Cycling equivalent of a Marathon

billyhead · 08-05-2009 02:37PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:49PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:51PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:52PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:55PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:56PM

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 · 08-05-2009 02:58PM

"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 · 08-05-2009 03:02PM

Raam wrote: »

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

lol @ triathletes.

TinyExplosions · 08-05-2009 03:10PM

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 · 08-05-2009 03:15PM

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 · 08-05-2009 03:16PM

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 · 08-05-2009 03:44PM

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 · 08-05-2009 03:45PM

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

Greyspoke · 08-05-2009 03:47PM

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 · 08-05-2009 03:53PM

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 · 08-05-2009 04:08PM

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 · 08-05-2009 04:08PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

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

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

tunney · 08-05-2009 04:28PM

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 · 08-05-2009 04:34PM

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 · 08-05-2009 04:35PM

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.

Greyspoke · 08-05-2009 05:16PM

copacetic wrote: »

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.

On balance, I've probably spent more years running than cycling and have run five sub 3 hour marathons, best 2.48 which is no more than reasonably respectable and I've ridden the W200 a few times over the years as well as other spins up to 250+kms so I've a bit of experience of both sides. I'd agree that if you're talking about riding predominantly on the flat then maybe more like 300kms would equate to a marathon effort but I think to the average cyclist, the challenge of the W200 is quite comparable to the average runner taking on the Dublin marathon. After all 10,000+ are doing the marathon these days while the W200 is still under 2000.

Dodser · 08-05-2009 05:24PM

As it happens I've just got a mail from Wickow 200 admin. Their closing date for entries is this Tuesday for anyone who fancies comparing the difference:rolleyes:

googlehead · 08-05-2009 05:28PM

Marathons are easy, ohh the pain, my legs hurt winge bloody winge:rolleyes:

:D:D

mloc123 · 08-05-2009 05:50PM

I'm doing the w200 this year and ran a half marathon about a month ago, should also be running the full in October so I will compare after each one.

Personal opinion based on the half so far is that running is much tougher..

lukester · 08-05-2009 05:54PM

Highly scientific, not, but avg calories burned per mile of running according to some websites is about 130, so for a marathon, a total of about 3400 calories for someone weighing around 150 lbs.

Cycling at about 12 mph (20 km/h), which is a beginner's pace on something like the W200, burns roughly 25 calories per mile. To achieve the same calorie effort as a marathon you'd need to cycle 220 kms.

So, all very, very rough, and based on internet figures, a marathon would be somewhat equivalent to the W200. Obviously if you cycle faster, the distance would be less. This takes no account of wind, hills, etc.

Quigs Snr · 08-05-2009 07:04PM

I don't think that science comes into comparing one with the other. Its more feel. I would be inclined to think that there is no direct comparisson.

I think it comes down to effort. I could get on my bike this minute and ride 400k at 25kph or more without stopping. I would be tired, but fine after a day or two.

Having done a marathon the destruction I wreaked on my body would be very hard to replicate on a bike, however I think RoK ON and Slideshow are not far away when they mention stage races, day 3 or 4 of a top class race against strong opposition when you are hanging on by the skin of your teeth, that empty pain you get, thats pretty close to a marathon feeling to me.

If you were to do it all in one effort and you are a C rider, head out and do an A race like the Shay Elliot whilst hanging into the faster riders, if you could manage that (and you probably won't), that would be close to a marathon I reckon.

That being said, its all relative, I brought a marathon runner out for a training ride of 100k, tempo pace, he does 2 marathons a year sub 3hrs and was dying on the bike at a modest pace. So for a sub 3hr marathon runner a 100mile cycle at a decent pace might feel like a similar effort, for a cyclist a sub 4hr marathon might feel like a 200 mile cycle in the alpes with Alberto Contador.

sy · 08-05-2009 07:16PM

Reading all the posts I would tend to lean towards the 260km+ on the flat or the W200 to be equivalent to marathon for us ordinary joe soaps.

If you look at the professional athletes, then any of the monument classics(Flanders.Roubaix,Liege etc) which are all 260km+ would be equivalent to a Berlin, Boston, London,NYC marathon. (By the way Lance Armstrong's distress after running the NYC was due to shin splints. He ran the marathon the following year, 15 mins faster and in a lot less pain. Probably found the right doctor!)
I do agree that it is impossible to compare the two disciplines , the ability to freewheel down a hill, if you so wish, is a luxury you can't afford while running:).
A better comparison would be as follows:

The best pro riders will climb Alpe D'Huez in approx 40 mins while the top pro runners will cover 15km in 42 mins in. Alpe D'Huez is approx14 km long with average gradient about 8 or 9 %, so these figures look pretty similar.
So a fair comparison would be a climb 42.2 kms long with same average gradient as Alpe D'Huez:eek: versus a marathon. Pick your choice and remember there will be no freewheeling:eek::eek::eek:
( I agree your feet wont take the same pounding but your ass and shoulders might compensate for that!) I would be curious to see the calorie output required for both.

Mint Sauce · 08-05-2009 07:29PM

this talk is slightly scaring me, am building up for approx 110km later in the summer, depending on how i get on a few other events first and my bodies reaction

(have done a few times ranging from 4hrs 15 to 5hrs 15), still the biggest distance i have done, but as for running, can only manage for a few minutes before having to slow down

for now, thats my marathon

IM0 · 08-05-2009 07:32PM

la marmotte

174km - 5000m climbing (vertical gain), about 7-8hrs OOUCH!

TinyExplosions · 08-05-2009 07:51PM

me@ucd wrote: »

la marmotte

174km - 5000m climbing (vertical gain), about 7-8hrs OOUCH!

Don't remind me of it!

Cycling equivalent of a Marathon

Comments