# Marathon 26 miles = cycling miles??



## 2ride (Apr 2, 2002)

How many cycling miles do you think equals a marathon's 26 miles? Someone said a century but it seems to me that running a marathon is far more difficult than riding 100 miles.


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 28, 2006)

I think it's a lot more dependent on speed than distance. My fat pot-head roomate ran a marathon in well over 4 hours (friggin slow) and thinks he's a badass. There's too many variables (hills, wind, drafting, etc) in cycling to set a milestone at a distance like you can do with running. I agree with you that it would have to be over 100 though for most conditions if there was one.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

Yeah, I think a century is nowhere near the physical challenge of running a marathon. Witness that the average cyclist can ride a century but the average runner can't handle a marathon. And running is just so much harder on the body... some folks' bodies just break down and give up with distance running. I think that is extremely rare on a bike, and would really only occur in more endurance riding, like a double century or something like the Death Ride, etc.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 29, 2006)

That is hard to qualify but I have run three 26 mile marathons and many 100k rides. The most I have ridden is 78 and 84 miles on consecutive days and it was not close to the effort of a marathon run. Everyone is different but based on my experience I would say that something in the 150 mile range would equal a marathon. Another way to look at it is Tour de France riders race over a 100 miles a day for many consecutive days but world class marathon runners only race marathons two or three times a year.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

Eric S said:


> Another way to look at it is Tour de France riders race over a 100 miles a day for many consecutive days but world class marathon runners only race marathons two or three times a year.


Actually, that's an excellent point. Even a hard core endurance runner does his/her long run (say in the 15-20 mi range) once a week, and most recreational runners couldn't even do that without developing overuse injuries, shin splints, hip pain, foot problems, etc. etc. In comparison, some of the weeklong tours I've done have multiple century days and other 80-90 mile days and I'm a very average recreational roadie. 

It may just be that the two sports are so "apples and oranges" that there can't be a formula, but if there is it most definitely is NOT that century = marathon.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

*can you really compare the two?*

I dont think they can be compared-- running involves so much more impact and abuse on the body-- that's the reason so many people can bike, but not run. After soccer, I couldnt run-- cycling saved me from becoming a total couch potato. 

Without the impact you can go much longer. If you did have to compare, I'd tend to think a double metric would be more like it-- about 125-130 miles. I've done 150 @ 17+ mph.

Also, if you've ridden 80 miles, but not 100, you really can't compare. Mentally it's a whole different monster. I remember doing a century with a group and at 50 miles they thought no problem-- at 75, they were none too happy at the idea of riding another 25 miles-- if you've done it, you probably know that feeling.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Mdeth1313 said:


> Also, if you've ridden 80 miles, but not 100, you really can't compare. Mentally it's a whole different monster. I remember doing a century with a group and at 50 miles they thought no problem-- at 75, they were none too happy at the idea of riding another 25 miles-- if you've done it, you probably know that feeling.


Isn't that the truth. 

On my first century at 80 miles I was thinking, it's in the bag and what's the big deal? By mile 90 I was thinking I was hurting pretty good, by mile 95 all I could think about was the finish, at mile 100 I was thinking where's the freaking finish line? Finally at mile 103 I pulled in and was worn out, but glad I had completed my first Century.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 29, 2006)

Mdeth1313 said:


> IAlso, if you've ridden 80 miles, but not 100, you really can't compare. Mentally it's a whole different monster. I remember doing a century with a group and at 50 miles they thought no problem-- at 75, they were none too happy at the idea of riding another 25 miles-- if you've done it, you probably know that feeling.


That's a good point. Until I ride a distance that duplicates the effort I expended in running a marathon I can't know what a valid comparison would be. I do know that I ran the marathons over 20 years ago when I was in my early 30s and 75 to 80 miles on a bike today isn't even half the effort of a marathon and I generally ride at 18 MPH +. I need to continue to test my limits and find out.


----------



## brad nicholson (Feb 11, 2004)

marathon is far harder i think. maybe if it was a loaded touring bike out on nevada 50 or something though....but of course you could also compete in an ironman length race and let us know what you think!


----------



## the spyder (Feb 15, 2004)

*Marathon run vs. Cycling Century*

having done one or two centuries and currently training for a marathon, the running is far more stressful to the body.:cryin: CTS mentions that calorie wise a 20mile ride at between 16-17 miles an hour = a 5.7 mile run.:idea:


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Well based on past clients that I have trained...*

for marathons and century rides I would save around 125-150 miles depending on condtions. Falt running course vs moderate cycling course.

