 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The standard comparison is that one mile of running equals four miles of cycling, but that's lousy science. Although running requires the same amount of energy per mile at any speed (110 calories per mile), riding is affected by wind resistance so the faster you ride, the more energy you use. So you have to compare running and cycling at different cycling speeds.
Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of Texas in Austin determined average values of oxygen consumption by cyclists to develop a table to estimate the approximate caloric equivalence between running and cycling. He found that if you ride 20 miles at 15 mph, you burn 620 calories (20 miles X 31 calories per mile = 620 calories). Take the 620 calories and divide them by 110 calories per mile for running and you get 5.63 miles to burn the same number of calories. So riding a bicycle 20 miles at 15 miles per hour is equal to running 5.6 miles at any speed.
Dr. Coyle made the calculations easy by providing conversion factors for different riding speeds: 10MPH=4.2, 15MPH=3.5, 20MPH=2.9, 25MPH=2.3, and 30MPH=1.9. Divide the number of miles ridden by the conversion factor for your riding speed to tell you the equivalent miles of running at any speed. Thus, for 20 miles ridden at 10MPH, divide 20 miles by 4.2 which tells you that your ride is equivalent to 4.8 miles of running. This formula is for an average-size adult (approximately 155 pounds). A larger cyclist would divide by a slightly higher number; a smaller cyclist, by a slightly lower one. Wind and hills are not accounted for in the table; nor is drafting (riding behind another cyclist), which can reduce your energy expenditure by up to one-third.
When i was running i definitely had better abs though! It's an all over work out, especially cross country.
do i use more calories now because its cold, or less because the mud has frozen?
I reckon more, as cold muscles have to work harder to warm up using more calories. or something.
I reckon that you don't perform as well in the cold and thus go slower over all and so prob same calorific expenditure?
I can't see how this would work with mountain bikes.
If wind and hills make a difference on the road, what about trail surface off road ?
20mph on a fire road can be take no more effort than 5mph through mud.
I burn more calories running than cycling - an hours running burns off 700 calories per hour, on the road bike i only burn 550. Mtb burns more at about 600 depending on how hard i'm working.
Not sure about running in the snow - can see how the cold would mean your body needs to work harder to keep warm and deep snow makes it harder, but its also pretty impossible to put in as much effort/run consistently in the snow. Road riding in the cold definately doesn't burn as many calories.