Bike ride equivalent to a marathon

secretsam

I've posted something similar before, but what would we all consider to be the equivalent, as apparently an Imperial century doesn't cut it

corriebee1

I've certainly had this discussion several times before!

Of course, it depends massively on the type of terrain. 100 miles in North Yorkshire might be the equivalent effort to a marathon in London.

Runing a marathon requires months of training, and still leaves super-fit people unable to do much else afterwards. I'd say 15-200 miles of not-too-hilly riding would do that to me, and i'm reasonably fit.

rower63

I recently did "around London outside the M25", 173 miles. It involved 11-odd hours of actual riding. Contrary to expectations there was a LOT of climbing, constant up/down sharpish ramps, all the way around. We were all pretty fit, one of us a decent triathlete, but we were all quite tired at the end of it.

However, we were still able to treat Priest Hill (Runnymede) as a competitive effort very near the end, and none of us, except the triathlete, had prepared with any special prior long-distance training. Without proper preparation, it's is not really possible to put in that sort of intensity of effort towards the end of a raced marathon (I've done four of those).

So I would say that this effort was still significantly easier than a marathon.

Dragon Ride Sportive might qualify better?

Walls82

I think 112 miles is the accepted amount (Ironman)

Its high impact vs low impact, doing one is never going to feel like the other. In reality its impossible to answer, you would need a runners power meter to work your energy used for a marathon and then jump on a bike and see how far you got for the same amount of energy expended, obviously that distance would vary from person to person

timothyw

The question of how hard the marathon is being run is surely also relevent - I'm fairly confident I could walk round a marathon course in 7 hours without it being too horrific - compare that to making a 100mile TT effort, or an event like the etape du tour, and I think the latter will almost certainly be harder.

This might be a question for triathletes really - an Iron Man finishes with a marathon length run, with a 112 mile cycle in the middle, which would suggest they consider that somewhat equivalent? Presumably that's 112 miles with no drafting.

Did anyone see on the news that a chap died swimming across the channel a few days ago? That story had some frankly mind-boggling context that wasn't present in the BBC article I read - firstly, it was his second time swimming the channel. Secondly, he had already run 87 miles from Marble Arch to Dover - he was taking part in an 'Arch to Arc' challenge, whereby you run 87 miles to dover, swim the channel, then cycle on to Paris.

It rather got me thinking about the futility of the more extreme challenges - ultimately, I cycle for fitness and enjoyment, if a ride/event is so long that it is past the point where I'm getting any enjoyment, and past the point where I'm getting any additional fitness benefit for completing the ride, then just what's the point?

Similarly, what's the point in comparing two obviously different activities?

asprilla

rower63 wrote:

one of us a decent triathlete

Wasn't the whole point of an Ironman to involve equal effort / difficulty as it was to settle the argument as to whether swimmers, runner or cyclists were fitter.

TimothyW wrote:

Did anyone see on the news that a chap died swimming across the channel a few days ago? That story had some frankly mind-boggling context that wasn't present in the BBC article I read - firstly, it was his second time swimming the channel. Secondly, he had already run 87 miles from Marble Arch to Dover - he was taking part in an 'Arch to Arc' challenge, whereby you run 87 miles to dover, swim the channel, then cycle on to Paris.

My Mrs old company used to do that as a relay each year. Teams of 8, as many 'out' as you like and rolling subs. I don't think they ever managed the swim section, even with 8 swimmers taking turns.

drlodge

I've done the Dragon Gran Fondo twice, you need endurance but I didn't feel as worn out as having done the Ride London Surrey 100 at full gas for 5 hours. The thing that makes a marathon hard is that there's no let up and its heavy impact. On a bike you can stop, freewheel, take it easy pretty much whenever you like.

graeme_s-2

I did an Iron distance triathlon last year. I don't think there really is any suggested equivalence between the bike and run legs, just like nobody would suggest the 2.4 mile swim was equivalent. The distances were just 3 pre-existing events in Hawaii that were combined into a single competition.

If I applied myself with a similar amount of effort to a cycle and run that burned a similar amount of calories, I reckon I would feel more knackered after the run. Cycling just doesn't have the repeated impacts that running has.

bendertherobot

I've never done any ride, including those where I bonked, where I felt quite as bad the day/week later than a Marathon. The ability to rest up/coast/go a bit slower does tend to mean that they aren't really comparable things. Don't sweat it.

graeme_s-2

Asprilla wrote:

Wasn't the whole point of an Ironman to involve equal effort / difficulty as it was to settle the argument as to whether swimmers, runner or cyclists were fitter.

