running is hard

2»

Replies

  • RobynLB83
    RobynLB83 Posts: 626 Member
    It's jus a matter of what particular activity your body is conditioned for. I find running easier than backpacking, so go figure.
  • woodyj30
    woodyj30 Posts: 2 Member
    wow, a lot of replies!! all a little complicated and missing the point. your fitness level for running is not good enough to get a huge calorie burn. pace is everything. the faster you run (for extended periods) the more calories burned. I've done 20mi at 8 min miles and burned about 2500 calories. tonight ran just under an hour at 7:41 and burned almost 1100. running sucks, but with patience determination and punishment you can get the big calorie burns your looking for!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    I've been running for a few months and have added some biking recently.

    As far as I know, running is the most calorie burns cardio (about 110 calories / mile for me)
    Calorie burn from biking is about 30 - 40 calories / mile (got info from bikers at different websites)


    Most people would traverse a specific distance faster by biking than by running. So, of course biking the same distance would result in fewer calories burned than had you run the distance. But if you run and bike for the same amount of *time* and at the same level of intensity, which would cause more calories to be burned?

    Assuming everything else is equal (which is a big assumption), running will generally burn more calories than cycling sure to a higher workload.
  • michellekicks
    michellekicks Posts: 3,624 Member
    wow, a lot of replies!! all a little complicated and missing the point. your fitness level for running is not good enough to get a huge calorie burn. pace is everything. the faster you run (for extended periods) the more calories burned. I've done 20mi at 8 min miles and burned about 2500 calories. tonight ran just under an hour at 7:41 and burned almost 1100. running sucks, but with patience determination and punishment you can get the big calorie burns your looking for!

    I don't think the replies are missing the point at all. Yes, you can get big burns running, but as you said, only if you run an hour or more straight and you get good at it. Plus, being a man makes your burn higher than the OP's. And you have to get good at it to run an hour or more. But even if you are super good at running - as you claim to be - you will still burn fewer calories biking for the same amount of time no matter how hard you go. The mechanics of a bike are such that the workload is reduced... that's why bikes were invented.

    So the OP can get big burns cycling because she can go longer. But if she could run for even half the time as she can cycle, she could probably get the same burn. So, yes, she has to get better at it, but many of us were questioning a 1500 calorie burn with 90 minutes of cycling is all.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    wow, a lot of replies!! all a little complicated and missing the point. your fitness level for running is not good enough to get a huge calorie burn. pace is everything. the faster you run (for extended periods) the more calories burned. I've done 20mi at 8 min miles and burned about 2500 calories. tonight ran just under an hour at 7:41 and burned almost 1100. running sucks, but with patience determination and punishment you can get the big calorie burns your looking for!

    How are you measuring calorie burns? 1100 cals in 55ish minutes is 20cals/minute. It's exceptionally rare to be able to sustain that for any length of time.
  • lippygidg
    lippygidg Posts: 68 Member
    bump
  • algebravoodoo
    algebravoodoo Posts: 776 Member

    Last, my bet is that your calorie burns aren't correct. 90 minutes of cycling likely doesn't result in 1500 calories burned.

    I tool along at an easy 17 mph for 90 minutes, that is 1400ish calories. (I say -ish because no measurement will be totally accurate unless done under laboratory conditions.) If I ramp it up just a bit on the speed, say 19 mph, the burn goes up to a little over 1500.

    1500 is doable in 90 minutes depending on speed, rider's weight and whether the ride is on flats or hills.

    Beyond that, yes, running is far more intense than cycling since you have no mechanical assistance in propelling your body forward and working against gravity. The calorie burn for running is almost 2-2.5 times that for cycling, given all other conditions are equal. Of course, we are talking 5-7 mph rather than 16-20 mph :wink:
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member

    Last, my bet is that your calorie burns aren't correct. 90 minutes of cycling likely doesn't result in 1500 calories burned.

    I tool along at an easy 17 mph for 90 minutes, that is 1400ish calories. (I say -ish because no measurement will be totally accurate unless done under laboratory conditions.) If I ramp it up just a bit on the speed, say 19 mph, the burn goes up to a little over 1500.

    1500 is doable in 90 minutes depending on speed, rider's weight and whether the ride is on flats or hills.

