Originally Posted by
Machka
Well, first ... a 27 mile ride does not equate with a 9 mile run. For me, a 27 mile ride is something I'd do in the evening after work and then continue on to do a full evening of housework and other stuff. For me, a 9 mile run is currently impossible, and even if I were to do a combination run-walk, I'd be dead for the rest of the evening. (This, however, may be a different story for a triathlete) I have heard people who have done both compare the cycling double century with the marathon in terms of effort, etc.. If that is the case, then that's a 200 mile to 26 mile ratio, which would mean that a 27 mile ride compares to a 3.5 mile run.
Yeah, but you're in shape for cycling and not for running. Someone who's equally in shape for both usually uses about a 3:1 ratio. Personally, I think a 9 mile run takes a lot less effort than a 27 mile ride, since I'm a better runner than cyclist, and, for the record, a niner is shorter than my normal evening after work full evening of housework run. As for what takes more effort, the double century or marathon, I think it depends on the effort expended during the event. I can make a 5K (3.1 mile) running race harder than a 100 mile ride if I race hard enough. Similarly, I can make a 10 mile hammerfest ride harder than a 20 mile run. The way I would think about it, double century assumes "ride" (completion) where marathon assumes "race" (competition), but that can change depending on your friends' goals.