Cycling distance equivalent to running a marathon?

[Nonsteeler]

Really interesting question. I have been wondering about the comparison running/cycling, too. Personally, running more than 5km is painful for me (yup, the knees and yup, never done marathon). Cycling between 200-300km is a nice and doable challenge (-ish). A marathon would require proper training and venture into the unknown. Therefore it is a much bigger challenge for me than long distance riding.

Personally, I reckon a marathon is around 500km on a bike. I guess  a marathon is much more intense and so much shorter. Being on your own with your head most of the time for 10, 20 or 40h is a challenge of long distance cycling which can't be captured by a marathon. On the other hand, on a cycle you often can move virtually effortless for longer periods whereas effortless running is properly very rare in a marathon.

[Noodley]

I wonder what the answer is on running forums...

[teethgrinder]

I'd say that a marathon on foot is the same as 104 miles on a bike.

You can skew your bias whichever way you like. You can run the marathon then pootle on the bike and say that running is harder. Or you can walk the marathon and time trial the bike ride and say that cycling is harder.
But if you match the effort equally, then I reckon the 1:4 theory is about right. In some ways I found running a half marathon easier than cycling 50 miles at a brisk pace. In other ways, the half marathon was harder, but I'm not really a runner.
Travelling on foot is tougher though.

[citoyen]

How much difference does it make riding fixed compared to riding with a freewheel?

I mean, riding a 200k audax on a freewheel bike, you could be coasting for a pretty substantial chunk of time, so riding 200k doesn't necessarily mean doing 200k worth of work, does it?

d.

[teethgrinder]

How much difference does it make riding fixed compared to riding with a freewheel?

I mean, riding a 200k audax on a freewheel bike, you could be coasting for a pretty substantial chunk of time, so riding 200k doesn't necessarily mean doing 200k worth of work, does it?

d.

You have to put the effort in before you can freewheel. I can relax on my fixed and it climbs better than a bike with a freewheel, unless it's a steep hill and I've got a big gear, but that means an easier descent.
I think that running or walking up hill is easier than cycling up hill if you're used to both. After all, if a hill is too steep for me to cycle, I get off and walk.
My fixed is much easier than my geared bike. I returned to my geared bike this week after riding my fixed. At first I thought my brakes were rubbing. That's more to do with the bike and not whether it has a freewheel or not. My mountain bike is much slower and 100 miles a day on that is a good day's ride. But it'd be like wearing heavy boots for walking or running. My fixed is more like wearing trainers.

[Quint]

How much difference does it make riding fixed compared to riding with a freewheel?

I mean, riding a 200k audax on a freewheel bike, you could be coasting for a pretty substantial chunk of time, so riding 200k doesn't necessarily mean doing 200k worth of work, does it?

d.

I think that running or walking up hill is easier than cycling up hill if you're used to both. After all, if a hill is too steep for me to cycle, I get off and walk.

        Or you could get a trike     That way you can lay down and still ease your way up any hill

[GruB]

This is a really interesting question.
I am thinking more about the calorie expenditure aspect.
I am fine walking up and down stairs if I have not depleted all my carbs.

If I do a 25 mile ride at 75% of max HR - so approx 1 hr 10 mins at an average speed of 18 mph - then the culmination of the type of riding hurts me more afterwards than any 200k, 300k, 400k or 600k longer distance event.

So rather than the distance alone, it is the type of expenditure of my stored energy that causes the problems.

[mattc]

But if you match the effort equally, then I reckon the 1:4 theory is about right.

Hmm, I like this idea. You could (in theory) get a meaningful comparison by matching effort levels i.e. by HR. So for example, I would probably run a marathon (42k) at HR=135*.(Complete guess says 5hr pace. Ish. So 8kph).

Now, I know I can ride 320miles (probably more) in around 24H at that heart-rate.(On a nearly flat course.) That's 13mph-ish.

So 1 question might be:
at what point would things start to ache/break to the same extent as on my 5hr marathon?

It's got to be over 600k, possibly 800? That's around
17:1 distance (using 700k/438m) or
7:1  time (using 34h)

But then I've never trained much in running, so there will be huge bias there.(And there's probably some errors from all my mixed units).

So of course the answer you get depends on what variables you keep constant! I've assumed running the marathon at a conservative HR - others might run it much harder. And note the flattish course assumption. (On a velodrome it would be even higher)


*HR is moreoften round 150 when I'm running, but if I'm really disciplined I can keep it round 135.

[teethgrinder]

If I do a 25 mile ride at 75% of max HR - so approx 1 hr 10 mins at an average speed of 18 mph - then the culmination of the type of riding hurts me more afterwards than any 200k, 300k, 400k or 600k longer distance event.

So rather than the distance alone, it is the type of expenditure of my stored energy that causes the problems.

Eh?

25 miles at 20mph would take 1hr 15mins so it'd be a bit longer for 18mph.
Either you're faster than you think or your watch/calculator tells you lies.


But what you're saying is right. I ride steady for a long time whereas I know peple who can't, but they can beat the pants off me in a 10 mile TT without even trying. So it gets tricky when you take account of different paces.

On my half marathon, if I held my pulse at what it was and cycled instead of ran over similar terrain (it was a fast course) I wouldn't have covered 50 miles. Probably more like 35-40 as a guess.

[GruB]

If I do a 25 mile ride at 75% of max HR - so approx 1 hr 10 mins at an average speed of 18 mph - then the culmination of the type of riding hurts me more afterwards than any 200k, 300k, 400k or 600k longer distance event.

So rather than the distance alone, it is the type of expenditure of my stored energy that causes the problems.

Eh?

25 miles at 20mph would take 1hr 15mins so it'd be a bit longer for 18mph.
Either you're faster than you think or your watch/calculator tells you lies.

