Bike ride equivalent to a marathon

bendertherobot

I'm actually quite stiff today. 2 weeks off the bike but have hammered it back on again. It's Monday that did the damage though. 4 pallets of bricks/breeze blocks moved 50 metres, one fence and footings demolished, lots of axe swinging. Done me in.

smiley_boy2501

I've done Manchester to London twice (not the Rapha one, just as an alternative to the train) and I've done the Peak Epic which was 165k and 4000m, constant up/down. The former was zone 1/high zone 1 and latter was at zone 2 pace avg.

I felt pretty good doing M2L but had trained moderately well and was destroyed on each of the last few climbs of Peak Epic and I consider myself a good climber but no whippet.

Saying all that I don't think I felt as bad as those who ran a marathon looked. I could even go out for a ride the day after them all.

itboffin

bendertherobot wrote:

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

I run a lot of marathon distances and I'd say none of them were are physically or mentally hard as the Marmotte, of course the gap between running and cycling has been 28 years give or take, so fitness levels as well as age could be clouding my judgement.

The Marmotte is tough more so the second time around, I think because every inch of tarmac was in grained in my mind.

fenix

Graeme_S wrote:

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.

Ha ! Outlaw ? Other than that it's a great race. Very handy - no split transitions and fast bike leg.

ic.

I think the only comparable thing would be 100 (maybe less) miles on a velodrome using a track bike. It would take most of us a similar time to a marathon and would involve the same type of relentless effort with the compression factor through then bends getting close to the impact nature of running.

I don't think any outside ride is going to get close.

rower63

IC. wrote:

I think the only comparable thing would be 100 (maybe less) miles on a velodrome using a track bike. It would take most of us a similar time to a marathon and would involve the same type of relentless effort with the compression factor through then bends getting close to the impact nature of running.

I don't think any outside ride is going to get close.

yes I agree, 75-100 miles

graeme_s-2

Fenix wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

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.

Ha ! Outlaw ? Other than that it's a great race. Very handy - no split transitions and fast bike leg.

Yep! Did it in 2015 in the cold and wet (gotta love the British summer). The more time that's passed since I finished, the more I seem to remember enjoying it

fenix

Interesting theory about the velodrome marathon equivalent !
I guess people do look quite knackered after the Hour Record...

ugo.santalucia

Very different sports and not comparable. The trauma your muscles and joints go through during a marathon are far superior than those you can subject your body in cycling. It takes weeks to fully recover from a marathon, at any level, as you have destroyed so many muscle fibres that need rebuilding. WIth cycling, you can recover in days when not hours.

roger_merriman

Running or even just walking is a load bearing exercise, you can be disabled that you can't walk let alone run, but still ride.

I have no problems (and never did) with balance on the bike, but I can only walk for a certain given amount of time before my walk starts to fail, I start having to force myself to walk properly as my left leg starts to drag, and frankly start to zombie walk.

I think it's easier to damage yourself with poor technique running?

itboffin

Is this before or after a trip to the roebuck?

roger_merriman

itboffin wrote:

Is this before or after a trip to the roebuck?

ha I haven't drunk any thing for a few years since i lost the desire after my fractured skull/bleeds on the brain etc.

I suspect i'd be a very cheap date at this point, with so long since drinking, plus their is some evidence that folks with brain injuries get effected more.

The only thing I miss is home made sloe Gin!

greg66_tri_v2.0

itboffin wrote:

I run a lot of marathon distances and I'd say none of them were are physically or mentally hard as the Marmotte, of course the gap between running and cycling has been 28 years give or take, so fitness levels as well as age could be clouding my judgement.

The Marmotte is tough more so the second time around, I think because every inch of tarmac was in grained in my mind.

Do you? Kept that quiet.

FWIW I think riding on the flat, unless in a 100m (or thereabouts) TT is nothing like as physically demanding as running. Riding up an alpine road is the closest thing I've found to running in terms of physical toil. The thing about riding is that you can back off without losing too much speed, but with running you can't, and you still get the physical punishment even at low running speeds. The relentlessness of having to push push push to ride uphill simulates quite well the need for continued effort when running, even if the physical pounding isn't there.

Having played around with a Stryd running power meter (estimator) recently, at the same perceived rate of exertion for a straight all out 20 min effort, running requires roughly 30% more average watts than cycling. Cycling is efficient.

The Marmotte is pretty fucking unpleasant - when I did it and my only full IM in the same year I reckoned it was the slightly tougher of the two, albeit that I trained very specifically for the IM and had ideal weather and (foolishly) treated the Marmotte as a training run. Which in infernal heat, it wasn't. And I ran 19k the day after the Marmotte, whereas I didn't get full mobility back after the IM for about three weeks. The Marmotte is certainly the harder mentally, and feels at least as hard physically even if feeling doesn't match true physiological effects.

itboffin

Run / ran who cares its still very silly.

So go on explain yourself in detail, you rode the marmotte with totally the wrong setup even after sound advice then went for an IM run on a smashed old old old man's hip, was that before or after the MRI scans?

I'm telling you the Marmotte this year had rain heat and headwinds none of which mattered compared to the endless 10% gradients, was it always like that?