Wikipedia wrote:

Collins suggested that the debate {of which athletes were fittest} should be settled through a race combining the three existing long-distance competitions already on the island: the Waikiki Roughwater Swim (2.4 mi./3.86 km), the Around-Oahu Bike Race (115 mi./185.07 km; originally a two-day event) and the Honolulu Marathon (26.219 mi./42.195 km).

There is a more recent event called the Isoman which is a triathlon, with the distances of each discipline set up so a competitor equally good at all of them should spend approximately a 3rd of their finishing time on each event. The full distance version includes a 7 mile swim, a 61.3 mile bike leg and a marathon run. But it's based on time equivalency, not difficulty equivalency.

graeme_s-2

I think it also demonstrates what a phenomenal invention the bicycle is. Just think how much faster, further and longer (in time) you can travel on a bicycle compared to running, and how much fresher you'll feel at the end. I remember a stat I heard a long time ago (no idea if it's actually true), that a human being on a bicycle is the most energy efficient animal on the planet.

bendertherobot

I should add that I'm down to do the Marmotte. I may reappraise after that.

fat daddy

Graeme_S wrote:

a human being on a bicycle is the most energy efficient animal on the planet.

they clearly never saw me climbing then

graeme_s-2

fat daddy wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

a human being on a bicycle is the most energy efficient animal on the planet.

they clearly never saw me climbing then

Having actually googled it, my "fact" is bullshit anyway. A bicycle is supposedly the most energy efficient way to move a human being around, but there are animals that are more energy efficient than a human being on a bicycle

dhope

Graeme_S wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

a human being on a bicycle is the most energy efficient animal on the planet.

they clearly never saw me climbing then

Having actually googled it, my "fact" is bullshit anyway. A bicycle is supposedly the most energy efficient way to move a human being around, but there are animals that are more energy efficient than a human being on a bicycle

I expect most birds would beat it. So a bird on a bicycle maybe?


I felt a half iron similar in effort to a marathon (having only done one of each). Though the marathon took longer to recover from.

fenix

It's like how long is a piece of string.

Marathon means no rest as your legs are always supporting your weight and lots of impact.
Cycling does let you coast and there's (hopefully) no impact.

I usually cant walk properly for a week after a marathon. No bike ride has done that to me ever.

shamrock134

Ride a fixie so you can't coast?

I'd agree that it's hard to compare the activities. I've always felt running is more strenuous on my body and it's harder to take it easy without slowing to a walk or stopping, unlike cycling where you can coast or drop a gear.

If I had to choose something, I'd probably go with some sort of all out TT effort. Those generally make me suffer badly but even then, they won't leave you barely able to walk the next day like a marathon!

graeme_s-2

dhope wrote:

I expect most birds would beat it. So a bird on a bicycle maybe?

Apparently if the mass of the animal (plus bicycle in the human's case I suppose) is also taken into account a human on a bike is better than most land/air based animals, but we still get beaten by a load of swimmings things.

I felt a half iron similar in effort to a marathon (having only done one of each). Though the marathon took longer to recover from.

I've had one failed attempt at a marathon (ITB injury), successfully finished one stand alone marathon and done a marathon as part of an Iron distance tri. I've done a half iron distance race twice. It's so hard to compare, as my fitness and preparation were so different between them, and the conditions on the day were so different. I found the marathon mentally easier than either half ironman, but my training was really well planned and had gone really well, it was over quicker and I ran with a pacemaker in sight for most of it.

rower63

Thinking further about it, I think an equivalent-time formal Time Trial would be fairly comparable across different disciplines, measured by "could I do this with no special preparation" and "how did I feel approaching-the-finish /crossing-the-line / next-day / next-week"? My experience across various endurance disciplines bears it out:

I've done 4 running marathons. They all absolutely killed me on all the measures above. The final one I did actually do "with no preparation", i.e. I was (rowing) very fit, but due to injury I'd decided not to do it about 4 months beforehand. Come the day, I thought "f*ck it, let's see how it feels". It was terrible, I spent the last 5 miles run 1 mile, walk 45 secs, and that was targeting an hour slower than I'd run in previous attempts.

I've done the so-called rowing "Boston Marathon" 4 times, 49km rowing and sculling from Lincoln to Boston in Time Trial conditions. I can report these were every bit as hard as the running versions: I've even seen people blowing up within 200m of the finish. There's no way you'd be able to do that event properly without similar distance preparation as for running.

I've done the Engadin Ski Marathon a few times (look it up, it's a fantastic event - XC skiing, skating-style), 42.6km along the Engadin Valley with bits of climbing near St Moritz. That too was just the same.