No, my maths are crap.  I was just thinking about my commuting speeds - thinking, not actually calculating it if you know what I mean. 

[Rig of Jarkness]

So it gets tricky when you take account of different paces.

+1 to that. I think we need to start by asking what pace the marathon is being run at.  Then apply the same intensity to the same time on a bike and see how far it gets you.  eg. If the marathon is being completed in 4 hours, I'd say that is equivalent to about a 15mph intensity on the bike, which over 4 hours will give an answer of 60 miles.  Completing the marathon in 2 hours would be like a 30mph intensity on the bike which would give you again 60 miles.


 

[teethgrinder]

  Or you could get a trike     That way you can lay down and still ease your way up any hill

A trike's no good to me.
I can't ride the bloody things.

[mattc]

I think we need to start by asking what pace the marathon is being run at.  Then apply the same intensity to the same time on a bike and see how far it gets you.

... pretty much exactly what I was saying ... !

[andygates]

How much difference does it make riding fixed compared to riding with a freewheel?

Not much.  I don't really notice the difference between Dunwich on gears or on fixed - a hilly ride would be different, but a hilly marathon (or something like the 20-mile offroad Grizzly) is a different game to a regular footrace too.

I only have one intensity. 

[Sigurd Mudtracker]

I suspect the answer to this is... it depends.  Clearly there are those of us that are better cyclists than runners, and vice versa.  I'm definitely a better runner than cyclist (despite hanging obsessively round a cycling forum) and what's easy running for me may well be much harder for someone who thinks nothing of knocking off 200km... which in turn I think would finish me off.

The 4:1 ratio seems to work for me and has done so for years even when I was younger and fitter but I think it reflects the relative degrees of running and cycling fitness.  I've no doubt that there is such a thing as activity specific fitnesses, for example after a winter off the bike but doing a lot of running 15 miles on the bike can seem quite a distance whilst 10 miles running could be standard fare.  At the moment I can easily handle 12-14 miles as a steady run at a respectable pace and can similarly dispatch 30 hilly miles on the bike in 2 hours and not suffer from either.  Conversely, after my longest layoff from running (6 months with plantar fasciitis) managing 2 miles was a challenge whilst I had been riding up to 200 miles each week by way of compensation.

[Oaky]

Nahh... marathons are easy.  Fat transvestite comedians with no preparation can knock off 43 of them  in 51 days.

 

[andygates]

Think how far he would have gone on a bike!

[Oaky]

Think how far he would have gone on a bike!

hmm... if 200 miles is the "marathon equivalent" then that's ~8600 miles in 51 days (which would be on pace for going round the world in roughly half Mark Beaumont's time).  Admittedly there are many, many, many differences between the two (not least the supported/unsupported difference) which make my comparison extremely spurious, but...

[Zoidburg]

Marathon? Probably up there with a fast hilly 40 maybe 50 mile ride. Honest. I stopped running years back when I could bang out ten miles easy, even with 35 pounds of kit on, I took up cycling around the same time. I often think the extreme distance several 100k plus rides are more an excercise in plodding along and sleep depravation, its not the same as running.

[mattc]

...rides are more an excercise in plodding along and sleep depravation,

You really know how to win friends, don't you?     

[urban_biker]

Nahh... marathons are easy.  Fat transvestite comedians with no preparation can knock off 43 of them  in 51 days.

 

Finally - someone has the answer we were looking for - well done!  In reality we all know that running must be easy, I mean its only 26ish miles isn't it?

How hard can it be?

[andygates]

Well, (being boringly sensible) running is loadbearing in a way cycling just ain't.  Every step is another loaded jounce on your skellington.  Over time that builds up -- as I found out to my detriment on the Druid. 

Time matters more than speed: speed's about fitness and athleticism and other silly stuff like that.  Time is attrition.

It's not unusual to double your regular ride for a long'un without training up, and to blag it.   It's a lot less shiny to do that when running.  Things like knees and feets go kablooey.

I think that Izzard fellow had clones.

[francisbarton]

One way to answer this intriguing question would be to imagine an elite cyclist looping the London Marathon course for 2 hours (same length of time an elite runner would take to run the distance).  How far would Cancellara ride in 2 hours?  About 90km?

But that seems far too low as an answer to the OP.  I'll happily knock off 90km on a bike, even in hilly country, but if I tried to run a marathon I'd end up in hospital.

As others have said, it depends what you're used to - I can hardly run, really.  I'd be marginally more confident of completing a 600km audax in 40 hours than of completing a marathon in 6 hours.  To me they seem relatively comparable undertakings.  But if you're used to doing 600k rides, or 40k runs, then I guess that no longer holds.

[Sigurd Mudtracker]

Thinking about it again, I wonder if there are actually two different questions in this.

Either:  I've run a marathon in x hours, what sort of cycling distance for a similar effort would make me feel as bad?  (ie personalised)

Or: Haile Gebreselassie can run a marathon in 2:03:59, what's an equivalent cycling record for an elite cyclist? (ie generalised)

Answer to the first question: for me, probably a much shorter than most folk round here.  Answer to the second: haven't a clue.   But I guess you're looking at standard distances, and I would guess a 100 mile TT would be the closest equivalent.  Plus it supports my unscientific 4:1 ratio!

[Spinners]

I've never run a marathon but I have done all the cycling time-trial distances and I've often wondered this to myself.

Personally, I don't think you can equate it to an audax as it's meant to be run non-stop so I'd tend to go with trying to equate it to a time-trial and I'd actually plump for the 12-hour time-trial and not the 100-mile time-trial which would be broadly similar on time.

So, very broadbrush, two hours on the bike for one hour on the Nike's.