Or just not post at all since elitists will whine about it not being the same thing as riding a *real* bike, even though miles are miles (circumference * RPM, etc) and OP asked for both real and stationary... oh well, not my loss, I'm down 12 lbs in a month, that's all that matters to me.
Does the runner thread not consider treadmill miles to be "real miles" either?
Some basic differences between riding a bike on a trainer vs running on a treadmill.
1. Wind resistance is vastly different between riding a bike and running due to the speeds attained on a bike. So being on a trainer you're excluding a huge part of the resistance you encounter out riding around.
2. Bikes typically have gears and each trainer has a different level of inherent resistance. So saying you can do circumference * RPM when we don't know any of the resistance is not a very useful measurement. Hence, again, why wattage is the preferred measurement on stationary bikes because you remove all of the gearing and various resistances machines may have.
I could put my road bike into 50x11 and do somewhere around 42mph with no resistance with the real wheel just hanging in the air and a speed sensor attached. But that's not really a realistic measurement of anything is it? Rollers, which I'm waaay to uncoordinated to ever ride have different roller diameters which correspond to different wattages needed to attain the same mph on each. Smaller rollers are harder, effectively, to reach the same speed on versus the larger ones.
http://www.mountainracingproducts.com/kreitler/kreitlers-guide-to-choosing-rollers-step-2/
When you're running on a treadmill, it goes at a certain speed and you go that speed. You aren't inducing mechanical advantage into the equation with gearing when running.
Sorry to come off as a complete ass like this, but it's disingenuous to say that they're basically the same when they're not at all.