Cycling equivalent to other endurance events?

geordieindevon

I am doing the Dartmoor Classic in June, the 100km ride, and I am trying to work out how this equates to other endurance events ie is this the same as doing a half/full marathon, rowing a certain distance etc etc.

I have done half marathons and 10km runs in the past and I am trying to work the comparisons....can it be worked out by calories burnt or what else?

My mate is doing the Brighton Marathon this year and tells me its harder than a sportive over 100km...

Any thoughts?

LittleB0b

It is.

I's say 100km is more like running a 10k.

jibberjim

Cycling can be done at an intensity that is equivalent, or indeed even less than walking, whereas running can't of course. So cycling can be extremely easy, you could walk a marathon in 8 or 9 hours, and that intensity would probably see you ride your 100km sportive in around 5 hours.

None of the things are really difficult though, the difficulty comes from doing the events in a time that still gets you to the finish within the cutoff, otherwise it's just making sure you go at an intensity you can do for the entire event.

Frank the tank

Depends on the terrain, I always say Derbyshire miles are tougher than Nottinghamshire miles. Having ridden on the Lincolnshire wolds though, given windy conditions those miles are also tough.

Riding as opposed to running? When running there are no "free yards" you have to run every single one of them, no free wheeling down hills etc.

Due to personal medical reasons I could cycle 100miles more easily than run 10.

Mettan

geordieindevon wrote:

My mate is doing the Brighton Marathon this year and tells me its harder than a sportive over 100km...

Any thoughts?

Depends on the intensity - its easy to run/walk/run/walk a marathon in 6-7 hours - Grannies and Grandads (and Eddie Izard) do it up and down Britain every year - its also easy to ride a flat 60 mile sportive in 6 hours - both low intensity, "low" heart rate - however, it's profoundly difficult to do a flat 60 mile ride with a 28 mph average (vast majority of humans can't do it) - its also profoundly difficulty to do a 2:30 marathon (vast majority of humans cant do it) - so, "intensity" is well worth factoring in.

fast as fupp

in terms of calorific expenditure a 100 mile bike ride is roughly equivalent to running a marathon- the difference with running is that it is an impact sport and thus more exhausting

dbb

triathlon can be used as a guide here. the ironman triathlon finishes with a full marathon run. the cycle distance is 180km. so i would say that they are equivalent.

geordieindevon

Lots of great comments here thanks...I have only ever completed two half marathons and one was pretty tough on the knees, ankles etc.I ran the last few miles at a faster pace and paid heavily afterwards!
Since taking up cycling in the last year I find it less impact but as people have stated the intensity is the key. In the dartmoor classic if you target the gold medal over 100 miles it could be similar to aiming for a sub 3 hour marathon....which is quick!
The Dartmoor classic is also pretty undulating and I am not sure many marathons have such elevations!

Pross

I did a 23 mile hill walk on Saturday which took 9 hours and was far more taxing on my legs than a 100km hilly bike ride would have been but that is partly down to how my muscles are used to working. That said I suspect my heart rate would get up higher in the bike ride.

eh

I think the only half sensible comparison between running a marathon and cycling, would be a TT. In a TT you should be flat out all the way around, but you really can't compare that easily.

bikermaze

think it's plausible. However I don't know the conversion rates. I do know is that as long as you can increase your heart rate up and going for a number of beats, then that's it. Same with running/walking/gardening/pelting your neighbor with tomatoes, add variety with challenge such as terrain change to make it even better.