    Beyond that, yes, running is far more intense than cycling since you have no mechanical assistance in propelling your body forward and working against gravity. The calorie burn for running is almost 2-2.5 times that for cycling, given all other conditions are equal. Of course, we are talking 5-7 mph rather than 16-20 mph :wink:
    What are you using to measure burn?
    Here is a chart for different kinds of biking:
    http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm
  • elfpearl
    elfpearl Posts: 191
    IT WILL GET EASIER. I promise....seriously, keep at at, don't get discouraged, and if in 2-3 months it isn't easier, you can hunt me down and kill me. Seriously.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    For me, the burn has stayed close to the same because I lost a lot of weight (a little over 50 pounds so far, and less than 10 to go :smile: ) as I progressed. I burned more calories per mile when I was heavier; that was about the only benefit...
  • allaboutthecake
    allaboutthecake Posts: 1,535 Member
    Just throwing in my 2-cents I don't run. It hurts. Just plain hurts. But I bike A LOT. And I bike at 80-90% effort, except during traffic lights, then it bumps up even higher :bigsmile: I wear a calibrated HRM with a hard chest strap. My bike is a heavy utility bike with paniers, fenders, etc. Weight is 38 lbs (yep, heavy). Hills I bike on suck, but not near as bad as the wind. And its windy A LOT. mostly directed in my face. With wind + hills as your personal trainer, what more could you want? Just to prove a point for those runners unsure of calories burned during biking, Here are my last few rides:

    83 min @ 1017 cal burn.
    140 min @ 1018 cal burn (stopped 2x @ 4/min)
    21 min @ 288
    56 @ 581
    33 @ 388
    33 @ 381
    82 @ 825

    Point being is yes you do burn calories and yes I am dripping wet with sweat so much it looks like I biked thru a car wash. Good luck with you running. Good luck to your workout! :flowerforyou:
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Just throwing in my 2-cents I don't run. It hurts. Just plain hurts. But I bike A LOT. And I bike at 80-90% effort, except during traffic lights, then it bumps up even higher :bigsmile: I wear a calibrated HRM with a hard chest strap. My bike is a heavy utility bike with paniers, fenders, etc. Weight is 38 lbs (yep, heavy). Hills I bike on suck, but not near as bad as the wind. And its windy A LOT. mostly directed in my face. With wind + hills as your personal trainer, what more could you want? Just to prove a point for those runners unsure of calories burned during biking, Here are my last few rides:

    83 min @ 1017 cal burn.
    140 min @ 1018 cal burn (stopped 2x @ 4/min)
    21 min @ 288
    56 @ 581
    33 @ 388
    33 @ 381
    82 @ 825

    Point being is yes you do burn calories and yes I am dripping wet with sweat so much it looks like I biked thru a car wash. Good luck with you running. Good luck to your workout! :flowerforyou:
    I often ride a cheap beach cruiser that is heavy and doesn't coast well to get a little more exercise when riding with my kids, but now that they are bigger I have started using my wife's Mongoose a lot of the time so it is easier to keep up; huge difference in effort. I guess I sort of assumed that most people that ride a lot ride a higher end bike. Bad assumption...
  • MyzGina
    MyzGina Posts: 32 Member
    I ran today in a boot camp and hand a panic attack from not being able to catch my breath. I was so scared. But want to complete the work out. I'm new to running. Didnt add it much to my normal workouts. I'm going back tomorrow but the running is so hard for me but I'm willing to try. It could on progress and I get use to it. VERY HARD
  • allaboutthecake
    allaboutthecake Posts: 1,535 Member
    Just throwing in my 2-cents I don't run. It hurts. Just plain hurts. But I bike A LOT. And I bike at 80-90% effort, except during traffic lights, then it bumps up even higher :bigsmile: I wear a calibrated HRM with a hard chest strap. My bike is a heavy utility bike with paniers, fenders, etc. Weight is 38 lbs (yep, heavy). Hills I bike on suck, but not near as bad as the wind. And its windy A LOT. mostly directed in my face. With wind + hills as your personal trainer, what more could you want? Just to prove a point for those runners unsure of calories burned during biking, Here are my last few rides:

    83 min @ 1017 cal burn.
    140 min @ 1018 cal burn (stopped 2x @ 4/min)
    21 min @ 288
    56 @ 581
    33 @ 388
    33 @ 381
    82 @ 825

    Point being is yes you do burn calories and yes I am dripping wet with sweat so much it looks like I biked thru a car wash. Good luck with you running. Good luck to your workout! :flowerforyou:
    I often ride a cheap beach cruiser that is heavy and doesn't coast well to get a little more exercise when riding with my kids, but now that they are bigger I have started using my wife's Mongoose a lot of the time so it is easier to keep up; huge difference in effort. I guess I sort of assumed that most people that ride a lot ride a higher end bike. Bad assumption...


    Not a bad assumption. I've had PLENTY of high-end, muscle fit young men pass me up steep hills like I was standing still, barely breathing. :noway: Gives me inspiration to go harder & stronger. As if only to prove that I CAN! :tongue: Fixed gear bike like a beach cruiser is harder to ride. Running errands on it going up/down hills would be difficult.

