# Cycling equivalent of a marathon?



## Brandane (22 Apr 2012)

Topical in view of todays London marathon. I was wondering what distance in cycling is considered to be roughly equivalent to running a marathon for your average non athletic type person? Most of us seem to aim for 100 miles as the ultimate distance, although I know there are some on here who do a lot more at the one sitting. Assuming that a reasonably fit person could WALK a marathon in about 7 hours, then a 100 mile cycle must be harder? So perhaps 70 or 80 miles would be a closer comparison?


----------



## Gary E (22 Apr 2012)

Not sure you can calculate it that easily, it depends on the person you're using to draw the comparison.

I did the Sport Relief mile and was knackered at the end but wouldn't think twice about 80 miles on a bike.

Pick a distance that fits you and go for it


----------



## TVC (22 Apr 2012)

Direct comparisons are difficult. The average guy burns 100cals to jog a mile, but uses 50cals to cycle a mile so you might say 52 cycle miles is like a marathon - but clearly it isn't 50 miles on a bike is doable for most reasonably fit people without much preparation, but a marathon isn't.

Cycling takes a more variable power output from heavy climbing to downhill coasting, where as running is a pretty constant activity, so the body harvests energy in different ways.

I'd just go with cycling 100 miles is about the same as a marathon, just by the look of disbelief and pity you get from people when you say you do it.


----------



## zizou (22 Apr 2012)

So dependent on terrain and speed and also what the individual is trained for. Imo on a flat route then a sub 3.5 hour marathon is similar to a sub 5 hour solo century...both would require similar levels of training and dedication to manage.

Due to impact running takes alot more out the body, so running a marathon on consecutive days is something that would be much harder to do for a fit runner than doing consecutive centuries for a fit cyclist. 

Walking a marathon is a different story though


----------



## Gary E (22 Apr 2012)

My Marathon (which I haven't achieved yet) is to ride from where I live to my mums place in Nottingham, a distance of 135 miles.

It's the fact that it's out of my reach at the moment (up to 90 miles so far though) that makes it a challenge.


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Apr 2012)

The cycling version would be a constant slight uphill in an ideal world. As an example my commute in a high headwind is really hardwork. Not only is it extra resistance but it also means you do not take many rests while still moving. Running is constant energy drain.


----------



## Pottsy (22 Apr 2012)

I've seen this debated a few times. There are lots of variables around conditions, type of course and of course the individual involved. 

Personally to do a good run, say sub 4 hours in a marathon, is in my opinion harder than 100 miles on a bike. So I'd go for about 5 times, say 125 miles.


----------



## PoweredByVeg (22 Apr 2012)

I was absolutely f****d after running a 5k but after cycling a 210k audax was still smiling 

So a marathon is just way out of my league but I'd happily cycle all day


----------



## Gary E (22 Apr 2012)

Anyway, shouldn't we be calling them Snickers now?


----------



## jay clock (22 Apr 2012)

Having done an Ironman last year it is hard to say. I would vote for a much longer bike ride as a comparison. My IM times were 6:25 for 180k bike and 5:21 for the run. For me, a ride of about 250k would be the equivalent. On a road bike! A lot less laden with panniers on tour.


----------



## Melonfish (23 Apr 2012)

ah, got this one sorted,
At my weight if i ran the london marathon i should be expected to burn 3.5k calories according to a few internet calculatortrons.
so, to burn that on my bike i should apparently cycle at between 13-16mph for about 3hours and 40 mins
which is oddly a good time on the london marathon.
but then thats just me, everyone will be different.


----------



## Panter (23 Apr 2012)

For me, personally, I think it would be closer to 500 miles (wild guess)

I can cycle 100 miles just fine (well, hurts a bit, big effort etc but it's doable) whereas just 4 miles running leaves me exhausted and aching for a week.
I can't comprehend running 26 miles, especially in a sniff over 2 Hours


----------



## screenman (23 Apr 2012)

melonfish, 35,000 calories in 3 hour 40 minutes, are you sure?


----------



## Crankarm (23 Apr 2012)

Why run 26 miles when you can either drive or ride it  ?


----------



## HLaB (23 Apr 2012)

I conservatively use the formula that walking takes 4 times as long or a 1/4 of the speed of cycling and running takes 2.5-3 times as long. The winner of the London Marathon done it in just over 2 hours (12.5mph), back of the fag packet calcs, that's the equivelant of cycling around 90 miles @ over 35mph


----------



## Crackle (23 Apr 2012)

Didn't we have this a little while ago and didn't people think it was more than a hundred miles. A hundred hilly miles or a hundred flat are two different prospects anyway. If you look at your HR on a ride it's like a sawtooth, so you get rests on the bike which is weight bearing anyway, you don't get that running, HR is one long continuous line. I certainly find running a lot harder and running any distance requires a lot more consistency but what's equivalent, no real idea.


