Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
Reload this Page >

What biking distance is similar to running a marathon?

Notices
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling Do you enjoy centuries, double centuries, brevets, randonnees, and 24-hour time trials? Share ride reports, and exchange training, equipment, and nutrition information specific to long distance cycling. This isn't for tours, this is for endurance events cycling

What biking distance is similar to running a marathon?

Old 10-25-09, 08:27 AM
  #26  
Reeks of aged cotton duck
 
Hydrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,177

Bikes: 2008 Kogswell PR mkII, 1976 Raleigh Professional, 1996 Serotta Atlanta, 1984 Trek 520, 1979 Raleigh Comp GS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
There is one aspect to this comparison that I haven't seen anyone address, and it is key:

Nutrition. Specifically fueling during the event.

We cyclists tend to pay a great deal more attention to how we fuel our bodies during the event than the typical marathoner. I know that there are runners out there that do indeed fuel more like cyclists during an event, but for the most part marathoners tend to focus on training and fitness more than mid-race eating. Most of the distance runners that I know will train seriously, but rely on sports drinks and gels come race day. Cyclists tend to pay more attention to nutrition demands while on the bike. Maybe it's because it's simply easier to carry and consume food on a bike than when you're on your feet.

It's almost as if runners tend to go out and run the fuel tank dry during an event, while cyclists tend to fuel more along the way. I find it much harder to eat during a run, and that's the main reason that I don't enjoy running really long distances any more. I can recover much faster from a long ride than from a long run of similar effort... I suspect it's largely because of the fuel intake.
Hydrated is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 09:46 AM
  #27  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I both run and ride long distances. Here is a simple comparison of some roughly equivilant events according to time. I did a 600K brevet in June and finished in 29 hrs feeling tired but otherwise pretty good, other than a stiff neck not much soreness. I did a solo 24 hours MTB race in August and finished that tired but otherwise no worse for the wear. In Sept. I ran my first 100 mile trail race and finished in 31.5 hours, dead last (except for the guy they were carrying out behind me) and had knee and ankle problems. I'm still recovering. Plenty of endurance, but the body took a hit and I had problems I had never had in spite of many 50ish mile mountain run this summer. I have done long distance riding for nearly 30 years, but have only done ultra running for 2 years so maybe in a few years I will be a better ultra runner.

I would say in general that running is tougher on the body and take more preparation to withstand long distances. The demands on the body are so different that I think it is hard to compare the two activities.
dkahern is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 11:40 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
lonesomesteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked 221 Times in 65 Posts
Personally, I find riding a hundred miles easier than running five miles, but that's me. For serious, well trained marathoners it generally takes several days to completely recover from a marathon, while it takes no more than a day or two for most Randonneurs I know to recover from a 600k. Running is just much harder on the body.
lonesomesteve is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 12:10 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N. California
Posts: 1,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Maybe another way to do this comparison would refer to Kenneth H. Cooper's book "Aerobics" where he compares the cardiovascular exertion between running, swimming and bicycling. In this research, rough equivalencey comes with 16.25 minutes for running 2.5 miles, 16.67 minutes swimming 1000 yards and 30 minutes riding 10 miles (to pick one set of points from the charts in this book).

Not sure how to extrapolate this to a marathon distance, but let's just do it linearly so use a factor of 26/2.5 = 10.4. For running, we are looking at 6.5 minute miles for 26 miles which would take 2.8 hours. The equivalent swimming effort would be 5.9 miles in 2.9 hours; For bicycling it would be 104 miles in 5.2 hours (20 mph).
The Smokester is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 12:26 PM
  #30  
Flying Under the Radar
 
X-LinkedRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northeast PA
Posts: 4,116

Bikes: 10' SuperiorLite SL Club | 06' Giant FCR3 | 2010 GT Avalanche 3.0 Disc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I like that 4x ratio. My best guess would have been around a century as well. I ran throughout highschool and beyond.
X-LinkedRider is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 02:56 PM
  #31  
Uber Goober
 
StephenH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas area, Texas
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Put this question in perspective this way: How many stairsteps do you have to climb to have the equivalent of doing a 7' high-jump? For most of us, there isn't any answer to that question. It's kind a similar deal on the marathon question.

