Distance Question

I8A4RE

What distance is considered to be the cycling equivalent to a running marathon?

Sorry if asked before

Eamonnator

When I was in my 30s, I ran a few marathons, my times were about 3.5 hours.
My average speed on the bike is about 28kph. So 3.5 hours on the bike is about 100kms. I'm much much fresher after a cycle like than I used be after a marathon.
I reckon, I'd have to do a 200km spin @28kph to approximate a 3.5 hour marathon.
But, really that would be an Ecumenical question.

Paul_Mc1988

I8A4RE wrote:

What distance is considered to be the cycling equivalent to a running marathon?

There is no way to really quantify this. On the flat i could do 200km in just under 6 hours. In the hills i couldnt even do 150km in 6 hours. Marathons are usually on flat courses with some small hills. Cycling can vary a lot.

The only way to get a like for like would be on percieved exertion.

Johnny Jukebox

I've heard from several triathletes that the longer sportives like Wicklow 200 and the Etape are broadly equivalent to a marathon.

ED E

Maybe estimate your kCal burn for a marathon and develop a route that matches it. Very tough estimate but would be a start.

Wishbone Ash

It's impossible to compare. Cycling is much easier on the body that running. To me a 300km ride is much easier than a 1km run.

cjt156

It's one of those "How long is a piece of string?" questions.

Anecdotally a half-Iron distance triathlon is regarded as being similar effort to a marathon. Half Iron would be a 90k bike and a half marathon, not omitting the 1.9k swim. The bike and run courses can vary hugely from one event to the next.

So if you take the bike section alone you'd be up to 180-200k for a similar marathon effort.
In the end, though, it all comes down to training.

Beasty

26 miles 385 yards.....



:pac:

magicbastarder

I saw a video about nike's attempt to break the sub two hour marathon, where they mentioned that the average calorie burn for a marathon is about 100 calories a mile - seems to be broadly linear with respect to speed. Anyway, if strava is to be trusted (that's a debate in itself) I burn 600 to 700 calories per hour so would need to be in the saddle for the guts of four hours to match the marathon.

Beasty

Just to add though, there is no "golden" distance equivalent to a marathon. Terrain and weather conditions can make a 100km "race" on one route as hard as a 200km one on another.

The only thing I could think of that could be considered something like that would possibly be a 100 mile TT, although there are not many of them about, and arguably very few people who would even attempt it. 50 miles is more common, but still not particularly popular nowadays.

iwillhtfu

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

I've heard from several triathletes that the longer sportives like Wicklow 200 and the Etape are broadly equivalent to a marathon.

Nope not comparable. If for no other reason most triathletes have 1 or 2 strengths mine was always bike/swim the run was always get out and get it done.

The main difference between a long cycle and a marathon is that typically you would get to coast a good percentage of the cycle.

As someone said it's perceived effort and not comparable from one athlete to the next. One mans marathon effort can be anothers 5k effort.

magicbastarder

iwillhtfu wrote: »

The main difference between a long cycle and a marathon is that typically you would get to coast a good percentage of the cycle.

But on the same token, marathons tend to be flat so effort is constant. If you're getting to coast a bit while cycling, it's also likely that the cycle will have climbs.

Beasty

magicbastarder wrote: »

If you're getting to coast a bit while cycling, it's also likely that the cycle will have climbs.

Not if it's a 50 or 100m TT;)

The hour record on the track also comes to mind - again though it's a very rare effort

Budawanny

The method of comparison here is not what you have done but why you have left afterwards.
How broken your body is after each event.
I’ve heard from a few guys that a cyclist after hilly 200 would be in a similar state to a runner after a marathon . But who knows

loyatemu

I'm not a runner but a marathon seems relentless in a way no bike ride could be, because you spend half the time with gravity doing the work.
Running also seems much harder on the body - the feet, the joints etc. (frankly I don't see the appeal :pac:)

Weepsie

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's impossible to compare. Cycling is much easier on the body that running. To me a 300km ride is much easier than a 1km run.

This. Did a 220 km cycle and an 8 km close enough to each other last year. Was stiff after the cycle, felt like id been in a boxing match after the run.

niceonetom

At current conversion rates, one running marathon equals:

• 214.7km by bike (road),
• 57.2 holes of golf (sans caddy),
• 9.1 pints of lager (8.6 of cider, 9.6 of stout),
• 784 Pringles (Sour Cream & Onion),
• 11 Donald Trump tweets (read aloud),
• 26 minutes of strained conversation with that woman at work whose name you should know, but don't, and it's too late to ask now...,
• Reading 1.4 chapters of Joyce's Ulysses,
• Reading 1.3 youtube comments without despairing for humanity

Paul_Mc1988

I lol'ed

TonyStark

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's impossible to compare. Cycling is much easier on the body that running. To me a 300km ride is much easier than a 1km run.