Ignorance is bliss

timmyotool

I'd suggest a good equivalent would be one of the monster climbs that exist, Mt Evans, that one in Hawaii etc.
Similar duration to a marathon, impact (on your knees anyway), and requires training to complete.

jamesco

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Very different sports and not comparable. The trauma your muscles and joints go through during a marathon are far superior than those you can subject your body in cycling. It takes weeks to fully recover from a marathon, at any level, as you have destroyed so many muscle fibres that need rebuilding. WIth cycling, you can recover in days when not hours.

That's a pretty convincing argument. Is there any sport that could be considered equivalent in both dimensions of calories burned and recovery required? Maybe rugby or boxing?

rower63

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Very different sports and not comparable. The trauma your muscles and joints go through during a marathon are far superior than those you can subject your body in cycling. It takes weeks to fully recover from a marathon, at any level, as you have destroyed so many muscle fibres that need rebuilding. WIth cycling, you can recover in days when not hours.

I disagree. Although I've never raced a 75-100 mile cycling TT, as I mentioned I have raced (and I mean raced) over the same times in sculling/rowing and XC skiing several times. They felt the same, and took as much out of me for as long (2 weeks) as my running marathons, time after time. I think the key is not that running is more "impactful" (about which I also have my doubts), but that it's the only one in which most people will have ever have experienced the sustained and relentless work necessary to get well beyond the point at which your muscle glycogen reserves get exhausted ("the Wall"), and still keep going for hours.

It's perfectly possible to do that in cycling, eg 3-4 hour TT as discussed, but the ease of being able to freewheel for little cost from time to time I imagine makes it that much more difficult to replicate.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rower63 wrote:

I think the key is not that running is more "impactful" (about which I also have my doubts),

Yes, no, maybe. Mo Farah runs >120 miles a week, so close to a marathon a day. Obv he is not being done in by physical toil, but look at him run and you can see why: he has beautiful running form.

The vast majority of the rest of us don't. And without good form you can damage yourself quite easily; all the more so once you become tired and continue to press on. Anecdotally, a physio I know says she see more injuries in former cyclists and rowers who've taken up running that any other group, because they have the leg strength and cv fitness to run a long way but not usually the form or technique required to avoid injury from running a long way. Unfit types tend not to suffer running injuries as much because their ability to do enough mileage to hurt themselves is limited by their lack of fitness.

secretsam

Right

So the answer is: Nothing, really. Borlacx

roger_merriman

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rower63 wrote:

I think the key is not that running is more "impactful" (about which I also have my doubts),

Yes, no, maybe. Mo Farah runs >120 miles a week, so close to a marathon a day. Obv he is not being done in by physical toil, but look at him run and you can see why: he has beautiful running form.

The vast majority of the rest of us don't. And without good form you can damage yourself quite easily; all the more so once you become tired and continue to press on. Anecdotally, a physio I know says she see more injuries in former cyclists and rowers who've taken up running that any other group, because they have the leg strength and cv fitness to run a long way but not usually the form or technique required to avoid injury from running a long way. Unfit types tend not to suffer running injuries as much because their ability to do enough mileage to hurt themselves is limited by their lack of fitness.

In fairness plenty of cyclists have poor form, the number cycling squares around Richmond Park on the weekend and so on. And various bike fits that some folks need as above from a want etc.

But yes I think from a leisure point running seems to be harder a fair step up from half marathon to the full deal.

Go to some charity ride and watch various folks and bikes in states of disrepair but they mostly get around the 30-70 miles.

Nellyspania

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Very different sports and not comparable. The trauma your muscles and joints go through during a marathon are far superior than those you can subject your body in cycling. It takes weeks to fully recover from a marathon, at any level, as you have destroyed so many muscle fibres that need rebuilding. WIth cycling, you can recover in days when not hours.

I'd agree with this; even on all day rides where I have blown my legs to bits and come close to bonking I've still been able to shuffle downstairs and go for a recovery spin the next day.
After a marathon I could still shuffle downstairs but then would have to sit on the bottom step and try not to cry!
The impact on the body is one reason why I no longer run anymore, and I'm a skinny bloke too.

tgotb

I don't think it's even as simple as comparing running and cycling; one of the specific issues with running a marathon is that it's done on a very hard surface, and I think that's where the real damage is done. It seems that the vast majority of amateur marathon runners, even the good ones, take several weeks to recover from a marathon; compare that with something like a fell race. A lot of amateur fell runners will quite happily compete in 15-20 mile races on several successive weekends, and still manage to train between them.

On a few occasions I've run ~25 miles off road in a day; that was generally in four separate stints but close to 10k race pace, so you'd expect the toll on my legs to be comparable with an off-road marathon. I didn't do anything like the amount of training a proper marathon runner would do, but I was still cycling to work the next day, and running the day after.

If you can't even compare the impact of running on-road vs off-road, and comparison to cycling is going to be almost impossible. My best guesstimate would be that an off-road marathon without too much climbing is probably comparable with a 100 mile TT; in either case you'll probably be largely recovered within a week, but not quite enough to be able to race another one competitively.

As a more general point - if you're a cyclist looking to do some running, stay off the road. I assume that runners are attracted to flat tarmac for the same reason testers are attracted to dual carriageways; footpaths are the runner's equivalent of the country lanes that many of us actually enjoy riding...

Bikequin

I've done the London to Paris 24 (proper distance i.e Dover/Calais) and its really not that tough - I felt it was considerably easier than doing the etape.

I think one thing that's being overlooked in all of the discussion above is that riding a bike is infinitely more enjoyable than running and so its hard to compare two in my mind.