If you count walking a marathon, that I can do. On level ground, probably looking at 9 hours at a lower intensity than riding a bicycle. But that's not what most people mean when they think of running a marathon.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
StephenH is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 03:56 PM
  #32  
RFC
Senior Member
 
RFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 4,466

Bikes: many

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times in 13 Posts
I have run numerous marathon distances, wore out my knees and don't do that anymore. That's the issue. Running is a "weight bearing" exercise that can take a real toll on muscles, joints, and ligaments. Further, unlike crosscountry skiing and speed skating, which are also weight bearing, running involves addtional impact. So, you can't compare by focusing on calories burned or cardio effort.
RFC is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 08:27 PM
  #33  
Never enough miles...
 
Fueco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 90

Bikes: Look 595, Rock Lobster Steel CX, Bianchi San Jose

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by znomit
200 miles.
200 miles on the bike is far easier than running a marathon... So long as your butt can take it!
Fueco is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 08:39 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,008

Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 34 Posts
Maybe someone who has run marathons can compare to some of their long distance bike rides and let me know what they think.
Sure plenty of people can relay their own perspective of the comparable effort required for running a marathon and riding to some level of fatigue. But most the information would be pointless - and can never be applied to anyone or anything but their future experiences.

I've run at 15 marathons, and one time ran 50 miles in 12 hours. I've also ridden at least 100 double centuries a couple of dozen road races and numerous other "all out" endurance workout efforts. But my concept of pain or difficulty has nothing to do with anyone else - but there are some physical aspects regarding all exercise- that if you spell out for a given question could be worth discussing.

You have to limit the variables.

Specify the marathon finishing time, the weight of the runner/cyclist, the course terrain and temperature. Specify the riding speed, the type of bicycle and of course, the terrain, temp and wind during the ride.

Then you could predict the relative physiological load to some of the organ systems. The trouble is- there simply in way to account for the stress encountered during each foot strike. And since it is the shock and damage caused by the foot strike that account for such a great perception of fatigue -as well as real diminished capacity of muscle - all the other crap is just meaningless....
Richard Cranium is offline  
Old 10-25-09, 11:52 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
calf man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium
Sure plenty of people can relay their own perspective of the comparable effort required for running a marathon and riding to some level of fatigue. But most the information would be pointless - and can never be applied to anyone or anything but their future experiences.

I've run at 15 marathons, and one time ran 50 miles in 12 hours. I've also ridden at least 100 double centuries a couple of dozen road races and numerous other "all out" endurance workout efforts. But my concept of pain or difficulty has nothing to do with anyone else - but there are some physical aspects regarding all exercise- that if you spell out for a given question could be worth discussing.

You have to limit the variables.

Specify the marathon finishing time, the weight of the runner/cyclist, the course terrain and temperature. Specify the riding speed, the type of bicycle and of course, the terrain, temp and wind during the ride.

Then you could predict the relative physiological load to some of the organ systems. The trouble is- there simply in way to account for the stress encountered during each foot strike. And since it is the shock and damage caused by the foot strike that account for such a great perception of fatigue -as well as real diminished capacity of muscle - all the other crap is just meaningless....
Or else you can just take it from me - running a marathon is harder than biking 200 miles.
calf man is offline  
Old 10-26-09, 11:36 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
lonesomesteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked 221 Times in 65 Posts
Incidentally, here's what Lance Armstrong had to say about his first marathon in the 2006 NYC marathon: "For the level of condition that I have now, that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done."

He finished in just under 3 hours.
lonesomesteve is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 09:51 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,008

Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 34 Posts
Or else you can just take it from me - running a marathon is harder than biking 200 miles.
And to build on the previous stupidity - you could walk a marathon - have a sit-down breakfast and dinner and still finish before you complete the double century - somehow I think most people could take any 10 hour plus marathon easily over a double century - but then again - stupid is as stupid is -isn't it?

Lance is in a good position to know what it means to go down deep to the deepest layer of effort and will power. And that is my point - every multi-sport athlete that competes knows how to drive themselves to the edge.

I'll never forget the effort and will it took to maintain sub 7-minute miles 20 miles into marathon, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten the profound pain and fatigue experienced at a 150 miles into a sub-ten hour double. The point is - like I said - they only compare for me, and my future - no one else......

