Cycling equivalent of a Marathon

Dub13

Whats the Cycling equivalent of a Marathon..?I am guessing at least 100k,I base that off a average marathon run of 4 hours,so 4 hours on the bike averaging 25k an hour = 100k.But thats a complete uneducated guess.

Caroline_ie

that's funny we were discussing that a couple of days ago, with BF. I was wondering in terms of efforts, calories spent etc.

I was thinking more 200km on a bike to achieve teh equivalent of a marathon.

sy

Interesting question so we will leave it to the "Ironmen" to fill us in as they do both diciplines. I would guess the W200 would be equivalent to hard marathon but i am not a runner so over to them.

Beat me to it Caroline

copacetic

I'd say 200k at least, I always find I have to go at least twice as long on the bike to get anything like same workout as a run. eg an hour run roughly equals a 2 hour cycle in effort, but the cycle is much easier on the body. Of course it would depend on the route also and I'm assuming no hills. The effort put in on the bike matters also, it's much easier to coast a lot of a cycle if you are not fit, nowhere to hide on a run.

I'd say most relatively unfit unexperienced people could cycle say 40k slowly pretty easily with just a bit of soreness, very few could do a 20k run.

niceonetom

The cycling leg of an ironman is 180k (I think) so I'd say somewhere around that.

victorcarrera

I ran the Dublin city marathon (3hrs 20min) and cycled the WW200 8hrs in the same year so I guess I had similar level of fitness for both. I would estimate that they are equivalent when I compare the effort in doing both and how i felt afterwards. However I only met one wall on the marathon, I hit 3 on the WW200. I heard it said an athlete equally trained in both diciplines is 10 times more efficient on a bicycle so presumably cycling 260 Km on the flat is more accurate as marathons are generally run on the flat.

Lumen

Difficult to compare, since cycling stresses are lower.

Maybe judge by recovery time. 2-3 weeks for a marathon.

So that would have to be some bike ride. 300km? Or the Wicklow 200 on a fixie.

sy

victorcarrera wrote: »

.... However I only met one wall on the marathon, I hit 3 on the WW200....

Sally Gap, Wicklow Gap and Slieve Maan:D

I think your times and efforts give the best comparison. 200k on the flat is a lot easier than W200.

Slideshowbob

1 ras = 1 marathon

Lumen

victorcarrera wrote: »

I only met one wall on the marathon, I hit 3 on the WW200.

:eek:

That sort of talk is banned until June 8th. I'm counting on the jellies to pull me through.

DualFrontDiscs

Dub13 wrote: »

Whats the Cycling equivalent of a Marathon..?I am guessing at least 100k,I base that off a average marathon run of 4 hours,so 4 hours on the bike averaging 25k an hour = 100k.But thats a complete uneducated guess.

Last week someone mentioned to me that an imperial century (100 miles) was the equivalent of a marathon. Well that scared me, because I had committed to doing a century on Friday 1st May!

Well suffice to say, it wasn't the fastest century, but that was never the point. Anyway, 4-6 weeks without social smoking, only a few glasses of wine the night before (calm the nerves) and a 20 mile spin in January and the century.........

......... went like a dream. Was great to be back on the bike. Felt stronger all the way through, including the next day. Had planned to train more, but travel and babies, etc....


For absolute clarity, there's no way I could run or walk a marathon. I reckon it's about the training required. I'd say 200 miles absolute minimum.

DFD.

victorcarrera

sy wrote: »

Sally Gap, Wicklow Gap and Slieve Maan:D

I see you've been there too.

While we're at it. I wonder at what gradient would it be more efficient/faster to step off the bike and run up the hill. For example on the steepest of climbs we see overweight intoxicated europeans running beside professional cyclists shouting at them to go faster.

DualFrontDiscs

victorcarrera wrote: »

I see you've been there too.

While we're at it. I wonder at what gradient would it be more efficient/faster to step off the bike and run up the hill. For example on the steepest of climbs we see overweight intoxicated europeans running beside professional cyclists shouting at them to go faster.

