Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Running vs Bike riding energy expenditure

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Running vs Bike riding energy expenditure

Old 09-28-21, 05:07 AM
  #76  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,179
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,718 Times in 2,913 Posts
Originally Posted by downhillmaster
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out what I believe to be fairly obvious.
And imo the amount of energy expended in those few moments of running will on average exceed the amount of energy expended in any ‘few moments’ on the bicycle.
FWIW I ran track and x-country in HS and have done my fair share of running.
All that being said, I think that earlier in the thread you were implying that the amount of energy expended could be equal between the two depending on circumstances and I definitely agree with that.
Yeah well I agree that running requires a higher "minimum" energy expenditure than cycling. Even walking probably has a higher "minimum" energy requirement than cycling, on flat ground at least. At the other end of the spectrum I don't believe there is any difference. A track sprint cyclist puts out the same sort of peak power as a 100 m runner. If I sprint flat out on my bike for 10 seconds I'm just as out of breath as I would be running flat out for 10 seconds.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-28-21, 05:09 AM
  #77  
downhillmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,682
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times in 402 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Yeah well I agree that running requires a higher "minimum" energy expenditure than cycling. Even walking probably has a higher "minimum" energy requirement than cycling, on flat ground at least. At the other end of the spectrum I don't believe there is any difference. A track sprint cyclist puts out the same sort of peak power as a 100 m runner. If I sprint flat out on my bike for 10 seconds I'm just as out of breath as I would be running flat out for 10 seconds.
I tend to agree but I wonder which of the two involves a longer recovery time…
downhillmaster is offline  
Old 09-28-21, 05:58 AM
  #78  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,179
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,718 Times in 2,913 Posts
Originally Posted by downhillmaster
I tend to agree but I wonder which of the two involves a longer recovery time…
In terms of cardio recovery I would imagine recovery time would be the same. From overall muscle stress/fatigue, probably running would require longer recovery. But that's just a guess.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-28-21, 08:46 AM
  #79  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
...So what I'm suggesting here is that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy per unit time than running. I don't know the reasons for that (I'm an engineer, not a physiologist), but it's probably something to do with using all those muscle groups together while supporting your weight vs mashing circles with your legs and the ability to take micro-breaks...
Paraphrasing for emphasis.
I totally agree with this. The machine takes away much of the auxillary action of dynamically maintaining balance, countering and supporting more weight upright.

On a bike (unless one is standing and mashing) the weight and balance is supported by three points (hands, pelvis, feet) and not thrown that far off of the COG (center of balance). Running, all weight and balance is supported by the feet only and many muscle groups from there up have to act to maintain balance while the body is thrown farther off of its COG.

How that is expressed specifically is up for debate I suppose but it demonstrates the main sentiment expressed that running gives a more intense workout in a shorter time.

Per hour spent in the activity I find recovery time from running greater because it is higher impact. For example, when cycling commuting to work I ride one hour per day. This I can do indefinitely. At my age, if I ran one hour every day I would soon need a recovery period. As it is I alternate cycling and trail running to achieve this effect.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 09-28-21 at 08:51 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Likes For Happy Feet:
Old 09-28-21, 05:30 PM
  #80  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,179
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,718 Times in 2,913 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Paraphrasing for emphasis.
I totally agree with this. The machine takes away much of the auxillary action of dynamically maintaining balance, countering and supporting more weight upright.

On a bike (unless one is standing and mashing) the weight and balance is supported by three points (hands, pelvis, feet) and not thrown that far off of the COG (center of balance). Running, all weight and balance is supported by the feet only and many muscle groups from there up have to act to maintain balance while the body is thrown farther off of its COG.

How that is expressed specifically is up for debate I suppose but it demonstrates the main sentiment expressed that running gives a more intense workout in a shorter time.

