Bicycling's Equivalent to Marathon

On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:43:37 GMT, Paul Kopit
wrote:

I haven't run a marathon but it must be much more demanding than 150
miles on a bicycle.

I've done double centuries on 2 consecutive days. Many people get
600k brevet medals and there are numerous finishers in the 752 mi,
Paris-Brest-Paris. There are riders that go over 300 mi/day for
numerous days.

How many marathoners can run the 26 miles and then run another
marathon that day...or the next day...or the next week?

The cyclist exercises longer but running seems to put a much higher
demand on the body.

It not that running puts more demand on the the body, it's just that
it is much more DAMAGING to the body. Running for years usually
results in knees that are all tore up. Every long distance runner I
know gave up on running because after many years there knees couldn't
take the pounding anymore. Now they cycle. They compare a Century,
at a high pace (at least a sub 5 hour pace) to be the equivalent of
any marathon they've ever run. As they have done both, I'll listen to
them.

It's really a difference of high- vs. low-impact aerobics.

Paul Kopit wrote:
SNIP

How many marathoners can run the 26 miles and then run another
marathon that day...or the next day...or the next week?


Terry Fox did:
http://www.terryfoxrun.org/english/a...efault.asp?s=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fox

--
Peter James
Ottawa, Ontario

Peter James wrote:

Paul Kopit wrote:
SNIP


How many marathoners can run the 26 miles and then run another
marathon that day...or the next day...or the next week?




Terry Fox did:
http://www.terryfoxrun.org/english/a...efault.asp?s=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fox

And then there's this guy.
http://www.ultramarathonman.com/about.php

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

mary wrote:

How many miles would you need to do to equal the challenge of a 26 mile run.
At first I figured a hundred miles over the same terain as the run, but now
I think it would be 150 miles. I have bicycled 100 miles, but I feel it was
not all that demanding.

Tom




It would be interesting to compare on basis of
1. Same number of calories (or oxygen) consumed
2. Same amount of time
3. Same amount of recover required afterward
4. Same percentage of enthusiasts who can complete the effort

I've played around with a heart rate monitor to evaluate running/xc skiing/
roller skiing/ vs. cycling.
If I plug in a broad training range say 110 to 145 BPM I find that I need to
cycle 1/3 more time to get the equivilent "in range" time compared to other
activites.

This is a very general measurement, but for my purposes I usually measure a
cycle mile as 2/3 or a running mile. I simply add up the time in and above
my training zone and divide by 10 (10 minutes = one running [well jogging]
mile).

I have run marathons, ridden many centuries, and skied many, many marathons.
Ski marathons are the most demanding for me, but recovery is quick. I can do
two in successive days no problem. 100 mile bike rides leave me stiff.
Running marathons destroy my body. I'll see what successive 100 mile road
riding days at a leisurely pace is like soon, as I will ride across New York
State.

I no longer compete, and I am simply an enthusiast. Four hour 50 km classic
ski marathons, seven hour road centuries, and 5.5 hour running marathons are
"modal".

I rarely train for "running" marathons by "running". It would wear me out.
The last one I did I had 120 miles of running behind me. Obviously I run
these distances just for the experience and not to win awards.

I think I'd have to ride 150 leisurely miles (14 mph) to feel as wrecked as
I do after completing a foot marathon.

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY


It would be interesting to compare on basis of
1. Same number of calories (or oxygen) consumed
2. Same amount of time
3. Same amount of recover required afterward
4. Same percentage of enthusiasts who can complete the effort

David Dermott wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, mary wrote:

How many miles would you need to do to equal the challenge of a 26
mile run. At first I figured a hundred miles over the same terain as
the run, but now I think it would be 150 miles. I have bicycled 100
miles, but I feel it was not all that demanding.

An old "rule of thumb" equates 1 mile walking to 5 miles (slow)
cycling. So a 26 mile walk would be about the same as 130 miles slow
cycling.
So RUNNING a 26 mile marathon would be equivlavent of RACING 130
miles on a bike.
As others noted there is a HUGE difference between merely cycling 100
miles (8 or 10 hr) and cycling 100 miles at racing pace (4 or 5 hr).

