# Cycling equivelant to marathon



## crossy (7 Sep 2011)

I've come from a running back ground the big thing in that world is the marathon 26.2 miles is there a cycling equivelant i.e distance in miles as don't do kilometers if I can help it.


----------



## WychwoodTrev (7 Sep 2011)

I believe it would be the 100 mile sportive,


----------



## mcshroom (7 Sep 2011)

I think it would have to be longer than that. 

A 300km Audax would be my best approximation, although what that would make the 1200km Paris-Brest-Paris or the 1400k London-Edinburgh-London I don't know.


----------



## albion (7 Sep 2011)

The nature of cycling means it would have to be a time trial.I rate the Styrkeprøven at 520KM as quite a marathon.


----------



## mcshroom (7 Sep 2011)

That's a thought, there are some 24hr TTs around as well


----------



## ianrauk (7 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> I believe it would be the 100 mile sportive,



to short.
I would say 250 miles at least.


----------



## oldfatfool (7 Sep 2011)

I would say you can easily walk a marathon in 7 hours, so I would guess the equivalent on a bike would be how far you can cycle, say 150 miles without any major climbs?


----------



## xxmimixx (7 Sep 2011)

I asked a similar question in this thread


----------



## WychwoodTrev (7 Sep 2011)

ianrauk said:


> to short.
> I would say 250 miles at least.





Thats longer than most tour stages 

a 100 miler would take a decent cyclist 4 hrs a av cyclist 5 hrs

how long to run a marathon ? 3 or 4hrs

Not many 250 mile events in this country 

now over in france they have 24hr cycle races on tracks like Le mans that would be cool


----------



## mcshroom (7 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> Thats longer than most tour stages
> 
> a 100 miler would take a decent cyclist 4 hrs a av cyclist 5 hrs
> 
> ...



If you look in the Audax calendar there's quite a few 400km rides (248.6mi) They do have a 30km/h maximum speed though so they are not quite the same.

These distances are longer than tour stages, but tour riders do stages day after day. It's very unlikely a professional marathon runner could run back to back marathons. They are very different sports so it's hard to equate the two really


----------



## sean8997 (7 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> Thats longer than most tour stages
> 
> a 100 miler would take a decent cyclist 4 hrs a av cyclist 5 hrs
> 
> ...




I did my 1st 100 miler in 6hr 32 min so must make me a below average cyclist!!!! bad times!!!


----------



## DrSquirrel (7 Sep 2011)

That's rubbish, 5hours is 20mph for the 100miles, and 4hours is significantly more. From knowing the record of the 100 course here, that is tosh... utter tosh.


----------



## martint235 (7 Sep 2011)

DrSquirrel said:


> That's rubbish, 5hours is 20mph for the 100miles, and 4hours is significantly more. From knowing the record of the 100 course here, that is tosh... utter tosh.



You got there first. I was going to say I think that for a normal (ie one of us) cyclist, 6 hours for 100 miles over varying terrain is either good going or average. I know I can do it so I'd tend to put it towards average as I know people quicker than me.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Sep 2011)

I dont know of any 100 mile pure cycling races, so the closest thing I can compare is the Ironman bike leg at 112 mile, the male elites get around on time trial bikes in full aero attire in about 4:10 to 4:30 (course dependant). Thats ELITE level althletes! In fact at the recent challenge Roth event, the winner, did the 112 miles in 4:11.

So to concludes, 4 hours for 100 miles is well above "decent" and 5 hours is well above "average".


Time for a reality check.


----------



## captainhastings (7 Sep 2011)

I don't see how you can draw a comparison really. For my self when I do a 15 miler on the bike caning up hills I like to think its roughly like a 5 mile run.
They don't feel any thing alike though. The run I hardly break a sweat or get out of breath at my pace and I am used to it but there is no let up on the muscles. The cycle on the hills by the time I hit the top I will be gasping for air but I get a recover going back down. So it is all swings and round abouts


----------



## Bobtoo (7 Sep 2011)

How does cycling compare with running in terms of energy used?


----------



## superbadger (7 Sep 2011)

I would have to say getting a century on a bike would be about the same as a runner doing a marathon..

They are both distance events that require the correct stamina,pace and mental strength to complete. Yes there are cyclists who can do double centuries but there are also runners who can do 7 marathons in 7 days!!!
So an ordinary guy who has to push himself to the limits to complete a marathon.... i think would have to do the same for a century. They both have the wall that nearly breaks you!!! I think for marathon runners its usualy around 20 miles and for cyclists somewhere after 75 miles. This is just an opinion though .

God i love Democracy....


----------



## montage (7 Sep 2011)

A time trial which takes roughly the same amount of time as it takes you to run a marathon...

100 miles at a pace easy for you could be deemed easier than a 1500m running race, and a marathon at a pace easy for you could be deemed easier than a half mile hill climb.

It's all about intensity....though obviously a marathon will cause more damage/stress to the body


----------



## Panter (8 Sep 2011)

I imagine it would depend on the individual?
For me, 100 miles on the bike would be no big deal (not easy, and it takes me all day  ) but not too bad.
Running 26 miles? not a hope in hell. Ever.


----------



## MacB (8 Sep 2011)

I think there is an equivalence but it will depend on the individual, and assuming they have both their running and cycling legs sorted. I'd rank it around time and workrate, if it takes you 7 hours to walk a marathon then the cycling equivalent would be cycling at the same output level for 7 hours as well, and on down to the faster times.

Assuming it's non stop then you'd really need to keep the cycling course fairly flat and do it on fixed gear to ensure no breaks.


----------



## cisamcgu (8 Sep 2011)

montage said:


> though obviously a marathon will cause more damage/stress to the body



I think this is the point. As was said earlier, any reasonably fit person can walk a marathon in 7-9 hours, the same as any reasonable fit person (saddle sore issues aside) could ride a flat 100 miles in under 10 hours. 

