Hate to burst your bubble but you responded to a post that was 4 years old.
Hate to burst your bubble but you responded to a post that was 4 years old.
Here's a link to something by cycling coach Ed Burke.
http://www.stpetecycling.com/fitness6.html
This is an interesting chart because it takes into account the effect of wind resistance as you go faster. The chart gives you caloric equivalents between running and cycling.
Cycling for an hour at 20 mph, for example, is equivalent to running 6.9 miles. (Divide 20 by 2.9)
Cycling for an hour at 25 mph is equivalent to running 10.9 miles. (Here you divide 25 by 2.3.)
I think those equivalencies need work. I could run for an hour at pretty close to 10.9 mph but I could never come close to cycling for an hour at 25
Are you sure that's not because you're a better runner than cyclist? The two efforts seem pretty close to me.
The equivalency is still zero.
I am a better runner than a cyclist but not that much better.
Couple of thoughts:
I swam the mile in college, ran a bunch of marathons, and have done about 40 triathlons, completed about a dozen open water swims of 8 miles or longer, and a bunch of century rides for charity. The debate between swimmers/runner/cyclists on who's sport is most challenging or how to assign comparative ratios makes about as much sense as wasting time playing tic tac toe. There really is no accurate way to compare any of them.
But i would ask you to at least consider the following:
1. Biking is done on a machine, with gears. There are no machines in running or swimming. You can't get around this even as a cyclist (if you are honest with yourself).
2. Runners run up a hill, then have to run down a hill, punishing the shock absorbing muscles on the way down. Swimmers in open water have to swim up and down over waves and cross current. Cyclists pull themselves up hill (on a MACHINE, with 21 or 27 speeds to choose from, with special integral shoes and pedals to maximize forces transfered to the machine.), then the machine BENEFITS them on the way down the hill.
3. Running and biking are both done on terra firma, (for lack of a better term), basicallly in a vertical position. Swimming is done in the horizontal position, using smaller muscles in the body to achieve forward motion. (The kick is not the primary method of forward motion in swimming, or else you would be able to kick faster than you could pull a specified distance).
4. Running is a weight bearing excercise. In cycling, the MACHINE bears the weight.
5. Runners wear running shoes which their muscles propel. Swimmers are wear a bathing suit (any swimmer worth his salt will tell you that wearing a wetsuit is cheating, but for the sake of the discussion, let's say wetsuit). The muscles propel the body. The wetsuit does not provide any propulsion, gearing ratio, nor do the running shoes. The cyclist wears cycling gear, SITS on a MACHINE, wears shoes to maximize the performance of the MACHINE. The muscles propel a set of levers which transer force to a machine in various options for propelling the machine. A 13 pound machine is easier to pedal than a 26 pound machine. There is no such comparison for the other two sports for gear.
6. What if we were to use the assigned distances in the Ironman Triathlon as our case for how to compare ratios for the difficulty of each sport? 2.4 mile swim; 120 mile bike; 26.2 mile run. That would mean swimming is 11 times the difficulty of running; Swimming is 50 times the difficulty of cycling; running is 4.6 times the difficulty than cycling.
7. What if we were to do the inverse? Assign traditional ratios using the Ironman cycling distance as the benchmark?
4:1 bike/run, and 4:1 swim/run....would give us a 30 mile run, and 7.5 mile swim. This i would love to see.
8. Instead, using traditional 4:1 ratios the other way, taking the Ironman swim distance as the benchmark, the Ironman would now become a 2.4 mile swim, a 9.6 mile run, and 38.4 mile bike.
9. Ever wonder why triathons (races designed to determine the best overall athletes) aren't arranged so that the fastest swimming time = fastest cycling time = fastest running time? (e.g. for world class people, 4 mile swim =1 hour, 30 mile cycling =1 hour, 13 mile run = 1 hpur)......this one would make for great television.
10. Running on a treadmill = cycling on a spinning machine= lap swimming in a pool.....fair enough?
11. Running outside = cycling on the open roads = swimming in open water (fresh water, ocean?)
12. It is much more difficult to swim in straight line in open water than either of the other two when training outside.
13. How many mouthfuls of seawater does the average runner or cyclist contend with during a training session?
14. How does the runner, cyclist, swimmer hydrate themselves when on a long training session outside? Cyclist carries water on the machine......runner? swimmer?
15. Cycling is done sitting down on a machine.
16. Not sure how to make the comparison, but has anyone ever biked in 54F weather for 4 hours? Run in 54F for four hours? Swum in 54F ocean water for four hours without a wetsuit? I have done each, and can assure you, your last choice would be to do the swim.
Thanks for listening to my musings. My intent isn't to come to a conclusion, but rather to get people thinking about how different the three sports can be.
Happy training!