I started running in February and have found I really enjoy it - I stick a podcast on and go out and run through the countryside; not particularly fast mind but enough to feel it. It took a few months of feeling a little bit achy and sore after a run, but it's much better now my body and joints are used to it. I'm aiming for a half marathon in September and I'll do another one next year as well to give me something to aim for. It's such a great activity especially in this part of the world (Chilterns), you notice so much more around you when on foot.
Why do we run, is it good for you?
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Soldato
Equivalent in what what way though? This is kind of my point. If I ran 1hr 12 it would be about 1,000 cals burnt. If I cycled 3 hours it would be about 2,400 cals burnt. So, to say they are equivalent, I can burn many more calories by cycling. Yes, of course, if you have the time
Man of Honour
I hate running (but I'm 15st and although fit, not built for running) - but I do it because it's a good to add that to my weightlifting and fitness routines, and it's nice to be out and about in the countryside, though I prefer going for long walks.
I do 3-5km twice a week, it's more than enough for me to complement my lifestyle. I go swimming once a week. and lift weights 4x a week.
I burn more calories lifting weights than I do running (my sessions are high weight, high volume intense for 60-80 minutes), whereas I run 3-5km so 20-30mins (ish).
Running is great for cardio and just for general movement - though I prefer swimming for that, it's nicer on the joints.
Soldato
Equivalent in what what way though? This is kind of my point. If I ran 1hr 12 it would be about 1,000 cals burnt. If I cycled 3 hours it would be about 2,400 cals burnt. So, to say they are equivalent, I can burn many more calories by cycling. Yes, of course, if you have the time
People are confusing themselves by using time, time is almost irrelevant (it isnt really due to speed). Its energy usage over distance at a given intensity that people tend to try and find equivalence to and there isnt a direct equivalence but a very rough one which says you have to cycle 3 to 4 times the distance of a runner to burn approximately the same calories. The standout one is usually the cyclist has to ride an imperial century to approximate running a marathon
Last edited:
Soldato
**EDIT** My bad, I read the bit I quoted of you wrong. Yes, distance-wise, you have to go 3 or 4 times as far. My point was, I can and more. I can easily cycle 50 to 60 miles. I don't think I can run much more than 6 to 8 miles. This was my point, if I run I'm limited to about 1,000 cals. Cycling I've burnt 3,000 cals at times.
I would disagree about time being irrelevant and distance being important though. I would rather trust 'time * effort'. It doesn't really even matter how you're doing it then. 1 hour of 90% effort will give you the same result however you do it. Cycling tends to be a lower effort is all, but as someone else said, you can do it at 90%... just not for long!
Also, different terrains and gradients affect your distance for no gain in your equation. If it's time by effort, running/cycling either increases the effort or increases the time, while distance stays the same as on flat or downhill.
Last edited:
Soldato
Jesus wept, you deleted the bit where I said time is pretty much irrelevant and then you go off on time again, I said energy over distance at a given intensity. If you have power meters for both running and cycling then you can test it out. Run 5k at 200W then ride at 200W and see what distance you travel till you use the same amount of energy. The theory (not my theory) goes you will cycle roughly 3 to 4 times the distance with the same energy usage.
Soldato
Actually, I admitted I misread your post and edited it. It's time, not distance that matters. Run or cycle at 200W for 3 miles up hill, then run or cycle 3 miles at 200W down and you will get different calories burnt as both take drastically different amounts of time to do. As said, time by power is the important bit, not distance by power.
Associate
Personally I hate running, but that's because I'm currently an unfit turd! When I briefly kept it up and started doing intervals I enjoyed it but due to having one leg shorter than the other I find it really took a toll on my already poor knee and hip. But that's just my situation.
For cardio I much prefer tennis (when my mates can be bothered to play), just a lot more fun. Other than that walking or hiking works better with a lower toll on my compromised frame.
For cardio I much prefer tennis (when my mates can be bothered to play), just a lot more fun. Other than that walking or hiking works better with a lower toll on my compromised frame.
Soldato
You are making nonsense comparisons, the original comparison was about comparing energy consumption with running and cycling. Of course you can compare using distance or time but you have to keep all other factors the same else the attempt to make comparisons are not valid, hence your "I can only run and hour and expend 1000cals compared to you being able to cycle for 3 hours and expend 2400cals" was nonsense hence I said time in that example was nonsense.