But ... tell someone you walked a marathon and they are not impressed, tell someone you ran one and they are mightily impressed regardless of the time, but the same is not true for riding, the important thing when riding is the time, 4 hours is very quick, 10 hours isn't.

I don't think I have explained this very well


----------



## doog (8 Sep 2011)

superbadger said:


> I would have to say getting a century on a bike would be about the same as a runner doing a marathon..



I kind of disagree. Im a runner and a cyclist. Having done several 100 mile days in the saddle followed by a 140 miler (all one day after the other) I wouldnt even compare that in physical effort to running 20 miles, let alone a marathon.

I think to compare you would have to be looking at 200 hard miles on the bike to equate with running an easy marathon (easy as in not trying to bust a gut)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

My initial experience was that cycling was about 4 times easier than running. So a 36 mile run to me equates to 104 mile ride.


----------



## twobiker (8 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> Thats longer than most tour stages
> 
> a 100 miler would take a decent cyclist 4 hrs a av cyclist 5 hrs
> 
> ...


I would say that I am an average cyclist and my 100mls took me 7 hrs without stops, that's over Dartmoor to start and finish though and solo, It would be a lot easier somewhere flat.


----------



## amaferanga (8 Sep 2011)

IMO any remotely valid comparison would have to be between a marathon and a Time Trial on the bike. Comparing a marathon to just a bike ride (where you can and will rest on the down hill, stop at junctions, etc.) doesn't work. My gut feeling is something like a 150mile TT ridden so that you can barely ride another mile at the end of it (i.e. in the same state as one would expect to be after a hard marathon run) would be roughly equivalent to a marathon. 

No way is any 100 mile bike ride no matter how hard you try close to a marathon equivalent.


----------



## superbadger (8 Sep 2011)

Hmmmm.... some good points in this and i sway to the last post.... But if you look at the guys on the left.... the cyclist beats the runner!!!! (unless the bike breaks!)


----------



## dodgy (8 Sep 2011)

I think this article gets it about right for me and my experiences as a cyclist and runner.

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-vs-cycling-burning-calories.html


----------



## oldfatfool (8 Sep 2011)

amaferanga said:


> IMO any remotely valid comparison would have to be between a marathon and a Time Trial on the bike. Comparing a marathon to just a bike ride (where you can and will rest on the down hill, stop at junctions, etc.) doesn't work. My gut feeling is something like a 150mile TT ridden so that you can barely ride another mile at the end of it (i.e. in the same state as one would expect to be after a hard marathon run) would be roughly equivalent to a marathon.
> 
> No way is any 100 mile bike ride no matter how hard you try close to a marathon equivalent.



Hmm but having thought more about this (sad i know) a marathon is generally on a flat course compared to a bike ride, and the runner is only carrying his own weight and not the weight of a bike and equipment. Given that you don't get anything for nothing energy in = energy out etc, then you would have to conclude that over the same course the cyclist requires more energy than the runner. 

The problem is how this energy is delivered ie high impact and low impact so the runner feels it more than the cyclist. The conclusion as to be, why run when you can bike


----------



## montage (8 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My initial experience was that cycling was about 4 times easier than running. So a 36 mile run to me equates to 104 mile ride.



superman.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Hmm but having thought more about this (sad i know) a marathon is generally on a flat course compared to a bike ride, and the runner is only carrying his own weight and not the weight of a bike and equipment. Given that you don't get anything for nothing energy in = energy out etc, then you would have to conclude that over the same course the cyclist requires more energy than the runner.
> 
> The problem is how this energy is delivered ie high impact and low impact so the runner feels it more than the cyclist. The conclusion as to be, why run when you can bike



The cyclist can also freewheel, if the runner stops moving their legs, they come to a stop. Also on a bike, you arent carrying your own weight, your weight is being carried by the machine. Not forgetting that running utilises a larger muscle group.


----------



## captainhastings (8 Sep 2011)

dodgy said:


> I think this article gets it about right for me and my experiences as a cyclist and runner.
> 
> http://davesbikeblog...g-calories.html




Good article and feels about right too me too I have been doing a 15-20 mile ride instead of my normal 5 mile run due too injury and it sort of feels the same amount of effort just in a different way.
Not that it matters one jot at the end of the day as long as I am doing some thing


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Sep 2011)

montage said:


> superman.



That should have been 26 mile btw


----------



## twobiker (8 Sep 2011)

The London marathon course seems to be fairly flat and therefore there wouldn't be much chance for freewheeling if you rode it on a bike, its not like with like, its just the runners trying to make out its harder than cycling, the kenyans don't seem to find it that hard, if you had to run 26mls where I live it would take a lot longer than 4hrs, don't forget runners don't have to stop at red lights.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> The cyclist can also freewheel, if the runner stops moving their legs, they come to a stop. Also on a bike, you arent carrying your own weight, your weight is being carried by the machine. Not forgetting that running utilises a larger muscle group.



I have to disagree with most points you make, in order to freewheel the cyclist must have provided the stored energy in the bike to allow it to move, it is not free it as to come from somewhere. You are still carrying your own weight on a bike, be it through your arse bone or your feet, you are also having to provide the energy to move the extra weight of the bike, they don't come with a lifetimes supply of free kinetic energy from the lbs.

Yes the way in which your body supplies the energy as greater impact with running and it is a lot less efficient (greater heat loss) but the actual kinetic energy used will be greater in cycling. Kinetic energy = 1/2 MV[sup]2 [/sup](M = mass, V = velocity)

The bike does come with free potential energy but this is only converted to kinetic energy by the input of the rider or some external force eg. gravity, downhill. Unfortunately in order for gravity to provide 'free' energy the bike as got to be at the top of a hill, in order to get to the top of the hill and freewheel then gravity must be overcome in the first place and the extra energy to do this is =[sub]>[/sub] the 'free' energy on the other side. 

