wow, I bonked out......



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Cicero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dailuggs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <What's the equivalent of a marathon in cycling terms?>
> >
> > well a normal marathon is around 25 - 30 miles, so on a bike id say about 100 miles
> >
> >
> =========
> A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
equal
> to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.

It's a bit apples and oranges really. I reckon just about any cyclist with little or no specific
training could manage a 50 miler, probably even a 75 miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger though.
Training to run a marathon takes months.

Tim
>
> Cic.
 
"Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Cicero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "dailuggs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > <What's the equivalent of a marathon in cycling terms?>
> > >
> > > well a normal marathon is around 25 - 30 miles, so on a bike id say about 100 miles
> > >
> > >
> > =========
> > A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
> equal
> > to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> > cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
>
> It's a bit apples and oranges really. I reckon just about any cyclist
with
> little or no specific training could manage a 50 miler, probably even a 75 miler. That doesn't
> apply to any jogger though. Training to run a
marathon
> takes months.
>
> Tim
> >
===========
As I said - not very precise. I believe that the comparison is reasonably accurate for people mixing
running and cycling. And as you said marathon training can take months. In fact many people who
start training for their first marathon find that they can't even run a mile at their first attempt.
Running is much more demanding than cycling in many ways.

Cic.
 
Tim Downie wrote:

>
> "Cicero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
> equal
>> to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
>> cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
>
> It's a bit apples and oranges really. I reckon just about any cyclist with little or no specific
> training could manage a 50 miler, probably even a 75 miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger
> though. Training to run a marathon takes months.

I don't beleive a word of it either... I'm up to about 40 miles cycling in three hours, which would
imply that I could run about 13 miles.

All pigs loaded and ready to fly...

David.
 
"David Bertenshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Downie wrote:
>
> >
> > "Cicero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
> > equal
> >> to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> >> cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
> >
> > It's a bit apples and oranges really. I reckon just about any cyclist with little or no specific
> > training could manage a 50 miler, probably
even
> > a 75 miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger though. Training to run a marathon takes months.
>
> I don't beleive a word of it either... I'm up to about 40 miles cycling
in
> three hours, which would imply that I could run about 13 miles.
>
> All pigs loaded and ready to fly...
>
> David.
=============
I assume that you didn't read my reply to Tim Downie.

Cic.
 
On Fri, 05 Sep, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

> strange. The staff in one shop said that their water was almost undrinkable; they suggested I
> visit the next door pub. I had no idea that each building in the country had its own separate
> water supply.

Maybe it's something about cycle shops supplies - Futurcycles has undrinkable water (when they
recommend you take it from the filter jug and not from teh tap, trust them).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Cicero wrote:

>
> "David Bertenshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> > miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger though. Training to run a marathon takes months.
>>
>> I don't beleive a word of it either... I'm up to about 40 miles cycling
> in
>> three hours, which would imply that I could run about 13 miles.
>>
>> All pigs loaded and ready to fly...
>>
>> David.
> =============
> I assume that you didn't read my reply to Tim Downie.
>
> Cic.

Well, clearly not, but as you posted your reply at 9:56:04 pm and I posted mine at 9:56:33 pm, I
don't think you can be too harsh on me, can you?

But please don't take offence - I wasn't criticising your comments in any way. I was amused by the
thought I could run a marathon or even 50% of one...

David
 
"David Bertenshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Cicero wrote:
>
> >
> > "David Bertenshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger though. Training to run a marathon takes months.
> >>
> >> I don't beleive a word of it either... I'm up to about 40 miles
cycling
> > in
> >> three hours, which would imply that I could run about 13 miles.
> >>
> >> All pigs loaded and ready to fly...
> >>
> >> David.
> > =============
> > I assume that you didn't read my reply to Tim Downie.
> >
> > Cic.
>
> Well, clearly not, but as you posted your reply at 9:56:04 pm and I posted mine at 9:56:33 pm, I
> don't think you can be too harsh on me, can you?
>
> But please don't take offence - I wasn't criticising your comments in any way. I was amused by the
> thought I could run a marathon or even 50% of one...
>
> David
============
No offence taken, I assure you. I leave NGs when people can't behave in a civilised manner.

I see from one of your other posts that you are 45. I was 46 when I ran my first marathon and I've
rarely enjoyed anything better in my life. Why not give running a try? The mix of cycling and
running gives the best of both worlds.

Cic.
 
Cicero wrote:

> ============
> No offence taken, I assure you. I leave NGs when people can't behave in a civilised manner.

Me too. No need for it at all.

> I see from one of your other posts that you are 45. I was 46 when I ran my first marathon and I've
> rarely enjoyed anything better in my life. Why not give running a try? The mix of cycling and
> running gives the best of both worlds.

