Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/6/2005 5:44:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 5:45:13 PM EDT by ABNAK]
Knee and subsequent hamstring problems while running and fast-walking are forcing me to consider some sort of biking as a substitute for the running portion. I can (somewhat) comfortably run 2 miles in 18 minutes. Pushing it just about max effort is <17 minutes. I rarely do the latter. Nothing stellar by any means but turning 40 in a week it is at least "PT test standards" (as far as the Army's APFT scores go, my benchmark for old time's sake!). I want to consider doing some sort of stationary bike workout in lieu of my running days. The fast-walking portion is somewhat tolerable on my knee/hamstring now, but I'll suck it up. At least until they 'scope the fucker!

Question: given all the variances in exercise bikes, what is a good "rule of thumb" to duplicate the 9-minute-mile 2 mile run on an exercise bike? i.e. is there a ratio of running miles:biking miles to use?


Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:31:51 AM EDT
Anyone? How many miles do you have to bike to equal running a mile? What resistance level should be used for stationary bikes to simulate the difficulty of running?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:40:52 AM EDT
You might have better luck getting a response in the Self Defense & Fitness forum. Things tend to get buried rather quickly in GD.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:55:29 AM EDT
I ahve pondered that same question myself.

I doubt there is a formula, so to speak, to equate the two. If there is I haven't found it.

I go with my heart rate to judge intensity. It takes alot of effort on the bike to get my HR to around 145-150 (my goal for a work out). However, it doesn't seem to take much to reach that while running. Talking about this with other fitness types, I have heard the opposite from some. I would guess that your body probably adapts to the form of exercise you do the most.

Just my experience...
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:12:33 AM EDT
Without extensive HR/O2 monitoring, it is difficult to compare. Cycling is less aerobic than running in general but this doesn't mean you cannot get an equal workout. Any stationary bike is about as interesting as cold oatmeal. Get a real bike, it can also save you money in transportation!

To replicate running, you need to keep your effort constant but this is not easy if you have wind or hills and damn impossible with mountains unless you have the proper gearing AND a good base level of training.

Ideally, you need 3-4 sessions per week, each about 2 hours in duration. Using a HR monitor is the fastest way to determine where you need to be but in general, you should never feel winded and should be able to speak normally without gasping.

If at any time you feel winded, you are exceeding your maximum rate. Slow down. Again, a HR monitor will help you most unless you only travel on the same course etc....ignore speed. Too many variables. Focus on average speed but don't get obsessed. A bicycle is simply a machine that makes your motive power much more efficient and by doing so, small variations in your ability will be magnified greatly.

Now that is for the beginner. If you get advanced and just have to know, there are a few devices out there that measure power you are producing on a real bicycle. For the average male, producing a constant 250 Watts generally means you can do the running part of the APFT to the max.

Yes, I am the gadget guru on bicycles and have the Polar S720i with the power measuring option on the road bike. It measures chain tension by measuring the chain vibration frequency, just like an electric guitar. It also measures chain speed. Chain speed in meters per second multiplied by chain tension in Newtons is Watts of power. This system also records the power, bike speed, distance, HR and altitude (barometrically). Data overload for most but sure helps getting the most from workouts.

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:20:37 AM EDT
Keith_J,

Although you don't care for them, wouldn't a stationary bike be more consistent as far as the "constant effort" you mention with regards to running? It would be easier to duplicate that as there are no hills or coasting that can be done on a real bike.

I've had a statioary bike in the past and hated it! A watched clock goes agonizingly SLOW. But I've progressed fairly well cardio-wise and would like to be able to (on any given day, assuming injury healed) be able to skip my "bike" workout and still be able to run 2 miles in 17 or 18 minutes. Running could very well be out of the picture for good, at least on a regular basis, but it would be nice to maintain at a level that enables me to run, say once a month, within the given parameters.

My MRI is scheduled for Monday........
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:18:26 AM EDT
Best wishes for a speedy recovery. It's nice to hear you'll miss exercising, hopefully you'll get back in the game for good. Too many people find injuries a great excuse to become lazy slobs.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:42:25 AM EDT
i would say if you don't mind a couple of bumps get some rollerblades they give me a way better workout for the same distance compared to a bike.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:05:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Keith_J,

Although you don't care for them, wouldn't a stationary bike be more consistent as far as the "constant effort" you mention with regards to running? It would be easier to duplicate that as there are no hills or coasting that can be done on a real bike.

I've had a statioary bike in the past and hated it! A watched clock goes agonizingly SLOW. But I've progressed fairly well cardio-wise and would like to be able to (on any given day, assuming injury healed) be able to skip my "bike" workout and still be able to run 2 miles in 17 or 18 minutes. Running could very well be out of the picture for good, at least on a regular basis, but it would be nice to maintain at a level that enables me to run, say once a month, within the given parameters.

My MRI is scheduled for Monday........



The fastest training is intervals which are incredibly boring on a stationary bicycle but quite natural on the road. There is the difference.

It is like comparing a treadmill to actual running.

And it is far better to get a real bike plus a trainer. No need for a complete set of rollers, just a trainer for the bad weather.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:52:09 PM EDT
What do you mean by a "trainer" and a "complete set of rollers"?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:55:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Best wishes for a speedy recovery. It's nice to hear you'll miss exercising, hopefully you'll get back in the game for good. Too many people find injuries a great excuse to become lazy slobs.




Dude, exercising to me is like water: if it can't get in one way it'll find another!!!


I hate to say it, but my dad is one of those "slobs". I'll NEVER be like that.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 2:23:36 PM EDT
Rollers are an indoor training tool to keep you from mashing your pedals; the ideal pedaling stroke is to pull up just as hard as you push down. Of cores you’ll need clipping pedals that will clip to your bike shoes, this makes you go faster on road cycling because your stroke is a solid motion of torque. And on off road cycling you can get out of mud better because you can actually pull up on your pedals harder than you can push down, you push as had as you can and you stand up, where as you can pull to the maximum about your muscles can deliver to the bike.
shop rolers here
It will take some balance and talent however, and cycling is just another thing to spend to much money on!
Top Top