Does an hour of Zone 2 effort cycling roughly equal an hour of Zone 2 effort running?

An hour of Zone 2 heart rate on a bike, ARC trainer, elliptical machine, etc. is equal to an hour of Zone 2 heart rate running. The heart doesn't know the difference. Mitochondrial development, muscle usage, and capillary building will be different between activities. You will get aerobic fitness, but specificity is required to excel at your primary sport.

Forget formulas! Time and average heart rate are sufficient measures of cross training effectiveness. Where cycling is concerned, it's best to ride on largely flat terrain that requires constant turning of the pedals - no coasting!

Cycling effort is equivalent to the effort in using a portapotty while running.

Be careful with this assumption, because for runners it's usually not the case. Our aerobic systems are much more developed than our muscular systems needed for cycling. So to say the efforts are equal simply based on HR, we have to turn what should be a relatively easy ride into a significant effort. So as others have mentioned, Z2 is Z2. But if that time on the bike is taxing enough to prevent you from running a proper workout the next day for example, then you can throw any equivalency out the window.

Unless someone is just naturally strong on the bike, I'd recommend a HR of 10-15bpm less on the bike for that reason if you're looking to approximate a similar effort.

There is a difference and the heart and body know it. 130bpm just for moving legs is different than 130bpm for entire body moving. For the heart to move the entire body on 130bpm the stroke volume must be higher vs the cyclist 130bpm.

Heart rate gauges how demanding exercise is aerobically so short answer is yes. My legs feel more cooked especially in over 1 hour of cycling than in same amount of running tho if heart rates are equal, then again I only stationary bike seldom just to cross train to get non-joint pounding volume

In terms of aerobic/metabolic impact on the body, running and cycling at z2 for one hour is comparable. You won't generate lactic acid for either.

In terms of mechanical impact on the body, the two sports have way different impact on the body for z2 for one hour. Cycling does very little for the mechanical strain on the body. Running has way more mechanical impact.

I am a high level amateur triathlete. My cycling and running abilities are pretty similar. The top of my zone 2 for running is 157 bpm and the top of my zone 2 for cycling is 145. I would say a 10 bpm difference is pretty standard. This is reflected in my upper zone 2 power with my stryrd which is 300 watts versus cycling which is 270 watts. This is why for most athlets, 1 hour of zone 2 running provides a greater cardiovascular stimulus.

yes, heart knows no difference.

I am a masters athlete, but i have cut my running this year to keep my legs fresh for strength and sprints.

Still riding 100km per week and say just 10km running., but gee i find running so much harder even at a moderate effort.

Was gonna say this. Leg strength matters more on the bike. If you're a runner, go and do an FTP test on the bike & you'll probably find that your flat-out isn't close heart rate-wise to your running flat out. 10-15bpm is probably a good rule of thumb. This is why when I see a lot of runners wrecking themselves on the bike doing "easy" cross training it makes no sense to me. Maybe you're at an easy run heart rate but your "easy" ride is probably Z3 riding. Doing bike tempos for every cross training session is probably not going to help you achieve your goal of staying injury free. Use watts. Set zones. Z1/2 riding is going to be at a lower heart rate than what it is when you're running.

130 HR on the bike = 130 HR on the run. But it will feel harder on the bike.

i get same max heart rate on stationary bike and running. Bike nowhere near as uncomfortable though as in seated position.

This is interesting. I've read elsewhere that body position and movements of different types of exercise can make the zone 2 heart rates differ. Swimming is an even greater difference in heart rate from running than cycling because the body is horizontal and blood doesn't have to fight gravity as hard to get back to the heart as when the body is vertical, such as in running.

This is wrong. My Max HR for swimming running and cycling are all the same. I’m a pro triathlete and an Olympian.

Lolz, try jumping on a bike and riding 21 mph for an hour.

I go with the rough estimates that 3 hours of Biking is 1 hour of running.

Since it's non impact, it is just so much easier to recover, which of course is the whole reason you can have a Tour de x.

Also you use whole body in running v just quads. I do tri and love cycling by the way. Not only is it good cross training for running, it even helps in recovery by pumping all that blood through the legs.

This refutes what you are saying. Maybe you're an outlier.

.

upsidestrength.com

Maximum Heart Rate: The COMPLETE Guide

Sean Seale

Maximum heart rate is often used to calibrate training zones. But can you really calculate your max heart rate?

Link:upsidestrength.com/blog/maximum-heart-...

From the link I posted above:

"In general, it can be assumed that an individual will reach his or her highest maximum heart rate when running. The maximum heart rate for cycling will be slightly lower, and the maximum heart rate for swimming will be even lower than for cycling."

This is a pretty interesting article with lots of interesting details on the subject, along with research-based conclusions (references included). In summary, the findings support that the assumption zone 2 heart rate is the same, regardless of the form of exercise, be it running, cycling, or swimming, is incorrect.

Bicycling is non-impact... until it isn't. Pro bicyclists break bones more than rarely. These injuries, to runners, are more likely to be career ending. Remember Lukas Verzbicas.

If you're a runner you probably have stronger lungs than legs, so it's simple:

In terms of aerobic load, zone 2 is zone 2. Your cardio system doesn't know the difference.

In terms of mechanical pounding, running is harder since it's a high-impact activity and cycling is not.

In terms of leg power required, cycling is harder if you're used to running. I personally struggle to get my heart rate out of zone 1 on the bike without trashing my legs. And as someone pointed out earlier, if you're too tired from cross training to do a workout the next day, that kinda defeats the purpose.

I like to do my biking immediately after runs, so my heart rate is already elevated and my legs don't need to work as hard to keep it up.