Sportive - Marathon Equivalency

gingernash

Hello, all a bit new to this so fairly silly question.

I am looking to build up to riding in sportives. I wondered though if there is a rough rule of thumb which equates the effort and distance of running a marathon to the distance of a sportive?

My guess is that 100 miles is probably about right but that's a guess!

jgsi

It's been asked before.
Personally I dont need to train for a 100 mile sportive which of course as anyone knows is not a race. Not exactly water off a ducks back but can be close if you choose to make it so.
I wouldnt even think about running for 26 miles though....the thought alone creates havoc

amaferanga

100 miles is nowhere near marathon equivalent IMO. But then I guess it depends how hard you ride the 100 miles.

danowat

Maybe a 100 mile TT?

ex-pat scot

I would say that a 12 hr TT equates to the effort (and after effects) of running a marathon.

Perhaps a 100m TT - but they are relatively easy to recover from and don't beat you up in the same way as a really juicy marathon.


And I've done quite a few marathons in the last few years...

SBezza

ex-pat scot wrote:

I would say that a 12 hr TT equates to the effort (and after effects) of running a marathon.

Perhaps a 100m TT - but they are relatively easy to recover from and don't beat you up in the same way as a really juicy marathon.


And I've done quite a few marathons in the last few years...

Not that I have done a marathon, but I would go with the above, 100m TT is very hard if done as hard as you can, but the recovery isn't too bad. Doing a 12 hr TT as hard as you can means pain for 3 days at least (well it has for me this week, though getting slightly better each day).

nickwill

It would be interesting to see a comparison of calories burned between a marathon and a hard ridden hilly sportive like the Fred Whitton. The complicating factor would be the extent to which your body is 'beaten up' by the constant pounding of running as compared to cycling. My suspicion is that calories burned would not differ greatly between the two disciplines, but a marathon runner would take much longer to recover.

SBezza

My Garmin said I burnt less than 5,000 calories in my 12 hr TT at the weekend, I suspect that for a 100 mile sportive, perhaps it would be around the 3,000 mark, obviously depending on how long it took you, and how hard you were trying. I haven't got a clue what a marathon runner would burn in say 4 hours of running.

danowat

According to my Garmin stats, a fairly fast 73ish mile sportive is about comparible with a half marathon.

nickwill

SBezza wrote:

My Garmin said I burnt less than 5,000 calories in my 12 hr TT at the weekend, I suspect that for a 100 mile sportive, perhaps it would be around the 3,000 mark, obviously depending on how long it took you, and how hard you were trying. I haven't got a clue what a marathon runner would burn in say 4 hours of running.

My Polar HRM claims that I burned 3649 calories over 6 hours 20 mins on the Cumberland Challenge on Sunday.

SBezza

Nickwill wrote:

SBezza wrote:

My Garmin said I burnt less than 5,000 calories in my 12 hr TT at the weekend, I suspect that for a 100 mile sportive, perhaps it would be around the 3,000 mark, obviously depending on how long it took you, and how hard you were trying. I haven't got a clue what a marathon runner would burn in say 4 hours of running.

My Polar HRM claims that I burned 3649 calories over 6 hours 20 mins on the Cumberland Challenge on Sunday.

Thats the thing with HRM, the calories burnt is a pure mathematical guessitmate.

dmch2

I've run a marathon (not very fast though!) but my longest cycle ride is only 50 miles.

I'd say the marathon beats you up much more (constant pounding impacts) but i'd imagine that both are roughly the same caloories per hour ie what ever you sustain for hours at a time.

To put it another way, i'd rather do a 100 mile ride than a marathon any day!

Clemsy

Did the london marathon in 2009, did this years Etape. The feelings of exhaustion and suffering were very similar as I neared the end of both events. Mentally I would have to say the Etape was more challenging, but obviously recovery time was a lot quicker.

galatzo

I was in bits when I packed 10km from the top of the last claimb on the Otztal Radmarathon a few weeks ago. 11 1/2 hrs I'd been at it and couldn't get back on the bike after stopping and could hardly walk that night.Next day I felt loads better than I thought I would although didn't ride but was on my bike on Wednesday after the Otazal on the Sunday. Never done a marathon but I'm sure recovery time would be longer than almost any bike event considering how I used to feel after playing 90 mins on a Saturday afternoon.
According to my Suunto I burnt 8000 calories but towards the end it hardly seemed to move as my hr just stuck at around 85% and I think it's large changes in hr that use more cals according to a hrm.

