miles cycling = how many miles running?

3 miles biking = 1 mile running.

that is strictly a cardio ratio.

Miles cycling are miles cycling, running is running, there isn't an equivalent amount because they are different and work different muscles. Beyond this the recovery is different, you can push pretty hard on the bike and be recovered sooner than if you pushed a run pretty hard.

As far as calories burned its usually around 4:1 but thats different for each person.

Its pretty much impossible to equate miles biking to miles running.

If you take into account what Jack Daniels formula says then you may have a case. But I'm to lazy to do all that work to figure out all the formulas to find the equality.

Before I got injured I was running 60 miles a week.

To keep my weight down so that when I returned to running I biked at least for 1 hour and 30 mins a day. I didn't care for miles as much as I cared for heart rate. If I could keep my heart at about the same rate as I did running then I had a good feeling I was staying in relatively good shape.

You really have to go off how your body feels. When you start biking you have to do it gradual like running or you may injure yourself in other areas. Maintain fitness and weight is the key. You won't be able to maintain the SAME fitness as you did when you were running because OBVIOUSLY you're biking and not running. But you can maintain your weight and make the transition to running easier when your biking or doing some other type of cross training (elliptical, pool-running etc.)

What I have always found to be the best forms of cross training is #1 pool-running, #2 biking, #3 elliptical.

It is very difficult to injure yourself pool-running.

Biking is good because it is a little more weight bearing but can have its downsides (hurt ass, you have to get use to the saddle, possible knee injuries if you don't work your way up gradually).

I feel the elliptical is more weight bearing cause you're actually standing up putting weight on your tendons. Its a lot like biking but you're standing putting weight on your lower extremities.

If I do a recovery day of riding the bike on my indoor trainer for 64 min and maintain an average HR of about 120, I'll put it down in my log as about 8 miles of cardio since my easy (120-130 HR) running pace is about 8 min/mile. The actual number of miles biked is irrelevant or impossible (for me) to calculate on a trainer; outdoor bike mileage is also probably not worth worrying about since wind, bike, the course, and all the rest make one ride far different than others.

I keep track of my actual running miles and my cardio miles (running plus elliptical plus bike) separately. Obviously the running miles are the key to race fitness, but just logging the cardio miles helps keep me motivated, esp. when my body won't let me run as many days as I used to.

People tend to loaf on bikes and coast a lot. If you are actually pushing pretty hard on the bike it is closer to a 2:1 ratio. If you can run 15 km in an hour you can probably cover 30 km on the bike with the same effort level.

There is no point in putting a standard on 'how many miles cycling = miles running'. Lets face it, not much other than running is going to make you better at running.

I agree to get similar workout by going off of time and HR. However, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't running 'X' amount of time at 'Y' HR burning a significant more amount of calories than cycling for 'X' amount of time at 'Y' HR?

As said, on the bike, one coasts (then get a fixed gear/wheel) and stops a lot as well. So it depends on terrain, a mountain bike ride on a trail can certainly expend a lot of energy. Likewise, I've even punished myself by trying to go up a steep hill over and over, as they say watch out for the knees and one might not want to put on the muscle in the legs by doing this. As has been written in bicycling magazine, sometimes going up a steep hill is like a total body workout. Too, there are the real light bicycles out, aluminum, titanium and carbon making riding more of an ease. And one might be on a budget, be riding an older steel bicycle, it weighs more and will most likely take more effort to ride.

SMJO wrote:

People tend to loaf on bikes and coast a lot. If you are actually pushing pretty hard on the bike it is closer to a 2:1 ratio. If you can run 15 km in an hour you can probably cover 30 km on the bike with the same effort level.

Couldn't agree more .

Cycling is much more complicated than running in its complexity .

There are different bikes for different uses ( I own road ,cyclocross aka. cross and mountain bike )

There are also different sizes of rings , different number of speed , fixie , single speed , tandems ,recumbent etc.