That's why advice and speculation about comparable performances remains a load of crap when it gets to a message board......
Richard Cranium is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 10:30 AM
  #38  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,568

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1099 Post(s)
Liked 2,132 Times in 1,438 Posts
That 4 to 1 comparison seems right to me providing you really push yourself on both. The problem with comparing is it's so much easier to back off the effort cycling and slow down, coast downhills and trecover at rest stops. Running requires more of a continual effort, although you can get some relief by walking.

But if you go hard throughout and continuously and really push yourself, the two are roughly equivalent in my experience. By the way, my build probably lends itself more to running. I'm 6' and get down to 150 when I peak for a marathon. I'm a sub 3 hour runner but not sure I can do that now.

Last edited by StanSeven; 10-27-09 at 03:53 PM.
StanSeven is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 01:45 PM
  #39  
Never enough miles...
 
Fueco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 90

Bikes: Look 595, Rock Lobster Steel CX, Bianchi San Jose

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What tastes better? A navel orange or a gala apple?
Fueco is offline  
Old 10-29-09, 08:11 AM
  #40  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,568

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1099 Post(s)
Liked 2,132 Times in 1,438 Posts
Originally Posted by Hydrated
There is one aspect to this comparison that I haven't seen anyone address, and it is key:

Nutrition. Specifically fueling during the event.

We cyclists tend to pay a great deal more attention to how we fuel our bodies during the event than the typical marathoner. I know that there are runners out there that do indeed fuel more like cyclists during an event, but for the most part marathoners tend to focus on training and fitness more than mid-race eating. Most of the distance runners that I know will train seriously, but rely on sports drinks and gels come race day. Cyclists tend to pay more attention to nutrition demands while on the bike. Maybe it's because it's simply easier to carry and consume food on a bike than when you're on your feet.

It's almost as if runners tend to go out and run the fuel tank dry during an event, while cyclists tend to fuel more along the way. I find it much harder to eat during a run, and that's the main reason that I don't enjoy running really long distances any more. I can recover much faster from a long ride than from a long run of similar effort... I suspect it's largely because of the fuel intake.
That's because most runners would feel sick if they ate food and ran. Running causes some serious impacts to your body which makes digestion of food difficult. All runners can consume are liquids and gels.
StanSeven is offline  
Old 10-29-09, 07:33 PM
  #41  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by StanSeven
That's because most runners would feel sick if they ate food and ran. Running causes some serious impacts to your body which makes digestion of food difficult. All runners can consume are liquids and gels.

That's not entirely true. If someone were to run a hard marathon, it is indeed hard to eat solid food. But in endurance running (let's say over 30 mi.), Most runners will consume much the same food at aid stations as century and longer riders do. Intensity is a big factor. The intensity level of a 50 mi. trail run, finished in about 10 hrs, is about the same as a double century finished in about 10 hours (at least for me). Unless you are up front (that ain't me) you are not running all that hard and so it's not that hard to eat real food.
dkahern is offline  
Old 10-29-09, 11:49 PM
  #42  
One legged rider
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 1,390

Bikes: Kuota Kharma, Surly LHT, CAAD9, Bianchi fg/ss

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Ironman triathlon came about because they took the sort of "distance milestones" of swimming, riding, and running and bunched them together, figuring each event was roughly equal to the other.
Good friend of mine is an Ironman racer. I really don't see how he does it. I love all three sports but thats like doing 300 miles on a bike in 12 hours.
benajah is offline  
Old 10-29-09, 11:55 PM
  #43  
One legged rider
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 1,390

