Cycling equivelant to marathon

[Rob3rt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.