i used to cycle wrote:
Try riding 100 miles. You'll quickly change yer mind.
Guess again.
i used to cycle wrote:
Try riding 100 miles. You'll quickly change yer mind.
Guess again.
Obviously there is no substitute for running.
BUT, that's not to say that there is no value in spending time in the pool swimming or out riding your bike. Cycling will strengthen your quads a lot without putting the stress on your joints that lifting does - this is especially valuable for people suffering from pateller tendonitis. Swimming will help you to establish a breathing pattern and kicking with fins strengthens hammys, quads, and calves.
In terms of effort and what you get out of it, a ratio of 1 running mile to 4 biking miles is fair. That being said, a 30 min run should be substituted with a 60 min ride, etc (this is basically the ratio triathlons use; in olympic its a 10k and 40k bike, and ironman is marthon and 112 bike). The 2:1 and 3:1 ratios are far too little cycling. Riding 50 or 75 miles is not equivalent to running a marthon! Thats a easy to moderate day for cyclists or triathletes.
Similarly, 1 mile of swimming is equivalent to 4 miles running. For a good swimmer, time swimming and time running are pretty close.
marathon*
What if i'm working my heart at 150 bpm for 30 minutes, in terms of a cardiovascular workout is this not equivalent to running at 150 bpm for 30 minutes?
I think the Olympic and triathlon ratios you give take into account the greater impact of running which necessitates that less time be spent running. I'm not sure if it reflects the substitution ratio of the two in terms of exercise.
not a coach wrote:
3 miles biking = 1 mile running.
that is strictly a cardio ratio.
Anyone who calls working out "cardio" is a tool.
You are completely missing the point. The very attempt to equate one with the other is completely invalid. Cycling is cycling. Running is running. Swimming is swimming.
What is it with people so unable to step outside of their little one-sport worlds and call things what they are rather than what they wish they were?
Stop trying to fill out impressive training logs. No one cares about them but you.
I agree that comparing the different activities is quite different. But, on this specific topic, we'll just have to continue to differ. No sweat my brotha!
You mean you'll continue to call one thing another in order to pretend you are running more than you are.
Good luck logging that potato peeling workout as running mileage. Coach will surely be impressed. I smell Olympics!
"You mean you'll continue to call one thing another in order to pretend you are running more than you are."
Yes. If I cycle for 25 miles, I write "6 mile run" in my training log.
Wow that is laughable.
A 25 mile bike is a 25 mile bike. How come you don't just log a bike ride?
The way you do it you think you are running 25 mile weeks and in reality are only running 15 miles a week and biking 40, BIG difference.
The way some people try to fake miles is amazing.
Who cares about anyone's training log, or what someone might write down in there log after biking?
I personally agree with these people. If I didn't run any miles, I don't put down any miles. However, if I'm trying to exercise and I can't run at all, I do need some sort of conversion, either time, effort, distance, calories, etc. that I can use so I can roughly equate how much exercise I got relative to what I could have gotten running.
So can I go off of heart rate and if I workout at a heart rate similar to that achieved will running, can I guarantee that I can maintain some of my aerobic capacity while biking?
Thanks, man. It's my training log, so I'm not sure why Ringo has to be so aggressive.
Seattlite wrote:
not a coach wrote:3 miles biking = 1 mile running.
that is strictly a cardio ratio.
Anyone who calls working out "cardio" is a tool.
Or a steroid-pumped bodybuilder.
Its not that I care about people's logs.
And its good to know a cardio or calorie conversion, even a rough one, especially if you can't run.
But the fact is that logging cycling or calling cycling something other than cycling is plain stupid. Just call it what it is and don't try to make yourself think you ran some amount that you didn't.
Keep em separate.
heyyo wrote:
What if i'm working my heart at 150 bpm for 30 minutes, in terms of a cardiovascular workout is this not equivalent to running at 150 bpm for 30 minutes?
I think the Olympic and triathlon ratios you give take into account the greater impact of running which necessitates that less time be spent running. I'm not sure if it reflects the substitution ratio of the two in terms of exercise.
Please use this formula when using bpm for cardio work:
(150 bpm for 30min +130 bpm for 60 min)* 0 = miles run
Thanks for the advice. But, I like the way that I'm currently tracking my fitness gains, so I'll probably stick with what I've been doing.
I biked 400 miles last week, I mean I ran 100. Wait I'm not sure which is which anymore?
Well, it depends on how hard you biked. If you biked at the same/similar RPE and/or HR as you run, it would be a bit closer to 95.9 miles (remember 25 miles cycling=6 miles running, based on same/similar HR and/or RPE)
But, that's pretty close to 100, so rounding up shouldn't be a problem.
heyyo wrote:
However, if I'm trying to exercise and I can't run at all, I do need some sort of conversion, either time, effort, distance, calories, etc. that I can use so I can roughly equate how much exercise I got relative to what I could have gotten running.
I don't think anybody is saying, "Don't record metrics." Time, distance, and heart rate, and even calories burned are all perfectly valid things to record. Calories and heart rate are a good common measure of how much aerobic work you did. By all means, record them.
But when you swim, or cycle, it's not running, no matter how much you want it to be. Attempts to log alternative exercises as "running" are an exercise in self-deception for those who think that the training log is the goal rather than the tool.
We get that running doesn't not equal cycling so stop repeating it.
sigh... wrote:
heyyo wrote:However, if I'm trying to exercise and I can't run at all, I do need some sort of conversion, either time, effort, distance, calories, etc. that I can use so I can roughly equate how much exercise I got relative to what I could have gotten running.
I don't think anybody is saying, "Don't record metrics." Time, distance, and heart rate, and even calories burned are all perfectly valid things to record. Calories and heart rate are a good common measure of how much aerobic work you did. By all means, record them.
But when you swim, or cycle, it's not running, no matter how much you want it to be. Attempts to log alternative exercises as "running" are an exercise in self-deception for those who think that the training log is the goal rather than the tool.