Cycling & swimming/running comparison

favabean1982
favabean1982 Posts: 28 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Question-does anyone know what the workout equivalent between cycling vs. swimming would be, as well as cycling vs. running? For example, how many miles of cycling would one mile of running equal? Same with swimming (miles, laps, etc. ). Even if miles aren't known, I'd love to know whow the workouts compare!

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Are you asking in terms of calories burnt?
  • favabean1982
    favabean1982 Posts: 28 Member
    Not calories, just level of activity :-)
  • BahstenB10
    BahstenB10 Posts: 227 Member
    edited September 2020
    For cycling, it is said that 1 mile running = 4 miles cycling but per the first article, it isn't the best comparison. It also shows you how to calculate comparison.

    The 2nd article is 4:1 meaning 4 miles running = 1 mile swimming. The 2nd article also states that the cycling comparison is 3 miles cycling = 1 mile running.

    https://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/8841.html#:~:text=During the cold winter months,cycling, but that's lousy science.

    http://www.marathonguide.com/training/coachmindy/crosstraining.cfm#:~:text=The run to swim ratio,workout to be more efficient.
  • littlegreenparrot1
    littlegreenparrot1 Posts: 702 Member
    Surely It must depend to some extent on the ability and efficiency of the person doing the activity?

    I'm a runner and husband is a cyclist. I would find it very difficult to cycle any distance, and running would be much more difficult for him.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    I don’t have anything on swimming but cycling:running is generally in the 3-4:1 range. 10 mile ride approx 5k run. Century ride is approx a marathon.

    I sometimes sub biking for recovery runs or bike when injuries prevent running and that’s about where I hover (various places report various ratios in that same range).
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    1 mile of cycling = 1 mile of running = 1 mile of walking on your hands. A mile is a unit of length.

    That sounds pedantic and not helpful, but the truth is it shows that this question needs a little more thought. :smile: A mile is a mile like a calorie is a calorie, what do you want to get out of counting them? Which leads us to:
    favabean1982 wrote: »
    Not calories, just level of activity :-)

    Count minutes, not miles. Especially minutes at different intensity levels, if you have a way to do that. Miles don't mean a lot in terms of activity, I know a beautiful spot where you can ride a bike 18 miles without pedaling, and average 30 mph. In terms of activity, those miles don't really count for much, because gravity is doing the work. Those miles in reverse, though, it takes 2 to 3 hours to ride up, at a pretty high level of intensity. Same miles, not just the number of them but the same physical miles on the same route, and it's wildly different effects on your activity level. So just go by time and intensity. :smile:
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    favabean1982 wrote: »
    Not calories, just level of activity :-)
    How do you wish to measure the “level of activity,” if not by calories? The cardio benefit? VO2 Max? How hard it “feels”? How long it takes? They’re all terrific exercises! Become a triathlete! 🏊🏻‍♀️🚴🏃🏻‍♀️
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    The triathlete piece isn’t a terrible idea. Distances for each portion of a triathlon are going to be VERY APPROXIMATE ROUGH equivalents as they are intended to be 3 events of roughly equal difficulty.

    Nothing will be perfect. Nothing will fit every single stretch of land. Open water vs pool vs at altitude vs chased by zombies vs every other possible variation.

    In the very most basic rough estimate as someone who does swap between biking and running, the 3-4:1 is really pretty close. For time; intensity, level of effort, etc. not every single day for every single ride/run regardless of every possible variable. But in general terms-close enough. And I think that’s what you’re going for.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    favabean1982 wrote: »
    Not calories, just level of activity :-)

    I don't think you can separate these. Unless you mean something else, the higher the calorie burn the higher the level of activity.

    There are lots of options for mph; pick whatever is appropriate for you.

    4bf1ea9d1fa336efa9a0612cbf6f6c1d.png
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Personal comparison....
    In terms on knee soreness 1 mile running = 100 miles cycling.
    1 mile swimming = death by drowning so a very extreme level of inactivity.

    BTW - trying to assume that a mile cycled is a uniform measure is incredibly vague. Was the first 5 miles the same "level of activity" as the next 13 miles?

    skrvn4it1z5z.png

    Would suggest if you really want to compare just use METS values (and accept the comparison has massive flaws).

Categories