Your example above is exactly the reason you cant make comparisons on time because the variables are different. To make valid comparisons, you have to try and make the initial conditions/variables the same. So for your example, you run 3 miles at 200W on flat ground and then you cycle 3 miles at 200W on flat ground then yes you get different calories burn and different times to complete the 3miles.
If we went back to the energy example, then you would run at 3miles at 200W on a flat track and you would have used "x" amount of cals. If you then ride at 200W on a flat track until you spent the same amount of cals then if the theory is correct you would have gone 3 to 4 times the distance. OR YOU COULD
run 3miles at 200W on a flat track and it would have taken "x" amount of time then you cycle at 200W on a flat track for the same amount of time, then the distance should be the same as the previous example.
Power over time or power over distance is no more important than the other (other than for training as FTP is power over time). What is important is using the same variables when making comparisons which was what I was trying to point out with the 3 to 4 times distance theory.
This whole theory came about because injured runners wanted to keep on training but didnt want to aggravate their injury so they wanted to know how far they needed to cycle to be able to maintain their fitness for set distances, so time in this instance was irrelevant to them.
Last edited:
Soldato
No, I simply said I can burn more cycling than running, as I can cycle for longer. My point is valid and time is the main point of my point in that I can do it for longer.
Which you can't do, unless maybe you're on a track? So time is the better way. Power output multiplied by time is exactly how you would work out total energy used. I honestly don't see how you argue against that? What is the equation using distance taking into account elevation and gradient?! How would you calculate the power of the guy that ran up hill and then the guy that ran downhill?
Which, as said, you simply can't do using distance, but you can using time. Use power over time which I'm fairly sure is what Strava uses. Are you saying they have it wrong?
If I Google 'how do I calculate how many calories I burn using power' the first answer says - 'Just multiply your average power output on the bike by the number of hours you spent riding times 3.6 and there you have it – the number of calories burned.' No mention of distance at all... surprising...
Again, I accept my point was for me, I think I said that, I can't run for more than an hour because of my knee. I can cycle for hours on end...
Soldato
The discussion all started with blackdog saying "I run 10 miles in about 1hr 12 mins so a cycle would take about 2.5 - 3 hours depending on speed"
You replied "Equivalent in what what way though? This is kind of my point. If I ran 1hr 12 it would be about 1,000 cals burnt. If I cycled 3 hours it would be about 2,400 cals burnt. So, to say they are equivalent, I can burn many more calories by cycling. Yes, of course, if you have the time"
The above equivalence is obviously nonsense and you've pointed out why, because you've spent different time, expending different calories. I came into it trying to explain where the equivalence thing originally came from. Ive given simple examples of trying to compare cycling and running when using the SAME calorie expenditure at the SAME intensity based on runners wanting to roughly do the same workout due to being injured. So an injured marathon runner doesnt want to lose fitness and cant run but can cycle, so they want to know how far they have to cycle to equate to running a marathon, hence the distance thing! That was it.
You trying to throw things like Strava and how to calculate calories is irrelevant to the wider point and no I dont say they are wrong although it is only an estimate.
Last edited:
Soldato
No it didn't, as that was a reply to me on a discussion already in place, so that may be where you're getting confused.
My point to you specifically, if you're saying distance is a good measure of how many calories you've burnt is that there are SO MANY FACTORS that change that. If you have a power meter (I have one for cycling and running, but I get that many wont) then time by power is much better. I don't see how you cannot see that.
You keep saying things have to be the same, but almost no-one's 5k run will be the same 'difficulty' as someone elses. We've mentioned gradient and you've said that yes that spoils your theory. Then there's things like equipment. Someone with those fancy spring soled shoes will use less energy running 5k in the same time as someone running bare foot in the same time. Then there's body weight, they will spoil your theory too. A big guy running 5k will burn more calories running the exact same distance in the exact same time as a smaller guy. Then there's the surface. Run 5k on a beach and then run it on the road... sorry, that spoils your distance theory too.
Distance is just a terrible indicator of calories burnt. All along, power multiplied by time works just fine.