It is only due to the inefficiencies of running and the fact that it is a high impact activity over a LONGER PERIOD for the equivalent distance that it is more draining on the body. I will stick to with my own conclusions

a) A marathon is a marathon in terms of energy required to move an equivalent weight an equivalent distance (not taking into account heat losses through friction etc etc)

b) In order to replicate a marathon on a bike (to take stamina heat loss etc in to effect) it will be a distance slightly shorter that the average person can cycle in the time it took the same average person to do the marathon.

c) If you have any sense you are better off cycling than running

edit: just read the article refferred to above which would appear broadly agree with my statement b) ie if the average person takes 4 1/2 hours to complete a marathon then the equivelent is a 41/2 hour bike ride, from the article that would mean cycling at an average of 18 mph 

ie a marathon 26 miles, costs a runner 2860 cals in order to burn this number of calories over 4.5 hours a cyclist must burn 635p/h ie approx 18 mph and hence 81 miles on a bike = a marathon in terms of calories (less than I originally thought in my 1st post)

Don't get me wrong, I can cycle 81 miles and on the flat probably do it in 4.5 hours, I can walk 26 miles and not break a sweat, and according to the article both will cost me the same amount of energy and be equal to running the 26 mile at any speed. COULD I RUN A MARATHON could I coco


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I have to disagree with most points you make, in order to freewheel the cyclist must have provided the stored energy in the bike to allow it to move, it is not free it as to come from somewhere. You are still carrying your own weight on a bike, be it through your arse bone or your feet, you are also having to provide the energy to move the extra weight of the bike, they don't come with a lifetimes supply of free kinetic energy from the lbs.
> 
> Yes the way in which your body supplies the energy as greater impact with running and it is a lot less efficient (greater heat loss) but the actual kinetic energy used will be greater in cycling. Kinetic energy = 1/2 MV[sup]2 [/sup](M = mass, V = velocity)
> 
> ...


My 16yr old daughter rode 81 miles on an old Hybrid bike with knobblies, the time element is the difference, you can do a marathon in a diving suit, it depends how long you want to take.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> The London marathon course seems to be fairly flat and therefore there wouldn't be much chance for freewheeling if you rode it on a bike, its not like with like, its just the runners trying to make out its harder than cycling, the kenyans don't seem to find it that hard, if you had to run 26mls where I live it would take a lot longer than 4hrs, don't forget runners don't have to stop at red lights.



You can still momentarily relax by freewheeling even on the flat. As for the red light thing, then go running and find out for yourself, not stopping, means no rests. In addition, coming from my experience, green lights are the runners enemy as they stop your progress when you cant cross a road and either have to stop or run detours to keep moving.



oldfatfool said:


> I have to disagree with most points you make, in order to freewheel the cyclist must have provided the stored energy in the bike to allow it to move, it is not free it as to come from somewhere. You are still carrying your own weight on a bike, be it through your arse bone or your feet, you are also having to provide the energy to move the extra weight of the bike, they don't come with a lifetimes supply of free kinetic energy from the lbs.
> 
> Yes the way in which your body supplies the energy as greater impact with running and it is a lot less efficient (greater heat loss) but the actual kinetic energy used will be greater in cycling. Kinetic energy = 1/2 MV[sup]2 [/sup](M = mass, V = velocity)
> 
> ...



On a bike your body does not need to support itself to the extent it does when running, in addition a larger muscle group is used running due to the more complex motion, plus the muscles required to stabilise the body consume energy.

Also when running the direction of the forces your body must exert and overcome are presented differently to when cycling, so your equations for a 'point object' are not very illustrative here (btw I'm fairly familiar with high school physics). Cycling you are essentially pushing mostly downwards (even an efficient rider with a smooth pedal stroke will most be pushing downward), this application of force is aided greatly by body weight, in running not only is your weight supported by your muscular system, your major effort is to progress forward, involving a complex motion that involves downward and backwards forces which must be balanced with frictional forces.

The bicycle essentially converts downward force (aided by body weight) to forward motion, running involves overcoming downward forces in order to progress forward. You can talk about inertia here being that both sports require you to overcome inerta if you really want to, it doesnt make much difference to the arguement though.

I think you are vastly over simplifying the science here, to get to the bottom of the science is beyond the scope of this thread really imo.


In downright, equivalent terms of difficulty between a marathon and a set cycling distance, you would not only need to exert similar levels of exertion on the energy supply systems, but also give the body an equal battering and the mind a mental battering. Its just daft to reduce this comparison to the body's energy systems and silly high school equations which barely apply. IMHO in the real world they just arent comparable.


----------



## Bobtoo (9 Sep 2011)

Cycling becomes less efficient as you go faster due to wind resistance, while on foot the efficiency is much the same regardless of speed. That's why there can never be an equivalent based on distance alone.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> In downright, equivalent terms of difficulty between a marathon and a set cycling distance, you would not only need to exert similar levels of exertion on the energy supply systems, but also give the body an equal battering and the mind a mental battering. Its just daft to reduce this comparison to the body's energy systems and silly high school equations which barely apply. IMHO in the real world they just arent comparable.



Well of course I have simplified the science, but to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics (and how the universe operates) as silly school equations which don't apply is just ludicrous 

The faster you run a marathon the quicker you will burn the 2900 cals but at the end it will still be 2900 cals. 

So to be accurate and compare a run to a cycle we would have to have the cyclist burning the same 2900 cals in the same time, same expenditure of energy over the same time, OR completing 26 miles and having done so expanded 2900 cals. which looking at the table from the above link would have the cyclist averaging approx 55 mph for approx 35 mins.

I would argue that the latter would be mentally and physically more taxing than running the marathon, but the same amount of energy is used. 

I agree it is impossible to compare the two in real life, a good runner may be a crap cyclist and vice versa so the only way you can express it is by looking at the energy required.