This is based of HR and PRE. Running is far more harder on the body than cycling due to impact on the body's joints. Also also came up with these numbers after 15yrs+ in the Fitness Industry. Just a educated guess form testing and that's it.

I had clients run Marathons at 82-88% of the MHR and then ride a a bike full 100-150 miles at the same HR of 82-88%. Based on how they felt and analysing the rides/runs I came up with these ruff numbers.
Also a person's health in relation to the discipline can make a differnce.

Now go do a ride with some major climbs and this miles will drop.
Also having a runner ride will be lower numbers and having a cyclist trying to run will be harder.

No I also figured out that an Ironman uses the 2.4M swim, 112m ride and 26.2 run and each disiclipne feels very similar in exertion to a well trained athlete. 
I still feeel that cycling distance needs to be just a bit longer to compare to a marathon.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*I've done both, they are hard to compare.*

For the marathon speed matters-the faster you go the harder it is on your joints. The more you weigh the harder it is on your joints. Slow down, do the thing in 4+++ hours and it just becomes a long walk. 

You can walk a long way day after day-just like riding.

Riding 100 miles; if you can deal with the pain on your parts that touch the bike and don't go fast and eat a lot 100 miles just isn't that big of a deal. I'm thinking that you have to do 100 miles in pretty close to 4 hours or include at least 8,000 feet of climbing before you can even begin to compare it to running (as opposed to just doing) a marathon. 

More likely a 300k bike ride (that isn't flat) equles a marathon run.

YMMV

BTW good question.


----------



## Chase15.5 (Feb 17, 2005)

So along this line of thought...would a "ultra" endurance runner (someone who runs 100 miles at a time) be at about the same fitness level as a professional cyclist? How many miles would running 100 miles have to equal on a bike? I've read the top ultra runners have a VO2 max in the high 90's similiar to top pro cyclists.


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

*I hate running but....*

A training partner of mine who is extremely fit and has a never-give-up attitude decided he was going to do a marathon a week before it started and he didn't even train for it. 

He ended up finishing it in 3hr 7mins and collapsed at the finish.He could'nt walk for two days afterwards.He and I have regularly done 120 mile training rides(just the two of us)in under 6 hours and he said it doesn't even come close to the pain he felt both mentally and physically running a marathon.


----------



## outofthesaddle (Aug 15, 2002)

I agree that it's hard to compare cycling and running. The impact of running is hard in a different way than the challenge of turning over the pedals for 11-12 hours. With all of that said, if you're going to make the comparison, I think that a marathon is probably more comparable to a double century than a century. I've done both and it seems like I was a similar degree of "done" at the end...


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

Chase15.5 said:


> So along this line of thought...would a "ultra" endurance runner (someone who runs 100 miles at a time) be at about the same fitness level as a professional cyclist? How many miles would running 100 miles have to equal on a bike? I've read the top ultra runners have a VO2 max in the high 90's similiar to top pro cyclists.


Interesting question. I have a buddy who's one of those ultra-runners. (He seems sane otherwise.) He cycles for cross-training, and did one Ironman. Even after building up his cycling endurance, he'd still rather run 100 miles than ride it. That goes a ways toward saying that the differences are highly individual. You could certainly convert calories expended, watts produced or something like that to arrive at a comparison, but would that mean anything? I suspect that, if you could somehow remove all the jarring on the body that running produces, that any reasonably competent distance cyclist could run a marathon. But you can't remove it - it's part of the sport. 

I've always felt like this question is kind of like saying, "How many home runs equals a touchdown?" They're just not directly comparable.


----------



## garvan (Apr 19, 2006)

Hmmm, my wife is a runner and runs half marathons. She will only eat a little bit well before she runs otherwise she pukes. When I ride any distance I eat like a horse before, during and after the ride. That also might play in to the game. I can hardly run to first base but I can bike 50 miles easily.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Marathons were easier for me, but I was a lot younger...*



2ride said:


> How many cycling miles do you think equals a marathon's 26 miles? Someone said a century but it seems to me that running a marathon is far more difficult than riding 100 miles.