At this point I wonder if you're just trolling me, so I'll bow out, unsub from the thread and leave you to it. Thanks.
Soldato
Me trolling, you got some nerve. Ive never said distance was a good measure of how many calories burnt, what I said and said it REPEATEDLY was the origin of where the equivalence came from. Injured runners wanting to cycle to the same amount of energy consumed to maintain fitness for their running goals. Runners usually run races dictated by distance, i.e. 5k, 10k or a marathon hence they wanted to cycle to the same amount of energy expended to maintain that level of fitness so distance was what they were interested in.
Ive never said that distance was ever a good mechanism to calculate calories, just in this particular instance, distance was key to the runners as races are done over distance and time was irrelevant in this example, not that time was irrelevant in all examples of exercise, just this particular one.
Things have to be the same as you cant change the variables so your examples are nonsense as they can only apply to individual personally, you have proved why its important to keep variables the same.
Now read what I wrote and not cut out the relevant parts out and then go off on a tangent comparing apples to oranges.
Since working to my HR and not just running, I've been pretty much injury free. It is very frustrating though, as much as I love it -I'm always in fear it'll cause me an injury and ruin another hobby.
I think because it’s so ‘easy’ to keep running and just plugging away if you have grit and determination…. and the appetite to do well exceeds the ability of your body in terms of ligaments, cartilage etc
I did love it but even getting fitted shoes etc I still ended up knackering some part of myself.
I actually do a fair bit of walking now and if I walk an hour a day for maybe 4 days in a row I can feel some parts of me straining…. I am a little heavy these days of course, so that doesn’t help. But my point being, if you don’t walk lots, then it’s no doubt that just running from nothing is going to cause a lot of stress.
Variety is probably the solution.
Soldato
I love running now. I've been a cyclist all my life, but then started to scratch the itch of competing in triathlons.
It too quite a long time to get up to running 'fitness' despite being very fit overall, simply because my supporting muscles weren't used to running.
When I started off, I was doing a few 10ks a week - FAR FAR too much. Eventually my knees said no, and I had to wait quite a while to recover. I've had a few niggles since, but at the moment I've been running without any issues.
It's a big learning curve, knowing what you're body can do, and how far you can push it. Cycling is easy, as it's completely non-impact (assuming you set the bike up properly).
It takes a while to progress to. I remember when I first did some 5k tests, and coming in around 20:30 or so....absolutely dying at the end. Thinking how the F am I going to get another 30 seconds! I'm now reasonably comfortably running 18s, with 17:31 my best 5k.
If you're starting out.....take it VERY easy to begin with. Most people who are new to 'exercise' will be limited by their fitness, but if you're fit already, don't do what I did!
Oh.....and another tip. Trainers do have a limited life! I did about 700 miles on my first set. Bought new ones and immediately felt much better.
It too quite a long time to get up to running 'fitness' despite being very fit overall, simply because my supporting muscles weren't used to running.
When I started off, I was doing a few 10ks a week - FAR FAR too much. Eventually my knees said no, and I had to wait quite a while to recover. I've had a few niggles since, but at the moment I've been running without any issues.
It's a big learning curve, knowing what you're body can do, and how far you can push it. Cycling is easy, as it's completely non-impact (assuming you set the bike up properly).
It takes a while to progress to. I remember when I first did some 5k tests, and coming in around 20:30 or so....absolutely dying at the end. Thinking how the F am I going to get another 30 seconds! I'm now reasonably comfortably running 18s, with 17:31 my best 5k.
If you're starting out.....take it VERY easy to begin with. Most people who are new to 'exercise' will be limited by their fitness, but if you're fit already, don't do what I did!
Oh.....and another tip. Trainers do have a limited life! I did about 700 miles on my first set. Bought new ones and immediately felt much better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,980
I used to run to try and just run faster all the time, I was never really educated on running, I just had the assumption that if I just ran loads, longer and faster I'd get better/fitter.
Unfortunately, there is a lot more to it and fortunately, I've adjusted as to avoid, luckily, injury for many years. I think a lot of people I find that go running and always seem to get injured kind of follow the same path, many also neglect any sort of strength training too. Strength training is basically injury prevention, or at least that's what I find.