    For the poster who said we were missing the point, I beg to differ. Any exercise, running/biking/walking, your going to get stronger/fitter the more often you do it. Toss in a little bit of strength training and it can only help your time & effort. I would love to be able to run, but alas it is not in the cards for me. But I KNOW I'm getting stronger & more "bike-fit" every time I get out there.
    :flowerforyou:
  • algebravoodoo
    algebravoodoo Posts: 776 Member

    Last, my bet is that your calorie burns aren't correct. 90 minutes of cycling likely doesn't result in 1500 calories burned.

    I tool along at an easy 17 mph for 90 minutes, that is 1400ish calories. (I say -ish because no measurement will be totally accurate unless done under laboratory conditions.) If I ramp it up just a bit on the speed, say 19 mph, the burn goes up to a little over 1500.

    1500 is doable in 90 minutes depending on speed, rider's weight and whether the ride is on flats or hills.

    Beyond that, yes, running is far more intense than cycling since you have no mechanical assistance in propelling your body forward and working against gravity. The calorie burn for running is almost 2-2.5 times that for cycling, given all other conditions are equal. Of course, we are talking 5-7 mph rather than 16-20 mph :wink:
    What are you using to measure burn?
    Here is a chart for different kinds of biking:
    http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm

    I use Runkeeper, MFP, a HRM, and a basic formula of .3 x # miles x body weight in lbs, then find the average of the four and round down. Still not totally accurate, I'm sure, but the four separate counts rarely differ by more than 150, so I go with it. I am also considering only road riding, as I do not like mountain biking. I also figure based on my lighter bike, the road bike and not my sturdier, but much heavier all-terrain bike. I won't comment here on my exact weight, but let's just say I am in the Athena class and Freddie Mercury sang my glories!

    I am not implying that EVERYONE will burn that many calories in 90 minutes; only that it is possible for a larger person. I am about to look up the link you posted. Always open to new or updated info! Thanks!

    ETA: Yeah!! The chart is in agreement with my calculations, or close enough to make me feel good :smile: Also loving that it calls my average range of 16-19 mph "racing" when I'm just out there having fun! Thanks again!
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    I have a friend that rides a lot in Colorado and uses a HRM. I based a lot of my opinion on his info as well as that chart. I think one issue he has is that most of his rides are tough climbs followed by downhill stretches on switchbacks where it is unsafe to coast freely, much less pedal hard. Here is a sampling of some recent rides he did:
    rogrides.jpg
  • anemoneprose
    anemoneprose Posts: 1,805 Member
    What about... maybe you don't have to run?
  • algebravoodoo
    algebravoodoo Posts: 776 Member
    I have a friend that rides a lot in Colorado and uses a HRM. I based a lot of my opinion on his info as well as that chart. I think one issue he has is that most of his rides are tough climbs followed by downhill stretches on switchbacks where it is unsafe to coast freely, much less pedal hard. Here is a sampling of some recent rides he did:
    rogrides.jpg

    What measure/website is he using? I don't recognize the format.

    And yeah, I never understood why tougher hills do not register as much on calorie burn. I get the same thing when I use Runkeeper for hiking. (A four mile hike while carrying a 25lb pack on backcountry terrain with some pretty dicey slopes supposedly burns no more than a 4 mile stroll on a paved path. My stomach and muscles call BS!) IMHO those burns ought to be greater than that. Those are not in line with the results my friend (a semi-pro racer) registers with MapMyRide.
  • sunglasses_and_ocean_waves
    sunglasses_and_ocean_waves Posts: 2,757 Member
    What about... maybe you don't have to run?

    Best advice in this thread IMO. :drinker:
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    What measure/website is he using? I don't recognize the format.

    And yeah, I never understood why tougher hills do not register as much on calorie burn. I get the same thing when I use Runkeeper for hiking. (A four mile hike while carrying a 25lb pack on backcountry terrain with some pretty dicey slopes supposedly burns no more than a 4 mile stroll on a paved path. My stomach and muscles call BS!) IMHO those burns ought to be greater than that. Those are not in line with the results my friend (a semi-pro racer) registers with MapMyRide.
    Well, that was also from MapMyRide. The format is the condensed summary you see at the bottom when looking looking at details of one ride; it shows other recent ones for quick comparison.