I did my last marathon at about 40, when I was forced into cycling by bad knees. In memory, it was a lot easier than any century I've done --as another post said, you're feeling fine at 80 miles, hoping you don't die at 90, then willing to consider it at 95. But I didn't do my first century until I was close to 50, and I haven't ever achieved the fitness in cycling that I had from running 40-70 miles a week for more than 10 years. If I had to go out and do one tomorrow, though, it would be the ride. I'm pretty sure I could muddle through that in eight hours or so. No way I could run for four hours.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

When I was in the Army, I was on a running team on the base, and we did half marathons for fun. We did it as a way to show "community involvement" with the surrounding area.

At the time, I was in my early 20s, and in absolute top shape, and trained daily. We'd run the half around 1:25 - 1:35, and i'd feel like I was going to die at the end.

Ten years later, and significantly heavier, I find that the challenge of riding a century is really in the mind. I think just about any schmuck on a bike could do it. Hell I rode my first century less than a month after riding again, at 250 pounds and solo. 

I still don't have a pleasant memories about running, and whenever I do now (playing baseball or basketball), I get incredibly sore after just a few minutes.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

TylerDurden said:


> I think it's a lot more dependent on speed than distance. My fat pot-head roomate ran a marathon in well over 4 hours (friggin slow) and thinks he's a badass.


In my experience, friggin slow marathons are still friggin hard.


----------



## magicant (Apr 22, 2006)

Easy to compare the physical exertion with a calorie calculator. A century probably isn't too far different from a marathon, depending upon the terrain and the speed of each.

But the impact on the body is so different that I don't know that there IS a way to draw a correlation. I am in pain after a 6 mile run, even after training for a couple weeks. A century on a bike yields a little leg soreness (if it's hilly). I've done 150 with no problems. Haven't done a double yet, but even that isn't likely to be nearly as brutal on the body as a marathon. But I can't stand running, so I'm biased.


----------



## MellowDramatic (Jun 8, 2006)

There are far too many factors separating biking from a marathon...recovery being the most prominent.

It takes way less to recover from say, a 50 mile ride than it does from a 10 mile run. Also, you can eat much more while riding.

Plus, I don't think many 14-year-olds are doing marathons.


----------



## Dave Riley (Sep 22, 2005)

*Apples and oranges*

Too many variables to consider , manipulate, and compare. In some ways running a hard, all-out marathon is "harder" than an IM...done "easy" just to finish. I wouldn't even bother comparing he two. A person's perceived effort and pain endured, coupled with the length of the aforementined suffering seems as close to a comparison as I believe we'll get. 

We're all crazy, aren't we. LOL.
Dave:thumbsup:


----------



## grampy bone (Feb 9, 2005)

*I agree - Apples & Oranges*

They are both quite different sports. Its a lot easier to rest on a bike while maintaining a quick pace (draft & coast). The only way I can rest while running is to stop running. Also, a marathon is a race. A century is usually an organized ride (usually...). It all has to do with the intensity. A 20K time trial at 24mph is harder for me than a century ride at 17-18 mph.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

Mdeth1313 said:


> I dont think they can be compared-- running involves so much more impact and abuse on the body-- that's the reason so many people can bike, but not run. After soccer, I couldnt run-- cycling saved me from becoming a total couch potato.
> .


hey, that sounds familiar ! that's what happened to me after badly screwing up my knee. I turned to cycling. Even tho i'm getting better now and playing a spot of recreational soccer from time to time, i'll stick to cycling. I dont EVER want to feel as i did about my knee ever again. Scary.

That said, running is far more onerous. I don't cycle that much compared to some of you nuts i'm sure, but put it this way. I cycle a NON-flat local route approx 40km 2-3 times a week plus a century (more or less flat) on sunday. That's roughly 200km a week. Now the truth is i am not in anywhere where near as good shape as when i consistently ran b/w 6-10kms at a time, (especially 10s) nor do i feel anywhere near as much pain, mentally or physically. Running is harder. Cycling so much more enjoyable. But just b/c you can ride 100, don't think you are fit. As pointed out, so many out of shape people are out sunday mornings riding thier bikes. Not that many of them could run a decent distance.

Co-incidently, this is also the reason why triathletes are FREAKS.


