100km - a Marathon?

[bof]

As other have said, difficult to compare. Doing 200k in seven hours left me not far short of the after event stiffness I got from the one marathon I did.

In terms of doing one's head in... Paris-Brest-Paris was way harder mentally than the marathon.

 

[montage]

Marathon and running you need to train for a little more, as it is an impact sport and your joints/muscles simply will refuse to complete the distance. I guess a cycling marathon could be done with alot of grit. Isn't the "marathon" distance in the full iron man like 156 miles?

 

[zimzum42]

Maybe 100km of serious off road riding might be some equivalent, but not 100km on the road, nowhere near.

 

[jay clock]

I am doing a half Ironman in July, so will be doing a half marathon after the 90km bike ride (and the 1.9km swim).

In terms of calories used for me 42km running equals about 132km on the bike. However the longest bike ride I ever did was 200km and on the basis of my experience I would estimate that to feel as knackered as I assume a marathon would make me feel would be up at the 300-350km mark

 

[bonk man]

Its all about preparation and experience, if I do 100 miles, it feels like I have been and done a ride but can function normally after a short rest but if I ran 24 miles I would be in a state for a few days as I am not a runner. A mate of mine runs miles every day [ cross country....] and most likely he would be in a state after 100 miles on the bike.

Taking this into consideration it is easy to understand why it is difficult to compare the two sports, I think for me, if you assume that the cycling was on a flat road, probably 150 miles might be enough to leave me in a condition that would need a days recovery to feel anywhere near ok

I did 130 miles on an old Moulton the other week and I was knackered for about 24 hours but got back on the bike 48 hrs later. The time trial 4 days later still had me heavy legged but ok to do a reasonable time. About what a runner might get from doing a marathon I would guess?

 

[SheilaH]

I ride at least 125 miles every saturday, last saturday was 190 miles, sometimes I'll do another 125 miles on the sunday as well.

I don't think I could do two marathons every weekend.

 

[Greenbank]

I was about to post something similar to bonk_man above.

It's also about pace. Pretty much anyone can do an 8 hour marathon as you can walk it in that time. This is also how lots of people manage the London to Brighton bike ride, they just take 8-10 hours to do it.

I can't answer the question as I'm not a runner. I'm getting there, I'm up to 30 minutes on the treadmill at 10.5kph (i.e. 4 hour marathon pace) and would like to build up to a 50 minute 10k. I'll also enter the London Marathon Ballot again next year (rejected this year thankfully!).

For me, a 300km cycle ride doesn't faze me at all and I feel fine the next day. I did 320km, 220km, 210km rides on consecutive days last month and could have carried on and on without a problem. I felt no different at the start of day 2 as I did when I woke up on day 4 to get the train home.

A friend of mine who's done 15 half marathons and 5 full marathons so far this year (yes, in 2009 alone!) feels the same about marathon running.

For me the difference is that I cycle at a pace that I can just keep on going. 20kph moving average, nothing fast but on a 600km Audax it gives me plenty of time off the bike to eat, rest and get a bit of sleep. On and on and on.

I just can't do that with running; I'd aim to finish a marathon pretty much spent. If I wanted to go further then I'd have to run considerably slower than 4 hour marathon pace. I could be just as spent putting everything into a 25 mile TT and trying to break the hour (fat chance!).

 

[andy_wrx]

It is indeed about pace.

To run-walk-jog round a big-city marathon as a one-off charridee fund-raiser fun-run is one thing, but to race one competitively is another.

Having done so you can barely walk for the next week, it's done serious damage to muscles and joints, so you need to taper back up into running properly and not race any distance until perhaps a month later.
They reckon an 'average club runner' should do only one marathon a year.

No sportive I've ever done has come close to one of my marathons - yes, they're 6, 7, 8 hours rather than 3 and a half, but so much easier, and I've done two on consecutive weekends.

However, I'm doing Fred Whitton in 4 weeks' time, so we'll see if my opinion alters !

 

[PaulB]

Pace; the golden imponderable! I came to cycling from a competitive running background and have done seven marathons ranging from 3.45 to 2.26 and can confidently state that even 100 miles of hilly cycling is nowhere near the equivalent of a marathon UNLESS....you are a 2.30 runner and do it in 3 hours or more thereby taking it easier on yourself. Doing a marathon and a 100 mile hilly bike ride pushing it on both, I'd say the bike ride is considerably easier. I'd equate a 100 mile bike ride to a 15-20 mile foot race. I'd say a 100 kilometre ride is about the equivalent to a flat half marathon or a tough National Cross-Country.

 

[Randochap]

100km on a bicycle is in no way equivalent to running a marathon. I've never run a marathon but I've run enough shorter distances to know that a marathon would be far more challenging than cycling 100 km, which I might do several times a week at the height of the season, once a week all winter.

I agree with Noodley that the 400 km mark (10 times a running marathon distance) would approximate the kind of endurance equivalent to running a marathon ... or a couple of the very hilly 300s we have here in BC. Certainly, the 600km brevet is well into the ultra-endurance category.