    My friend also uses Strava sometimes (why he doesn't just pick one and stick with it I don't know). It gives him similar numbers:
    14.5mi
    Distance
    751ft
    Elevation
    55:00
    Moving Time
    562
    Calories
    25
    Suffer Score

    Hiking, walking and running should definitely get more for big elevation changes. There is a really steep hill near me that I often include on my routes. It is so steep that running down it wears you out almost as much as climbing it. On a bike, I understand getting less because coasting really is mostly hanging on and doing a little braking.
  • Doodlewhopper
    Doodlewhopper Posts: 1,018 Member
    I ran today in a boot camp and hand a panic attack from not being able to catch my breath. I was so scared. But want to complete the work out. I'm new to running. Didnt add it much to my normal workouts. I'm going back tomorrow but the running is so hard for me but I'm willing to try. It could on progress and I get use to it. VERY HARD

    Wow. Hope you dont have exercise induced asthma. Are you running for distance or sprinting short distances? Regardless, dont run as hard until you get into better shape, and if you have any more problems catching your breath see your doc. Dont let over exerting burn you out and demotivate you from becoming a runner.

    Once you get into shape you will find running to be as enjoyable, easy, and relaxing as you want it to be.
  • algebravoodoo
    algebravoodoo Posts: 776 Member
    What measure/website is he using? I don't recognize the format.

    And yeah, I never understood why tougher hills do not register as much on calorie burn. I get the same thing when I use Runkeeper for hiking. (A four mile hike while carrying a 25lb pack on backcountry terrain with some pretty dicey slopes supposedly burns no more than a 4 mile stroll on a paved path. My stomach and muscles call BS!) IMHO those burns ought to be greater than that. Those are not in line with the results my friend (a semi-pro racer) registers with MapMyRide.
    Well, that was also from MapMyRide. The format is the condensed summary you see at the bottom when looking looking at details of one ride; it shows other recent ones for quick comparison.

    My friend also uses Strava sometimes (why he doesn't just pick one and stick with it I don't know). It gives him similar numbers:
    14.5mi
    Distance
    751ft
    Elevation
    55:00
    Moving Time
    562
    Calories
    25
    Suffer Score

    Hiking, walking and running should definitely get more for big elevation changes. There is a really steep hill near me that I often include on my routes. It is so steep that running down it wears you out almost as much as climbing it. On a bike, I understand getting less because coasting really is mostly hanging on and doing a little braking.

    Which goes to show, I never scroll to the bottom LOL I just look to see where he rode and since I am familiar with the area, I don't really linger. I just stare in awe and wish I could go that fast :smile:

    So, is it agreed then that a heavier rider can conceivably burn 1500 calories in 90 minutes? :flowerforyou:
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Which goes to show, I never scroll to the bottom LOL I just look to see where he rode and since I am familiar with the area, I don't really linger. I just stare in awe and wish I could go that fast :smile:

    So, is it agreed then that a heavier rider can conceivably burn 1500 calories in 90 minutes? :flowerforyou:
    He rides in the Rocky Mountains and I think he is around 200, but he has a very, very nice bike (I had to use very twice because he upgraded from a very nice bike). It's one of those high tech material (unobtanium?) jobs you can lift on a finger with wheels that will continue to spin for about a week. I think I have bought cars for less than he paid for that bike. So I think that affects his burn.

    Yes, it is conceivable/possible but it is unlikely for most of us. One slight advantage I would give to biking is that if you push yourself to the point of exhaustion like that running you will quite likely fall on your face (or hopefully stop before you do) where with biking you can get a very short breather without giving up much speed.
  • KANGOOJUMPS
    KANGOOJUMPS Posts: 6,474 Member
    running is hard, but I love it,
    I started at 40 years old,
    wish I started way earlier!
  • Zaniejane
    Zaniejane Posts: 329 Member
    It's great that you love running. You sound really fit. I have been running for a few years but I probably don't push myself like most runners. My 5 km and 10 km race times have stayed the same. I take a 3 to 6 month break from running every year, and my mantra is " you can always go slower" :). So that is my secret to not feeling like running is hard! Good for you for pushing yourself!
  • Cheeky_0102
    Cheeky_0102 Posts: 408 Member
    I tend to exagerate a little. When i said 1500 calories in an hour and a hald, i meant more like 1,000 calories in two hours... it's just the fact that i don't think i could run to the point where i have burned 1,000 calories...

    Like I sad also, i was exagerating at my after run condition... I just wanted to paint a picture that says "my butt was kicked"... as opposed to after a 50 km ride over 2 hours, i wipe the sweat of my forehead and get on with my day.

    I know it's conditioning, and i appreciate a workout that is "quick and dirty" like running... It just keeps getting easier!

    A HRM is out of my budget right now... heck, runners are out of my budget and it's becoming drastic!

    to the person who said my baby is cute, thanks! I love that little guy even if he's the reason i can't buy shoes

Categories