----------



## Run1stBike2nd (Oct 28, 2005)

*My thoughts*

A lot of very good points have been made in this thread. Based on my limited experience as a cyclist, I definitely agree that there is no rule of thumb type of conversion rate b/w miles biked and miles ran due to variables such as:

Terrain (Running is more difficult over nearly all types of terrain)

Intensity (How hard do you have to ride before your breathing pattern is similar to the breathing pattern you use when you run, and how often do you actually breathe that hard during your normal bike ride?)

Air resistance (In running, much less energy is expended trying to overcome aerodynamic drag. Otherwise, you'd see long distance runners wearing skinsuits and some sort of strange headgear a la a TT helmet), etc. 

I've heard a few high school XC coaches tell their kids that 3 miles of biking = 1 mile of running. OK, maybe if you ride an extremely hilly route. 3:1 is a lowball estimate to say the least. By that logic, I would have done the equivalent of 134 miles of running 2 weeks ago. I've never run even half that many miles in a week; only world-class marathoners will run that many miles in a week during the peak of their training cycle. I can't wait for the day when I ride enough miles to equal the beatdown I've felt during my marathons!


----------



## jabpn (Oct 14, 2005)

grampy bone said:


> They are both quite different sports. Its a lot easier to rest on a bike while maintaining a quick pace (draft & coast). The only way I can rest while running is to stop running. Also, a marathon is a race. A century is usually an organized ride (usually...). It all has to do with the intensity. A 20K time trial at 24mph is harder for me than a century ride at 17-18 mph.


...and I think the mentality of running a marathon vs. a century is different also. Most people that I know who run a marathon aren't looking "to just run the 26 miles." Usually they're trying to get that personal best time. They're working on improving their average mile time etc. Whereas I think most bicyclists do just "ride the 100 miles". Most of the riders I know do. I usually slow down and "pace" myself. Think about how much effort would be required for an average speed of 25 or 26 mph riding a century. I think this would be way tougher and maybe equal the exertion of a marathon.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2006)

Well i do both and i agree thats its not that one is harder than the other its what you train for. I can run 12 miles no problem at the end of season and there are others on the team that can do much more than that. But Ive tried to get them to do rides with me and they cant even do 15 miles at 15-17. They can run more than they can ride in other words.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I frickin hate running. I used to run back in the late 80's and did the Seattle half a couple of times. I did a 1:35 once. I think the only comparison you could make would be the effort involved in preparation and your expectation going into the event. I did a 4:06 century once with a couple of guys doing their final long ride before the Ironman. I laid in the back of my truck for an hour afterwards racked with cramps. We stopped once to fill bottles. I have done centuries at a conversational pace and felt great afterwards. If I had to venture a guess at a good effort/preparation comparison between a marathon and cycling, the cycling event would have to be a one day double or something like Mt Mitchell. Something that makes you want to quit cycling for a few days.


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*an attempt at apples to apples*

The comparisons between century rides and marathons fail because so few people race centuries. To get a meaningful comparison you'd have to compare a marathon with a 100 mile time trial. I looked at results from a few 40k - the closest distance to a marathon - time trials and found regional races with winning times of 55 mins. A regional marathon would likely produce a winning time about 2.5 times longer. This result closely mirrors my experience when I was young and fit. Riding 20 miles, solo, in under an hour felt the same as running 8 miles in under an hour. 

I've done plenty of marathons, centuries and longer. The best way I can describe the comparison is that riding a century is much easier than running a marathon, and much the same as the first 30 miles of a 50 mile run which I ran/walked at a much slower pace. When it comes to beating me up and tiring me out, speed is way more of a factor than distance. Without first understanding the pace and level of effort no meaningful comparison can be made.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

rusa1586 said:


> Without first understanding the pace and level of effort no meaningful comparison can be made.


And that's the key to this whole argument. Just about anybody can go out and walk a marathon in a day, just as almost anyody can ride a century in a day.

When I was younger, they had walk-a-thons that were 26 miles in length. My family used to do them every year and we would walk the entire distance without any previous training. Then get up the next day and go to work, school, play etc.

It's the intensity that makes the difference when it comes to comparing the two. It's pretty easy to keep the intensity low on a bicycle (unless there is a lot of hills), but when running it's hard to keep the intensity below a certian level.


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

I'll tell you....