If such a thing as a 3-4 hour cycling TT existed, I'm quite sure it would be similar. Triathlons are somewhat different because you're forced to pace down because of the run.

whatleytom

100 mile TT seems to fit the bill then.

umop3pisdn

rower63 wrote:

If such a thing as a 3-4 hour cycling TT existed, I'm quite sure it would be similar.

They do - 100 mile TT.

MrSweary

You should neither be considering running anywhere nor stooping to the level of debating with people who do. It cheapens you, Sir.

fat daddy

Graeme_S wrote:

dhope wrote:

Apparently if the mass of the animal (plus bicycle in the human's case I suppose) is also taken into account a human on a bike is better than most land/air based animals, but we still get beaten by a load of swimmings things.

assuming you start the measurement of efficiency from the point you start cycling to the point you stop .... if you take in to account the ages getting ready, squeezing in to tight clothes, checking bike, waiting for GPS to be discovered, downloading your route, syncing the power meters, cadence meters, speed meters, HR sensor,then cycling, then uploading the data to strava and spending an hour analysing the data and bitchin about unobtainable KOM/QOM ... then Humans are amazingly inefficient ... took me 2 hours to complete my journey today, but 45 minutes was comparing my PRs over a coffee

The Rookie

I recently did a 200km Audax, not the longest ride but known for being a particularly tough route with 3000m of climbing in total and a single climb of 650m at 115km into it and some very rough roads (not road bike compatible) (22 starters, 11 dropped out, nearly all just after the big climb either run out of energy or bad cramps), I was not only able to walk but ride next day (though no real power in the legs, cruising only), so from my point of view not as tough as a Marathon which I've never tried but don't think I'd be running downstairs the next day.

secretsam

MrSweary wrote:

You should neither be considering running anywhere nor stooping to the level of debating with people who do. It cheapens you, Sir.

I take your point, but it's about capturing the imagination. Everyone 'gets' a marathon - so need something equally mind-boggling for a bike. Possible charideeeee ride with work colleagues.

Suggestion: London to Paris in 24 hours

kajjal

Try riding over 50 miles off road on rough trails by the end you never want to see another bike again.

drlodge

London to Paris, or London to Edinburgh. I think a distance that is possible (but challenging) in 24 hours is a good one. People will generally just understand distance, but not height climbed. So long, but flat, is ideal :-)

MrSweary

SecretSam wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

You should neither be considering running anywhere nor stooping to the level of debating with people who do. It cheapens you, Sir.

I take your point, but it's about capturing the imagination. Everyone 'gets' a marathon - so need something equally mind-boggling for a bike. Possible charideeeee ride with work colleagues.

Suggestion: London to Paris in 24 hours

It was a tongue in cheek reply of course.*

*It wasn't, of course.

bendertherobot

The Rookie wrote:

I recently did a 200km Audax, not the longest ride but known for being a particularly tough route with 3000m of climbing in total and a single climb of 650m at 115km into it and some very rough roads (not road bike compatible) (22 starters, 11 dropped out, nearly all just after the big climb either run out of energy or bad cramps), I was not only able to walk but ride next day (though no real power in the legs, cruising only), so from my point of view not as tough as a Marathon which I've never tried but don't think I'd be running downstairs the next day.

Walking down the stairs is nigh on impossible whenever I've done it. Walking down backwards is ok after a few days.

graeme_s-2

bendertherobot wrote:

Walking down the stairs is nigh on impossible whenever I've done it. Walking down backwards is ok after a few days.

I seem to recall I'm fine sitting and I'm fine standing, but any transition between the two is agony.

When I crossed the finish line after my iron distance race, the first thing I had to do was walk up a steep set of concrete steps. More annoyingly I then had to go back down them again later to collect my stuff from transition. All you could hear was a series of grumbling triathletes shuffling along in both directions.

The Rookie

bendertherobot wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

I recently did a 200km Audax, not the longest ride but known for being a particularly tough route with 3000m of climbing in total and a single climb of 650m at 115km into it and some very rough roads (not road bike compatible) (22 starters, 11 dropped out, nearly all just after the big climb either run out of energy or bad cramps), I was not only able to walk but ride next day (though no real power in the legs, cruising only), so from my point of view not as tough as a Marathon which I've never tried but don't think I'd be running downstairs the next day.

Walking down the stairs is nigh on impossible whenever I've done it. Walking down backwards is ok after a few days.

The only problem I had was squatting/kneeling, getting up was fine, just going down!

Never really had an issue with the legs after an Audax, though I do after some MTB rides as you have to put in higher peak efforts.