What is the biking equivalent of 90 mpw?

Triathletes typically equate around 0.3 miles per mile of running, so 300 would be about right. I've done both many times and I would concur that the workloads are similar.

Oh wow.. that's a lot more than I would have guessed. Hmm.. I think I'll need to work up to that.

Okay, what if the bike you're doing it on is a piece of crap?

I feel like it's double the time cycling as running. If you bike about twice as fast as you run, then it's about 4 times the distance.

Just go by feel. You know what your normal 80 minute run feels like, you'll see that it's roughly equivalent to a 2 hour bike ride. Don't just do 2 hours every day, treat it like running and do workouts, take easy days, etc. The better a cyclist you become, the more easily you'll be able to train your cardio. Runners' legs are weak on the bike.

ScabbyMcPeter wrote:

Triathletes typically equate around 0.3 miles per mile of running, so 300 would be about right. I've done both many times and I would concur that the workloads are similar.

This is the answer. Anywhere from .25-.3/ mile. Take A LOT of time to be a good cyclist but it sure is fun.

I think the advice around time is a good one. Though you tend to take longer setting up for a ride.

Even if your bike is shit - though make sure it's safe - look at the time rather than the distance. It'll take a while till your ass can stand it.

I can't run anymore. So I ride. I was a sprinter, but I can ride 6 - 7 hours when I am in shape. I just got back from 2 1/2 hours on a mtb. It's the start of the season and I probably only rode 30 miles on the road.

It's very different depedent on whether you are on a road bike than a MTB. So I'd go with time rather than miles. That should balance your shit bike.

Running 90 sounds a lot to me - but I do ride 90 - 100 on the weekend. a 60 / 30, or 70 - 30. I average about 18+ mph on the longer ride as the area is hilly.

Stick with the time you have to train. Deciding on target miles may make it an impossible task. ALso they aren't relevant.

The numbers you got here are pretty accurate. It takes a lot of miles. But you can play with intensity.

Your challenge is that no matter how fit you are, riding big distance in groups takes skill. You won't have those skills. Especially with a shit bike.

you serious? The real qustion is will you be able and willing to do the hours involved to equate to 90 mpw.

When I was riding full time as a cyclist - not a triathlete - I used roughly a 5:1 ratio. A typical ride for serious cyclists is anywhere from 50 - 75 miles with long rides on weekends of 75 - 100+. Running 90 mpw is A LOT!! I'd suggest that 450 miles on the bike is the equivalent.

A 90 mpw runner will likely go 7 days per week, so a cyclist doing the same might go:

3 50 mile rides = 150 (MWF)

2 75 mile rides = 150 (T/TH)

2 100 mile rides = 200 (Sat/Sun)

500 miles

Pretty typical for a serious rider as a serious runner.

i'd say its about 4 to 1 mileage-wise. but the biking needs to be at a moderate effort. no slackin'. although if you want more benefit to your running i'd alternate biking outside with biking inside. so maybe one day go on a 70 mile ride and then next day do a 90 minute fartlek on an indoor bike.

There is no equivalent. If there was, Lance Armstrong could run a 1:59 marathon. If you are injured, you can do cycling for some fitness, but 90 mpw running can't be made up any other way than running.

100miles bike = 0 miles running

1000miles bike = 0 miles running

Okay, well I didn't really mean literal equivalent. Of course you have to run to be fast. I was just meaning, since I currently can't do that, what was a decent substitute in biking terms.

I think it's strange though that some of you think 90 mpw is high mileage, yet 250 biking isn't. I guess it's all perspective haha.

250 miles biking can be done with 3 long rides alone. it would be insane to do 90 miles in 3 long runs. so yes, 90mpw is much more than 250 miles biking.

cuz wrote:

250 miles biking can be done with 3 long rides alone. it would be insane to do 90 miles in 3 long runs. so yes, 90mpw is much more than 250 miles biking.

weak logic.

2.5 the distance.

I'm guessing you couldn't handle the biking equivalent of 90 miles a week of running. I mean, can you imagine a biker with no running experience just deciding to go out and run 90 miles a week?

Being an avid cyclist and past avid runner I would say to ingot conversions to distance. I would suggest riding for approximately 20 hours a week. You will need to build up to it just like I would need to build up to 90 mpw. The great thing about biking is the amount of serious effort you can put in. I always thought running was painful until I started biking. Good luck.

speaking from experience wrote:

100miles bike = 0 miles running

1000miles bike = 0 miles running

False. I can run significantly faster when biking 250 miles per week and running 5 than biking 150 miles per week and running 10. (My background: I've run a marathon at 6mins/mile, used to do 80-100+ miles per week during college, haven't been running much for the past couple years, focusing on cycling, but jumped into a couple of races just for fun).

former cyclist wrote:

When I was riding full time as a cyclist - not a triathlete - I used roughly a 5:1 ratio. A typical ride for serious cyclists is anywhere from 50 - 75 miles with long rides on weekends of 75 - 100+. Running 90 mpw is A LOT!! I'd suggest that 450 miles on the bike is the equivalent.

A 90 mpw runner will likely go 7 days per week, so a cyclist doing the same might go:

3 50 mile rides = 150 (MWF)

2 75 mile rides = 150 (T/TH)

2 100 mile rides = 200 (Sat/Sun)

500 miles

Pretty typical for a serious rider as a serious runner.

This.

Of course the OP won't be able to do this kind of mileage and doesn't need it either to keep in shape.