heffdiddy

What if they changed a marathon to 26.2 miles? What then?

heffdiddy

These are just an example of the numbers you are asking about. The distances are shorter but you can get an idea.

Tuesday morning I ran 6.07 miles in 50:18. That is an 8:17 minute pace. I was not running hard or easy (my half marathon pace is 7:30 for comparison). It says I burned 640 Calories. I was wearing a HRM (Avg HR 145 BPM) so it is pretty close to accurate I guess. Temperature was 77, 100% Humidity (Houston), 0 wind.

Wednesday afternoon I went for a ride. Just an easy spin. Did 30.27 miles in 1:51:01. That is an average speed of 16.4 MPH. I burned 1,261 Calories. Avg HR was 137 BPM. The temperature was 90, 63% humidity, and 3 mph wind (although I think it was closer to at least 10).

So if you multiply the run by 4.33 to get to 26.2 that is 2771 calories.
If you multiply the ride by 3.33 to get to 100 miles that is almost 4200 calories.

None of this means anything really. Running is harder. Especially the longer you go.

Hammondc

I roughly figure you have to ride about 4 miles for every mile run to be an equal PHYSICAL output. Caloric is a completely different topic.

Darth Steele

Based on my own experience.... I do between 80-110 miles on Sundays, I take Mondays off to recover and by Tuesday I am back to normal
Show me any "average Joe" that is running a Marathon every week (in 1 day)

Doing a century is relatively not that impressive when you are use to it, and it is not too rough on the body, especially when you are doing it as part of a group.


To me, A century is like doing a 1/2 marathon at good a pace, well maybe 15-18 miles.

mlander

Throwing in the weight variable, cycling is relatively easier on clydes compared to running. I agree that the century would be easier. Relatively more so, the higher your BMI goes.

heffdiddy

So you are saying that a century and a marathon are equal physically?

Hammondc

Ehhh possibly. I have not done a full century yet. That is coming in about a month. But I feel about the same physically on the distances based on that rough equation. Calorie burn is different though. Wearing a HRM, I burn about 110cals/mile running and about 35cals/mile cycling.

I think the caveat is that unless you are training for a triathlon, you rarely do long distrances of both in the same training time period to compare. It is different muscles. I think it would be tough for someone that rides centuries fairly often to go out and RUN a marathon. I think almost anyone can go run/walk a marthon. Conversely, if you run full marys often, it would be tough to go cycle 100 miles.

dalameda

You can't coast downhill on a marathon.

I've done a number of centuries, and the only running I've done are 3-4 5k's a year. Granted, I don't train for the 5k's and I have significant foot issues (4 pins in my right foot) but I am wrecked for at least a week after the runs, but after the centuries I can get on the bike the next day for an easy spin. Really, I just do the runs often enough to remind myself why I hate running, and how fortunate I am to be able to cycle.

Kansas Don

That's where I'm at, had to give up running because of torn up knee from a fall , but I can still bike, even though I'm carrying 20 pounds more now a days


Don

caloso

Not even close. It's not the aerobic effort, though; it's the pounding of the joints that's the difference.

gsa103

Calories Burned Calculator | Runner's World & Running Times
So I tossed in my weight into this calorie calculator and came up with 3300 calories for 26.2mi at 10min/mi pace.

My previous metric centuries (moderate hills ~4000 ft total) have always been around ~2500 calories which put me on pace for about that level of caloric burn. To large extent the only thing that matters is effort & time. You can really only burn so many calories/hr. So assuming that both the runner and cyclist are are in similar shape for their sport, they will burn a similar number of calories for activities taking a similar time.

One interesting thing to note about Garmin HRM devices. The caloric burn is calculated purely off HR, it doesn't care if you're running, walking, swimming.

deacon mark

I have done 12 marathons run for 36 years but cycling is allowing me the last 6 yrs to keep burning calories. Running does beat you up and i use 5 miles riding to 1 mile running. I could do 2 marathons a year at a good effort but can ride a century a week or a hard all out century month.
When I took up cycling more only a few rides and was able to ride 50-60iles easy but cycling in a race effort requires skill riding not just aerobic ability.

unabowler

I've done about 8 marathons, including qualifying for and running Boston. I always thought the effort of about 5 miles of riding is similar to 1 mile of running. For me a metric century is similar in difficulty to a half marathon, even though the metric takes much longer and the running is harder on your body.

Leinster

Someone should take this to the tri thread and ask any IMers which leg is harder, the 112 mile bike in the middle, or the marathon at the end.

surgeonstone

Whatever.

kevmk81

How about this comparison... I've *completed* 2 Ironman triathlons - which include a 112 mile bike, along with a marathon.

I've *competed* in a crit that lasted an hour.

What hurt the most, and left me more drained immediately after, the crit.

