Cycling equivelant to marathon

[Bobtoo]

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

 

[superbadger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.