What % of Americans could BIKE Kipchoge's sub-2 marathon?

ill venture 10% could.

2%

Americans don't bike compared to other countries and a lot are fat.

It would be a fairly high percentage. When I was 45 and completely out of shape I could ride faster than that on my hybrid bike with no training. Moreover, cycling is a sport where a level of initial competence is relatively easy to obtain. That is to say, an out-of-shape adult can buy a bike and within a few weeks they can hang with the the C riders of their local club.

That's 21km/h on a pancake flat course. An incredibly easy bike ride. But let's not forget how incredibly unfit a large % of the population is.

I still think anyone who isn't obese could do it. The speed is too slow. With no hills or traffic to slow you down it would be harder not to do it. About the same effort as walking for 2 hours.

Depends on the bike. If Nike made them all a custom rocket bike (equivalent to the Alphafly), then probably a lot of them could do it. On a traditional bike- very few.

13.4 MPH is faster than 4:34/mile pace.

A solid standard for 40K, (24.85 miles) the bike distance on bike leg of an Olympic Triathlon is 1 hour. So based on my experience, any recreational cyclist would have no problem as long as the course is not up some mountain. I only can see some fatty or old arthritic on huffy or beach cruiser not being able to do it.

Neta wrote:

A solid standard for 40K, (24.85 miles) the bike distance on bike leg of an Olympic Triathlon is 1 hour. So based on my experience, any recreational cyclist would have no problem as long as the course is not up some mountain. I only can see some fatty or old arthritic on huffy or beach cruiser not being able to do it.

USA age breakdown:

0-14 18.37% --- 3% from this group.

15-24 13.14% --- 10% from this group.

25-54 39.10% --- 25% from this group

55-64 12.75% --- 4% from this group

65+ 16.63% --- 2% from this group

A month of easy bike training and I'd say 44% of the USA population could achieve this.

I remember as a 12 yo, not particularly gifted in any sport, and not very active either (simply played basket or soccer with friends maybe once a week), I biked 25 miles in 2

And I was tired but not that much. Probably like a 5k at slightly faster than easy pace.

So if this 12 yo me could do it, I'm pretty sure most Americans who have not any health issue could do it.

You need to go to any Midwest City to see how "fit" these people are. Most people could not even get their leg over the top bar let alone balance their girth.

macdaddy wrote:

Neta wrote:

A solid standard for 40K, (24.85 miles) the bike distance on bike leg of an Olympic Triathlon is 1 hour. So based on my experience, any recreational cyclist would have no problem as long as the course is not up some mountain. I only can see some fatty or old arthritic on huffy or beach cruiser not being able to do it.

USA age breakdown:

0-14 18.37% --- 3% from this group.

15-24 13.14% --- 10% from this group.

25-54 39.10% --- 25% from this group

55-64 12.75% --- 4% from this group

65+ 16.63% --- 2% from this group

A month of easy bike training and I'd say 44% of the USA population could achieve this.

Although I would like to think this is achievable I still believe it is too high. There are just too many people in the USA that are in poor health. If given a bike without any training and said, "here, go ride 26.2 miles in two hours or at 13.4 mph" the numbers listed above would be much lower. The only groups that are close, imho, are the 55-64 and 65+ just because you will stumble across some people in those age groups that do ride bikes on a regular basis and a few others that do other regular exercise that could achieve this.

3% of 18% is 0.54%

10% of 13.14 is 1.314%

25% of 39.10% is 9.775%

4% of 12.75% is 0.51%

2% of 16.63% is 0.3326%

So instead of 44% it’s much more like 12.47%.

At least based on your numbers

What kind of bike? Mountain bike? 21 speed bike? 28 speed bike? Just look at the wheel chairs in the marathon majors. They all finish way faster than 2 hours. So a bike should be a lot easier.

I have a bike. A mountain bike with a rusted chain, shifters that are very unresponsive, brakes that don't work. If I rode a marathon on it I would probably only manage 3:30/mile pace. If I got on a nice aero bike I could hold 2:30/mile pace. What you ride makes a massive difference.

check your math wrote:

3% of 18% is 0.54%

10% of 13.14 is 1.314%

25% of 39.10% is 9.775%

4% of 12.75% is 0.51%

2% of 16.63% is 0.3326%

So instead of 44% it’s much more like 12.47%.

I think this is fair. This is how I came up with my 10% number:

My hometown (1.2 million) is 37% obese. 17% of the population are elderly. 10 % are 5 or under. Those three areas likely stand independent of each other.

That leaves 40% of people in the running. My guess is 1/4 of them can go ride for 2 hours at 4:34 pace.

Yes, on a good road bike, wearing apropriate clothes, good road and weather conditions , 21km/h / 13mp/h is not that much more of an effort than simply free spinning in idle mode.

It would be even easier on a triathlon bike effort wise but actually holding that aero position for longer is probably not for everyone.

And then there are also recumbent bikes and/or those completely enclosed inside bullet like fairings that are even way superior to the afore mentioned.

Then take an old rusty ladies bicycle that has been out in the rain for 15 years and Kipchoge's pace could be an unreachable goal for most, if not all.