----------



## Dragonwight (23 Apr 2012)

Running a marathon in 2hrs would be uber hard but then these are elite athletes doing it in those times it would be like comparing yourself to say mark cavendish. You might not do it in 2hrs but most people in reasonable condition could do a marathon with some prep and a bit of practise on your technique.


----------



## pubrunner (23 Apr 2012)

A marathon (once which is run, not walked) is *much* harder than a 100 mile bike ride. I did the Cheshire Cat 100, a few years ago, on the back of a solitary 50 mile training ride - and in any given month, I cycle just 25 - 50 miles. It was hard, but the next day, I felt no after effects at all. I've run about 15 marathons - some off-road, in times varying from 3 - 5 hours; afterwards, I'm *always* entirely drained. Merely walking, is usually painful for quite a few days afterwards.

The big advantage of cycling, is that riders can scoff all manner of calorie-laden foods whilst on the move - thus delaying the time at which fatigue is reached.

For most (trained) runners, fatigue sets in after about 18 miles/2 hours of running. From this point, there is *always* going to be a net loss in terms of energy expended, in relation to intake of calories.

When I did the Cheshire Cat, I scoffed doughnuts, pasties etc., thus enabling me to have the energy to keep on going.

For a 'fair' comparison can only be made, a cyclist would need to be restricted to having the same calorie intake of a runner.


----------



## VamP (23 Apr 2012)

Somebody has already made the point above, but to reiterate - distance is nothing, intensity is everything. Using caloric comparisons is pointless. I thought zizou's comparison was in the right ballpark.


----------



## pubrunner (23 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> Somebody has already made the point above, but to reiterate - distance is nothing, intensity is everything.


 
This is only partially true; most runners will have depleted glycogen stores after approx. 2 hours. Yes, if they run/walk slowly, it will take longer to run out of glycogen, but they will run out ! And despite taking copious amounts of energy drinks, there will still be a net loss; when this occurs, there is a rapid decrease in performance.

It takes much longer for a cyclist to reach the same state, because they *can* ingest calorie-laden food, much more effectively.



VamP said:


> Using caloric comparisons is pointless.


 
No it isn't; it is important to realise, that it isn't just about* burning* calories, but also about calorie *consumption*. Cyclists do have the massive 'advantage', of being able to carry & consume solid food
whilst on the move. This enables them to 'preserve' their 'tank' of carbs from getting anywhere near depleted.


----------



## VamP (23 Apr 2012)

pubrunner said:


> This is only partially true; most runners will have depleted glycogen stores after approx. 2 hours. Yes, if they run/walk slowly, it will take longer to run out of glycogen, but they will run out ! And despite taking copious amounts of energy drinks, there will still be a net loss; when this occurs, there is a rapid decrease in performance.
> 
> It takes much longer for a cyclist to reach the same state, because they *can* ingest calorie-laden food, much more effectively.
> 
> ...


 
While that is not a point I would entirely disagree with, I do think you're overstating it. When I ran my marathons, I just drank energy drinks (this was before gels). When I am in a long cycling race (OK I don't do much over 3 hours) I will just drink an energy drink or take a gel. At the intensities I'm going at I cannot eat, cycling or running. Others may be able to. In any case, energy drinks are enough to keep going for 4 hours running or cycling, without an excessive performance drop, if you are fully fuelled up at the start.

If you're not at maximum sustainable intensity (cycling or running) then taking on more carbs becomes feasible. So again, all comes back to the intensity at which you do the race.

Obviously just riding a 100 miles at leisurely pace is a pretty easy thing to do, and definitely less hard than completing a marathon. Same distance at near threshold is a very different thing.


----------



## dandare (23 Apr 2012)

I would say racing a 100 miles not just riding it would be the equivalent of a marathon.


----------



## Mugshot (23 Apr 2012)

I will on occasions get up in the morning and having looked out of the window decide to take the short route to work (3 and a bit miles) usually when its howling and lashing and freezing, it is not unusual for my commute on these mornings to feel like the equivalent of a marathon


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Apr 2012)

I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.


----------



## MattHB (23 Apr 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.



I feel so inferior only being able to do 60 miles right now! All these riders easily doing 100 miles, seemingly in their sleep.


----------



## BrumJim (23 Apr 2012)

Don't worry. I'm doing my first ever 100 miles next weekend. Feeling a strange mixture of nervous and confident. Did 40 miles at a fair pace, finished with killer hills and felt very much alive at the end. But still no where near 100 miles. Will report back on my experience.


----------



## Trickedem (23 Apr 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.


I'd agree. I did the London marathon a few times in my 30s. Despite training hard I couldn't walk downstairs for a few days after. 20 years later I can easily do a century with no ill affects and could happily do another the next day.


----------



## MrJamie (24 Apr 2012)

A marathon takes a lot of training even for most runners to run completely. Most people who cycle regularly can cycle a pretty big distance if pushed.

You could probably compare a professional level 2 hour race by distance, but at amateur level a slower efficient cyclist would probably go even more times as far relatively.


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Apr 2012)

I have done 4 marathons and it is very hard to tell you how far to ride to make it the equivalent of a marathon. You have to decide yourself but this is how you judge it.