It happens in cyclocross all the time. Maybe it's psychological? Or road cleats that prevent it.

DFD

Capt'n Midnight

cycling is a lot easier on your knees and recovery time is much shorter
someone does two marathons in the same week and people think it's amazing
do 300Km in a day and the same the next day and it's just a really long trip.

eggie

Cycle until you feel you are about to die then do half that again!

short circuit

Looking at a 4hr marathon .. you would be doing roughly 10km/hr. At that speed, I usually burn in the region of 650 - 750cals.

A 4hr spin at 25km/hr on the other hand ... 550 - 650cals.

In terms of just energy spent, I reckon a 125km spin would be the same as a marathon. And if I don't eat properly, I would probably hit the bonk at the same time in both ... roughly 3 to 3.5hrs in.

Running takes longer to recover ... not for the muscles ... but for the joints due to the pounding they take. Glycogen is restored at a rate of 5% every hour after exercise if body is properly fuelled ... so the energy reserves should be fully back after 24hrs ... your joints take longer.

All this is based on cycling as a time trial ... not as a bunch ... if as a bunch and drafting etc .. I reckon closer to 200kms.

Also, the faster you cycle .. I distance you would need to equal a marathon would come down. If you cycle at a 30km/hr avg. a 100km spin would get you a marathon as a 20% speed increase has much more energy cost while cycling than while running.

davidsatelle100

eggie wrote: »

Cycle until you feel you are about to die then do half that again!

about 3 miles then

tunney

Dub13 wrote: »

Whats the Cycling equivalent of a Marathon..?I am guessing at least 100k,I base that off a average marathon run of 4 hours,so 4 hours on the bike averaging 25k an hour = 100k.But thats a complete uneducated guess.

Lets start with this: I love cycling. I love cycling training and I love everything to do with cycling.

But I also run.

I've run marathons and shorter distances and I've done lots of cycling training camps in Ireland, England, Italy and Cyprus.

Cycling has massively less of an impact on your body. Not just being it is a low impact sport but because you can do things like vary your cadence and the muscle groups used. I think people are hugely overestimating the strains of cycling and massively underestimating a marathon.

The W200 is, no disrepect intended, not that tough and is certainly not comparable to a marathon.

A week long stage race is probably comparable to a marathon.

Sean02

Cycling = Running x 6.

Raam

tunney wrote: »

A week long stage race is probably comparable to a marathon.

A ha ha, that's a good one

Greyspoke

When trying to compare cycling a certain distance with running a marathon, you've got to think in terms of RUNNING a marathon, not running/jogging 13/15 miles and then jogging/walking the rest which a lot of people do. It takes a lot of training to be able to run a full marathon without stops. I think it would be reasonable to regard the W200 and the Dublin Marathon as comparable challenges to runners/cyclists with roughly equivalent training backgrounds. A big difference is that when things get bad in a marathon you really just have to stop whereas on the bike you can just keep going, more and more slowly, suffering a long, lingering death a long way from home. There, that's encouraging isn't it?!

ROK ON

tunney wrote: »

Cycling has massively less of an impact on your body.
A week long stage race is probably comparable to a marathon.

Probably not too far away from the truth.
I know I can cycle, say 150k at reasonable effort. While I am tired after it, I am not usually that tired the following day.

I know for a fact that I could not run a marathon. I have seen how people are after marathons, and I have never felt that way after a bike ride. (in terms of exhaustion).
Usually after a cycle I am just hungy and thirsty, but thats about it really.

lukester

Isn't it a bit hard to compare, as marathons are physically punishing in a way that cycling never will be. Your foot is taking 2-3 times your body weight with each tread.

Aerobically, and in terms of endurance, it should be easy to compare. But I can't see how you can come up with a measure that compares the physical punishment of pounding the road.