----------



## amaferanga (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Well of course I have simplified the science, but to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics (and how the universe operates) as silly school equations which don't apply is just ludicrous
> 
> The faster you run a marathon the quicker you will burn the 2900 cals but at the end it will still be 2900 cals.
> 
> ...




I would argue that the latter would be impossible by a long, long way. The Wattage required to do that (around 1380W) would be way way beyond what any person could do. 1380W for 5 seconds would be considered pretty decent for a world class sprinter! Even to burn 2900kCal in 2 hours would require a Wattage of around 400W. For the hour record set by Boardman his power output was around 445W so I doubt anyone could average 400W for two hours.

But as has been pointed out and alluded to several times there's more to it than just the energy used since cycling isn't weight bearing.


----------



## twobiker (9 Sep 2011)

crossy said:


> I've come from a running back ground the big thing in that world is the marathon 26.2 miles is there a cycling equivelant i.e distance in miles as don't do kilometers if I can help it.


Perhaps if you tell us how long a marathon takes you then maybe the answer would be clearer?.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

amaferanga said:


> I would argue that the latter would be impossible by a long, long way. The Wattage required to do that (around 1380W) would be way way beyond what any person could do. 1380W for 5 seconds would be considered pretty decent for a world class sprinter! Even to burn 2900kCal in 2 hours would require a Wattage of around 400W. For the hour record set by Boardman his power output was around 445W so I doubt anyone could average 400W for two hours.



 true, but this extreme proves my point when folks are saying running is harder than cycling, it all depends on the time over which the energy is delivered.



amaferanga said:


> But as has been pointed out and alluded to several times there's more to it than just the energy used since cycling isn't weight bearing.



It is still weight bearing, just on a differant part of the anatomy and with lower pressure due to greater surface area, and cycling is a low impact activity ie your entire weight is not being transferred through a couple of sq " with every step as it is with running, instead on a bike the bulk is constant through the size of your bum, (larger arse less effort?????)

If you where to stand the entire time on your pedals then maybe the comparison would be closer??


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Well of course I have simplified the science, but to dismiss the laws of thermodynamics (and how the universe operates) as silly school equations which don't apply is just ludicrous
> 
> The faster you run a marathon the quicker you will burn the 2900 cals but at the end it will still be 2900 cals.
> 
> ...



Forgetting that this arguement is completelly stupid in the real world, where do pull that the amount of energy used would be the same from?



oldfatfool said:


> true, but this extreme proves my point when folks are saying running is harder than cycling, it all depends on the time over which the energy is delivered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesnt prove your point at all. You might consider it proved, but I think that you are talking bollocks.

Its idle weight baring on your sit bones, that weight is supported for you, when running all of your weight is supported by the skeletal and muscular system, if you cant see that this is different then I'm at a loss.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> then I'm at a loss.


I can tell from your reasoned and well thought out argument 

To give you a simile. If you try to lift a 50 kg weight through 1 mtr then the amount of energy you need will be X we will call this the runner. It will be hard. 

If you then attach a system of ropes and pulleys you can make the job much easier but at the end of the day the amount of energy to move the weight 1m will still be X ie the same. (this is your cyclist)


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I can tell from your reasoned and well thought out argument



As opposed to yours?


----------



## PorkyPies (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> It doesnt prove your point at all. You might consider it proved, but I think that you are talking bollocks.
> 
> Its idle weight baring on your sit bones, that weight is supported for you, when running all of your weight is supported by the skeletal and muscular system, if you cant see that this is different then I'm at a loss.



I agree with you. You have a point and old guy dosn;t.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

I give up with the yoof of today and their education


----------



## PorkyPies (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I give up with the yoof of today and their education



Your powers are getting weaker every year old man. Us youngun's who have finished uni are the future, and the future is bright. You old guys ruined this county, now leave it to us to repair it.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I give up with the yoof of today and their education



Well your performance on this thread doesnt say much for your old school education, or your common sense and life experience for that matter.

BTW, you might want to consider some of the contributers accomplishments and/or expertise here before you insult their education.



You also seem to have missed something regarding the age of the typical demographic who post here on this forum.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

The one thing that is being over looked here is that people who do well at running marathons are runners and people who do well at long distance cycling are cyclists. Is the 100mtr sprint at world record pace harder than a world record marathon time? Is it harder to fight at flyweight or heavyweight? People condition their bodies for given disciplines. If we are to get an good comparison we need to ask a tri-athlete which is harder.


----------



## Bman (9 Sep 2011)

WychwoodTrev said:


> Thats longer than most tour stages
> 
> a 100 miler would take a decent cyclist 4 hrs a av cyclist 5 hrs
> 
> ...



I would love to take my road bike to Donnington Park.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The one thing that is being over looked here is that people who do well at running marathons are runners and people who do well at long distance cycling are cyclists. Is the 100mtr sprint at world record pace harder than a world record marathon time? Is it harder to fight at flyweight or heavyweight? People condition their bodies for given disciplines. If we are to get an good comparison we need to ask a tri-athlete which is harder.



I run and cycle in equal parts (as you know) as seperate entities, I'm not at a high level in either sport, but in my experience running is more tiring and most certainly harder on the body, in terms of psychological difficulty, well they both have different challenges for me. I would say that running a half marathon at an aerobic effort is more tiring than 75 miles on the bike in an equivalent HR zone. I havent ran a marathon (yet) so couldnt comment that far. Ask me again at the end of April.

You also have experience of both sports Angelsolofish, so I'm a bit surprised you dont have much of an opinion.

Maybe JayClock will offer his input, being an Ironman distance triathlete or Fimm as a triathlete.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I run and cycle in equal parts (as you know), I'm not at a high level in either sport, but in my experience running is more tiring and most certainly harder on the body, in terms of psychological difficulty, well they both have different challenges for me. I would say that running a half marathon at an aerobic effort is more tiring than 75 miles on the bike in an equivalent HR zone. I havent ran a marathon so couldnt comment that far.
> 
> Maybe JayClock will offer his input, being an Ironman distance triathlete.



