Cycling equivalent of a Marathon

Dub13 · 07-05-2009 10:09PM #1

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 · 07-05-2009 10:17PM

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 · 07-05-2009 10:18PM

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 · 07-05-2009 10:32PM

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 · 07-05-2009 10:39PM

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

victorcarrera · 07-05-2009 10:43PM

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 · 07-05-2009 10:44PM

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 · 07-05-2009 10:57PM

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 · 07-05-2009 11:20PM

1 ras = 1 marathon

Lumen · 07-05-2009 11:21PM

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 · 07-05-2009 11:24PM

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 · 07-05-2009 11:29PM

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 · 07-05-2009 11:32PM

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 · 07-05-2009 11:53PM

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 · 08-05-2009 12:03AM

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

short circuit · 08-05-2009 08:35AM

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 · 08-05-2009 08:58AM

eggie wrote: »

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

about 3 miles then

tunney · 08-05-2009 10:36AM

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 · 08-05-2009 10:50AM

Cycling = Running x 6.

Raam · 08-05-2009 10:51AM

tunney wrote: »

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

A ha ha, that's a good one

Greyspoke · 08-05-2009 11:34AM

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 · 08-05-2009 11:53AM

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 · 08-05-2009 12:03PM

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 · 08-05-2009 01:16PM

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 · 08-05-2009 01:24PM

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

TinyExplosions · 08-05-2009 01:41PM

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

Nietzschean · 08-05-2009 02:26PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:29PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:31PM

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

Raam · 08-05-2009 02:35PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:36PM

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

Cycling equivalent of a Marathon

Comments