Cycling equivalent of a marathon?

[Crackle]

Didn't we have this a little while ago and didn't people think it was more than a hundred miles. A hundred hilly miles or a hundred flat are two different prospects anyway. If you look at your HR on a ride it's like a sawtooth, so you get rests on the bike which is weight bearing anyway, you don't get that running, HR is one long continuous line. I certainly find running a lot harder and running any distance requires a lot more consistency but what's equivalent, no real idea.

 

[Dragonwight]

Running a marathon in 2hrs would be uber hard but then these are elite athletes doing it in those times it would be like comparing yourself to say mark cavendish. You might not do it in 2hrs but most people in reasonable condition could do a marathon with some prep and a bit of practise on your technique.

 

[pubrunner]

A marathon (once which is run, not walked) is much harder than a 100 mile bike ride. I did the Cheshire Cat 100, a few years ago, on the back of a solitary 50 mile training ride - and in any given month, I cycle just 25 - 50 miles. It was hard, but the next day, I felt no after effects at all. I've run about 15 marathons - some off-road, in times varying from 3 - 5 hours; afterwards, I'm always entirely drained. Merely walking, is usually painful for quite a few days afterwards.

The big advantage of cycling, is that riders can scoff all manner of calorie-laden foods whilst on the move - thus delaying the time at which fatigue is reached.

For most (trained) runners, fatigue sets in after about 18 miles/2 hours of running. From this point, there is always going to be a net loss in terms of energy expended, in relation to intake of calories.

When I did the Cheshire Cat, I scoffed doughnuts, pasties etc., thus enabling me to have the energy to keep on going.

For a 'fair' comparison can only be made, a cyclist would need to be restricted to having the same calorie intake of a runner.

 

[VamP]

Somebody has already made the point above, but to reiterate - distance is nothing, intensity is everything. Using caloric comparisons is pointless. I thought zizou's comparison was in the right ballpark.

 

[pubrunner]

Somebody has already made the point above, but to reiterate - distance is nothing, intensity is everything.

This is only partially true; most runners will have depleted glycogen stores after approx. 2 hours. Yes, if they run/walk slowly, it will take longer to run out of glycogen, but they will run out ! And despite taking copious amounts of energy drinks, there will still be a net loss; when this occurs, there is a rapid decrease in performance.

It takes much longer for a cyclist to reach the same state, because they can ingest calorie-laden food, much more effectively.

Using caloric comparisons is pointless.

No it isn't; it is important to realise, that it isn't just about burning calories, but also about calorie consumption. Cyclists do have the massive 'advantage', of being able to carry & consume solid food
whilst on the move. This enables them to 'preserve' their 'tank' of carbs from getting anywhere near depleted.

 

[VamP]

This is only partially true; most runners will have depleted glycogen stores after approx. 2 hours. Yes, if they run/walk slowly, it will take longer to run out of glycogen, but they will run out ! And despite taking copious amounts of energy drinks, there will still be a net loss; when this occurs, there is a rapid decrease in performance.

It takes much longer for a cyclist to reach the same state, because they can ingest calorie-laden food, much more effectively.



No it isn't; it is important to realise, that it isn't just about burning calories, but also about calorie consumption. Cyclists do have the massive 'advantage', of being able to carry & consume solid food
whilst on the move. This enables them to 'preserve' their 'tank' of carbs from getting anywhere near depleted.

While that is not a point I would entirely disagree with, I do think you're overstating it. When I ran my marathons, I just drank energy drinks (this was before gels). When I am in a long cycling race (OK I don't do much over 3 hours) I will just drink an energy drink or take a gel. At the intensities I'm going at I cannot eat, cycling or running. Others may be able to. In any case, energy drinks are enough to keep going for 4 hours running or cycling, without an excessive performance drop, if you are fully fuelled up at the start.

If you're not at maximum sustainable intensity (cycling or running) then taking on more carbs becomes feasible. So again, all comes back to the intensity at which you do the race.

Obviously just riding a 100 miles at leisurely pace is a pretty easy thing to do, and definitely less hard than completing a marathon. Same distance at near threshold is a very different thing.

 

[dandare]

I would say racing a 100 miles not just riding it would be the equivalent of a marathon.

 

[Mugshot]

I will on occasions get up in the morning and having looked out of the window decide to take the short route to work (3 and a bit miles) usually when its howling and lashing and freezing, it is not unusual for my commute on these mornings to feel like the equivalent of a marathon

 

[Smokin Joe]

I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.

 

[MattHB]

I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.

I feel so inferior only being able to do 60 miles right now! All these riders easily doing 100 miles, seemingly in their sleep.

 

[BrumJim]

Don't worry. I'm doing my first ever 100 miles next weekend. Feeling a strange mixture of nervous and confident. Did 40 miles at a fair pace, finished with killer hills and felt very much alive at the end. But still no where near 100 miles. Will report back on my experience.

 

[Trickedem]

I'd say it equates to a 12 hour time trial. Most experienced cyclists could piss 100 miles and do the same again two or three days later, but even a regular runner would have to train specially for a marathon and would need a longer recovery period.

I'd agree. I did the London marathon a few times in my 30s. Despite training hard I couldn't walk downstairs for a few days after. 20 years later I can easily do a century with no ill affects and could happily do another the next day.

 

[MrJamie]

A marathon takes a lot of training even for most runners to run completely. Most people who cycle regularly can cycle a pretty big distance if pushed.

You could probably compare a professional level 2 hour race by distance, but at amateur level a slower efficient cyclist would probably go even more times as far relatively.

 

[steveindenmark]

I have done 4 marathons and it is very hard to tell you how far to ride to make it the equivalent of a marathon. You have to decide yourself but this is how you judge it.

You ride and ride and ride. Then you ride some more until you get to a stage where all your energy reserves are totally gone. You get to the stage where you think all the muscle in your legs has evaporated and you only have leg bones to balance on. Then you ride some more where every stroke is agony and if you get off the bike you fall over.

I think it will be a long, long cycle ride

Better still go and do a marathon first and then you will know how it is supposed to feel.

Steve

 

[MattHB]

Thing is, if you made a marathon runner try to do a century on a bike, wouldnt they find it as hard to do as we would do a marathon?

So really were talking about what is the peak achievement of both sports, which will obviously require different training. because of that, the question should really be 'what's achievement will put me at the top of my game?' rather than comparing like for like?