Riding Distances V Running Distances

pedrojake

Ok, so its not an exact science in any way shape or form. My bro in law is a runner, im a cyclist. He does Marathons / half marathons, im starting Sportives etc.
It’ll come up sooner or later in the pub, so generally speaking, how many miles does one half to cycle to be the equivalent of a mile ran?

Anonymous

Depends, on the downhills on a bike, you aren't doing anything like as much effort whereas it's still hard going running downhill.

I'd suggest that running a marathon is equivalent to riding a 100 mile sportive. Maybe.

I'm prolly wrong though.

danowat

NapoleonD wrote:

I'd suggest that running a marathon is equivalent to riding a 100 mile sportive. Maybe.

I'm prolly wrong though.

I'd around about agree with that, I'd have said a 1/2 mara is around a 50mile cycle, a 25mile TT around a 10k run, and a 10mile TT around a 5k run.

Obviously, all these cycles would be fairly fast and hard.

pedrojake

Nap, id agree on the downhill bit, id counter that by saying I think cycling up a hill is more difficult than running.....

but i'd kinda though a marathon to 100 miler (ie a 1:4 ratio) would be not too far off the mark

danowat

PedroJake wrote:

id counter that by saying I think cycling up a hill is more difficult than running.....

Not convinced I'd agree with that, I'd have said they were at least on a par, maybe running being a bit more of a chore uphill!, well, at least it is for me!

softlad

ask a triathlete...(which I'm not..)

Anonymous

softlad wrote:

ask a triathlete...(which I'm not..)

+1

But not on here, please.

Please spare us!

dennisn

Sort of like asking "how many carrots equal an apple?".

ex-pat scot

the usual rule of thumb is 4:1 (bike miles:run miles).

In speed terms I'm 2.5 x faster on a bike for the same general effort.

Running does take a lot more out of you in terms of recovery - at least on a bike your weight is supported.

cougie

A marathon is a lot harder than the average 100m sportif - for me anyway - but I've been riding bikes for ooh almost 30 years and only running for 10 or so.

I'd say that if you had to put a ratio on it - its more like 5 to 1, cycled to run miles.

(but basically a marathon beats you up so much more than any amount of cycling would)

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

A marathon is a lot harder than the average 100m sportif - for me anyway - but I've been riding bikes for ooh almost 30 years and only running for 10 or so.

I'd say that if you had to put a ratio on it - its more like 5 to 1, cycled to run miles.

(but basically a marathon beats you up so much more than any amount of cycling would)

I think the main difference is carrying your body weight. An hours' jog is far harder to me than a long recovery ride...

meanredspider

Yeah - I don't know how you'd do this. Calories would be one thing but it's so much more complicated that that. I can get my heartrate up to 183bpm running hard up a steep hill - I'm not sure I could get to that rate on a bike so something is very different. I'd concur that between 4 and 5x feels about right. Just goes to show what an efficient machine a bike is (or just how crap your legs are...)

cougie

With cycling - you dont really move your arms that much - running you do - so you're recruiting more muscles - so your HR will be higher.

And you can freewheel on a bike - I've not been able to do that on a run yet.

stronginthesun

i come from running and have been pondering this . i was certainly beaten up more by a half marathon than a 50 mile bike ride . but that doesnt mean i was fitter as a runner ? with running i was doing 30 to 40 miles a week , with cycling 100 to 120 and i have gained no weight and feel just as fit . its swings and roundabouts eh ?

Buckled_Rims

You'd have to work out calories IMO on a flat roaded marathon and then find out how many calories are burnt on a flat roads.

The big problem we have here is that a marathon runner can't stop and still travel, whilst a cyclist have rest and freewheel (unless they're fixies)...which bring me to another point, what gears? Do you calculate this with 20 gears or a fixed?

TDF cyclists do huge miles each and every day (almost), yet a Marathon runner might be able to do a few.

Interesting subject, but ultimately chalk and cheese.

bigmat

I'd say a flattish marathon probably involves similar effortto a hilly 100 miler on the bike. The big difference (for me anyway) is the toll it takes on your body. With the cycling I can happily get back on the bike the next day, with running I couldn't walk for a few days and its taking months for my toes to recover!

Best gauge is probably the iron man distances - I think they aim to makethe three events roughly comparable - the run is a marathon and the ride is around 150km I think.

