LarrySellerz

How many miles cycled do you think it takes to equal 1 mile ran? In terms of difficulty, workout, time elapsed, or however you wish to compare. I think maybe 8 miles cycled = 1 mile on foot

Koyote

4.62197.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

tomato coupe

N * sin (2 π t) *exp (- µ t) / sqrt (1 + t^2)

where t is the effective time, µ is Moehper's coefficient, and N is the meteorological distance. But it's only an approximation, good to 0.1% at best.

ScottCommutes

How does a marathon compare to a 100 mile bike ride in your book?

PeteHski

Well if you run at 6 mph and ride at 18 mph then it is about a 3:1 ratio in distance. But in terms of energy used I would think the ratio is considerably higher. I can comfortably ride 100 miles at 18 mph, but I certainly can’t run 33 miles at 6 mph. I don’t do running, but Strava would probably provide a ballpark energy consumption per mile, which you could compare with your cycling consumption.

PeteHski

For me as a cyclist who doesn’t run, a marathon would be a LOT harder. But a lot depends on how fast you ride. Running has a much higher minimum energy demand than cycling unless you are climbing a steep hill. Riding 100 miles on the flat at say a leisurely 12 mph is not very challenging. But at 20+ mph it becomes a lot harder. Running a marathon is hard work at pretty much any speed above walking pace.

Chuck M 

Purely unscientific, but I've done 1 century and 3 marathons. How I felt after the century and the marathons was similar. I've done many half marathons and while I've never gave it much thought, I guess I guesstimate a half to be about 55 or so miles on the bike. One thing that is common to all those activities is I usually enjoy a beer afterwards.

tomato coupe

No, this is Larry asking -- cycling is a high impact sport for him.

ScottCommutes

I cycle 19 miles to work every day in a little under 1:40, including traffic and stop lights and such. An elite marathoner can do 26 miles in a hair under 2:00. It burns me up a little inside that there are people who could beat me to 19 miles without a bike.

base2 

There is no comparison.
Wait, there is. It's just that time, miles, and speed fail to really capture it well and the results are so easily skewed so as to be effectively meaningless.

Running is harder. The minimum energy expenditure to run, not jog, but run is much higher than sitting on a bike. Something on the order of 100-120-ish calories per mile. To "run" a mile with reasonable enough form to actually be "running" takes ~8 minutes or so at the slowest possible pace. An hour would take you 7.5 miles and about 750-900 calories.

The same number of calories expended on a bike might very well be a personal time trial of 30+ mph average speed for an hour. Impossible. A more reasonable 18-20 mph speed is (off the cuff) ~8 calories per minute equals a depressingly low 480 calories per hour. It would take about 1 hour 45 to 2 hours of reasonably high effort cycling to equal runnings 750-900 calorie expenditure. So...36-40 high effort cycling miles in 2x the time running takes to do 7.5 miles. 40 miles in 2 hours is awfully fast.

All variable and subject to externalities, of course.

I've been told that a 4 hour marathon (slow) is about equivalent to a double century. I don't know if that is true or not. The math suggests 3500-4000 calories to do a marathon depending on fitness. Personal experience of ~7500 calories measured for a double century in 3-4x the time is close enough to be plausible from an "effort x time" perspective.

Useful? I'm not sure.

Bleu

In terms of difficulty: 20 miles cycling is 1 mile running.(but you still won't hurt as bad by cycling) Aand why in hell would you run?

Speedway2

I avoid running (not a fan)but I'll cycle for miles/hours. However, I'll skate for hours....does that count.

70sSanO

A lot depends on whether you are going downhill.

John

seypat

I'd say the best way to find out is to go to the local HS/MS track........and run a mile or two. That should give you a starting point. I've ran 18 marathons since 2013. Let me think about it and get back to you.

terrymorse 

Some estimates from the science folks, for a 150 lb. person:

Running at a 6 min/mile pace consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the runner covers 10 miles. 1145 Calories / 10 miles = 115 Calories/mile

Cycling at 20+ mph consumes 1145 Calories per hour, and the cyclists covers 20 miles. 1145 Calories / 20 miles = 57 Calories/mile

Cycling at 20+ mph is metabolically just as "hard" as running a 6 min/mile pace, but cycling gets you twice as far.

Random11

I've done both and I assure you it is much easier to cycle 100 miles than to run 26. I've completed five marathons, all between the ages of 38-40, and four centuries, all in my 70s. It took me several weeks to recover from each marathon. After my centuries, I was cycling as usual the next day.

indyfabz

I’m going to go out on a limb and say 1. After all, a ton of feathers weighs as much as a ton of bricks.

Sierra_rider

I've been using the imperial system of measurement for quite some time now, this is the first time I've heard there are bicycle and running miles. I'm curious how these compare to a standard mile, i.e. 5280'?

phughes

3.14159...

phughes

Now calculate aerobics.

ofajen

My running chart says a six minute mile pace takes 4.75W/kg. At 80 kg that puts me at 380W. Does it really take me 380W to cycle 20 mph? I’d think that would get me well into the 20s. Omnicalculator estimates 380W on a road bike gets me to 26mph on the hoods. 20mph only requires 190W which corresponds to a 12 minute pace. The nonlinearity of cycling load means the mileage equivalence will vary a lot based on speed.

Otto

Outrider1

Offhand, Id say gearing on a bicycle would be the major variable.

indyfabz

One is about 74 miles longer (in distance) than the other.

Yan 

Riding a century is far easier than running a marathon. Anybody in good shape can ride a century every day forever.

The record for daily cycling is 240 miles every day for an entire year straight. Running a marathon every day for a year has been done but it's on a whole other level. Let alone 2.4 times that distance.

seypat

This. riding a single speed would make it closer to cycling.