During my eight year layoff from cycling which lasted from about 1989 and 
1997 there was an abortive attempt at a century myself and some friends 
did where none of us had been on a bike all year, I was grossly overweight 
and rode in jeans and a t-shirt and brought no food or water and I was a 
complete idiot and bonked so hard I've never bonked like that before or since.
I had to be towed for a period of time by a friend riding a recumbent who'd
just been back from Ragbrai. I think we did 68 miles in an ungodly long time.

Fast forward to 2004 when I'd been riding about six or seven thousand miles
and decided to do the Lifetime Fitness Triathlon as part of a mens corporate
relay team for my old company. The swimmer was a total ringer - it appeared
he did his three miles of swimming in around 20 minutes.

I'd been riding quite a bit and wanted to do the 25.8 miles of the biking leg in
less than an hour and a half (I was still overweight but had lost around 45 
pounds from my all-time high horrid weight). The kicker - they made us 
RUN in our cycling shoes a full half mile, then get on the bike and ride 
24.8 miles and then get off the bike and run a half mile to the finish. Some
guys with SIDIs were really mad that day about having to run in them, there
were ruined shoes.

I did manage to get my time to an hour and 26 minutes that year although
I know I could do it faster now since I'm lighter.

Anyway, the bike leg wasn't bad but the running was not easy to do in 
cycling shoes. 

Our runner was a former high school track runner who actually had been 
running every year except the one we did our tri and was asked to stop 
training by his doctor due to some infection that got close to his heart..

The doctor said he could start training again once it got under control
but his time to run was the longest and the other thing that was of note
was that we actually made 10th in corporate mens relay teams which
surprised me out of all the hundreds of teams that competed.

I talked a little bit about the running leg and Tim (our runner) basically
said the heat that day made the running a lot harder than it usually 
would be and the fact that he also hadn't been running up until the 
week before (maybe a six month layoff) really kicked him in the butt.

Centuries are another story - I did my first solo century nine days after
the triathlon and realized two miles before the finish that I'd been riding
with the rear brake caliper rubbing against the rim the whole way and 
I just thought I was still recovering from the tri.

Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes he eats you.

As an update: I worked with a personal trainer who was a running coach
for a while and my first run with that guy was about two miles and that was
harder than any cycling I'd tried to do. It's a bit easier now but I still find 
that running for an hour eclipses the worst unsuspended mountain bike
type pain I'd get from riding an unsuspended hardtail in rough terrain.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

Speaking of long time trials. Four of us participate in a 50 mile time trial every year in northern Wisconsin (Firehouse 50). Last year we averaged about 21mph and this year we want to average 22mph. We're in the 200+ class (all four ages add up to 200 or more). If we can average 22mph we should be in contention for third place in the 200+ class. It's just a citizen race but the winning team in the 150-200 class averaged more than 27mph last year. They had one guy on the team that was 56. Of course, he was a previous national Masters time trial champ.

I have no idea how to compare a marathon to cycling. Never done a marathon and never will. Walking 2 miles makes my back and knees ache.


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

Right now, I run 3-5 miles on and off-road once a week, as a sort of cross-training for the upcoming CX season. And I swear, running wears me out so much more than one would guess. Unlike cycling, where I can and often ride 6-12 days in a row, I can only run 3-4 times a week before I feel like I'm overtraining. I don't feel any joint pain, but my muscles definitely take a toll from the constant pounding. I'm sure that if I were to focus more on running, as opposed to cycling, my body would take a major hit.

But the thing is, is that I like running, purely for the fact that it's so damn convenient. If I want to maintain aerobic fitness, all I have to bring with me on a trip is a pair of shoes and shorts. Also, it's far quicker to get a good workout in while running - if all I have is 45 minutes, I can go out and do sprint intervals and be back home in no time. Sure, I could easily go out and do a hard, short ride on my bike, but it's definitely not the same.


----------



## tourdreamer (Sep 7, 2004)

*I think it's hard to compare...*

running a marathon and riding a century or even a double century. 

You could probably simulate the cardiovascular workout needed to make both workouts similar and on even playing fields. But like others have said before, the biggest difference is the abuse your knees and legs take from pounding 26.2 miles in a marathon. After riding a 100 miles, my body is no where near the pure exhaustion and pain my body goes through after a marathon (I've done 4 marathons). I'm also sore after riding a century but that usually subsides after a few hours and an Advil. After a marathon, I usually don't even run for a week just to get my body to recuperate. 