Headhuunter

Cycling allows a very wide range of energy usage. People doing the L2B ride this weekend will cycle what? 50 miles? However I shouldn't think that anyone will be pushing it particularly hard - freewheeling down any hills etc. Although you can run at a slower pace, the variation between a gentle pace and a fast pace in running is not as wide as on a bike. You could probably ride a bike to Brighton at a very slow pace and barely break sweat but running, even at a slow pace for a few miles, you're likely to get your heart rate up there.

meanredspider

I think freewheeling is a red herring - the energy to move the bike doesn't come from nowhere. The other thing that I don't think has been cover adequately here is the speed. The wind resistance goes up exponentially. I can walk 25 miles up a mountain (or two) and back and hardly be aware of it the next day. Same thing applies to riding. I think the two are too difficult to compare better than they have been here already.

cougie

Ironman Tri is 180k on the bike - so 112 miles or so. The marathon is still the tougher part of the day though - and the swim is just 2.4 miles - which although usually the bit that most dread is the nicest part of the entire day.

I think they just chose those distances as the swim was across the bay at Hawaii, the bike was round the Island, and the run - well everyone knows of a marathon ? (could be wrong on that though)

bigpikle

Having done half marathons and up to hilly 80 milers so far, I'd say my hilly 80 miler is about equal to a decent half marathon for me. I did a 50 this morning on a windy and undulating local route and it was far far easier than my last half marathon on a very windy and pancake flat Silverstone race circuit!

Monty Dog

Having done plenty of triathlons in it's infancy, Ironman (1991) and quite a few marathons (sub 3hrs), I'd concur with the rough 4:1 ratio. However, running takes more out of you IME both physically an psychologically. Lots of running over time can have a degenerative effect on your body - you lose muscle mass and become quite vulnerable to injury too IME. I can maintain fitness on the bike and over time I get fitter and stronger - do the same with running and I'd just end up injured.

tlw1

1:4 is about right for me

and my knees don't hurt AS much cycling

Variado

1:4 is about right for me

Personally i'd rate it higher than that - I find a sub-50 minute 10km run considerably harder than a hilly 50km ride, and a half-marathon more like a 100-mile sportive than a 100km one.

Or maybe i'm just a rubbish runner

frankieh

Runnings harder because of the constant impacts. Its like punching yourself in the foot every pedal stroke. I think because of that you can't compare the two by measuring how tired and sore you feel after and its why cycling (and swimming) will let you train harder, longer and more often than running.

Cleat Eastwood

Monty Dog wrote:

Having done plenty of triathlons in it's infancy, Ironman (1991) and quite a few marathons (sub 3hrs), I'd concur with the rough 4:1 ratio. However, running takes more out of you IME both physically an psychologically. Lots of running over time can have a degenerative effect on your body - you lose muscle mass and become quite vulnerable to injury too IME. I can maintain fitness on the bike and over time I get fitter and stronger - do the same with running and I'd just end up injured.

I did half marathons before i took to the bike an di'd agree with the 4:1, and Monty Dogs right about the psychological aspect of running, you're more aware of the body and often times it can meake a long run seem longer.

On a bike, as has been mentioned, the microbreaks not only give thebody rest but also allow the mind to re-focus IMO

dcab

dennisn wrote:

Sort of like asking "how many carrots equal an apple?".

dont know about apples ? but two carrots do equal a pear? pair?

Lycra Man

This is a very interesting question. Having been a runner for about 10 years, starting with 10k, half and then full Marathons, before moving over to cycling about 10 years, this is something I have considered.

I subscribe to the 4:1 ratio based on energy/calorie consumption. However, there is the issue of intensity.

So my opinion is that a marathon, which I have run in 3hrs 36, would be equivalent to a 100 mile Time Trial. I have ridden 100 mile rides (and more) but at a much lower intensity. I have not ridden time trials but I thinlk they most closely equal the intensity of effort required by running.

But that's just my opinion.

Lycra Man

danowat

Been thinking about this a bit more over the last couple of days......

According to my TRIMP scores, my last half marathon compares fairly well in terms of TRIMP to a fast 50 miler, however....

The biggest difference (apart from the impact on the body) is that when you are running, to rest, you have to stop, when cycling, it is possible to rest, and still keep going.

chaffordred

I would say running a full marathon would be more towards 140-150 mile range on a bike.

Regular cyclists that can do a ton = loads

Regular runners that can run a full marathon = not many.