Bikes: Kuota Kharma, Surly LHT, CAAD9, Bianchi fg/ss

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by lonesomesteve
Personally, I find riding a hundred miles easier than running five miles, but that's me. For serious, well trained marathoners it generally takes several days to completely recover from a marathon, while it takes no more than a day or two for most Randonneurs I know to recover from a 600k. Running is just much harder on the body.
Its the impact from running that hurts you. I know a few RAAM finisher, Jim Penseyers and his brother, and its the lack of sleep being pretty much the only thing that kills you, other than being able to balance calorie intake versus calorie output.
Running is much different. The impact just beats you up, so its not just your muscles that need to recover, but your bones, your organs, your upper body core muscles, even your biceps.
After a marathon in 2003, my sorest muscles were my biceps for some reason.
benajah is offline  
Old 10-30-09, 12:06 AM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by benajah
Ironman triathlon came about because they took the sort of "distance milestones" of swimming, riding, and running and bunched them together, figuring each event was roughly equal to the other.
Good friend of mine is an Ironman racer. I really don't see how he does it. I love all three sports but thats like doing 300 miles on a bike in 12 hours.
The Ironman and 99.9% of all triathlons are unequal, just look at the splits.
I'd like to see an Ironman that is about 7.5-80-25 in miles. How about 2.5-20-8 for a two hour sprint race?
Rumpled is offline  
Old 10-30-09, 01:06 AM
  #45  
One legged rider
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 1,390

Bikes: Kuota Kharma, Surly LHT, CAAD9, Bianchi fg/ss

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
The funny thing is...my major in college was evolutionary anthropology and physical anthropology, and as long as you believe in evolution...we really were built from the tips of our toes to the tops of our heads to run. Our whole bodies are totally built for it. Our ankles and knees are remarkable shock absorbers and direction changers (barefoot and on rough ground, hence the knee injuries among modern runners, much like repetitive stress injuries among office and factory workers)
Many running type folk in other societies where they live in the bush and don't wear shoes have very low levels of knee, ankle and
benajah is offline  
Old 10-30-09, 02:12 AM
  #46  
Primate
 
Metzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: gone
Posts: 2,579

Bikes: Concorde Columbus SL, Rocky Mountain Edge, Sparta stadfiets

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by chucky
World records for speed and distance cycling are typically 4x those for running.

So using that as a rule of thumb a 26 mile marathon is equivalent to 104 mile bike ride, which is not surprisingly close to a cycling milestone of similar clout (a century).
This thread is important and full of win. Started wonderfully.
And the notion of pro cyclists averaging 80km/hr for over a hundred miles fills me with awe.
Metzinger is offline  
Old 10-30-09, 03:51 AM
  #47  
Formerly Known as Newbie
 
Juha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,250
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by jeffpoulin
Back when I was a runner, it was much easier for me to run a marathon than bike a century. Now that I've become an avid cyclist (and, consequently, stopped running), a century seems far easier.
It's a well studied and documented notion in work safety field that pretty much any repetitive movement can cause physical damage if you're not used to it and the exposure is long (a couple of hours is long enough in that context). It's not a question of loads, just moving your arm from one work position to another repetitively may be enough, if you're not used to that particular movement.

For that fact alone it's a safe bet I couldn't finish a running marathon. Yet I'm able to bike 100-200 miles with no permament damage.

--J
__________________
To err is human. To moo is bovine.

Who is this General Failure anyway, and why is he reading my drive?


Become a Registered Member in Bike Forums
Community guidelines
Juha is offline  
Old 10-31-09, 07:29 AM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,008

Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 34 Posts
I tried to steer a little objectivity into the swamp but - its glub glub glub....

Any-who - for any comparison to be valid one would want to understand the disparity of non-linear aspect of comparable work loads.

In other words - one could speculate a table of this nature for given athlete -at a given weight and race.

2:00 marathon - 56 miles of cycling in 2 hours
2:30 marathon - 68 miles of cycling in 2.5 hours
3:00 marathon - 72 miles in etc ......
4:00 marathon - 80 miles ......
5:00 marathon - 95 miles .....
6:00 marathon - 100 miles ---
7:00 marathon - 105 miles

Anyone see where I'm going with this? Make any sense? Add hills or body weight - increase disparity.
Richard Cranium is offline  
Old 10-31-09, 01:14 PM
  #49  
Faster than yesterday
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One difference is that you can't rest while running and expect to keep moving. So long as you aren't riding fixed, you can do this on a bike.
tadawdy is offline  
Old 10-31-09, 02:36 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: western Washington
Posts: 606

Bikes: Stella

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
non-runner, and friend of several runners, some who also cycle a bit.

I'd say 1/2 marathone = 100 mile century (not a "metric" century)
and
full marathon = double century.

Think of the training required. Someone who's been running 5k's will train for a half-athon, run a few of those, and then go for the full 26 miles 385 yards. Kind of like progressing from 30-40 miles, up to a century, and then riding a few more centuries to get prepared for the double.
moleman76 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.