Also, during a ride, you could stop pedalling and coast some of the miles off. Can't do that while running. To put it into an extreme hypothetical case, *IF* there was a century ride starting at the top of a mountain, you could "ride" the century without taking one pedal stroke. You still, however, have to run an all-downhill marathon, which some might say is even worse on your knees than a flat marathon.

my $0.02


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

So much of cycling is about technique. Most riders who are routinely do centuries have gotten to the point where they are extemely efficient on the bike. While it still takes some conditioning it is not that difficult.

Take a marathoner with limited bike skills at or near the peak of their performance and stick them on a bike for 100 miles and they might find it more than a little difficult. They will have to work considerably harder than your average cyclist riding the same course.


----------



## frank_grupt (Jun 28, 2004)

Some triathletes use a point system for equivalency: 5 miles biking = 1 mile running = 500 yds swimming. It's rough, but works reasonably well to track overall training volume.


----------



## rounder (Feb 19, 2005)

I run and ride and I tend to find that running for an hour at x heart rate tends to feel the same as cycling for an hour at the same heart rate. I've never found any info on the subject but I would think the same energy is required to ride an hour @155bpm as run an hour @155bpm. You will probably feel more sore running than riding due to the impact but I doubt you really expend any more energy between the two. So 3 miles of riding for every mile of running could equal out on a calories expended basis. Provided you are pedaling those 3 miles and not coasting them.


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*Did a fixed gear century last year.*



tourdreamer said:


> Also, during a ride, you could stop pedalling and coast some of the miles off. Can't do that while running. /QUOTE]
> 
> Riders agreed that it felt little different than riding 100 miles conversationally on bikes with gears and derailleurs.
> 
> ...


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Man, you guys have deflated me. The longest I've ridden is 78 miles. I assumed 100 would be no biggie. So the pain is not linear, you say ?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

litespeedchick said:


> Man, you guys have deflated me. The longest I've ridden is 78 miles. I assumed 100 would be no biggie. So the pain is not linear, you say ?


Riding a 100 miles on a bike is not that hard at all. I did my first centry on a MTB with a 48T/12 top gear and 2.0 slicks and I finshied in 4h 35m WITHOUT training.

Last centry in February, 4hrs 2min and again losgest I rode before the ride was 41 miles and I had a only 4 weeks of 3-4 2 hr rides in!

The key is to pace yourself, stay in a nice group and EAT! Most people can ride a centry easliy if they get the calories in.

How long did it take you to the the 78 miles? You should have no problem doing 100 in under 5hrs depending on the terrain.

I am doing my next century SOLO and on a SS! Yes it's flat here in Miami, FL , but the winds can be tough in the area we do these things in.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*This is actually a really good answer.*



633 said:


> I've always felt like this question is kind of like saying, "How many home runs equals a touchdown?" They're just not directly comparable.


nmnmndm


----------



## Carter227 (Feb 8, 2005)

If you want a real answer find out how many calories a runner burns during a marathon and then compare that to cycling. Obviously this is very dependent on the intensity.


----------



## SenorBlanco (Feb 16, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> Riding a 100 miles on a bike is not that hard at all. I did my first centry on a MTB with a 48T/12 top gear and 2.0 slicks and I finshied in 4h 35m WITHOUT training.


So you averaged over 22 mph for 100 miles on a MTB with slicks? That seems really fast to me on a road bike, let alone on a MTB. I can't come close to that on my road bike even with some training.


----------



## LukeVelo (Jun 26, 2006)

Let the morons run their marathons. That's why we cycle, not to beat up our bodies (other than crashing or riding a poorly set-up bike) and get out and cover great scenic distances. I'm sure running a marathon is harder than a century if you have a level playing field. But let's talk about a 100 mile stage race through the alps vs. a marathon. I don't think runners realize how mentally taxing cycling is, it's freakin' hairy out there having to stay on some person's wheel, watch out for road hazards, sketchy riders like Vino, descending at 50 mph, then it can rain and that's a whole new ball game - your life is on the line. What's the worst thing that could happen to a marathoner, poop themselves or not have Jerry Seinfeld wake them up in time for the race?