Yes but how long have you been running for and how long have you been cycling?


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes but how long have you been running for and how long have you been cycling?



Several years in both sports. Cycling slightly longer (however very little endurance work), however I excel more at distance running than I do at cycling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Several years.



It could be you are better suited to cycling than running then.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It could be you are better suited to cycling than running then.



Read my edit, sorry was too slow.

However I am not arguing the absolute difficulty of either sport, I only mention it because you comment. My main arguement was that the comparison oldfatbloke was presenting was majorly flawed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Read my edit, sorry was too slow.
> 
> However I am not arguing the absolute difficulty of either sport, I only mention it because you comment. My main arguement was that the comparison oldfatbloke was presenting was majorly flawed.



Ok interesting. 

When I used to run I found the effort required to get around a half marathon course about the same as I now require to do a 60 miler. I am older and heavier than I was back then as well. I base this on reading my training / racing diaries and recorded recovery times.


----------



## PorkyPies (9 Sep 2011)

Bongman said:


> I would love to take my road bike to Donnington Park.



You mean like this?

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98vc8u-kWQM[/media]


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

PorkyPies said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98vc8u-kWQM[/media]




It looks so strange seeing a vehicle move so slowly around a motorcar race track


----------



## PorkyPies (9 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It looks so strange seeing a vehicle move so slowly around a motorcar race track



I did do some fast laps, just it's kind of hard climbing in the gear I was in, not being able to change gear due to having the camera in my hand


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

PorkyPies said:


> I did do some fast laps, just it's kind of hard climbing in the gear I was in, not being able to change gear due to having the camera in my hand



It was not a dig at all. What I mean is usually you see the circuit as a blur as cars are doing 100+mph


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

I do not think the two sports can be compared with any worthwhile conclusion. They both have different demands, both physically and mentally. My example is just a "in my case" its not meant to assert anything or even support any arguments I am making, its just a "this is what I find" from my experience.

I have no reason or vested interest in bigging up the difficulty of either sport, I equally enjoy running and cycling and am involved in both, both can be leisurely and both can be brutally challenging, but they just can not really be compared in the way people are trying here to any real world worth. The only way I could imagine you be to run a marathon, to gauge how difficult it is to you and how you felt, then ride your bike until you feel the same way. but even this is flawed because you likely wont feel the "same" as you are beating your body up in different ways.

Oldfatblokes argument relies on (mis)understandings or (mis)interpretations of simplistic physics and what seems like a poor understanding of sports physiology and biomechanics. He applies what appears to be a wikipedia grade understanding in a flawed and subsequently un-informative way and then when people dont agree, tries to insult their level of education whilst also making the assumption that because people dont agree they must be young. The reason people dont agree is not because they are young and stupid, but because his arguement is weak, I mean he does not even seem comprehend the difference between the extent of load baring effects on the body between standing up and sitting on a bike seat. As a very simple illustrative example (not supposed to be an exhaustive arguement) relax your legs whilst sat on a bike, where will you go? Likely no-where as the saddle will hold you up, do it when stood upright and you will be picking yourself off the floor in the moments following. 

If he isnt just trolling, then he certainly must not be as smart as he gives himself credit for.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I do not think the two sports can be compared with any worthwhile conclusion. They both have different demands, both physically and mentally. My example is just a "in my case" its not meant to assert anything or even support any arguments I am making, its just a "this is what I find" from my experience.
> 
> I have no reason or vested interest in bigging up the difficulty of either sport, I equally enjoy running and cycling and am involved in both, both can be leisurely and both can be brutally challenging, but they just can not really be compared in the way people are trying here to any real world worth. The only way I could imagine you be to run a marathon, to gauge how difficult it is to you and how you felt, then ride your bike until you feel the same way. but even this is flawed because you likely wont feel the "same" as you are beating your body up in different ways.
> 
> Oldfatblokes argument relies on (mis)understandings or (mis)interpretations of simplistic physics and a poor understanding of sports physiology, he applies what appears to be a wikipedia grade understanding in a flawed and subsequently un-informative way, and then when people dont agree, tries to insult their level of education whilst also making the assumption that because people dont agree they must be young. If he isnt just trolling, then he certainly must not be as smart as he gives himself credit for.



OK then we agree on the important bit - the two can not be compared. I am happy about that


----------



## dodgy (9 Sep 2011)

Like the article I linked to earlier, you can compare the two in calorie consumption, but that's where it ends in terms of feel.

I'd say on calorie consumption that I would use the same running a marathon as I would cycling perhaps 100 to 120 miles(ish). I run at roughly 8mph average, and on 100 miles rides I typically average 18mph on rolling terrain.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Oldfatblokes argument relies on (mis)understandings or (mis)interpretations of simplistic physics and what seems like a poor understanding of sports physiology and biomechanics. He applies what appears to be a wikipedia grade understanding in a flawed and subsequently un-informative way and then when people dont agree, tries to insult their level of education whilst also making the assumption that because people dont agree they must be young. The reason people dont agree is not because they are young and stupid, but because his arguement is weak, I mean he does not even seem comprehend the difference between the extent of load baring effects on the body between standing up and sitting on a bike seat. Relax your legs whilst sat on a bike, where will you go? Likely no-where, do it when stood up and you will be picking yourself off the floor.
> 
> If he isnt just trolling, then he certainly must not be as smart as he gives himself credit for.



Whoa fella, in all of my posts I have said that running a marathon is harder then riding 26 miles on a bike. Someone mentioned the energy required I just made the point that using the laws of thermodynamics (for which I didn't require wiki ) the amount of kinetic energy would be the same, if not greater for the cyclist as they would be moving a greater load.

I went further to state in order to compare running to cycling you would have to eliminate as many variables as possible ie burn the same no of cals over the same distance or the same time frame, and this could be equated using the linked scientific study. 

