0 Velociraptor Although that would mean that downhill mountain bikers were burning more calories than any of us, and looking at the shape of most of 'em ... nope, unless they're living proof that the whole calories shebang is a load of stinky red herrings and "you get to be the right shape for what you do" means that if you do a sport that involves falling off a bike a lot you grow some padding
jacdaw Mar 2014 3:45pm, 17 Mar 2014 675 posts	0 jacdaw Mountain biking is like fell running, in that you apply the simple rule when descending - brakes off, brain off