I have tried, but only sporadically and with no real commitment. I just don't enjoy it very much,
but I accept that could easily be because I've never reached the stage where the effort isn't
completely overshadowing everthing.

What I mean is, with the typical bike ride, there's a few minutes at the beginning when it's a bit
of a struggle, then I become accustomed to it, and can go for two or three hours without any
problems (except for short lived ones for big hills and assuming I'm not overdoing it) where I'm
getting good exercise, but the focus is on enjoying what's going on. At the end, I'm probably
knackered and it can be a struggle again. The point is, for a long time there's a 'plateau' when I'm
not concentrating on what agony I'm in, I'm just enjoying being on the bike and I'm still getting a
good workout.

I don't get that with running - the effort is everything all the way through, it never becomes part
of the background, if you see what I mean. I can run (slowly) for about 30 - 35 minutes, but it's
never less than a struggle.

I know that would disappear if I perservered, and I'd love to be able to do it, but I only have
limited spare time and in the end I suppose I just prefer cycling.

I can understand the attraction and challenge of running a marathon, though, and the feeling of
achievement it must bring. I suppose I'll have to start training for an audax 200 to get that sort
of buzz...

David.
 
> > > > <What's the equivalent of a marathon in cycling terms?>
> > > >
>A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is equal
> > to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> > cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
> ===========
> As I said - not very precise. I believe that the comparison is reasonably accurate for people
> mixing running and cycling. And as you said marathon training can take months. In fact many people
> who start training for their first marathon find that they can't even run a mile at their first
attempt.
> Running is much more demanding than cycling in many ways.
>
> Cic.
>
Interesting one this one. I've raced a couple of marathons, done the occasional time-trial and
triathlon and do a bit of audax riding - longest being about 200 miles (300k plus cycling from home
to start and back). Note I was not racing on the bike, OK it's a challenge but on an audax ride you
get lots of breathers downhill, drafting in the group you're with (you hope) and stops for food.
Doing a marathon running downhill is nearly as difficult as running up and drinking on the run is
not easy. Even now 10 years after my last competitive marathon I can easily do a 50 mile training
ride whilst 5 miles off-road running is plenty and my legs will feel it for two days afterwards. So
my conclusion on this would be that to compare like with like you need to consider racing distances
or training distances. I reckon that for me a 200k audax was about the same effort as an 18 mile
training run so a by extrapolation a 300k time-trial would be about the same as racing a marathon;
likewise a 300k audax would be the equivalent of running a marathon just to get round.

just my two pennoth Julia
 
Cicero wrote:
> I see from one of your other posts that you are 45. I was 46 when I ran my first marathon and I've
> rarely enjoyed anything better in my life.

Ditto regarding age and enjoyment! Having run one, I'm now three weeks away from running my 3rd,
(whilst still 46).

Tim

--
Time for a new sig.
 
i forgot to mention before about the water- any business or even house that pays rates is obligated to provide you with drinking water provided you ask in a polite and civilised manner, the law stating this was passed when not everyone had water on tap in the home, so people could then go to a neighbours and be provided with water, the law still stands.

its absolutely great when someone refuses asnd you state that and then ask if they would like the police involved (id never actually call the police for something so futile as it would be a waste when there are white vans needed to be caught for knocking cyclists over), but they always give in and get me my water ;)
 
On 7 Sep 2003 03:15:56 +0950, dailuggs <[email protected]> wrote:

>i forgot to mention before about the water- any business or even house that pays rates is obligated
>to provide you with drinking water provided you ask in a polite and civilised manner, the law
>stating this was passed when not everyone had water on tap in the home, so people could then go to
>a neighbours and be provided with water, the law still stands.

Hmmm. Cited document, please? I suspect this one is an "urban myth". If I had a water meter
installed, I wouldn't want to keep filling my neighbour's kettle (for drinking).

Of course, it's unlikely you will be refused a "polite" request at a stranger's door.

--
MatSav
 
David Bertenshaw <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim Downie wrote:
>
> > "Cicero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
> > equal
> >> to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> >> cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
> >
> > It's a bit apples and oranges really. I reckon just about any cyclist with little or no specific
> > training could manage a 50 miler, probably even a 75 miler. That doesn't apply to any jogger
> > though. Training to run a marathon takes months.
>
> I don't beleive a word of it either... I'm up to about 40 miles cycling in three hours, which
> would imply that I could run about 13 miles.

Just so. I'm recovering from a particularly nasty deep vein thrombosis, and at present my limit for
walking is less than four miles before cramp sets in and just stops me dead; I very much doubt I
could run at all. My cycling, however, seems almost completely unaffected - I haven't done any very
great distances recently, but did, for example, fourteen miles today in vile conditions at
reasonable speed. I'm not going quite as fast as I used to, but on the other hand I'm not suffering
any pain or distress when cycling.

It seems to me that cycling is a completely different sort of exercise from walking or running,
which taxes the body in quite different ways.