What just left me more drained in general - really just tired and wanting a nap - the Ironman.

Just depends on how hard you push yourself. If I would have ran like heck on those two Ironman's that I've done, I'm sure I would have been more drained. But I'd say it was a good half of it that was ran, and the other half was jogged and/or walked. Competitive running races have never given me the upper leg muscle burn a bike race gives me. Bike racing has never given me lower leg muscle burn a running race has given me. Entirely different sports, but both can be taken easy, or both can be brutally competitive.

F16F22

To the OP, it depends on what you mean by "equivalent". If you're talking about physical punishment, then no, marathons are much worse. The pounding your body takes during a marathon far outweighs any physical damage to your body done by a century. That's why there aren't any 21 day "grand tours" of running. If you're talking cardio-vascular effort, I'd have to say they are the same. In terms of mental toughness and perseverance required, they are the same. Everybody's body is different, some people are suited to running, some people are suited to biking, some people are suited to both, and some are frankly suited to neither (like me). To a born runner, a marathon is easy and a century hard. To a born-cyclist, vice-versa. To those gifted few who can do both, I can only guess they are similar (for justification I use the fact that an Iron-man level triathlon has a 112 mile bike ride (close enough to a century) and a 26.2 mile run). To those like me suited to neither, both require months of dedicated training, incredible perseverance and intestinal fortitude during the event to finish, an incredible ability to suffer for several hours at a time, and both will leave you unable to walk comfortably the next day.

For all intents and purposes, I consider them the same and if you can do either you should hold your head high.

LesterOfPuppets

Racewalk the marathon, that might be closer.

StephenH

I think the problem is that people have preconceived ideas of what "running a marathon" consists of. If all you require is going 26 miles at whatever pace you'd normally handle- no problem, I can walk that in 8 hours or so, and I can ride a reasonably leisurely century in that same time, too. Or if you define "running a marathon" as "must take less than 4 hours", well, I likely can't do that at all, but then again, I can't ride a 100 miles in 4 hours, either. So how comparable they are depend a lot on the definitions. If you mean "run a marathon at a competitive race pace" versus "mosey along on a bike until you hit 100 miles eventually", then yeah, the cycling is easier.

StanSeven

No one is mentioning race type conditions. A marathon is a race although lately most participants don't treat it as that. On the other side almost anyone can do my century with minimal training. The real comparison is an all out effort for both - a 100 mile time trial versus a hard marathon where you train and push yourself.

Except for the lasting after effects of running (because your overall body and particularly legs will hurt from the pounding), you'll be pretty exhausted from both and find them close.

gregf83 

+1. Without specifying intensity the comparison is meaningless.

Riding stage 18 of the TDF this year like Lars Boom in 4 1/2 hrs with an average power of 320W is much harder than running a 4 hr marathon.

Lots of people completing a marathon or ironman end up walking a good portion of the 26 miles which make is considerably easier.

knoxtnhorn

I've done both, with very little preparation and some major mistakes. The marathon was much harder.

I'm relatively fit, play sports, etc...

I got my first road bike and completed a 112 mile ride less than a month later. I had no idea what I was doing. Bike wasn't fitted, I didn't bring anything to eat (luckily my friends did), and, hell, I didn't even have a jersey. It was hard. The only major thing that hit me was cramping in the last 10 miles because most of the hills were at that section. I was tired upon completion but nowhere near as bad as when I...

...decided to complete a marathon on a whim. It was a couple of years later. I saw some 70 year-olds finishing an Iron Man and decided I wanted to run a marathon without training. I ran a mile the week before and realized I'd made a huge mistake. Figured my soccer/cycling would get me through the first half with my fear of failure and stubbornness the 2nd half. I finished - barely. Took me 30 minutes to get about 200 yards to my car. Ended up in an emergency clinic that afternoon with cramps and really, really bad leg and back pain.

The century was much easier - relatively speaking.

jeffpoulin

If you ask a bunch of cyclists which is harder, running 26.2 miles or cycling 100 miles, of course most are going to say running.

If you ask on a running forum, you'll probably get the opposite answer.

I've done both and find them roughly equivalent.

Rowan

Why isn't question asked of an Ironman competitor? After all, they are doing the three events -- 1.5km swim, 180km bike and marathon run -- and would have a good handle on how the marathon stacked up against the others two.

Oh, that's right, tri athletes (which Ironmen are) are regarded with sneering disdain here.

Gran Fondo

Not even close. I can ride back-to-back centuries, but I can't even finish one marathon. A good way to compare is to determine how many calories you burn using the same parameters. Go for a 5K run, check the calories. Then ride the same 5K course and compare. You will find that you burned about 1/10th the calories on your bike. However, you must not coast on the bike. Pedal at all times unless coming to a stop or you've exceeded the max speed the gearing allows. Coasting will render the results non-conclusive.