Marathon equivalents?
Discussion
but I'm getting reasonably fit now and I was wondering what is an equivalent to the marathon that doesn't involve running. 50 mile bike ride, 10K swim, what requires a similar degree of fitness to accomplish.BliarOut said:
10K swim,
I'd say so. Maybe a bit longer. Assuming you're a similar standard at both running and swimming. I'm quite a good swimmer and would find 10K not too much of a problem but look at a marathon as though it's something incredibly hard to do. Does someone who can run well find a marathon very difficult ?
el stovey said:
BliarOut said:
10K swim,
I'd say so. Maybe a bit longer. Assuming you're a similar standard at both running and swimming. I'm quite a good swimmer and would find 10K not too much of a problem but look at a marathon as though it's something incredibly hard to do. Does someone who can run well find a marathon very difficult ?
MonkeyMatt said:
What about the Keswick to Barrow walk! 42 mile walk through the lakedistrict! ive done it twice and its good fun! did it in 6 and a half hours the second time!
6.5 miles an hour is very fast walking on the flat (i.e. jogging really), nevermind through the Lakes hills - are you sure of your timings/distance? Or did you run some of it?ewenm said:
MonkeyMatt said:
What about the Keswick to Barrow walk! 42 mile walk through the lakedistrict! ive done it twice and its good fun! did it in 6 and a half hours the second time!
6.5 miles an hour is very fast walking on the flat (i.e. jogging really), nevermind through the Lakes hills - are you sure of your timings/distance? Or did you run some of it?ewenm said:
el stovey said:
BliarOut said:
10K swim,
I'd say so. Maybe a bit longer. Assuming you're a similar standard at both running and swimming. I'm quite a good swimmer and would find 10K not too much of a problem but look at a marathon as though it's something incredibly hard to do. Does someone who can run well find a marathon very difficult ?
I swam 5K in 2 hours at a constant pace so 10K would take 4.
That being the case surely 16MPH on a MTB for four hours would be a marathon equivalent?
Oooooh, interesting.....
I have run number of marathons, and cycled at a reasonable level for a number of years.
Marthons are very difficult. Probably more difficult than anything I have done on a bike, albeit I was probably in better shape when I was cycling.
I rode 87 miles in the Alps last year over two mountain passes. Tough, but easier than a marathon.
A few years ago, I rode from Sheffield to Newcastle on my own - 175 miles - but easier than a marathon.
I would regularly ride 100-140 miles on a Sunday with no ill effects.
The difference is that marathons play havoc with your joints because of the impact. Cycling doesn't.
Marathons are hard work. I will run probably one more and then I'm done.
I have run number of marathons, and cycled at a reasonable level for a number of years.
Marthons are very difficult. Probably more difficult than anything I have done on a bike, albeit I was probably in better shape when I was cycling.
I rode 87 miles in the Alps last year over two mountain passes. Tough, but easier than a marathon.
A few years ago, I rode from Sheffield to Newcastle on my own - 175 miles - but easier than a marathon.
I would regularly ride 100-140 miles on a Sunday with no ill effects.
The difference is that marathons play havoc with your joints because of the impact. Cycling doesn't.
Marathons are hard work. I will run probably one more and then I'm done.
Another way to look at it - most top athletes reckon you can manage at most 3 marathons in 12 months without getting injured and maintaining a decent standard. The Tour de France riders can do 100+ miles a day for 3 weeks, so perhaps mileage ratios aren't the answer after all.
The thing about running (as above) is the impact - it takes a lot longer to recover from 26.2 racing miles of impact than it does from 100+ racing miles of cycling fatigue.
The thing about running (as above) is the impact - it takes a lot longer to recover from 26.2 racing miles of impact than it does from 100+ racing miles of cycling fatigue.
ewenm said:
Another way to look at it - most top athletes reckon you can manage at most 3 marathons in 12 months without getting injured and maintaining a decent standard. The Tour de France riders can do 100+ miles a day for 3 weeks, so perhaps mileage ratios aren't the answer after all.
The thing about running (as above) is the impact - it takes a lot longer to recover from 26.2 racing miles of impact than it does from 100+ racing miles of cycling fatigue.
The thing about running (as above) is the impact - it takes a lot longer to recover from 26.2 racing miles of impact than it does from 100+ racing miles of cycling fatigue.
Training for a marathon is more difficult for the same reason. In terms of fitness, difficult to say. You can ride over a hundred miles on a bike one day, and get up and do the same the next day. Beyond feeling stiff for the first half hour, and having a slightly chaffed arse it's not so bad. Clearly people do this with marathons too but IMO it is a lot more difficult. However, I am a better cyclist than I am runner.
I could both ride 100 miles and (injury permitting) run a marathon tomorrow. I would enjoy the marathon a lot less.
It's a bloody hard comparison and with cycling I would say it is obviously about pace and terrain.
I think if you did the Etape which last year 170km and took anywhere between 5 and 9 hours (the pro's do that stage in about 4 hours) I think that is harder than running a marathon. It's a pretty brutal pace even at nine hours....I remember reading one persons account of it....he did the first 150km in six hours which had some hills but a lot of it was flat and then took three hours to do the last 20 km. The last 20 km is climbing Mount Ventoux. Oh and if you are much outside the prescribed time for the course they don't let you finish and close the road. Doing that in eight or nine hours is probably like running a marathon in something like 3 1/2 to 4 hours....certainly needs a similar amount of training, maybe more.
I think if you did the Etape which last year 170km and took anywhere between 5 and 9 hours (the pro's do that stage in about 4 hours) I think that is harder than running a marathon. It's a pretty brutal pace even at nine hours....I remember reading one persons account of it....he did the first 150km in six hours which had some hills but a lot of it was flat and then took three hours to do the last 20 km. The last 20 km is climbing Mount Ventoux. Oh and if you are much outside the prescribed time for the course they don't let you finish and close the road. Doing that in eight or nine hours is probably like running a marathon in something like 3 1/2 to 4 hours....certainly needs a similar amount of training, maybe more.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff