Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    SW Michigan
    My Bikes
    Trek Disc 4300
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cycling and Running: Comparison

    My marathon running girlfriend asked me a question recently. Is riding a century comparable to a marathon in terms of physical demand? Is there some type of conversion?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    5,063
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It all depends on how fast you ride. A seven hour century might be like completing a marathon but only running a portion of it and walking the rest. The minimum level of effort required to run a marathon without walking might equate to a 5 hr marathon. I don't know if those numbers are exactly correct but the point is it's possible to ride at a much more leisurely pace than it's possible to run.

    I don't know how to convert exactly but you could look at the times for Ironman finishers. The winner this year (Chris Lieto) did a 4:37 bike (112 mi) and 2:48 run. Hard to tell if he worked harder on the bike than the run.

    Apart from energy output running is much harder on the body. Marathons require more recovery.

  3. #3
    Slower than Yesterday chadwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tabernash, Colorado, USA
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 6, Specialized Epic Comp 29er, Surly Moonlander
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've had a few centuries that were harder than the marathon I've done, but those were unusually epic days (i.e. horrible, horrible wind or a ginormous mountain or 3 to go over).

    Going from 'couch' to century is a whole lot less training time than going from 'couch' to marathon, in my own experience.

    In both cases, going really, really fast makes the experience much, much better.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is very difficult to make a blanket statement such as one is automatically harder than the other.
    There are too many variables.
    So... it depends.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wait, she is the runner, and you are the cyclist, right?

    Then of course riding a century is way harder!

    Feel free to slap your forehead as you read this

  6. #6
    Travelling hopefully chasm54's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    6,885
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Conversions are difficult because the two exercises make very different demands on the body. Running is a weight-bearing exercise, cycling is not - most of the time.

    In terms of energy expenditure, however, it is possible to make a comparison. Cycling at 12 mph consumes a similar amount of energy per mile as does walking at 4 mph. At faster speeds, the gap narrows because the air resistance becomes more significant for the cyclist - it takes much more than 20% more power to maintain 25 mph than 20 mph on a bike for this reason.

    However, if you want a rough equivalence and your marathon-running GF does her marathon in four hours, she'll consume as much energy as she would in riding about 70 miles at about 18 mph. But she'll feel much more beaten up by the marathon because of the wear and tear of impact. On the bike, the machine carries your weight and you just have to propel it along.
    There have been many days when I haven't felt like riding, but there has never been a day when I was sorry I rode.

  7. #7
    Formerly Known as Newbie Juha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    5,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member travelmama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Beach,CA
    My Bikes
    Kona Ute, Nishiki 4130, Trek 7000, K2 Mach 1.0, Novara Randonee, Schwinn Loop, K2 Zed 1.0, Schwinn Cream, Torker Boardwalk
    Posts
    1,411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DataJunkie View Post
    It is very difficult to make a blanket statement such as one is automatically harder than the other.
    There are too many variables.
    So... it depends.
    Exactly.
    Two Wheels One Love

  9. #9
    Pat
    Pat is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    My Bikes
    litespeed, cannondale
    Posts
    2,795
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As mentioned above, running is weight bearing and also pretty high impact. Cycling is none weight bearing and low impact. I think the energy required to ride a century is about 50% greater than running a marathon. But even chubby people can ride centuries well and there is a really big penalty for weight in running.

    Also the wear and tear in a marathon is much greater. The impact beats up the feet and knees. You don't hear of people running back to back marathons. I have seen large organized rides that featured 4 centuries on successive days. I have talked to people who have ridden across the country averaging more than a century per day for a month. Then there is RAM.

    Because cycling is so much easier on the body, a cyclist can do far more riding over time than a runner can do running.

    The sports are very different.

  10. #10
    Senior Member thedutchtouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    My Bikes
    Leader 722ts
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    according to the NY times, lance armstrong once called the marathon the "hardest physical thing" he's ever done... http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...lks-marathons/

  11. #11
    jmX
    jmX is offline
    Senior Member jmX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Orange, CA
    My Bikes
    Roubaix / Shiv
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ive done a half dozen half marathons, and a couple centuries (only started riding a few months ago, so I havent done many).

    I feel that a half marathon was pretty close to the century I did with 3000ft of elevation gain. Of course as others have mentioned, the pace is everything. I was pretty slow in both (2h 10m half marathon with the wife, vs 6h 29m century), so I think that may be why I felt about the same after completing each event.

    I can say that riding a century is more fun than running 13.1 miles.

    A full marathon to me sounds like hell, much like a double century sounds bad to me at the moment.

  12. #12
    Retired dabbler hobkirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Acton, MA (20 miles west of Boston) - GORGEOUS cycling territory!
    My Bikes
    2007 Specialized Roubaix Elite Triple - 1st ride = century 9/19/2010 * * 2007 GT Carbon Series 2, Ultegra - 7/2010 - 2,000 miles, (replaced 'cuz it was too small) * * 1975 Lotus Odyssey - resurrected & ridden 400 miles to "try out" cycling
    Posts
    537
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's hard to compare the two efforts. I was a runner and somewhat serious about it (2:52 marathon at age 40, 6 1/2 minute pace), and I was very focused on my pace. I would force myself to throttle back for roughly the first half and then gradually start pushing until by the end I was on the verge of cramping both quads and calves. I did two centuries on consecutive weekends in my fourth month of cycling (both 15.3 average, very tough on the second one, age 65). The second century left me pretty stiff, although not nearly as bad as my marathons had (I needed to go backward to go down stairs for several days) and I did flirt with cramping. But, despite the intervening years (and waning body) I think I can make an observation.

    I find that one large difference is that hills prevent me from pacing myself on a bike the way I could when I ran - the difference between flats and climbs seem much greater in cycling than running. It "feels" to me that it's possible that a runner can get closer to the edge of collapse without endangering himself than a cyclist. but I am too much of a novice to know.

    PS - I find it quite remarkable just how many hours a cyclist can push very hard. My reservation about cycling as exercise was my perception (possibly wrong?) that it seemed to take about twice as long as running to get the same effect.
    2007 Specialized Roubaix, 105 Triple
    Started cycling 6/1/2010 at 64 - lethargy, bad knees, & 247# triggered my foray into cycling
    200# as of 9/9/2012 (mostly from diet, 40# in 5 mo)
    2010 (1st 7 mo) = 4.7K miles (a little nuts), 2011 = 6K

  13. #13
    Senior Member tallmantim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looking at this:

    http://www.runtheplanet.com/resource...riecounter.asp

    it says that for me I would burn about 4000 cal in a 4 hour marathon.

    At race pace I would burn 1000 cal/hour and manage to do the century in the same amount of time (dependent upon terrain) - so about the same kJ output.

    However riding you can replenish cals much more easily and is much less stress on the body (even at race pace).

    So I'd have to give the nod to the marathon.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    VA
    My Bikes
    Mercier Galaxy SC1 AL 2011
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As an avid high school track and cross country runner, I have trained and competed among top runners. At the peak of my seasons I would run sub-5:00 on the mile and fast 5ks/10ks. Of course my training runs of 10 or 13 miles can't compare to an entire marathon. I am knew to cycling, although I find my performances marginal to those of other veteran cyclists. But back to the point, I personally find distance running to be a whole lot easier. My breathing stays controlled and I can pace myself while running, however not as well with cycling...It seems like the very opposite for others; running is the hard(er) one, and cycling is easier, at least in terms of breathing. If I was to train for a marathon, and train for a century, I would say that the marathon would be easier for me. Cycling, as mentioned above, doesn't tear the muscles and ligaments on your legs, the bike absorbs a lot of it. To answer the question, NO riding a marathon and cycling a century are not comparable...

  15. #15
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thedutchtouch View Post
    according to the NY times, lance armstrong once called the marathon the "hardest physical thing" he's ever done... http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...lks-marathons/
    thats because he under trained and/or was poorly prepared. if you put in the training there is no way one would say on 3 hour marathon is harder then 3 weeks of TDF. later.

  16. #16
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,109
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat View Post
    As mentioned above, running is weight bearing and also pretty high impact. Cycling is none weight bearing and low impact. I think the energy required to ride a century is about 50% greater than running a marathon. But even chubby people can ride centuries well and there is a really big penalty for weight in running.

    Also the wear and tear in a marathon is much greater. The impact beats up the feet and knees. You don't hear of people running back to back marathons. I have seen large organized rides that featured 4 centuries on successive days. I have talked to people who have ridden across the country averaging more than a century per day for a month. Then there is RAM.

    Because cycling is so much easier on the body, a cyclist can do far more riding over time than a runner can do running.

    The sports are very different.
    You mean you don't hear of it. Dean Karnazes ran a marathon every day for 50 days. Look it up.

    So far there is no conclusive evidence that marathon running does permanent damage to the knees or feet. There is reason to believe running may be protective to cartilage.

    I think double centuries are fun.

    Those who think cycling isn't weight bearing simply don't ride hard enough.

    Running and cycling have different emphases. I don't think one is "harder" than the other. They're just different. For most people, riding a century will be easier than running a marathon. I think that's because of the hours a cyclist puts in while acquiring the endurance to ride a century. If a runner puts in the same hours, they'll have a good marathon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •