Cycling equivalent of a marathon?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Brandane

Legendary Member
Location
Costa Clyde
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

Veteran
Location
Hampshire
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

Guest
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

Veteran
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

Veteran
Location
Hampshire
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

In between here and there
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

...
Location
SW London
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

Über Member
Location
Lingwood/Norwich
I was absolutely f****d after running a 5k but after cycling a 210k audax was still smiling :smile:

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

Gary E

Veteran
Location
Hampshire
Anyway, shouldn't we be calling them Snickers now? :whistle:
 

jay clock

Massive member
Location
Hampshire UK
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

Evil Genius in training.
Location
Warrington, UK
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

Just call me Chris...
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 :eek:
 
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 :eek:
 
Top Bottom