From my experience mountain bike comes closest to running , since there is not as much coasting , knobby tires give more resistance and on a technical trail upper body gets a heck of a workout .

Closest workout to running on mtb would be out of saddle HIIT.

This workout is a far cry from casual spinning on a comfort bike , on a flat easy surface .

Here is the formula to convert cycling or other cross training to miles running:

(Cycled miles + Other cross training miles)*0 = miles running

I have a more relevant question,

If I'm working through and injury and can only bike right now, what is the best way to structure my workouts? What should I focus on when biking? How my rpm's should I be at? What's more important, rpm's or resistance? Should I vary the resistance and or rpm's throughout the ride? Should I vary what I do from day to day like I do with running or only do "base" stuff with constant effort. etc. etc.

Note, I'm using a stationary bike at the gym.

Any advice would really be appreciated, I don't need answers to all the questions, but that's generally the advice I'm looking for.

Thanks so much in advance.

1 cycling mile = ZERO running miles

1000 cycling miles = ZERO running miles

focus on higher RPM. runners have quick cadence, and that is how you should cycle. don't beat around at 80 rpm, do 90-105. when doing intervals, keep high rpm, and go off of heart rate. if you are only going to be out a few weeks, and want ot get back to racing soon, id do intervals. 3-5 min repeats with 1-2 min rest. i used to run alot, now i basically just cycle, and can still run fast off cycling training. there is crossover, regardless of what others say.

Try riding 100 miles. You'll quickly change yer mind.

Since you make us guess your cycling background ( even on a stationery bicycle )I assume you don't have much experience .

Simply start small step with small foot .

When attending spin classes do cheat .

Some instructors have a killer instinct and believe that "dead" folks enjoy classes so much better .

The golden rule has always been :

Less is more

Slower is faster

Sorry I didn't add my cycling background, I didn't realize it was important as I'm focused on running only. Regardless, my cycling background is next to zero. I've hoped on it occasionally in times of injury. Also I wasn't planning on attending any spin classes. I'd rather have more control over my workout and sacrifice the added companionship that a spin class may add.

As far as my goals, etc. I have PFS so I may be out for a little more than a couple weeks. I'm post-collegiate so when I do recover I'm going to transition back to base phase rather than trying to squeeze in a track season. With that added info should I still be focusing on intervals? Is that the best way to maintain fitness on the bike and is it sustainable? Are there the same problems with doing intense intervals year round on the bike as there are in running?

I guess overall, I'm asking should biking mirror what my running would be, or should I treat the bike differently and have a different routine?

Also thanks for the advice on the rpms. I started out doing something like 80 rpm because i figured that was like 160 steps per minute, but that was too slow and now float around 90-100.

OK , we have more data now , esp. you clue us about the nature of your injury ( it may take months , sorry to bring it to you ).

I would try to seek a broad spectrum of cross training , looking for as many different activities as possible .

Contrary to what skeptics try to say , cycling is better than doing nothing at all . It certainly feels weird, once you'll be back on track but it offers a shortcut to your old routine .

Many ( too many ) folks take the "F" out of equation. "F" stands for fun and prevents boredom associated with long , mechanical repetitions . In other words you can "injure" your motivation while substituting what you love to do .

I am not sure about RPM's . It depends also on resistance you may like to add . You sound a bit frustrated and angry with your injury , too eager to suffer in order not to lose too much .

By the time you will be at the similar level with cycling where you were with running , you may be ready to start running again .

Based on my personal experience athletes that adopt easily to either cycling or running are elite athletes , used to big volume and intense repetitions ( we had Olympic Marathon Trials qualifier riding with our "killer" cycling group)

Sorry, I thought you said Miley Cyrus. You had me excited.

Convert your cycling miles to running miles here.

This is a table by Dr. Ed Coyle, an exercise physiologist at the University of Texas at Austin.

http://www.stpetecycling.com/fitness6.html

If you take a Weight Watchers approach , this may work .