Running Vs. Riding a bike

Former (and future) triathlete here. Here's your answer: The person who tested with the highest VO2 max on this planet was a cyclist, not a runner. Cycling is a brilliant complement to running and vice versa. Do you wear a HR monitor? If you did, you would know that you will burn as many calories cycling as you will running.

Does that help?

Depends on how long and how fast you cycle for, as a rule a 30 min run will burn way more calories than a 30 min cycle ride

this is true, but after the first 30 minutes on the bike, your HR has risen, and the burn pace is pretty close to equal. Provided you can seriously control your run pace.

I can stay in a zone on the bike for a much longer time, than in a run. When running my HR continues to increase. On the bike, with the cooling and the ability to take nutrition along, I can settle into a Zone 2(fat burn) and stay there for a couple hours. But when I run I end up, shooting right through Zone 2, into Zone 3, and headed to Zone 4 wihtin 30 - 45 minutes. So it depends on your purpose of training.

My answer to the OP is - why not do both. Yesterday I rode into my office 12 mile route, then ran home a 4.2 mile route. This morning I ran 4.2 in, and will ride a 12 mile route home.

Saturdays are long run days, Sundays are long ride days.

Sweat Daily!
Todd

Do both, mixing it up will help keep things fresh.

kind of off topic but for all you bikers;
just bought a bike and am going to start biking to work. its a 4.25 mile venture, gravel roads moderately hilly and i got a mountain bike not a road one, how long would this approximately take at a not-killing-myself pace?

I'd consider a 5-6 minute mile a taking it easy pace, so I'd say it'd take you 25-30 mins..

solid. i was thinking itd be somewhere along the lines of a half hour, thanks

I love running, but haven't been able to do it much since my knee injury (torn ACL). I'm working back up to it, but in the meantime, I bike and use the elliptical.
My only issue with biking is that the seat makes my butt and lady parts sore! :ohwell:

Great info. I got a bike for my birthday yesterday and am looking forward to adding it to my workout routine. Running is getting too dull.

I do not run anymore due to the impact on my feet and other joints...I have posterior tibial tendinitis and it just flares up something fierce if I try to go for a jog these days.

I turned to cycling last fall due to the above issues and I couldn't be happier with my decision. I personally get a better workout cycling than I ever did running. I have some friends who have challenged me on this in the past and have done so largely because they're idea of going for a bike ride is a slow joy ride basically...they had never actually pushed themselves to go very hard on a bike...I had them ride with me and they realized very quickly that when you ride hard, cycling is hard and a tremendous workout. The best part is that I can go for much longer and I can do it day in and day out pretty much due to it is such a low impact activity.

I ride around 85 miles per week on average...more when I'm getting ready for a cycling event.

My daughter runs cross country and the coach recommends biking on non running days because it's good exercise for the legs and doesn't hurt the joints. She was out for 8 weeks with an achilles tendon injury and biked almost daily once the trainer felt she could start training again, but not running yet.

To the OP - for me, I prefer cycling much more than running. I do both, but will always opt for a bike ride if that's a choice. You cover more ground, it's more fun, and burns more calories for me. It also has helped a ton with shredding my legs.

Pretty sure mountain biking is one million times more fun than running.

I can stay in a zone on the bike for a much longer time, than in a run. When running my HR continues to increase. On the bike, with the cooling and the ability to take nutrition along, I can settle into a Zone 2(fat burn) and stay there for a couple hours. But when I run I end up, shooting right through Zone 2, into Zone 3, and headed to Zone 4 wihtin 30 - 45 minutes. So it depends on your purpose of training.

Sidetrack -
Actually, that's called cardiac drift, usually related to hydration levels and blood getting thicker, so more beats to get the same amount of oxygen to where it needs to be.
So the workload hasn't changed, and your mix of fuel sources hasn't changed, and your calorie burn hasn't changed.

And that is excellent demo of why getting a good calorie burn estimate from a HRM can fail in those cases, inflated HR.

It's also why training per HR for longer steady state cardio can have problems. You slow down to keep the HR the same, but it's actually an easier workout on rest of the body.

If you do a treadmill you'll see the same thing with pace/incline staying exactly the same for an hour. And you are right on that the bike, allowing for better water intake, cuts back on that effect, plus the slightly changing nature of the workload helps too.

But I actually prefer to run based on HR too, usually. If I slow down and it gets easier, the run was usually recovery anyway.

You should do both! I use my bike to commute everywhere and am often on it for around 60 minutes (or more!) a day. I also try to run at least four times a week for about 45 minutes. My legs have become strong and can handle all the exercise, however I take a rest day whenever I feel like I need to.

If I were you, I would up how many miles you run and cut down how often. For example, you only run 2-3 times a week but at a longer distance. You will be getting a higher burn and can use the rest of the week for biking!

Interesting post by everyone. I was always a firm believer that over distance, you burn more running than riding. For me, about 80 cals/mile vs 35 on the bike. So over one hour, a 7 mile run would burn about 560 calories. I understand that course, wind, etc has a lot to do with this too. On the bike, I would get about 14-15 miles, or 500 calories, again depending on the course, wind (which plays a bigger factor on the bike). It also depends on the bike you are using. A 20 year old mountain bike being ridden at 15mph is a lot different of an exercise than riding a road bike at 15mph.

For ME, and me alone, I find I can run about a third of the distance I can ride to a point. The same holds true with time, but more of a 1:2 ratio. On the bike, I can bring a banana or a cereal bar and that keeps me fueled. Not so much on a run. Also, the breeze from riding on a hot day keeps me cooler than a run in the same conditions. Exact opposite for winter- I die on the bike.

I enjoy the bike more as a previous poster said- you can zone out, you cover more ground so there is more scenery to see, but I am also more nervous on the bike and fearful of cars. Both are fantastic exercises. Try doing each 3x/week. Run for 30, bike for 45-60 and see what happens.

Bike riding?? lol.. If you want something that gives a great full body cardio workout and your joints are bein stupid then take up swimming. There's no better form of full body cardio aside from maybe escaping quicksand.

Bike riding?? lol.. If you want something that gives a great full body cardio workout and your joints are bein stupid then take up swimming. There's no better form of full body cardio aside from maybe escaping quicksand.

Yeah, my HRM would disagree with you. I can get a much better workout and burn more calories on a bike.

Also - laps are boring (even if you spend the money on an underwater MP3 player) and not everyone can go find open water. But it's pretty easy to find fun places to ride on a bike. I like swimming for fun once in a while but I could never do it as regular cardio. 5 hours a week in a pool? Yeah, that's like watching paint dry.