As for load bearing I have stated that running is a high impact sport compared to cycling but in cycling you are still having to move your own load through your own effort. 

You can insult me all you want but please don't insult the basic laws of physics.


----------



## PorkyPies (9 Sep 2011)

dodgy said:


> Like the article I linked to earlier, you can compare the two in calorie consumption, but that's where it ends in terms of feel.
> 
> I'd say on calorie consumption that I would use the same running a marathon as I would cycling perhaps 100 to 120 miles(ish). I run at roughly 8mph average, and on 100 miles rides I typically average 18mph on rolling terrain.



Calorie consumption isn't a good comparison.

I use more calories in a 100 mile ride, but a 10mile Time Trial is much harder.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Whoa fella, in all of my posts I have said that running a marathon is harder then riding 26 miles on a bike. Someone mentioned the energy required I just made the point that using the laws of thermodynamics (for which I didn't require wiki ) the amount of energy would be the same and this was subsequently backed up by a scientific report linked in someone elses post.
> 
> I went further to state in order to compare running to cycling you would have to eliminate as many variables as possible ie burn the same no of cals over the same distance or the same time frame.
> 
> ...



I'm not insulting the laws of phyiscs, I'm insulting your application of them! Equations are only good when the person applying them uses them properly.


----------



## dodgy (9 Sep 2011)

PorkyPies said:


> Calorie consumption isn't a good comparison.
> 
> I use more calories in a 100 mile ride, but a 10mile Time Trial is much harder.




Whatever, I supplied fairly typical speeds for each. My point is that there is a way to calculate calorie consumption for each activity.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

dodgy said:


> Whatever, I supplied fairly typical speeds for each. My point is that there is a way to calculate calorie consumption for each activity.



Not very accuratelly in the real world (maybe you can get quite close in a lab) due to there being way to many variables that are not under strict control. It is an over-determined problem when applied to the real world.


----------



## dodgy (9 Sep 2011)

I think there's enough data out there to get close enough to our purposes, the calorie consumption for each activity based on speed, weight of the runner can be established. Of course we're not talking down to fractions of a calorie, but enough to say that x miles running at x mph for a runner of given weight = n calories. Likewise for cycling.

Now someone is going to refute that, this seems the way this thread is going, but it's true.


----------



## Zoiders (9 Sep 2011)

To find a point of equivalence you would need to the services of entire university sports science and medicine department.

I don't know where the points of coincidence would be but I am thinking it's up near the high end, things like the hour record or some mountain stages if you are making a comparison to the marathon for someone who likes to put in a good time rather than just finishing the event.


----------



## crossy (9 Sep 2011)

Thanks for all your thoughts and replies the one that struck me most was by Superbadger on page 2 about hitting the wall at 20 miles on the run and 75 miles on the bike. It took me 5hrs to do a marathon I haven't ran since. Ha Ha.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm not insulting the laws of phyiscs, I'm insulting your application of them! Equations are only good when the person applying them uses them properly.



So prey where have I misused the laws of physics? Do you disagree that the amount of kinetic energy used to run 26 mile is less than it is to cycle? 

If someone wants to break the two sports down to make a comparison (which you rightly or wrongly argue can't be done) then you have to start somewhere, so you have to know the energy required and then develop some formula to take into account effort (be that effort from the nature of the exercise, or external variables, wind resistance etc.)


----------



## SportMonkey (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I'm not insulting the laws of phyiscs, I'm insulting your application of them! Equations are only good when the person applying them uses them properly.



+1 etc.


----------



## Zoiders (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> So prey where have I misused the laws of physics? Do you disagree that the amount of kinetic energy used to run 26 mile is less than it is to cycle?
> 
> If someone wants to break the two sports down to make a comparison (which you rightly or wrongly argue can't be done) then you have to start somewhere, so you have to know the energy required and then develop some formula to take into account effort (be that effort from the nature of the exercise, or external variables, wind resistance etc.)


You are getting confused about total effort.

You could burn the same calories sat on your arse for a few days as you could running the marathon.

By your rationale the two require the same level of fitness.


----------



## SportMonkey (9 Sep 2011)

To enact comparison you need to work out all the forces involved instead of quoting laws. Thermodynamics is all well and good when you're accounting for all the energy in a situation. The calculation works as simple as for x effort put for every foot fall y goes in to forwards motion, you can do this with drawings, remembering every time a foot hits the ground you slow, then reaccelerate.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> So prey where have I misused the laws of physics? Do you disagree that the amount of kinetic energy used to run 26 mile is less than it is to cycle?
> 
> If someone wants to break the two sports down to make a comparison (which you rightly or wrongly argue can't be done) then you have to start somewhere, so you have to know the energy required and then develop some formula to take into account effort (be that effort from the nature of the exercise, or external variables, wind resistance etc.)



You have applied an equation for a point mass (which can be extended to include a body with a constant centre of gravity which can be used as an equivalent point mass). Ideally a runner and cyclists centre of gravity would remain in the same plane, however in reality it probly doesnt so the equation is a very rudimentry estimation of the kinetic energy. Also the equation for kinetic energy depends on velocity, which has both magnitude and direction. So if you are wishing to apply this formula, you are talking about moving a point mass, a set distance in exactly the same direction at a given speed. Thats not a very good approximation.

Even in a simple estimation, there are quite a few other things that need to be considered. Its just not worth the time, because even if you could perfect the science, it wouldnt explain the "difficulty" of each activity.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Zoiders said:


> You are getting confused about total effort.
> 
> You could burn the same calories sat on your arse for a few days as you could running the marathon.
> 
> By your rationale the two require the same level of fitness.



Getting bored now, but there is no kinetic energy used in sitting down, and in the last sentence you have quoted I mention that in order to complete the comparison you need to take into account effort required. I have frequently mentioned that running is a higher impact sport, less efficient use of energy etc etc. 