A related story: One of my riding/club mates is both a marathon cyclist and marathon runner, holding records in both sports. A few years back, there was a running marathon that happened to start in a town near the 300 km point of a 600 km brevet. He hopped off his bike, cleared the control, ran the marathon, jumped back on the bike and still finished the randonnee well within the 40-hour time limit for that event (35:01).

 

[jimboalee]

Strangely enough, kCals / hour figures for cycling at 15mph and running at 6 mph are published at just over 700 for both.

A four and a bit hour 100km bike ride = approx 2900 kCals.
A four and a bit hour Marathon = approx 2900 kCals.

 

[ASC1951]

I find that a remarkable result, jimboalee.

Presumably the research was with two different people, a good cyclist and a good runner. Calorie expenditure isn't the same as effect on the body and I suspect that for most of us on here a 25 mile run would take far longer to recover from than equivalent runners would take to recover from 60 miles on the bike. That was certainly my experience: I have recently done 3 back to back 100 milers, but even in my youth when I was running occasional road marathons I couldn't have done another one the same month, let alone the next day.

These days, top marathon runners zip along at the pace I manage for 100 milers on the bike...

 

[jimboalee]

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

Here's the source of the data.

I was working on a 155lb individual, but the numbers for the 190 lb person (me) are the same too.

I'm riding the Castleton Classic on Sunday, and I have calced 4900 kCals for the day. That's for ME, just me. No-one else has my Cd, or wears my clothing.

If its a toss-up between this and two Marathons, give me the 200km Rando anyday.

 

[arallsopp]

I run the odd half marathon (sub 2 hr), but haven't done the full distance since 2004 now (3hr, 45m).

Even with a serious training programme and careful fuelling, there was no way I could do much on marathon day + 2 (the day after is normally fine). Having bagged my medal, I stopped and now only do the odd half.

Its hard to compare, but I'd say a half marathon is like a 100km ride. I don't really train for either. Just keep the baseline miles in, turn up, and set off. Add another 7 miles to the run, and that's the equivalent of another 100km for me. Add another 7, and that's the third 100. Add any more, and there's no equivalent distance, only speed.

Again, this may only apply to me, but I find I can ride pretty much all day at a moderate pace, but cannot run at a moderate pace for more than 6 hours due to stress on joints, lack of energy, boredom, etc... Each grows exponentially, IMHO.

On an upright, I only seem to dip into energy stores when I'm battling the wind. To expend more energy, I have to ride faster, not longer.

There's another link here: http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/run_or_cycle.html, that suggests:

20 mile ride at 15 mph = 5.6 miles running.
20 mile ride at 10 mph = 4.8 miles running.

I guess that my (personal) energy expenditure at ~14 mph is just about balanced by the food I eat as I go, but eating whilst running is hard going.

 

[pubrunner]

Its all about preparation and experience, if I do 100 miles, it feels like I have been and done a ride but can function normally after a short rest but if I ran 24 miles I would be in a state for a few days as I am not a runner. A mate of mine runs miles every day [ cross country....] and most likely he would be in a state after 100 miles on the bike.

Actually, I don't think that he would.

I've done 10 marathons (on and off-road); I recently did the Cheshire Cat 100 miler having done a modest 150 miles (total) cycling in training this year. Come to that, I've done very little recent running training either. I'll be 50 next year and I'm nearly 14 stone. The Cheshire Cat was my first ever ride of 50 miles, so I was really 'throwing myself in at the deep end'.

Yes, I walked on a couple of parts of the Cheshire Cat, but the next day I felt pretty good - far better than after a marathon. I've done marathons ranging from just over 3 hours, to 5 and a half hours for an off-roader with 5,000ft of climb - all much harder than the Cheshire Cat.

What running has done is provided me with a positive mindset; I was sure that I'd get round the Cheshire Cat, cos I was certain that it wouldn't be as hard as a marathon. Yes, my Cheshire Cat time of 8hr 20mins was on the slow side, but part of that was actually down to lack of (cycling) pace judgement - I got to 50 miles in 3 hours. Even at the end of the ride, I found that I could keep the legs turning at 12-15mph on the flat bits.

I think that most runners who can do sub 4 hours for a marathon would experience few problems with a 100 mile bike ride. I found on the Cheshire Cat that whilst my legs did become tired, I hardly suffered aerobically; at no stage did it feel as intense as with running.

A friend of mine has twice done a 2:12 marathon and also sub 63 minute half marathon. I'm sure that he'd have no problems with a 100 miler bike ride - I'd estimate that he'd need to do something in the region 250+ miles to feel as fatigued.

Some have mentioned calorie expenditure; but the 'advantage' of cycling is the calories that can be consumed. {On some marathons that I've done (Manchester in 1999), energy drinks were not even provided}.

On the Cheshire Cat, I downed at least 2 litres of energy drink, 4 energy bars, a doughnut and a considerable quantity of jelly babies.