Per hour spent in the activity I find recovery time from running greater because it is higher impact. For example, when cycling commuting to work I ride one hour per day. This I can do indefinitely. At my age, if I ran one hour every day I would soon need a recovery period. As it is I alternate cycling and trail running to achieve this effect.
Again that just comes down to running requiring a higher "minimum effort" than cycling. If you turned your 1 hour commute into a full-gas TT effort I'm sure it would be just as intense as a 1 hour run. But I do agree about the recovery probably taking longer from the higher impact in running. That's just one of the reasons I don't run.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-28-21, 10:24 PM
  #81  
AJW2W11E
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 110 Times in 50 Posts
This wasn't meant to be a complicated physiological/ physics discussion. It was more of oriented towards, now how much ice cream I can eat and how long a nap I can take based on how far I just rode and not feel guilty or something like that.
AJW2W11E is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 12:26 AM
  #82  
RChung
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,395
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 1,122 Times in 482 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat
I don't think the 7-8 minute pace = riding at a pace of 20mph is accurate either, not even close. It's a whole lot easier to cruise at 20mph pushing a big gear than run at a 7-8 minute pace, at least for me. Not every cyclist out there is a high spinning flyweight. It will be different for each individual.
Oh, I concur -- I simply meant that it's closer than the amount of work involved in running a mile in 7 or 8 minutes vs. riding a bike at 20 mph for an hour. For a person of 75 kg, running a mile at a 7:30 pace is an output of around 120 kJ. That same person riding a bike at 20 mph for a full hour is going to be putting out something like 6x as many Joules, around 720 kJ. So riding at a pace of 20 mph is definitely "easier" than running at a pace of 7:30/mile -- but the other comparison was ridiculous.
RChung is offline  
Likes For RChung:
Old 09-29-21, 06:59 AM
  #83  
JosE1977
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by matton
Cycling time and distance are very poor indicators of effort. If you’re riding on flat terrain, you can just cruise along with very little effort. Running is always quite effortful. I would rate running as more like riding uphill – you can adjust the effort somewhat, but it’s never going to be effortless.
You can up your effort on flat terrain too. Simply switch to a higher gear. Since aerodynamic drag is increasing rapidly, unless the road is of really bad quality you 'quickly' get to a point where overcoming drag becomes a major issue.
JosE1977 is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 07:45 AM
  #84  
AJW2W11E
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 110 Times in 50 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
Oh, I concur -- I simply meant that it's closer than the amount of work involved in running a mile in 7 or 8 minutes vs. riding a bike at 20 mph for an hour. For a person of 75 kg, running a mile at a 7:30 pace is an output of around 120 kJ. That same person riding a bike at 20 mph for a full hour is going to be putting out something like 6x as many Joules, around 720 kJ. So riding at a pace of 20 mph is definitely "easier" than running at a pace of 7:30/mile -- but the other comparison was ridiculous.
My mistake I ride a single speed and I have about 1500 feet of hills out here in the Northwest.
AJW2W11E is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 08:29 AM
  #85  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
This is meaningless without talking about pace. What if you rode those 100 miles faster? You can definitely bury yourself over 100 miles on a bike if you want to. It's just easier to cruise on a bike compared to running where you have to put in a fairly high minimum effort to call it running.

And pace, of course, has to be considered in context. A 18 mph average over 100 miles is going to require a lot more effort over a course with a lot of climbing than a flat one, and very low effort if the course is mostly descending.

I think you hit the nail on the head, though, bicycling allows you to produce a very high maximum effort, but has a lower minimum effort than running. If you're riding with relatively low effort, I think it's more comparable to walking than to running.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 08:34 AM
  #86  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
I was thinking about the point made that running beats up the body more and the bike is a more efficient form of expending energy. I have a different perspective.

Running does not "beat up the body". It's a more high resistance/impact form of exercise that will strengthen ligament and bone (a good thing). You have to have a basic level of fitness to support that higher impact but, once there, the stress is a benefit, not a detriment.

Cycling has a lower impact which means one can actually lose bone density while doing it. One can do it longer because one is not stressing the body as much. It also has a lower entry point in terms of fitness requirement to begin (a good thing) which is why many people prefer cycling to running. You can be less fit and still do it.

To get an equivalent level of short duration workout than trail running I ride uphill mtb trails, usually 2-4 km's of sustained climbing. This is a pretty good cardio workout and the ride down also works upper body/core/agility/stress loading/resistance.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 09-29-21 at 08:38 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 08:37 AM
  #87  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
Probably closer to between 2.5 and 3.5; the faster you run, the closer to 2.5, the slower, the closer to 3.5.

That ratio thing works on both ends--the faster you ride....
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 08:46 AM
  #88  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I think there is confusion here between using more muscle groups and overall energy expenditure. For example we have an elliptical trainer and a bike machine, both with identical power meters. On the bike I can put out a much higher sustained wattage, regardless that I'm sitting down. I know I'm using less muscle groups on the bike, but they are working a lot harder to produce that extra power. Being a cyclist no doubt skews my personal result toward putting out much more power on the bike. I'm sure the result would be somewhat different for a trained runner who didn't ride a bike.

