Question for Archea re: Marathon vs Century - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SteelBlue · 09-06-2005, 07:34 PM

My father is a former Marathoner who is now beginning to take up cycling. He is in the VERY early stages of cycling and just did a 26 mile bike ride this weekend. He asked me if I knew how to compare cycling distances with running distances. I told him that I thought a 26 mile bike ride on a relatively flat course was probably the equivalent of a 5 mile run depending on how hard you rode the 26 miles. But that as far as I knew, there really was no way to compare the distances accurately.

Since you have done an iron man I'm wondering which of the events you found more difficult between the century and the marathon? I've never attempted a marathon, and I don't run so I feel like the marathon would be the more difficult of the 2. I've heard others say that the cycling is tougher. So which is it? Also, have you ever come across any accurate comparison between running and cycling distances?

Archaea · 09-06-2005, 08:56 PM

because a person designed for running might do as well as one designed for cycling.

I believe it's easier to get fit enough to limp along for a century than it is for a marathon.

Cycling is more forgiving because you won't experience as many exercise related injuries.

Running fast will often result in injuries by virtue of the nature of the exercise itself.

That said, cycling is difficult because you force yourself into larger deficits.

Climbing in cycling is probably more difficult than simply running uphill.

Overall, a hard marathon is harder than a hard flat century.

If you added climbing to the century, at that point I wouldn't know how to compare.

A better comparison would be to ask how hard is it to get competitive in running race versus a cycling race. Both are hard and take lots of time.

However a triathlon friend of mine noted this. It will take him five months to get some running legs back, three months of cycling and two months of swimming. Take that for what it's worth.

I find it all hard, and some days I feel like a total slug, especially running. I'm running my speed work with girls right now, because I'm too slow to keep up with the track guys.

MikeWaters · 09-07-2005, 02:24 AM

there is absolutely no way I could do a marathon, but I did a century without too much difficulty, with only about 1000 miles this season under my belt, and did it 20mph+.

09-06-2005, 07:34 PM	#1
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	Question for Archea re: Marathon vs Century My father is a former Marathoner who is now beginning to take up cycling. He is in the VERY early stages of cycling and just did a 26 mile bike ride this weekend. He asked me if I knew how to compare cycling distances with running distances. I told him that I thought a 26 mile bike ride on a relatively flat course was probably the equivalent of a 5 mile run depending on how hard you rode the 26 miles. But that as far as I knew, there really was no way to compare the distances accurately. Since you have done an iron man I'm wondering which of the events you found more difficult between the century and the marathon? I've never attempted a marathon, and I don't run so I feel like the marathon would be the more difficult of the 2. I've heard others say that the cycling is tougher. So which is it? Also, have you ever come across any accurate comparison between running and cycling distances?

09-06-2005, 08:56 PM	#2
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Comparisons are difficult for multiple reasons because a person designed for running might do as well as one designed for cycling. I believe it's easier to get fit enough to limp along for a century than it is for a marathon. Cycling is more forgiving because you won't experience as many exercise related injuries. Running fast will often result in injuries by virtue of the nature of the exercise itself. That said, cycling is difficult because you force yourself into larger deficits. Climbing in cycling is probably more difficult than simply running uphill. Overall, a hard marathon is harder than a hard flat century. If you added climbing to the century, at that point I wouldn't know how to compare. A better comparison would be to ask how hard is it to get competitive in running race versus a cycling race. Both are hard and take lots of time. However a triathlon friend of mine noted this. It will take him five months to get some running legs back, three months of cycling and two months of swimming. Take that for what it's worth. I find it all hard, and some days I feel like a total slug, especially running. I'm running my speed work with girls right now, because I'm too slow to keep up with the track guys. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

09-07-2005, 02:24 AM	#3
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	there is absolutely no way I could do a marathon, but I did a century without too much difficulty, with only about 1000 miles this season under my belt, and did it 20mph+.