When you add up the total miles of the Tour de France it's the equivalent of doing a marathon a day for three weeks. Let's see one of those skinny little runners even attempt that. All while having to deal with constant danger and those annoying fans who won't get out of your way, or hell, even rabbit punch you like Mr. Merckx. Who cares if a marathon is harder, work smarter, not harder. Besides, we get to have the adrenalin rushes from pacelining, have races to watch every Sunday and talk shop about our newest piece of carbon. Let the lemmings run off a cliff, or even better ruin their joints by pounding the pavement in a boring slog of a death march.


----------



## azmadoc (Mar 23, 2004)

Personally I think a marathon would be is *much* harder than a century, both mentally and physically. I've ridden three centuries and though it was tiring, i agree that if you pace yourself, find a group and eat you can hang if you have reasonable fitness. 

But, cycling and running are different animals. Climbing on a bike requires power whereas running is just about getting your skinny aerobic behind across the finish. I ride occasionally with my wife, who finished Boston this year in 3:35, and she just doesnt have the strength to climb well. If we run I can hang with her for about a mile.

I hate running.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

litespeedchick said:


> Man, you guys have deflated me. The longest I've ridden is 78 miles. I assumed 100 would be no biggie. So the pain is not linear, you say ?



I think it is. I road 140 miles last year in 12 hours. I road 20 miles to the century, 100 miles on the century (mostly flat), cramped and was hurting in my triple crank at mile 70 (my mile 90), finished the century, and managed to get back home (mostly downhill).

The only real pain was in my butt on the cracks on the trail.. and some beaten pavement on the century.

I think it is linear. 

OH yeah - I definitely peaked 2 weeks later.. I had some awesome fitness level after this excursion.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

SenorBlanco said:


> So you averaged over 22 mph for 100 miles on a MTB with slicks? That seems really fast to me on a road bike, let alone on a MTB. I can't come close to that on my road bike even with some training.


Florida is very flat.


----------



## CRM (Feb 5, 2004)

*One more point*

I generally agree with the "apples and oranges" posts here but I have one more point to make:

As cyclists who are serious enough about the sport to hang out on this message board I think we might have the tendency to downplay the difficulty of what we are able to do on the bike. Sort of like, "_If I'm able to do it anyone must be able to do it._" 

I'm 37 years old and range from reasonably fit to not particularly fit throughout the year. Even at my most un-fit, though, I sometimes stop and think about all the 37-year-olds I know and there aren't more a handful who could do even the most basic of my training rides. I used to think that riding 100 miles was a huge accomplishment until I did a few centuries and now I think they're no big deal. Anyone who hasn't ridden one, however, probably thinks it's a pretty big deal.

I still agree that, if forced to compare, a marathon is comparable to more than 100 miles on the bike. But all this stuff about anyone being able to do a century I think is not entirely accurate. It's sort of like saying that anything's possible. Okay, anything is possible but it's not likely. Not everyone can just go out and do a century.


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Well actually, it took me a little over 5 hours to do the 78 miles. Then again, it was a brutal, mountainous 78, named after the world's most famous sadist. And I stopped and ate a sticky bun at a bakery for about 30 minutes. It wasn't a race.


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*As the great Yogi Berra said:*

50% of this game is 90% mental.

Determination or stubbornness can be a greater factor than fitness. How long do you think you could have stayed on your bike after the 78 miles? If you could have ridden another hour, taken a break, and ridden another 45 minutes, you would have finished. You would have suffered some, but if the amount of suffering on the bike felt like less than the disappointment of not finishing, or the embarassment of getting sagged you would have ridden on. 

A determined rider who is out of shape may well be able to ride further than a fit rider who doesn't want to suffer.


----------



## LyncStar (May 1, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> Riding a 100 miles on a bike is not that hard at all. I did my first centry on a MTB with a 48T/12 top gear and 2.0 slicks and I finshied in 4h 35m WITHOUT training.
> 
> Last centry in February, 4hrs 2min and again losgest I rode before the ride was 41 miles and I had a only 4 weeks of 3-4 2 hr rides in!
> 
> ...


I call BS or drafting behind a truck. What does "WITHOUT training" mean? You just sprung up from your Jerry Springer viewing, threw down the Krispy Kreme's and Schlitz and just hopped on the bike?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

LyncStar said:


> I call BS or drafting behind a truck. What does "WITHOUT training" mean? You just sprung up from your Jerry Springer viewing, threw down the Krispy Kreme's and Schlitz and just hopped on the bike?


