Sportive - Marathon Equivalency

Tom Butcher

Running tends to cause more muscle and soft tissue damage - so it can require more recovery - but I wouldn't say it's any harder than cycling. I reckon you can suffer more on a bike because you can keep turning the pedals even when you are cooked - in running you have to stop and walk. I'd have a hard long road race or a sportive ridden with a fast group as equivalent to a marathon - having to stick with the accelerations of others makes it so much harder than riding at your own pace.

nickwill

Tom Butcher wrote:

Running tends to cause more muscle and soft tissue damage - so it can require more recovery - but I wouldn't say it's any harder than cycling. I reckon you can suffer more on a bike because you can keep turning the pedals even when you are cooked - in running you have to stop and walk. I'd have a hard long road race or a sportive ridden with a fast group as equivalent to a marathon - having to stick with the accelerations of others makes it so much harder than riding at your own pace.

Thats the point I was trying to make, but you put it much better than me!

Airwave

I would say for the after effects&the fact that you can freewheel whilst riding.I reckon the effort of 1mile running is worth 10 on a bike.And this difference may increase the more miles you have run.

schweiz

I ran Zürich marathon in April 2009 in 4:05:44 after doing only 70km of running training from January when I found out I had been entered by someone else after a drunken conversation several months earlier! All my fitness came from cycling and like has been said earlier, up to 32km was no problem and I was well on for a sub 4 hour marathon. The last 10km were painful to say the least, but some of that was down to new trainers that I'd only worn for 20km before the big day giving me blisters.

Compared with big sportives that I've done (La Marmotte, Alpen Brevet Silver and Alpen Challenge) plus club rides into the Alps, I'd say running was easier. Yes you can take a rest and freewheel downhill on a bike but you've got to wind everything up again and get your legs going for the next big climb. Riding 160-220km plus Climbing 1000m+ at 7% to 10% 3 or 4 times in a day is, IMO way harder than a city centre marathon.

This on the other hand...

KillerMetre

I've had reasonable experience of running having trained for a half marathon (which I had to pull out of due to peroneal tendon injury).Running produces a higher baseline of effort but for me nothing can match the peaks of shear suffering that cycling can induce.

heystacky

K.M i agree ,cycling wether hammering it on the flat or climbing gives you an all out pain high.Great sport.

DaveyL

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

Which Garmin model were you using to measure the calories - was it Arthur or Guinevere?

heystacky

Airwave wrote:

I would say for the after effects&the fact that you can freewheel whilst riding.I reckon the effort of 1mile running is worth 10 on a bike.And this difference may increase the more miles you have run.

AIrwave on the runners website fetch,they estimate 4in1 ,i assume this allows for different terrain,as well as general rule of thumb,good debate though.

holmeboy

Ran home from work , 8.5 miles in 1hr 17mins. Now feel like I've done a reasonably 50 or so hardish miles on the bike. Been eating and drinking since I got in. Going down Starvation Brae (reached after 7 miles) was hard on the legs as you've got to use muscle power to stop running too fast (normally reach 48MPH down thiis hill and rims glow red hot at bottom at junction). Legs don't feel to bad now though, should be alright for a few miles (on bike) after work tommorrow.

heystacky

holmeboy wrote:

Ran home from work , 8.5 miles in 1hr 17mins. Now feel like I've done a reasonably 50 or so hardish miles on the bike. Been eating and drinking since I got in. Going down Starvation Brae (reached after 7 miles) was hard on the legs as you've got to use muscle power to stop running too fast (normally reach 48MPH down thiis hill and rims glow red hot at bottom at junction). Legs don't feel to bad now though, should be alright for a few miles (on bike) after work tommorrow.

HB dont use muscle power to slow down,relax and go,great fellrunners book ,feet in the clouds,all you need to know about descending,running that is .

ChrisSA

heystacky wrote:

DG pretty sure read somewhere lower heart rate burns more cals.

The so-called 'fat burning zone' does burn a greater percentage of fat calories per unit distance/time than at other heart rate zones. The faster you go the less percentage of fat calories burnt, however the faster you move, the more total calories you burn.

dmch2

Surely those non-fat calories burnt (glycogen?) will be replaced from fat stores though? Unless you immediately 6 pints of glucose laced sports drink?

heliphil

I did the London Marathon ( 3:58:58) and the Otztaler Radmarathon ( 12:33:55) both this year and I can say that the effects are quite different - I trained hard with the running club for the run and was fairly tired afterwards, but could not walk properly for several days !!! - I was very exhausted after the Otztaler ( equally hard training) but was only 6 seconds off my best 10m TT the wednesday after ( would have beaten it but for two cars turning in front of me). Its the impact damage from the running that makes the difference..... and again I would agree its the last 6 miles or so of the marathon that really makes your legs hurt. I had no problems after a 1/2 marathon earlier this year...

Gazzaputt

amaferanga wrote:

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

+1

It must depend on how hard you go at.

ChrisSA

dmch2 wrote:

Surely those non-fat calories burnt (glycogen?) will be replaced from fat stores though? Unless you immediately 6 pints of glucose laced sports drink?

I'm pretty sure they do not get replaced unless you eat or drink something. This calorie deficiency becomes weight loss (using more energy than you take in).

One of the best way to reload is to take on loads of carbs immediately after exercise. This is the best time to convert carbs to glycogen.

FransJacques

The record at the Leadville MTB race is 5:16 or so.

The record at the Leadville 100 running race is 15:36 or so.

I'd say that the running time is a hell of a lot more impressive than the cycling time. Going 1/3 the speed of a MTB is an amazing feat for 3 times as long. The difference with road and MTB cycling tho is that you cannot say you can relax on a MTB downhill section because while you might not be pedalling, you're using your legs for bracing and you'll certainly be pumping your upper body a lot - Leadville has a lot of tight switchback trails that need a lot of body english to get down. I've only ridden the telegraph pole part of it. You start about 3000m and it only goes up from there. Incredible.