I recently bought a HR monitor and have been comparing my HR when running and Cycling. I’ve no specific goal at the moment, I’m just looking at what my baseline stats are and now trying to interpret what I’ve seen:

I can run at a pace of 11 km/hour and my HR stays within 140-160 BPM.

When I cycle (on road) at a pace of 28 km/hour and my HR stays within 120-140 BPM.

Is it typical for these two activities be in discrete HR zones?

Obviously, I cycle further than I run. But I can comfortably run for 45 mins at 140-160 BPM, but I cannot cycle for 45 mins at this HR. Anyone got a simple explanation for why not (or if I should even be able to)?

I find that cycling rarely gets up into the same HR zones as running, there’s usually a 10-20 difference for a given intensity (going by feel).

Edit: checked some data from Endomondo. Long run, avg HR 152. Long mtb ride: 130.

From my experience, you can get your heart rate up equally high doing both; the difference lies in the fact that there is actually quite a lot of “down-time” in cycling e.g. riding downhill, which naturally reduces your average. There is very little “down-time” in running. Even running downhill requires effort.

I find that cycling rarely gets up into the same HR zones as running, there’s usually a 10-20 difference for a given intensity (going by feel).

When I ran and cycled competatively I found the opposite! I could sustain a much higher average HR during a bike race than during a running race.

Edit: Thats for an MTB race. Road races had lower averages as there is more hiding in the bunch.

For me it all depends on the intention for the training.

When running I will maintain an average HR of about 158 no matter how fast or slow I go.

On the bike for a normal long distance ride it will be in the 120-130 range but for a short sprint ride of an evening if I push hard enough and dog walkers don’t get in the way I can maintain an average in the 150s.

Yes, you will most likely have different HR rates for different activities. I’ve read that pace is a better guideline for training by zone than HR for running. Comparable to using power for zones if cycling.

I can go for an easy ride and have my average bpm sit around 150-160. An easy run at 6:00/km pace will have my bpm sit between 170-185.

I think it can be down to various factors. Like cardiovascular fitness for running not being developed as well as for cycling, training loads and so on.

Your heart rate will be a bit higher for running as more muscles are in use. Your upper body in cycling does very little.

Dragon has it. (Very approximately) 40% in cycling, 60% running according to Dr Colgan.

Dragon +1

My lactate threshold for running is 175; for biking it is 165

I was told the precise reason but can’t remember it… I think there is also something around precisely which muscles are in use and also cadence but being different is not unusual.

Also + on pace / power being better than HR for zones.

More or less the same difference as me though I go 140-160 cycling, 160-180 running. Age a factor I suspect.

Obviously, I cycle further than I run. But I can comfortably run for 45 mins at 140-160 BPM, but I cannot cycle for 45 mins at this HR. Anyone got a simple explanation for why not (or if I should even be able to)?

I think it’s as all that effort is going through your legs and core, and fatigue hits muscles before you start to reach heart+lungs.. running jiggles a lot more bits that need oxygen too I guess.

Cheers for the replies. Some further reading online also supports muscle use as the key factor.

When you describe looking at pace instead of HR for training zones, can you link to any further reading on this?

Cheers,

Paul

Slightly off the topic, but something I’ve noticed since getting an HRM is that my HR is highest on some of my local decents! It might not stay high for long, but I generally peak on the decents.

My HR is approx 5-10 BPM higher average for running than cycling. Its obviously more constant as well as you cant relax whilst running 🙂

HR data from two sessions this week:

Cycling intervals 4 * 5:30 off 3, ave per interval 151, max 158
Running intervals: 5 * 4 off 2, ave per interval 165, max 174

Both with the same perceived level of effort.

Running is load bearing so has a higher HR

Hi Paul, try any of the Joe Friel bibles that relate to running. They work using a predicted PB time for a standard distance (5/10k etc).

Google turns up a bunch of stuff too.

If you use Strava Premium then you can see some analysis there if you enter your PB times for a standard race distance.