Bicycling's Equivalent to Marathon

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

"mary" wrote in
:
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.

Depends a lot on how fast you ride. 100 miles in 4 hours is a lot harder
than 100 miles in 8 hours.

150 miles or so.

I've done a 215m cycle in one day. Was very fit at the time. Felt fine
during it, but fell asleep 4 times during the following day and was
shattered for a week!

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.

--

David Dermott , Wolfville Ridge, Nova Scotia, Canada
email:
WWW pages: http://www.dermott.ca/

When doing the Ironman in Hawaii, I found the 112 mile bike ride quite
equivalent to the 26 mile run. But but but, the ride was horrendously
windy and I did a lot of walking during the marathon. Not having to
fight winds made the marathon pure and simple endurance rather than the
struggle for survival on the bike. If you look at the times of good but
not best runners and bicyclists, going about 3 hours for the 26 miles or
almost 5 for 112 miles, it would seem they are not equivalent. However,
the ride really is more punishing, so I don't think comparing times to
complete the mileages is sufficiently meaningful. Perhaps calories
burned would be a more accurate way to compare.

rtk

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:58:58 GMT, 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.


However, when running you don't face near the wind resistance you do
when cycling. A "slow" cycling speed of 15mph will get you a lot more
resistance than running the same pace.

Also, a lot of sport riders don't rest all that much. Even on
downhills you'll see us working...just not as hard as on the flats or
the climbs.

How about calculating the number of steps it would take to do the 26 miles,
and then the same number of revolutions of the crank to determine how many
miles the equivalent would be????? Just a thought.


"mary" wrote in message
...
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

David Dermott wrote:
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.

Grand Tour pros race 100+ miles daily. I've never run a marathon, but I
understand that one puts you out of action for at least several days,
even at the top levels.

My estimation: any distance at least 3X your current daily average.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

Jim & Meg wrote:
How about calculating the number of steps it would take to do the 26 miles,
and then the same number of revolutions of the crank to determine how many
miles the equivalent would be????? Just a thought.

Running imposes a LOT more wear and tear on your body, which generally
takes the form of tissue damage that you need to repair. This is the big
difference between running and cycling. To match the pounding of a long
run, I think you need to greatly over-reach your current capabilities on
a bike, whatever they are. If you can do 20 miles per day easily, try 80
at the same pace. That might have the same effect of a top runner's
marathon.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

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.