In the real world I'm a half decent cyclist and a really poor runner! So my results stack up in that sense.

I think this misses the mark a bit. The runner is expending energy maintaining his/her upright position, which would not translate to power. I do a lot of elliptical training, and everything I've read indicates that it's nearly impossible to calculate accurately the actual energy expenditure because people vary so much in their muscle usage.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 08:59 AM
  #89  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I'm just saying it would take 440W for a 70 kg runner to run a 4 minute mile on a flat road. Not very many people can actually do that.
The same 70kg runner would need to be averaging around 385W to complete a marathon in 2 hours. Nobody of that weight has ever achieved that.
The WR marathon holder actually weighs 52kg and would need to average just 285W for 2 hours. Only the elite of the elite runners can get close to that.

Comparing that to cycling, putting out 285W for 2 hours is quite achievable by a lot of amateur riders and pros can be well into the mid 350W range for that length of time
If you want to win Paris Roubaix, you need to be averaging over 300W for nearly 6 hours.

So what I'm suggesting here is that cycling is a more efficient way of expending energy per unit time than running. I don't know the reasons for that (I'm an engineer, not a physiologist), but it's probably something to do with using all those muscle groups together while supporting your weight vs mashing circles with your legs and the ability to take micro-breaks. From a personal perspective when I go on my elliptical machine I put out around half the power I do on my equivalent bike machine for the same perceived effort. I'm sure that's partly because I do far more cycling than elliptical training, but I'm pretty sure I would never be able to push the same wattage on an elliptical or running on a treadmill as I can on the bike.

It sure sounds like you're burning more calories per watt running on the elliptical than riding on the bike, is that what you mean by "efficiency"?

My sense on the elliptical vs. bicycling is that I'm maxing out my leg efforts a lot on the bike, and maxing my leg effort on the elliptical plus putting out a major effort with my arm muscles. Despite everything you're saying here, I do think it's logical that the amount of energy burned will increase, all other things being equal, with an increase in the number of muscles being maxed out.

I don't meter anything, so I'm not going to attempt to compare wattage.

Last edited by livedarklions; 09-29-21 at 09:06 AM.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 09:11 AM
  #90  
rydabent
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
Originally Posted by AJW2W11E
I am new to Bike riding and doing roughly 20 miles a day 16 mph on a single speed , lots of hills. Switched from running several miles a day after I saw all the knee replacements around me. Bike riding really is fun but all those miles are wearisome, noticed them when I was painting my house. How does bike riding match up to running?
The over ridding point here is the difference between running and ridding. Riding a bike does not cause shock loads on the feet, knees, and hips. High speed videos of a runners legs show shock waves running up a runners legs. After years of running, it is the runners that have to get knee and hip replacements.
rydabent is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 10:19 AM
  #91  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,758
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3192 Post(s)
Liked 2,461 Times in 1,490 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
The over ridding point here is the difference between running and ridding. Riding a bike does not cause shock loads on the feet, knees, and hips. High speed videos of a runners legs show shock waves running up a runners legs. After years of running, it is the runners that have to get knee and hip replacements.
Meanwhile, the cyclists will have low bone density and getting those hip/knee replacements anyway. My advice: Cross train all you can. Don't limit yourself to one or two activities. Your body will thank you for it.

https://www.bicycling.com/health-nut...ngth-training/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230645/

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/w...an-improve-it/

Last edited by seypat; 09-29-21 at 10:38 AM.
seypat is online now  
Old 09-29-21, 11:45 AM
  #92  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
After years of running, it is the runners that have to get knee and hip replacements.
As a physical rehab assistant who routinely deals with hip and knee replacements my experience is that this sentiment is patently false. There is no correlation between running and replacements.

The point about cross training is spot on (not to be confused with crossfit). Especially as one gets older and needs more recovery time.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 09-29-21 at 11:50 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 11:56 AM
  #93  
grizzly59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked 262 Times in 164 Posts
Cycling 14mph on the flat with no wind seems to take the same amount of energy as watching TV. 22mph for me is pretty hard. I'm only gonna run if I'm being chased.
grizzly59 is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 12:02 PM
  #94  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,179
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4274 Post(s)
Liked 4,718 Times in 2,913 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
I think this misses the mark a bit. The runner is expending energy maintaining his/her upright position, which would not translate to power. I do a lot of elliptical training, and everything I've read indicates that it's nearly impossible to calculate accurately the actual energy expenditure because people vary so much in their muscle usage.
Yes, it's hard to differentiate between power output (which is relatively easy to measure) and energy consumed in producing that power (which is not easy to measure).
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 09-29-21, 12:06 PM
  #95  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Yes, it's hard to differentiate between power output (which is relatively easy to measure) and energy consumed in producing that power (which is not easy to measure).