Come to that, think how many amazingly frail looking old people you know or have known who happily
cycle considerable distances... they certainly couldn't walk a third of that.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Just as defying the law of
gravity through building aircraft requires careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying
laws of economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to forever strive to
improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;;
Charles Bryant
 
"the Baker-Bealls" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > > > <What's the equivalent of a marathon in cycling terms?>
> > > > >
> >A rough rule of thumb is somewhere between 2 and 3 miles of cycling is
> > equal
> > > to 1 mile of running. So 26.2 miles (42 Km) of a marathon is somewhere between 50 and 75 miles
> > > cycling. Not very precise - just a guide.
> > ===========
> > As I said - not very precise. I believe that the comparison is
reasonably
> > accurate for people mixing running and cycling. And as you said marathon training can take
> > months. In fact many people who start training for
their
> > first marathon find that they can't even run a mile at their first
> attempt.
> > Running is much more demanding than cycling in many ways.
> >
> > Cic.
> >
> Interesting one this one. I've raced a couple of marathons, done the occasional time-trial and
> triathlon and do a bit of audax riding - longest being about 200 miles (300k plus cycling from
> home to start and back).
Note
> I was not racing on the bike, OK it's a challenge but on an audax ride you get lots of breathers
> downhill, drafting in the group you're with (you
hope)
> and stops for food. Doing a marathon running downhill is nearly as
difficult
> as running up and drinking on the run is not easy. Even now 10 years after my last competitive
> marathon I can easily do a 50 mile training ride
whilst
> 5 miles off-road running is plenty and my legs will feel it for two days afterwards. So my
> conclusion on this would be that to compare like with
like
> you need to consider racing distances or training distances. I reckon that for me a 200k audax was
> about the same effort as an 18 mile training run
so
> a by extrapolation a 300k time-trial would be about the same as racing a marathon; likewise a 300k
> audax would be the equivalent of running a marathon just to get round.
>
> just my two pennoth Julia
>
>
===========
The main difference between running and cycling is that you really have to carry your own weight
when running and of course there's not much chance for 'coasting' when you're running. I suppose
that most people will find their preferred exercise (running or cycling) easier simply because they
train their muscles for their preferred discipline.

I certainly agree with you about running downhill - very hard on the heels. And drinking on the run
is an acquired art. I've seen plenty of people with a cupful of water up the nose - myself included.

Cic.
 
"David Bertenshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cicero wrote:
>
> > ============
> > No offence taken, I assure you. I leave NGs when people can't behave in
a
> > civilised manner.
>
> Me too. No need for it at all.
>
> > I see from one of your other posts that you are 45. I was 46 when I ran
my
> > first marathon and I've rarely enjoyed anything better in my life. Why not give running a try?
> > The mix of cycling and running gives the best of both worlds.
>
> I have tried, but only sporadically and with no real commitment. I just don't enjoy it very much,
> but I accept that could easily be because I've never reached the stage where the effort isn't
> completely overshadowing everthing.
>
> What I mean is, with the typical bike ride, there's a few minutes at the beginning when it's a bit
> of a struggle, then I become accustomed to it, and can go for two or three hours without any
> problems (except for short lived ones for big hills and assuming I'm not overdoing it) where I'm
> getting good exercise, but the focus is on enjoying what's going on. At
the
> end, I'm probably knackered and it can be a struggle again. The point is, for a long time there's
> a 'plateau' when I'm not concentrating on what agony I'm in, I'm just enjoying being on the bike
> and I'm still getting a good workout.
>
> I don't get that with running - the effort is everything all the way through, it never becomes
> part of the background, if you see what I mean.
I
> can run (slowly) for about 30 - 35 minutes, but it's never less than a struggle.
>
> I know that would disappear if I perservered, and I'd love to be able to
do
> it, but I only have limited spare time and in the end I suppose I just prefer cycling.
>
> I can understand the attraction and challenge of running a marathon,
though,
> and the feeling of achievement it must bring. I suppose I'll have to start training for an audax
> 200 to get that sort of buzz...
>
> David.

===========
Well they say, "No pain, no gain", but I'm not in favour of forcing oneself to do a form of exercise
that isn't enjoyable. There's plenty of choice in exercise and since you prefer cycling stick with
it and enjoy it without feeling guilty about the running. Personally I could never enjoy one of
those 'workout' sessions in a gym that looks like something from the early days of the Industrial
revolution.

Cic.
 
<snipped>

> Tim Downie wrote:
> >
> >
> Come to that, think how many amazingly frail looking old people you know or have known who
> happily cycle considerable distances... they certainly couldn't walk a third of that.
>
>
<snipped>
==========
Appearances can certainly be deceptive. Think about distance runners especially Ethiopians etc. Some
of them look too fragile to stand up but they're often world class.

Cic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.