Do 5km runs from time to time. Would defo prefer 50km on a bike

sin_26

Cycling for runner is not the same as cycling for cyclist and vice versa. Comparing like for like has not much sense.

Answering the question... In cycling world Century (100 miles) is considered as a runners marathon achievement.

Cookie_Monster

Budawanny wrote: »

I’ve heard from a few guys that a cyclist after hilly 200 would be in a similar state to a runner after a marathon . But who knows

IMO not quite. I've only done 1 marathon, but about 30 halfs. I'd put 200km (w200 or similar) equal to about a half the way I feel after and the next couple of days...

I can't remember ever doing anything on the bike equivalent to the marathon, yet.

Wishbone Ash

loyatemu wrote: »

......Running also seems much harder on the body - the feet, the joints etc. (frankly I don't see the appeal :pac:)

I don't see the appeal either. Cycling clubs are full of ex runners who have destroyed their bodies. I'm quiet content to live my life without ever having to run anywhere.

billyhead

I have ran 4 sub 3 hour marathons marathons and done the WW200 twice averaging 26-27km per hour on both occasions. I took nearly a week to recover from the marathon whereas only about 2-3 days max to recover from the WW200 so I woudn't equate both as being equal in effort. I gave up running as it was too hard on the body and I kept picking up niggly injuries.As Wishbone mentioned a lot of people take up cycling late as they transition from running to an outlet which is less taxing on the joints.

Zen0

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm not a runner but a marathon seems relentless in a way no bike ride could be, because you spend half the time with gravity doing the work.

Eh, no. You spend half the distance with gravity doing the work, not half the time. But give me the Mick Byrne any day, you wouldn’t catch me doing a marathon.

magicbastarder

so we can split the question in two:
what's the cycling equivalent of the energy burned/effort involved in running a marathon?
what's the cycling equivalent to the pounding your joints take while running a marathon?

Idleater

magicbastarder wrote: »

so we can split the question in two:
what's the cycling equivalent of the energy burned/effort involved in running a marathon?
what's the cycling equivalent to the pounding your joints take while running a marathon?

I have just finished reading "bicycling science" and I'd say there's formulae for both in there. I'd say you're correct in how to break down the original question.

The main "problem" is that cycling is extremely efficient, and running isn't, in terms of muscle use at the least.

Lusk_Doyle

I've done some mega cycles in my time over seriously mountainous terrain. Never have I been as fcuked tired as I was after I finished the Dublin Marathon last year. I'm good a both cycling and running (relatively speaking!) and have been doing a lot more running of late in comparison to cycling but cycling is so much easier on the body in terms of the sheer pounding from repeated impact that you get from running can't be replicated by distance or hills at all on the bike in my opinion. It's a totally different type of exhaustion as it's your joints amd not just muscles that take the damage.

PaulieC

I go (very loosely) y 1mile run = 5 miles cycled in terms of calorie burn. But like others above, I'm usually much more sore after a marathon than say the W200.

Macy0161

I don't see how it can be answered. You might* not get the joint and muscle wear and tear cycling say 200 hilly kilometers, but aerobically I would guess it is similar to a marathon.

I think I heard it discussed on one of the podcasts around the time Van Garderen announced he was moving to triathlon that one of the big risks of cyclists moving to running/ multisport is that aerobically their able to go too far too soon before allowing their bodies to adapt. Some of my best run times, up to 10km, have come in races that I haven't run in weeks in the lead up due to injury but have kept the bike up.

*I don't think it's a given no wear and tear from cycling. Muscle imbalances will still show from cycling, as with running, if you have them (speaking from some experience, and maybe more after the MB200). I could pretty much tie my IT Band issues to the WW200 the year I had issues.

terrydel

Paul_Mc1988 wrote: »

There is no way to really quantify this. On the flat i could do 200km in just under 6 hours. In the hills i couldnt even do 150km in 6 hours. Marathons are usually on flat courses with some small hills. Cycling can vary a lot.

The only way to get a like for like would be on percieved exertion.

You'd be doing very well to keep up 33/34kmph for 6hrs on a bike, flat or no flat.

terrydel

Apparently running is also the most inefficient form of aerobic exercise, certainly between the big 3 of running, cycling and swimming. So what you put in, you get much less back out than on the bike, therefore loads of wasted energy.
I used to do a bit but my body just isn't built for it. 2-3 10kms a week was the most I ever got to without failing apart, so I gave it up and took up cycling.
Its a great sport if you have the body for it, but I don't think too many truly do and loads only realise they don't when its too late.