Cycling distance equivalent to running a marathon?

[Quint]

  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.

     
                               Just lay back and enjoy it

[cyclone]

I think the answer has to do with intensit - Running is more intensive and more wearing on the body's articulations. I have run (when young, a half marathon in 1 hr 10 mins and a 25 in just under the hour in the same year.) In terms of intensity about the same...
Nowadays I don't run nor do 600 's yet so for me its an Everest question....

[Jord]

I think people are a bit blinded by the 'Marathon' distance. The are loads of Ultra Distance running events - particular in America - and a good example in this country is the West Highland Way race which is 95 miles. These sort of races have more in common with Audax events than a marathon.

Also some of the longer fell running challenge - for example the Bob Graham. I know a fell runner who also cycles who completed the Bob Graham round two years ago but who generally enters the 160K and below Audax event and thinks 200K is a very long way. In fact at my local running club there are three Bob Graham round finishers who would consider riding 200K very hard and long. I've no doubt they would all fly around it's just the mental perception.

[perpetual dan]

Personally, I don't think you can equate it to an audax as it's meant to be run non-stop

You can overdo the stops.
I've run a marathon-ish distance along the ridgeway, as a team of 4, taking 3 or 4 legs each (I think 4 but I could be wrong). That gave just enough time to seize up but not to digest a proper meal between stints. It was probably as knackering as a brisk hike / jog of twice the distance.

A marathon is a fair way, but many people do one each year with some basic build-up. Could the cycling equivalent be London - Brighton? The test being whether your average mate in the pub hasn't ridden that far before but after a couple of beers could be persuaded to join in next year and might actually do so.

[Greenbank]

I think people are a bit blinded by the 'Marathon' distance. The are loads of Ultra Distance running events - particular in America - and a good example in this country is the West Highland Way race which is 95 miles. These sort of races have more in common with Audax events than a marathon.

16 entries, 7 DNFs, sounds like Audax numbers...

Jubilant Briton completes 1,000-mile road race - The Independent

[Manotea]

Some great quotes there.

"The hardest part was around the 750-mile stage when I was thinking ‘I've done 750 miles and there's still 250 miles to go'. That seemed like a long way left at that point."

[Lycra Man]

Mmmm, interesting.

It was about putting my cycling in a context that people would understand.

Having read the responses, I've realised that the best equivalent to running a marathon is another continuous effort - a Time Trial - of probably 60 miles.

Audax rides are not comparable because of the more leisurely pace, and the fact that we keep stopping for cake every 2 hours. Took me a while to get used to stopping riding, after 10 years of running.

Obviously some people can run further and faster than I did, and cycle further, faster and for longer than I can. That wasn't the point.

Having done The Dean on Saturday, followed by the empirical 'walking down stairs' test, I can say that a 300k Audax is easier than a Marathon. Official.

But I could be wrong. That's just my opinion.

Lycra Man

[mattc]

Having done The Dean on Saturday, followed by the empirical 'walking down stairs' test, I can say that a 300k Audax is easier than a Marathon. Official.

Then the Official test is bollox based on very limited criteria.

Yes, you may have sorer legs after a marathon, but that is just 1 factor. I have rarely been more physically drained than after the 08 Dean. Sure, nothing ached painfully, but I was really, truly knackered - as in not able to do much useful the next day. (If I used stupid gears, or had a crap bike setup, I'm sure some pain could be arranged!)

By the evening, marathon runners will be chatting and carousing like ... someone who just has sore legs.

(As you say, it's just opinions, and we're comparing apples with pears.)

[mrcharly-YHT]

erm, you can eat and drink while doing a marathon.

the last time I did a half marathon I hadn't managed/bothered to train. Took maltodextrin powder with me and shoved that in a bottle. Got me round.

No way is 60miles like doing a marathon. I can ride 50 miles five days a week and be knackered at the weekend. If I did 5 marathons, I wouldn't be able to walk on the weekend.

[Jord]

If you are a fit runner a marathon at none eyeball out pace is not that tiring. Many people have done multi marathon + distances day in day out. Across America, the Scottish Munro's, over the Himalayas ect.

The reason that people who have done one marathon are so stiff the next day is because they do not run that many and/or it is at their maximum pace.

I used to run Ultra distances and would often run a 20 miler mid week after work and 40+ miles on the weekend. Building up to 100 mile challenges. If you are a regular distance runner you can run long distances quite effortlessly - but a few 800 sprints will have you hobbling for days.


Even the of the Pennine Way have been run in one go in under three days - that's 7 marathons back to back!

 

[Frenchie]

As a former half marathon runner, I would say that a hard, fast half would be equivalent to a solid 80 to 100 Mi in the Peak District hills for me (my benchmark), with the hills giving an equivalent (not the same as no pounding, as others have noted) in terms of physical pain. If I don't run hard I can go for some hours in the hills with a light pack; I stop here and there to refuel and stretch.