I'd be curious also. Most people I know that don't "Train" can't ride a 1/2 hour on a bike, let alone do a centruy in just over 4 hours on a MTB with slicks.

The funny thing about this thread is how people say anybody can ride a century. Well, that's true if they have been riding for a while, but any joe schmoe off of the street who hasn't spent time on a bike would have an awful hard time finishing a century in a day. Not only would they have issues with sitting on a saddle that long, but they would have muscle and endurance issues.

Most people I know would have issues riding 10-15 miles in a day if they hadn't spent any time on a bike. Add in some big hills and they wouldn't finish that.

However, any average rider who spends 4-8 hours a week on a bike would have little problem finishing a centruy in a day.

I think people tend to lose site of what the average person who isn't active can actually do. Give them a month of solid work outs and they can do a lot more, but the average couch potato can't just jump on a bike and ride 100 miles.


----------



## Al1943 (Jun 23, 2003)

For me I would equate running a marathon to at least 800 miles on a bike. I've ridden several centuries but never run more than 4 miles.

Al


----------



## Run1stBike2nd (Oct 28, 2005)

LukeVelo said:


> Let the morons run their marathons. That's why we cycle, not to beat up our bodies (other than crashing or riding a poorly set-up bike) and get out and cover great scenic distances. I'm sure running a marathon is harder than a century if you have a level playing field. But let's talk about a 100 mile stage race through the alps vs. a marathon. I don't think runners realize how mentally taxing cycling is, it's freakin' hairy out there having to stay on some person's wheel, watch out for road hazards, sketchy riders like Vino, descending at 50 mph, then it can rain and that's a whole new ball game - your life is on the line. What's the worst thing that could happen to a marathoner, poop themselves or not have Jerry Seinfeld wake them up in time for the race?
> 
> When you add up the total miles of the Tour de France it's the equivalent of doing a marathon a day for three weeks. Let's see one of those skinny little runners even attempt that. All while having to deal with constant danger and those annoying fans who won't get out of your way, or hell, even rabbit punch you like Mr. Merckx. Who cares if a marathon is harder, work smarter, not harder. Besides, we get to have the adrenalin rushes from pacelining, have races to watch every Sunday and talk shop about our newest piece of carbon. Let the lemmings run off a cliff, or even better ruin their joints by pounding the pavement in a boring slog of a death march.


Have a nice day, troll!


----------



## LukeVelo (Jun 26, 2006)

*Troll me? Troll you!*

Troll? What are we on the F'ed Company message boards? The last I read, this RBR, so if I want to bust on marathoners for destroying their bodies, I think I have free license.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

No drafting a truck, ut I satayed generally in the middle of a 15-20 rider pack the whole time. I pulled once but i only lasted 100 yds or so. Funny but a guy riding next to took a double take when he realized on I was on a MTB.

No trainng? No I did not get off the couch. I NEVER trained for a century. I was teaching 12 Spinning classes a week so I had bike time, and I MTB about 15 miles a week.

Also remeber that I live/ride in MIAMI, FL where it is flat as a pancake!! There was not even the slightest incline on the ride. Now I could barley walk afer and needed a leg massage. Did not get back on a saddle or sqaut weights for 5 days as my legs were toast!!!

Six months later I a Metric Centry with 1.0 slicks pulling my wife and 2 cleints on the MTB the whole way. that took longer. Almost hrs, but I was in front the whole time. 

Last century in February on the roadie took 4hrs 2min. 2 stop for no more than 5 min.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Read my other post. I never trained for a century. Longest "road ride" I did prior was maybe 22-25 miles. I never was not a roadie at the time. Just MTB riding for 5 yrs or so.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Wrong question......*



2ride said:


> How many cycling miles do you think equals a marathon's 26 miles? Someone said a century but it seems to me that running a marathon is far more difficult than riding 100 miles.


because it doesn't consider effort.

IMO, a 5 hour marathon is easier than a 4 hour century..........
conversly a 2:20 marathon is harder than a 6 hour century.

I've run both a 2:26 marathon and a 4:20 flat century (in a 5 man paceline....see there are many variables) & I can tell you that the marathon was much harder than the century.

Recovery takes much longer (at the same effort level) from a marathon.

equal effort, to be as debilitated after both I think, for me, I would need to ride about 200 miles.

YMMV

Len


----------