But there are other factors. When you are walking or running you are
always working, even going downhill, while cycling you get rest
periods while coasting.
So there is no simple formula.

I've never heard this before, but it's interesting. I wonder how you get these
numbers.

Assuming this formula, our club has a good marathon equivalent coming up:

www.mountainsofmisery.com

Having done marathons too, I'd say it's about the same.

Most people who have ridden both MoM and Mt. Mitchell say MoM is better, because
the roads are more interesting and prettier. Note that the double metric is a
lot harder than the standard century -- there are four major climbs instead of
two.

Hope to see you there!

Matt O.

"Diablo Scott" wrote in message news:1115077560.341b61ee8c384c66a6a2ca8db8330693@t eranews...
mary wrote:

How many miles would you need to do to equal the challenge of a 26 mile run.
At first I figured a hundred miles over the same terain as the run, but now
I think it would be 150 miles. I have bicycled 100 miles, but I feel it was
not all that demanding.

Tom




It would be interesting to compare on basis of
1. Same number of calories (or oxygen) consumed
2. Same amount of time
3. Same amount of recover required afterward
4. Same percentage of enthusiasts who can complete the effort


As a cyclist who also engages in running, and who previously had thoughts
about this topic, I came to the conclusion that the equivalence occurs when
there is a 4:1 ratio in terms of distance, but a 2:1 ratio in term of time.
So a marathon done in 4 hours would be equivalent to a 100-mile ride done
in eight hours. These are roughly what any weekend athlete after some
training could work up to without specializing at either.

This seems to be borne out by individual records at the elite level, of
~2 hours for a marathon
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/3146368.stm),
and ~4 hours for 100 miles cycling
(http://www.ultracycling.com/standing...gerecords.html).

Dave

In article gFBde.1199047$8l.277763@pd7tw1no, says...
"Diablo Scott" wrote in message news:1115077560.341b61ee8c384c66a6a2ca8db8330693@t eranews...
mary wrote:

How many miles would you need to do to equal the challenge of a 26 mile run.
At first I figured a hundred miles over the same terain as the run, but now
I think it would be 150 miles. I have bicycled 100 miles, but I feel it was
not all that demanding.

Tom




It would be interesting to compare on basis of
1. Same number of calories (or oxygen) consumed
2. Same amount of time
3. Same amount of recover required afterward
4. Same percentage of enthusiasts who can complete the effort


As a cyclist who also engages in running, and who previously had thoughts
about this topic, I came to the conclusion that the equivalence occurs when
there is a 4:1 ratio in terms of distance, but a 2:1 ratio in term of time.
So a marathon done in 4 hours would be equivalent to a 100-mile ride done
in eight hours. These are roughly what any weekend athlete after some
training could work up to without specializing at either.

That's interesting: last fall I did my first century ever, in 7 hours
start to finish, and felt so good at the end that I wanted to go around
the 25-mile loop again to make it a double metric century. But I
couldn't imagine doing a 4-hour marathon; I wouldn't be able to walk for
days afterward because of the pounding on my feet and ankles. Even 6
miles (1 hour) on a padded treadmill leaves me aching.


This seems to be borne out by individual records at the elite level, of
~2 hours for a marathon
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/3146368.stm),
and ~4 hours for 100 miles cycling
(http://www.ultracycling.com/standing...gerecords.html).

Dave




--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article ,
says...

How many miles would you need to do to equal the challenge of a 26 mile run.
At first I figured a hundred miles over the same terain as the run, but now
I think it would be 150 miles. I have bicycled 100 miles, but I feel it was
not all that demanding.

Equivalent in what sense? One way to do it is to run a marathon and then see
how long it takes you. Then bicycle at the same intensity for that amount of
time. The biggest difference is that running is an impact sport and that
makes a big difference in how you feel after the race.
------------
Alex