Garz

Calories burned would not be my choice of guaging if it was harder.

I find running im at a steady heart rate and know when to ease/speed up on the terrain. The only tough part of cycling in comparison would be big climbs are hard to judge and you would experience spikes in heart rate with way more resting periods.

I know if I was to run a marathon i'd be absolutely goosed. So at a guesstimate it would have to be equivalent to a 150miler or worse.

DaveyL

SBezza wrote:

My Garmin said I burnt less than 5,000 calories in my 12 hr TT at the weekend, I suspect that for a 100 mile sportive, perhaps it would be around the 3,000 mark, obviously depending on how long it took you, and how hard you were trying. I haven't got a clue what a marathon runner would burn in say 4 hours of running.

Must be way more than 5000 for 12 hours, surely? That would only work out to be around 115 Watts average power.

An average of ~200 Watts for 12 hr would equate to about 8600 kcal.

derbygrimpeur

Running a marathon is pretty easy for 20 miles. It's only really the last 10k that hurts. Recovery isn't too bad really, if you're well trained.

However, I think the biggest consideration not mentioned here is how much training is required to run a mrathon (well) in comparison to riding a sportive. I'll be doing my first sportive in two weeks (Tour Ride) and the training has been much easier than any of my marathon training. Because of the impact of running, the hardest bit is the training, not the actual marathon itself.

Although I suspect this could vary depending on your ability.

Oh, and FWIW, my Polar HRM told me I burned 2400 in the London Marathon this year.

SBezza

DaveyL wrote:

SBezza wrote:

My Garmin said I burnt less than 5,000 calories in my 12 hr TT at the weekend, I suspect that for a 100 mile sportive, perhaps it would be around the 3,000 mark, obviously depending on how long it took you, and how hard you were trying. I haven't got a clue what a marathon runner would burn in say 4 hours of running.

Must be way more than 5000 for 12 hours, surely? That would only work out to be around 115 Watts average power.

An average of ~200 Watts for 12 hr would equate to about 8600 kcal.

Yes it could be way more, thats the thing with a HRM, the calories bit is pure guessimation, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I suspect I was putting out quite a bit more than 115 Watts

heystacky

HI Ginger,the real answer is with either event,is how hard you push it,.done 7 maras last year 3 sub 3.30s hurt,the other off roaders took easy not much pain,4 sportives this year new to biking only had a go at ,ride the horns ,lots of short sharp hills felt like i,d run a mara,the choice is yours ,i say enjoy the pain

danowat

The biggest differnece, to me, between long running, and long cycling is "resting" during the event.

On a cycle, you can "rest" and still make progress, with running, you can't really, if you do you tend to stop!

nickwill

danowat wrote:

The biggest differnece, to me, between long running, and long cycling is "resting" during the event.

On a cycle, you can "rest" and still make progress, with running, you can't really, if you do you tend to stop!

On the other hand, on a bike you can be exhausted to a level, where on a marathon you would have to stop, but on a bike you are able to continue. I tend to ride sportives as hard as I can and therefore wring out every last bit of energy. I'm not sure I would be able to do this to the same extent on a marathon.

garmin

Iv been training for 8 weeks to do the Nottingham marathon this sunday,doing a long run on a saturday and then doubling the distance on the bike on a sunday. these are my garmin stats from my last long weekends training.
run 20 miles 2162 cal, time 3.07 avg hrt 147 avg speed 6.5mph
bike 54 miles 3411 cal, time 3.05 avg hrt 136 avg speed 17.5mph
The bike route coverd 70% of the run route,i felt worse after the run,as you can see
there isnt much between the 2

derbygrimpeur

Nickwill wrote:

I tend to ride sportives as hard as I can and therefore wring out every last bit of energy. I'm not sure I would be able to do this to the same extent on a marathon.