If you have read all my posts you will see I came to the conclusion that to compare the two the cyclist would have to cycle between 26 mile in approx 35mins upto covering 80+ mile in 4.5 hours. Hardly sitting still.


----------



## Zoiders (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Getting bored now, but there is no kinetic energy used in sitting down, and in the last sentence you have quoted I mention that in order to complete the comparison you need to take into account effort required. I have frequently mentioned that running is a higher impact sport, less efficient use of energy etc etc.
> 
> If you have read all my posts you will see I came to the conclusion that to compare the two the cyclist would have to cycle between 26 mile in approx 35mins upto covering 80+ mile in 4.5 hours. Hardly sitting still.


It's calories burned to be exact not kinetic energy.

Kinetic is just a form of expression and transference of energy - and you do BTW transmit kinetic energy just sitting down as your heart beats and blood pumps around your body which is a mechanical process that follows newtons law, that's on top of all the other chemical and electrical processes going on that all use energy.

Sit on your arse for two days or run a marathon, they could both have the same total energy requirement.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Zoiders said:


> It's calories burned to be exact not kinetic energy.



What is??

The body burns fuel to work, expressed in calories. 

A persons potential energy will depend on the amount of fuel they have, this can be converted to kinetic energy. 

K=1/2 M x V[sup]2[/sup]. so to move the same body on a bike for the same length of time at the same speed will have more Kinetic energy and ergo require more fuel than the runner, by the fact that the mass is greater (bike + body) 

At no point have I said running is easier or takes less effort, or that the fuel required is purely converted to KE. If that was the case the cyclist would also use 110 calories to cover a mile, Like I expressed using the tables linked in the earlier post in order for the cyclist to burn 110 cals / mile he would have to average 55 mph.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> What is??
> 
> The body burns fuel to work, expressed in calories.
> 
> ...



In the same direction, you keep neglecting that velocity has both magnitude and direction. 

In terms of the runner, there are several components of kinetic energy, simplistically we could say, both forward, and up and down (to and fro with the gaining and losing of potential energy). So its not as simple as you present it.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> In the same direction, you keep neglecting that velocity has both magnitude and direction.
> 
> In terms of the runner, there are several components of kinetic energy, simplistically we could say, both forward, and up and down (to and fro with the gaining and losing of potential energy). So its not as simple as you present it.



Fair and sensible comment, though there will be an element of the same for the cyclist in the pedaling action. 

Originally I must admit the KE argument was a little tongue in cheek to counteract the folks who where saying you would have to cycle a million miles to equate to a marathon. I thought I had clarified my stance on the comparison in the use of the scientific tables, which obviously shows I have no doubt that you would have to cycle bloody intensely to equal the effort of a marathon runner. 

I must admit I was astounded that the scientific findings were that a runner only uses 110 cals/ mile regardless of speed, I would have thought heat energy alone would have increased exponentially with the runners speed increase, know I get a lot hotter the faster I have to run!

Look forward to cycling with you sometime............but not running


----------



## zizou (9 Sep 2011)

Difficult to compare and depends so much on terrain and pace - running 4 hours in the London marathon is going to be alot 'easier' for the average runner to train for and achieve than the average cyclist being able to do do La Marmotte (108 miles) in under 7 hours. Whereas a flat century in 7 hours is going to be 'easier' to achieve than running a sub 3 hour marathon. 



Angelfishsolo said:


> The one thing that is being over looked here is that people who do well at running marathons are runners and people who do well at long distance cycling are cyclists. Is the 100mtr sprint at world record pace harder than a world record marathon time? Is it harder to fight at flyweight or heavyweight? People condition their bodies for given disciplines. If we are to get an good comparison we need to ask a tri-athlete which is harder.




Swimming 

However this isn't reflected in the relative distance in triathlons which are biased against swimmers due to the swim leg being ridiculously short in comparision to the other legs - i've seen a few sprint ones with 400 metres as the swim leg, that isn't even a warm up and hardly worth getting wet for. At Ironman distance the ratio between the swim and run is about 1:11....it should really be a max of about 1:4. (Then there are the wet suits which give flotation and drafting being legal in the swim leg but not the cycle...frankly it is a conspiracy against swimmers  )

Good point at the body conditioning though, very difficult to compare the demands of one sport to another.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Fair and sensible comment, *though there will be an element of the same for the cyclist in the pedaling action. *
> 
> Originally I must admit the KE argument was a little tongue in cheek to counteract the folks who where saying you would have to cycle a million miles to equate to a marathon. I thought I had clarified my stance on the comparison in the use of the scientific tables, which obviously shows I have no doubt that you would have to cycle bloody intensely to equal the effort of a marathon runner.
> 
> ...



However, the cyclists centre of mass remains relativelly stable when seated despite the pedalling motion, hence they typically would have 1 component of velocity (probly not wholly true, but much less than the runner). Your equation can probly be used as an approximation for the cyclist travelling in a straight line, in a given direction, as a certain speed, but not so much the runner.


----------



## Zoiders (9 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> What is??
> 
> The body burns fuel to work, expressed in calories.
> 
> ...


The bike is a low friction device.

It ups the velocity and striking energy for example if you ride into something by accident it does not however require more fuel to do so.

You are getting newtons law in a muddle again.


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2011)

A big difference is in impact, up the pace from a walk to a run and you up the pounding, but the cycling will remain low impact. The closest direct comparison I can think of would be cycling v a cross trainer.

It's fairly easy to compare energy/effort expended for a marathon and work out an equivalence in cycling distance. But you'd likely feel fresher/better after the cycle as the impact is low.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> A big difference is in impact, up the pace from a walk to a run and you up the pounding, but the cycling will remain low impact. The closest direct comparison I can think of would be cycling v a cross trainer.
> 
> It's fairly easy to compare energy/effort expended for a marathon and work out an equivalence in cycling distance. But you'd likely feel fresher/better after the cycle as the impact is low.



