Distance Question

Macy0161

TonyStark wrote: »

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

5km runs are an above threshold effort - I doubt 50km would be, so the intensity would be different. I did an 11km TT last week and I'd compare that more to how I'd feel after a 5km run more than how I do after a 50km cycle.

Miklos

I think I'd rather cycle 500k than run 5k. Sure you'd be knackered, but at least you have a bike at the end of it!

terrydel

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

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.

The only way you can replicate the hardship on the knees from running to cycling is by grinding up hills in way too big a gear, and even that wont last as youll grind to a halt before youve time to really wreck the knees.

secman

cjt156 wrote: »

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.

I found a half iron man much tougher than a marathon. My best marathon time was 3:23 , my best half iron man was 4:44. Felt great on both finishes. I used to wonder myself bsck in the day and my Simple way of equating them was my minimum cycling distance was as it happens 26 miles and my minimum run distance was 5 miles, similar effort required. That more or less equates 42km marathon to 200 to 210 km cycle

Lusk_Doyle

terrydel wrote: »

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

I managed 32.6kph from Milan to San Remo for 9 hours. It's doable.

billyhead

This article is an interesting read about Lance Armstrongs participation in the New York Marathon although he may have been using gear;)
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/sports/sportsspecial/06armstrong.html

Enduro

This article gives an interesting perpective. Based on this the answer to the original question would be a moving target with variabilty based on the evolving levels of efficiency brought about by training adapations. Broadly my own experience (very experienced runner, lots of bike training thrown in) would back this up. I now find that for a given time period of exercise I'd be more tired from cycling than running. This was definitely not always the case.

terrydel

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I managed 32.6kph from Milan to San Remo for 9 hours. It's doable.

It is if youre very good, which you obviously are, but most average cyclists would struggle to keep up that speed for that long, solo anyway.
Out of interest, was that ride solo. Impressive if so.

thesimpsons

sin_26 wrote: »

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.

I've done good few 100 mile cycles but furthest run ever was built up to getting to 16km. No way did any of the 100mile cycles come anywhere near the effort involved in running those 16km. Running training is almost always trying hard to stay injury free too, never had cycling injury comparable to the constant running niggles.

Thud

Enduro wrote: »

I now find that for a given time period of exercise I'd be more tired from cycling than running. This was definitely not always the case.

your probably the exception to the rule there though.


the chafing alone makes running tougher

magicbastarder

terrydel wrote: »

It is if youre very good, which you obviously are, but most average cyclists would struggle to keep up that speed for that long, solo anyway.

i'd struggle to keep up that speed without a tailwind for more than 10km.

Lusk_Doyle

terrydel wrote: »

It is if youre very good, which you obviously are, but most average cyclists would struggle to keep up that speed for that long, solo anyway.
Out of interest, was that ride solo. Impressive if so.

It was a mix of group riding, two up tt-ing, and solo riding. The exact split I can't recall but the majority was together with one other rider.

terrydel

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd struggle to keep up that speed without a tailwind for more than 10km.

Yep, thats my point.