I think that's just a personal/mental thing. I empty the tank on a marathon. Obviously you can't do that too early in the race, but by the end you should be stuffed. After finishing, walking for a bit, I've tried jogging to meet my family and my legs just stop working properly.

danowat

garmin wrote:

Iv been training for 8 weeks to do the Nottingham marathon this sunday,doing a long run on a saturday and then doubling the distance on the bike on a sunday. these are my garmin stats from my last long weekends training.
run 20 miles 2162 cal, time 3.07 avg hrt 147 avg speed 6.5mph
bike 54 miles 3411 cal, time 3.05 avg hrt 136 avg speed 17.5mph
The bike route coverd 70% of the run route,i felt worse after the run,as you can see
there isnt much between the 2

Not sure I'd class 11 bpm difference as "not much difference" TBH.

derbygrimpeur

danowat wrote:

garmin wrote:

Iv been training for 8 weeks to do the Nottingham marathon this sunday,doing a long run on a saturday and then doubling the distance on the bike on a sunday. these are my garmin stats from my last long weekends training.
run 20 miles 2162 cal, time 3.07 avg hrt 147 avg speed 6.5mph
bike 54 miles 3411 cal, time 3.05 avg hrt 136 avg speed 17.5mph
The bike route coverd 70% of the run route,i felt worse after the run,as you can see
there isnt much between the 2

Not sure I'd class 11 bpm difference as "not much difference" TBH.

That difference is probably about right on perceived exertion. You use more of your body running so heart rate is higher for the same perceived exertion (which is why most people can attain a higher max HR running than riding)

Having said that, I find it quite strange that the Garmin is stating more calories burned on the cycle, which lasted the same duration as the run but with lower HR.

heystacky

DG pretty sure read somewhere lower heart rate burns more cals.Nickwill not sure you want to stop ,if you really blow a gasket keep moving walk,jog,true enougth easier to recover on bike ,with drink and seat ,i must pack this running up.

dead sheep

I have run several marathons, ridden in sportives and cycled audaxes. To be honest, all the sportives I have entered no where near match the effort required for a marathon. The nearest equivalent I have come across are the really tough 200km audaxes or easier 300km audaxes. Relatively speaking, sportives are a nice day out but are not tough.

nickwill

dead sheep wrote:

I have run several marathons, ridden in sportives and cycled audaxes. To be honest, all the sportives I have entered no where near match the effort required for a marathon. The nearest equivalent I have come across are the really tough 200km audaxes or easier 300km audaxes. Relatively speaking, sportives are a nice day out but are not tough.

Have you ridden the Fred Whitton or the Etape du Dales?

dead sheep

Nickwill wrote:

dead sheep wrote:

Have you ridden the Fred Whitton or the Etape du Dales?

I have ridden the latter. It is a challenge but is no marathon. In fact I will be riding an audax this weekend that is reputedly very tougher - the Kidderminster Killer! The most challenging sportive I have ridden is the Dave Lloyd 150 mile bash around North Wales.

As an aside, the reason I now ride cycle events after developing the usual runner's problem, knackered joints.

nickwill

dead sheep wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

dead sheep wrote:

Have you ridden the Fred Whitton or the Etape du Dales?

I have ridden the latter. It is a challenge but is no marathon. In fact I will be riding an audax this weekend that is reputedly very tougher - the Kidderminster Killer! The most challenging sportive I have ridden is the Dave Lloyd 150 mile bash around North Wales.

As an aside, the reason I now ride cycle events after developing the usual runner's problem, knackered joints.

That stopped me from running as well!

Caer caradoc

Can I join the club too?

Fell running stopped me. One transferable attribute to cycling from fell-running is a light body which is excellent for hill climbing.

Dead Sheep, I hope you are an ex-fell runner too. You will need it for Sunday's climbs! I have not ridden the Killer but have ridden its nearest equivalent in the area, the Montgomery Madness perm, and that was tough! Make sure that you start off with new brake blocks which will knackered by the time you finish!