Try MTBing instead


----------



## lulubel (10 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I must admit I was astounded that the scientific findings were that a runner only uses 110 cals/ mile regardless of speed, I would have thought heat energy alone would have increased exponentially with the runners speed increase, know I get a lot hotter the faster I have to run!



Science can "find" whatever scientists want to. It takes common sense (like your reference to heat energy above) to recognise when the scientists are talking rubbish and have just manipulated the statistics to get the result they wanted.


----------



## Rob3rt (10 Sep 2011)

lulubel said:


> Science can "find" whatever scientists want to. It takes common sense (like your reference to heat energy above) to recognise when the scientists are talking rubbish and have just manipulated the statistics to get the result they wanted.



What on earth are you on about?


----------



## VamP (12 Sep 2011)

lulubel said:


> Science The deluded can "find" whatever scientists  they want to. It takes common sense (like your reference to heat energy above) to recognise when the scientists delusional are talking rubbish and have just manipulated the statistics to get the result they wanted.



FTFY






You are not really on speaking terms with the scientific method, are you?


----------



## pubrunner (13 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> *A big difference is in impact*, up the pace from a walk to a run and you up the pounding, but the cycling will remain low impact. The closest direct comparison I can think of would be cycling v a cross trainer.
> 
> It's fairly easy to compare energy/effort expended for a marathon and work out an equivalence in cycling distance. *But you'd likely feel fresher/better after the cycle as the impact is low.
> 
> *



+ 1

I've done 14 or 15 marathons, including 5 or 6 which were very hilly (4,000ft climb) and entirely off-road.

For each I trained hard; yet after each one, my body felt 'wrecked'. For days afterwards, just walking is painful.

Back in 2007, I had a go at the Cheshire Cat Sportive (100 miles). I did NO cycling training for it whatsoever. In fact, I'd only cycled 50 miles once, prior to the event, but that had been the year before. (I've never cycled more than 200-300 miles in any year).

Of course, the Cheshire Cat *did* get hard after about 70 miles, when we hit the steep climbs by Macc. Forest. Towards the end of the ride, I *was* tired, but what I found, was that I could still keep turning the wheels (albeit at only 10-14 mph) because the bike was taking my weight. I'm sure that I could have gone a *lot* further, because a big advantage with cycling, is that it is easy to carry & consume food on the move. 'Just keeping the wheels turning' is a lot easier than 'just keeping the legs going'. 

The day after the Cheshire Cat my legs felt fine; likewise, after ColinJ's 70 mile ride in Yorkshire which had over 7,000ft of climb.

I sometimes do a training run of 18 miles which is largely off-road and has about 2,000ft of climb. No matter how easy I run it & despite carrying energy drinks, it 'knocks me about' far more than cycling.

I'd estimate that for me, something upwards of 250 miles on a bike would very roughly equate to a briskly run marathon (8 minute miles).


----------



## pubrunner (13 Sep 2011)

montage said:


> a marathon at a pace easy for you could be deemed easier than a half mile hill climb.



Never, ever !!!

At the end of an 'easy' marathon, it still hurts - far, far more than a half mile hill climb !



montage said:


> though obviously a marathon will cause more damage/stress to the body



Just a bit ! 

A very good mate of mine has won the National 25 mph time trial once and the National 50 tt three times. He was the first person to win them both in the same year. He also came 2nd in the 100 miler and did very well in 12 hour TTs. He even did a 24 hour TT. All this was many years ago, but he was (still is) a top quality cyclist. In the 80s, he took up running, managing a sub 2.40 at the age of 50 - so he had become a top-level (for age group) runner. He has done about a dozen marathons, but he says that they are so hard (if run hard) that they 'wreck' the body. He believes that running (fast) for 26.2 miles is harder than anything he's done in cycling.

Consider this, if you run a marathon and run to your potential, it would be *many weeks* before your body would've recovered sufficiently to *repeat* the performance (achieving a similar time).

What distance in cycling would require such rest & recovery, before being tackled again ?


----------



## BrumJim (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Getting bored now, but there is no kinetic energy used in sitting down, and in the last sentence you have quoted I mention that in order to complete the comparison you need to take into account effort required. I have frequently mentioned that running is a higher impact sport, less efficient use of energy etc etc.
> 
> If you have read all my posts you will see I came to the conclusion that to compare the two the cyclist would have to cycle between 26 mile in approx 35mins upto covering 80+ mile in 4.5 hours. Hardly sitting still.




Whilst there is no kinetic energy used in sitting down, and (probably more relevantly) there is no work being done either, neither is there any work being done holding a 5kg weight at exactly the same height about 0.5m from your body for an hour. Try it. Your arms will ache, muscles will start to shake, brow may sweat, but you are still doing no work at all, since work = force x distance moved. Personally I would rather get a table to do the job for me.

As with cycling. Whereas in perfectly smooth running it is your legs that are keeping your bum off the floor, on a bike it is the saddle, frame and wheels. So whilst neither are doing any physics work (ignoring the bouncing of your body for the moment- not insignificant, but refered to later), one is causing the muscles to work against gravity in addition to the forward propulsion work.

Then, when this is considered, and possibly calculated (help, where do you start to calculate effort required to do no work?), we can start adding in the work done against gravity when running, i.e. 4 x bounce amplitude x weight.


----------



## twobiker (14 Sep 2011)

Stefaan Engels claims to have run 365 consecutive marathons in 2011 and Canadian Terry Fox has run 143 consecutive marathons and he has an artificial leg, Neil O' Maonaigh-Lennon ran 105 in 2010, but Pete Penseyres cycled 3107 miles in 8 days 9 hours and 47 minutes in 1986. so the runner would have done only 9 marathons in that time.


----------



## twobiker (17 Sep 2011)

VamP said:


> FTFY
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reading the pages above, full of conflicting theories ,nobody seems to be.


----------