Capt'n Midnight

Greyspoke wrote:

A big difference is that when things get bad in a marathon you really just have to stop whereas on the bike you can just keep going, more and more slowly, suffering a long, lingering death a long way from home. There, that's encouraging isn't it?!

Been there, done that, took me 3 hours to cycle home from Bray one night.

Poncherello

hard to compare but personally i do both and would compare a 15K run to a 100K cycle

TinyExplosions

Considering that marathons are a waste of time and effort, I'd say 4 hours on a turbo are equivalent

Nietzschean

as people have said there isn't an apples to apples comparason, i've been less tired after a 15k run than after a 100km cycle, but i'd sooner turn around and do the cycle again than the run......

Raam

Not sure how this contributes but, when running you can only go as far as your legs are able to carry you and hold you up. On a bike you can rely on the bike to support you so you can probably squeeze out a bit more. I know I'd sooner cycle 100 miles than run a marathon.

Caroline_ie

... no coasting your mean? Can't runners coast? :pac:

Raam

Caroline_ie wrote: »

... no coasting your mean?

Not even that. I reckon it's easier to pedal than have the ability to run once you have reached rock bottom.

Anyone ever see that youtube clip of the two women trying to crawl across the line?

Must dig that up...

Raam

Here it is: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de7_1234734206&c=1

billyhead

I have ran 2 sub 3 hour marathons before and cycled a 180Km charity cycle and I recovered a lot more quickly after the cycle. I would say it depends of effort exerted as well. The cycle I done at a good steady pace wheres for the Marathons I put a bit more effort in.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Here it is: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de7_1234734206&c=1

Funniest. Video. Ever.

Thanks, I haven't laughed so much in ages.

Caroline_ie

that iron man video is impressive, fair play to them, I think I would have needed people to wheel me to the finish line for the start line on the marathon

ROK ON

Not a scientist in any way. But isn't the basic reason that athletes take epo, is to build red blood cells. The proponents of epo claim that endurance sport depletes red blood cells. Conconi's entire point was that EPO was nothin more than medicine that he was giving to people who had certain symtoms, and that if a non athlete presented themselves with that red blood count that they would get EPO, so an athlete should be no different.

If this is the case, then the level of depletion should be able to tell you how many km's must be cycled for an athlete with a certain red blood cell count to end up as depleted as they wuld after a maraton.

Now I am not trying to sidetrack this into a debtae about EPO/ blood cell count, but merely speculatin whether that might give the OP the answer?

DARKIZE

I did hear some scientician on tv once claiming that riding the Tour de France was roughly the equivalent of running a marathon every day for 3 weeks. Wouldn't stand over it meself. I do know quite a few cyclists that have run marathons with what I'd call a reasonably limited amount of training.......say 3 months or so.

In my book it all depends on quality, not quantity, ie running a marathon inside 2.5 hours is probably the equivalent of riding the W200 at race-pace all the way round, and few riders are capable of that.

Ryder

Think it probably is impossible to compare, but the closest measure may be energy expenditure. Ie calories per hour...so a hard 200 is probably equivalent. Also training time could be a marker. ? 6 months to a marathon. Roughly the same for the w200

topper75

"without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done"

Lance Armstrong, 7 times Tour de France champ commenting on his completion of the NYC marathon

Interesting but doesn't really answer your question I suppose. My 2c is 200km, but minimal gradient.

niceonetom

Raam wrote: »

Here it is: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de7_1234734206&c=1

lol @ triathletes.

TinyExplosions

I'd say about a 200k cycle is about equivalent to a marathon, but I'd also say that the pace a lot of us complete that sort of distance at is about the same as someone walking/jogging a marathon. I'd easily see how something like the TdF is doing marathons day on day, as the effort and speeds they average are shockingly high.

Nietzschean

Raam wrote: »

Here it is: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de7_1234734206&c=1

is it me or do they look like they really need to use a toilet?

lukester

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I just don't get triathlons. I find them just a bit, well, dull.

