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.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.
Isn't that the truth.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
In my experience, friggin slow marathons are still friggin hard.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.