I believe the only way to accurately measure calories burned involves breath capture and I ain't doing anything like this breathing into and from a mask.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 12:27 PM
  #96  
SkinGriz
Live not by lies.
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,306

Bikes: BigBox bikes.

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 784 Times in 582 Posts
I just read somewhere that lite jogging is probably good for your back.

Need to look into that more.
SkinGriz is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 12:47 PM
  #97  
Riveting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,221

Bikes: '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er, '19 CDale Topstone Gravel

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 590 Post(s)
Liked 445 Times in 260 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
This is meaningless without talking about pace. What if you rode those 100 miles faster? You can definitely bury yourself over 100 miles on a bike if you want to. It's just easier to cruise on a bike compared to running where you have to put in a fairly high minimum effort to call it running.
Exactly. Pace is everything. Anyone who thinks cycling 100 miles is "easy" has likely not attempted a sub-5 hour imperial century (and not on a Florida-flat course). Once you attempt that, come back and we'll discuss this further. I've done a 5:16 imperial century with a group of 4, and it's tough. And that was just the "moving time" without rests included. Just imagine the Pro's who do 27 mph without a single rest.

Or go out and attempt to race in a 45min. CAT4/5 Criterium at ~22 mph avg, and you'll never again think cycling is easy.

For you marathon-runner-turned-century-cyclist out there, what running pace for a marathon is the "exertion equivalent" of a 20mph century?

Last edited by Riveting; 09-29-21 at 01:06 PM.
Riveting is offline  
Old 09-29-21, 01:21 PM
  #98  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,758
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3192 Post(s)
Liked 2,461 Times in 1,490 Posts
Originally Posted by Riveting
Exactly. Pace is everything. Anyone who thinks cycling 100 miles is "easy" has likely not attempted a sub-5 hour imperial century (and not on a Florida-flat course). Once you attempt that, come back and we'll discuss this further. I've done a 5:16 imperial century with a group of 4, and it's tough. And that was just the "moving time" without rests included. Just imagine the Pro's who do 27 mph without a single rest.

Or go out and attempt to race in a 45min. CAT4/5 Criterium at ~22 mph avg, and you'll never again think cycling is easy.

For you marathon-runner-turned-century-cyclist out there, what running pace for a marathon is the "exertion equivalent" of a 20mph century?
I was thinking about that this past weekend. Here is the marathon training run we had. Very similar and on the same roads as the 2015 World Road Championships that Sagan won. In fact, we usually run up 23rd St. and Libby Hill just like on the WRC course. This year they gave us a different look. Anyway, using some of the suggestions in this thread, you could pull the data for Sagan and the rest of the field from that race. Then you could crunch some numbers and you could come up with the paces/distances that Sagan and the rest of the field would have to run on that same course to get the same workout/output. I can bike the route I linked at various paces and do the same.

https://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/view/4648341211
seypat is online now  
Old 09-29-21, 01:28 PM
  #99  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,758
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3192 Post(s)
Liked 2,461 Times in 1,490 Posts
The Richmond Marathon has 2 courses that they use for their marathon. They came up with an out/back course for the marathon event last(COVID) year on the Virginia Capital Trail. I have data from my marathons on those courses. I can bike the same courses and report back with my findings.
seypat is online now  
Old 09-29-21, 01:40 PM
  #100  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
If a sub 5 hour century is considered tough then it would be comparable to a sub 4 hour marathon. Most runners complete the latter between 4-5 hours, considered ordinary. Sub 4 is hard. 4-5 hours of tough running puts one into ultra marathon territory. Consider the energy expenditure involved in that genre and how many people attempt it.

My first marathon was 4:18 at a sub maximal pace because I was focused more on finishing than time and intentionally throttled back. I did the same on my first century for the same reason. My recovery time from that marathon was a lot longer than from the century.

The longest day of riding I have done is 17 hours on tour. From 7am until 12:30. I could not run for that long, even at a very relaxed pace
Happy Feet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.