Re: Cycling vs running... time and distance

07-26-2004, 03:36 PM

I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-26-2004, 03:58 PM

Chris Zacho wrote:

> I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
> marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
> time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
body parts.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-26-2004, 03:58 PM

Chris Zacho wrote:

> I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
> marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
> time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
body parts.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-26-2004, 03:58 PM

Chris Zacho wrote:

> I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
> marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
> time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
body parts.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-26-2004, 03:58 PM

Chris Zacho wrote:

> I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
> marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
> time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
body parts.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-26-2004, 03:58 PM

Chris Zacho wrote:

> I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
> marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
> time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.

Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
body parts.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-27-2004, 02:20 AM

Terry Morse wrote:

> Chris Zacho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
>>marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
>>time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.
>
>
> Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
> marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
> body parts.

So perhaps the parent poster has his units wrong. A metric century
(100KM) is about 66 miles, putting it smack in your ballpark.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

07-27-2004, 02:20 AM

Terry Morse wrote:

> Chris Zacho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
>>marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
>>time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.
>
>
> Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
> marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
> body parts.

So perhaps the parent poster has his units wrong. A metric century
(100KM) is about 66 miles, putting it smack in your ballpark.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

07-27-2004, 02:20 AM

Terry Morse wrote:

> Chris Zacho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
>>marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
>>time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.
>
>
> Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
> marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
> body parts.

So perhaps the parent poster has his units wrong. A metric century
(100KM) is about 66 miles, putting it smack in your ballpark.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

07-27-2004, 02:20 AM

Terry Morse wrote:

> Chris Zacho wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard that a century (100 miles) is the equivalent of a runnert's
>>marathon (26 miles). But I think this is due to the common finishing
>>time amongst the pros, about 4 hours.
>
>
> Cycling a flat century consumes more calories than running a
> marathon, by maybe about 50%. But cycling is a lot less tough on the
> body parts.

So perhaps the parent poster has his units wrong. A metric century
(100KM) is about 66 miles, putting it smack in your ballpark.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email