I'd be more excited by any one of the individual disciplines, but the swim, bike, run thing- I just don't get the point of it.

rflynnr

As an occasional triathlete (no offence taken), I'm with the higher estimates. Indeed, taking the Ironman triathlon distances for swimming, cycling and running (2.4miles, 180k and 26 miles respectively) as notionally constituting equivalent efforts is mistaken: the distances reflect three existing races in the three disciplines which were amalgamated for the first Ironman (in Hawaii I believe). All were regarded as tough within their disciplines but there was no sense of equivalence. Given that, I'd go north of 200 (and possibly even 300) miles.

I'm doing the W200 for the first time and while I don't expect to boot it, something pretty catastrophic would have to happen for me not to finish it. This is on the basis of 100-200kms training per week.

By contrast I trained for a marathon about a decade ago. It took me three months of running 30-35 miles a week to get up to half-marathon distance at which point I almost wept with relief when my running partner informed me that she couldn't continue because of injury, thus allowing me to similarly bow out, pride sort of intact.

Running is a lot harder than swimming and cycling and as a consequence (and unusually for a triathlete) my least favourite discipline.

petethedrummer

Speedos, lycra and short shorts. Triathlons have it all.

Greyspoke

The problem here in trying to compare is that all those commenting that they'd far rather, or find far easier, riding the likes of the W200 than running a marathon are obviously cyclists. I'm sure if you asked reasonable standard runners who had say completed a marathon in 3-4 hours whether they thought riding the W200 easier/harder I'm sure you might get a different answer. A lot of it is to do with what you're more used to. There's no question that recovery from a long bike spin is largely to do with replenishing energy reserves whereas there are several days of sore muscles and joints after a marathon.

lukester

Obviously there is an appeal to triathlons, because everyone's doing them. A friend who cycles, but who also competes in triathlons, digs them too. He has explained the appeal. I patently didn't understand.

I'm a very poor runner. Quite like swimming. But I'd much rather be on my bike.

I can't imagine ever running 26 miles. I can easily imagine riding 200 miles, eventually.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Speedos, lycra and short shorts. Triathlons have it all.

I can wrap my head around speedos. Short shorts, hmm...

copacetic

Greyspoke wrote: »

The problem here in trying to compare is that all those commenting that they'd far rather, or find far easier, riding the likes of the W200 than running a marathon are obviously cyclists. I'm sure if you asked reasonable standard runners who had say completed a marathon in 3-4 hours whether they thought riding the W200 easier/harder I'm sure you might get a different answer. A lot of it is to do with what you're more used to. There's no question that recovery from a long bike spin is largely to do with replenishing energy reserves whereas there are several days of sore muscles and joints after a marathon.

I think a number of people who posted above have a lot of experience of both. In fact it appears to be the people with most experience of running who are leaning toward well over 200k as equivalent. The opposite of your theory.

billyhead

petethedrummer wrote: »

Speedos, lycra and short shorts. Triathlons have it all.

Also some cracking looking and fit women. ;)What more could you want

tunney

lukester wrote: »

Obviously there is an appeal to triathlons, because everyone's doing them. A friend who cycles, but who also competes in triathlons, digs them too. He has explained the appeal. I patently didn't understand.

I'm a very poor runner. Quite like swimming. But I'd much rather be on my bike.

I can't imagine ever running 26 miles. I can easily imagine riding 200 miles, eventually.



I can wrap my head around speedos. Short shorts, hmm...

Is someone a *little* to tubby to run?
A little bit too much of a belly to wear tri gear?

Dodser

I've run a marathon and done the Wicklow 200. (A bit slower than the earlier post!) I've always felt that they were comparable in effort.

lukester

tunney wrote: »

Is someone a *little* to tubby to run?
A little bit too much of a belly to wear tri gear?

Ooh, cheeky. Certainly not sir, no excess poundage here

I used to run regularly, but suffered from shiin splints. Swimming I dig.

Still can't get my head around those short shorts, the ones with the little slit up the side that give a flash of hairy white thigh. Nosirree.