I just enjoy running now, I follow a rough plan of the odd slow run with the odd short interval session and a lot of low heart rate running, which seems to have really increased my foundation running fitness. I guess it depends on your aim, my aim now is just mental, just going out for running enjoying being outside. I'm definitely not looking to break records.
Unfortunately, there is a lot more to it and fortunately, I've adjusted as to avoid, luckily, injury for many years. I think a lot of people I find that go running and always seem to get injured kind of follow the same path, many also neglect any sort of strength training too. Strength training is basically injury prevention, or at least that's what I find.
I just enjoy running now, I follow a rough plan of the odd slow run with the odd short interval session and a lot of low heart rate running, which seems to have really increased my foundation running fitness. I guess it depends on your aim, my aim now is just mental, just going out for running enjoying being outside. I'm definitely not looking to break records.
Everyone always makes the same mistakes when starting to run - too fast and too hard. This is especially important for beginners; CV fitness comes very quickly running and you see your running pace increase rapidly, but the skeletal-muscular changes take much longer, lagging by 6 months or more. It is easy to increase volume substantially, but you don't notice accumulated stress in joints, so you really have to be very patient as you build up. As a beginner, you have to ignore the fact that you feel good and can run x-distance at y-pace, slow things right down and plan a very gradual build over the next couple of years.
Running is about persistence, perseverance, long, gentle builds, and a high volume of very easy, relaxed runs.. It does not work at all for people that adored high intensity workouts, unless they can really control themselves. In something like cycle, you can thrash your legs with high intensity intervals multiple times a week with little injury risk, but that isn't optimal training and will degrade performance and will lead to overtraining syndrome. If you tried that running though you will soon get injured.
Anything high intensity in running has to be applied carefully and at specific times under controlled volumes with careful management of recovery. You gian useful adaptions but they are relatively short lived. Te typical training cycle if followed correctly is relatively risk-free. For example, for a marathon you want to spend months slowly building a high volume of very easy running, lots of 90-min runs at a conversation pace and some longer runs now and then. Then slowly add in some higher speed workouts, but initially keeping the intensity down and the volume small. For about 2 months before a race some intervals or lactate threshold run once or twice a week, but not every week, will see you get most of the benefits of higher intensity running with minimal risk. As with cycle, even if you avoid injury, too much high intensity running will degrade performance and lead to overtraining syndrome.
Running is about persistence, perseverance, long, gentle builds, and a high volume of very easy, relaxed runs.. It does not work at all for people that adored high intensity workouts, unless they can really control themselves. In something like cycle, you can thrash your legs with high intensity intervals multiple times a week with little injury risk, but that isn't optimal training and will degrade performance and will lead to overtraining syndrome. If you tried that running though you will soon get injured.
Anything high intensity in running has to be applied carefully and at specific times under controlled volumes with careful management of recovery. You gian useful adaptions but they are relatively short lived. Te typical training cycle if followed correctly is relatively risk-free. For example, for a marathon you want to spend months slowly building a high volume of very easy running, lots of 90-min runs at a conversation pace and some longer runs now and then. Then slowly add in some higher speed workouts, but initially keeping the intensity down and the volume small. For about 2 months before a race some intervals or lactate threshold run once or twice a week, but not every week, will see you get most of the benefits of higher intensity running with minimal risk. As with cycle, even if you avoid injury, too much high intensity running will degrade performance and lead to overtraining syndrome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,980
Yeh definitely above. I found that I had to really concentrate on running slow in order to improve running fitness overall. Like you say, I use quicker/interval style running sessions sparingly.
The long runs I do are mainly very slow, which at first was hard because you just want to run faster. Adding in low level heart rate running for me just meant that I can run miles at a slow pace without feeling shattered afterwards, or at least that is currently the product of the switch up in running training I started a while ago now. I used to just burn myself out in the past and I never knew why or what I was doing really.
The long runs I do are mainly very slow, which at first was hard because you just want to run faster. Adding in low level heart rate running for me just meant that I can run miles at a slow pace without feeling shattered afterwards, or at least that is currently the product of the switch up in running training I started a while ago now. I used to just burn myself out in the past and I never knew why or what I was doing really.