[harrumph]

If I cycle over mixed terrain for a long time (a whole day out) I always find that I have averaged about 14mph.

Walking cross-country over mixed terrain I can sustain a speed of 3.25mph almost indefinitely.

Oh, and a 400k Audax used to take me 24 hours, and so does a 100k cross-country walk. So the 4:1 ratio seems pretty much right to me for fairly brisk walking and its cycling equivalent, that is transportational, non-racing riding.

But whether the 4:1 ratio holds true for cycling at racing speeds versus running, I couldn't say. The foot-strike-induced fatigue of running (especially on hard surfaces) is much more significant than that of walking.

There's no significant impact-related fatigue in road cycling; but there is fatigue associated with maintaining one's position on the bike.

Although, having said that, I ride recumbents, so it doesn't really apply to me 

[Quint]

The only time I have considered running was when last orders were shouted, otherwise tis inelegant and could cause one to spill the hard earned ale.
                                                 

[citoyen]

I'm looking at getting into triathlon and so I've been pondering the issue of the relative distances for each discipline. I would assume that a lot of thought has gone into fine-tuning the "standard" distances so that each leg of a triathlon is roughly equivalent, in order to avoid favouring people who are stronger in one of the disciplines.

For an Ironman triathlon, the running leg is a marathon, while the cycling leg is 112 miles, ie just a bit more than four times the running distance. The swim is 2.4 miles, ie roughly ten percent of the running distance.

However, it strikes me that although these distances may be roughly equivalent in terms of effort required, they aren't really equivalent in terms of time required - even as a non-runner and moderately strong cyclist, I would expect to finish the marathon quicker than the time it would take me to ride 112 miles. 

d.

[zigzag]

The following posts were split out from this thread Arrivée est arrivé!.
The Movers

Anyone else been in both worlds and have thoughts of that type of
comparisons?

having done lots of cycling and couple of marathons i found the comparison in the article very inadequate. maybe the author is very strong runner, but weak cyclist?..

[simonp]

Anyone else been in both worlds and have thoughts of that type of
comparisons?

having done lots of cycling and couple of marathons i found the comparison in the article very inadequate. maybe the author is very strong runner, but weak cyclist?..

You reckon a 200k is much easier than a marathon?  I would tend to agree that the general consensus is this is the case, and more like a 300k is a fair comparison.

[Greenbank]

I don't think the comparison is worth bothering with, they're just too different.

[hellymedic]

I don't think the comparison is worth bothering with, they're just too different.

Indeed. I could never run. My best attempt at 100 metres as a Skinny Teenager took 21 seconds. I managed a few Audaxes though.

[jogler]

I had to stop running over a decade ago due to knee problems from an "impact" sport
I reckon cycling is kinder to joints with similar demands on the heart & lungs if you choose

[mattc]

You could join in the discussion here. Lots of good stuff:

Cycling distance equivalent to running a marathon?

[dasmoth]

I'm not sure marathon-vs-audax comparisons can ever be wildly helpful, given that cycling really doesn't have anything analogous to the joint-pounding effects of running.

(A colleague has just done a ~200k run, which I reckon makes a 600k audax -- or even PBP -- look positively sane.  Perhaps I should try recruiting him to AUK...)

[tonyh]

 "Out On Your Feet" , by Julie Welch, about the LDWA 100 mile walks, has a lot of entertaining stuff which Audax riders can recognise. Plus added battering (especially downhill).

[Polar Bear]

Cycling and running are completely different beasts.   though both have to put effort in on the flat and uphill, a cyclist can take a break on a downhill whereas a runner cannot.  

Having participated in marathons I can assure you all that they are very very hard work.   Cycling all day on the other hand isn't.  

[teethgrinder]

Cycling and running are completely different beasts.   though both have to put effort in on the flat and uphill, a cyclist can take a break on a downhill whereas a runner cannot.  

If you ride a fixed, especially with a low gear, your heart rate is often higher going down hills. I've been glad when the road has gone uphill again so that I can have a breather. That's one reason I like big gears. I can thunder down hills a lot easier and get some momentum up the next hill.

Like you say, they are different. You can get just as good a cardio workout with either, but I think that running is tougher because of the stress on joints.
How about comparing walking a marathon, maybe stopping for coffee now and then, just as you would on a 100 mile social ride and riding 100 miles as fast as you can?
Marathon runners seem to treat a marathon as a race. A social day on the bike isn't the same if that's the case.

[mattc]

Having participated in marathons I can assure you all that they are very very hard work.   Cycling all day on the other hand isn't.  

I suspect this is related to bodyweight. I think TG posted that he can run at not-breathing-hard pace, and I've found the same (even though I'm a very poor runner) - we're probably both much lighter than you, PB (but forgive me if I'm wrong!).

On the flat at least, a bicycle minimises the effort required to support/lift one's bodyweight. The wheel was a darn useful invention!