You ride and ride and ride. Then you ride some more until you get to a stage where all your energy reserves are totally gone. You get to the stage where you think all the muscle in your legs has evaporated and you only have leg bones to balance on. Then you ride some more where every stroke is agony and if you get off the bike you fall over.

I think it will be a long, long cycle ride 

Better still go and do a marathon first and then you will know how it is supposed to feel. 

Steve


----------



## MattHB (24 Apr 2012)

Thing is, if you made a marathon runner try to do a century on a bike, wouldnt they find it as hard to do as we would do a marathon?

So really were talking about what is the peak achievement of both sports, which will obviously require different training. because of that, the question should really be 'what's achievement will put me at the top of my game?' rather than comparing like for like?


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Apr 2012)

Matt, No they wouldn`t. 

I am pretty sure a most successful marathon runners would manage a 100 mile cycle ride, as they are aerobically fit enough and have the mental stamina to do it. They probably wouldn`t ride as fast as a club rider and would certainly be uncomfortable.

Running a marathon is a whole different experience on the body, especially the legs. Even running a marathon slowly is tough.

I have ran marathons and ridden long distances. Give me a bike, anyday.

You cannot compare the two events and I don`t think that this is a serious post trying to do that. It is more of a what if!!

Steve


----------



## pubrunner (24 Apr 2012)

MattHB said:


> Thing is, if you made a marathon runner try to do a century on a bike, wouldnt they find it as hard to do as we would do a marathon?


 
No, *nothing* like as tough ! I've done over a dozen marathons, but just one 100 miler - the Cheshire Cat. The CC was hard, 'cos the second half was quite hilly. The next day, I didn't know I'd done it. I did the CC, entirely on a background of running. I think that a flat 100 mile, would possibly equate to a very hard run 10 mile race.



steveindenmark said:


> Matt, No they wouldn`t.
> I am pretty sure a most successful marathon runners would manage a 100 mile cycle ride, as they are aerobically fit enough and have the mental stamina to do it.


 
An experienced runner would certainly have both the mental stamina and aerobic ability to do a flat 100 quite comfortably.


----------



## dandare (24 Apr 2012)

There is a world of difference between riding a 100 miles and racing a 100 miles.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

Cycling equivalent of a marathon?

Get off your bike and run just over 26 miles.

I think that would be roughly the same.


----------



## pubrunner (25 Apr 2012)

dandare said:


> There is a world of difference between riding a 100 miles and racing a 100 miles.


 
Of course there is; but as has already been mentioned . . . . . . .



steveindenmark said:


> Running a marathon is a whole different experience on the body, especially the legs. *Even running a marathon slowly is tough*.
> 
> Steve


 
A friend of mine was/is a top-level cyclist - being the first person ever to win the National 25 & 50 TT Champs in the same year; many years ago, on a 531 framed bike, with no aerodynamc aids, he did 479.5 miles in 24 hours. He has never taken it easy on a bike ! 

He states that *nothing* (in his considerable experience) compares with the pain of the marathon. Admittedly, he only started running in his 40s, but in his 60s, he was still doing under 2:55 for a marathon, which in that age group, is a very high standard.

During my many years in the running community, I've known quite a few runners who have come into the sport - having previously been involved cycling at a competitive level. I've also known a few runners who have gone into cycling. 

Interestingly though, of the two groups, the cyclists who have gone into running have always been more (relatively) successful.


----------



## pubrunner (25 Apr 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> I have done 4 marathons and it is very hard to tell you how far to ride to make it the equivalent of a marathon. You have to decide yourself but this is how you judge it.
> 
> You ride and ride and ride. Then you ride some more until you get to a stage where all your energy reserves are totally gone. You get to the stage where you think all the muscle in your legs has evaporated and you only have leg bones to balance on. Then you ride some more where every stroke is agony and if you get off the bike you fall over.
> 
> ...


 
Very well described  ; only those who have done a marathon can understand what it is like.


----------



## Smokin Joe (25 Apr 2012)

dandare said:


> There is a world of difference between riding a 100 miles and racing a 100 miles.


There is, but pro riders can race over 100 miles a day in a three week Grand Tour which includes stages going over mountains and most of the 200 strong field will finish the race. Ask the 200 best long distance runners in the world to do a marathon a day for three weeks and see how long even the strongest would last.


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Apr 2012)

You are right Joe. How those pros can do that is astounding. There are some total headcases who go out and run multiple marathons day after day as well and that beggers belief.

It is 2 totally different disciplines and even though leg muscles are being used in different ways. The runners legs and joints take a real beating and that is a big factor.

Plus the fact that there is no drafting in a marathon  Now that really does make a difference.

Steve


----------



## TheSandwichMonster (25 Apr 2012)

I was chatting with some audaxer-types the other day and the general consensus was that a 300km ride was roughly equivalent to a marathon. Having done neither, I don't know if this is true...


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Apr 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles.


 
Really? I can only piss a couple of metres, max.


----------

