marathons vs. century rides etc...

[eleven]

I had a long discussion with another person today pertaining to the relative difficulty of running v. riding. Our basic discussion came down to this, and I'd be curious what people here think:

Starting from scratch, with some basic level of fitness but no background in either activity, what is harder: Running a marathon or riding a century?

if it became a 4 hr marathon v. a 6 hour century, would that change your perspective?

I have an opinion, but I'm curious what others think before I give mine.

 

[Aristarchus]

I've never run a marathon, but I have done centuries on the bike. Even when I was not particularly fit, I probably could have done a slow century, but I don't think that I could have managed a marathon of any speed.

I suppose I'm not really able to answer the question, in the end. I've never been one for running, which is why I took up cycling in the first place (I actually enjoy it, and loathe running).

 

[Steampunk]

It would be interesting to compare calories burned, power output, etc. My instinct is that the century is easier insofar as recovery time might be possible on flats and downhills when the bike can do some of the work for you. Also, the very idea of running hurts my knees these days...

 

[Tapeworm]

The nature of running (or slow shuffling as the case may be) means that it will usually be much harder on the body, there will be a limit to the "damage" your body can sustain whereas cycling, depending on pace, is more decided by energy.

 

[eleven]

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone.

As a bit of background, I'm a fairly serious (but recreational) cyclist, doing 4-5000 per year, lots of long rides and climbs. I've always been a casual runner and regularly do 3-6 mile runs. I'm running my first marathon next week.

My friend is a serious marathoner (2:40ish) and has almost no experience on a bike.

I was explaining how hard I found marathon training and he said "How can a marathon be hard when you ride 120 miles on any given saturday?" That's what sparked the discussion.

Accepting that his opinion differs, I really do think a 100 mile ride is easier. I'll have to look back at old training logs after my marathon to look at calorie comparisons (if you believe the calorie count on a HR monitor).

 

[forty four]

for two equally unfit people a marathon might be harder. with some mountain passes i would say the century would be harder easy.

 

[liftman]

I have done both (5 marathons) and have run up to a 50k, the only time I have ridden 100 miles it was a solo ride, not an organized event and was very hilly. I would have to say that the run is harder. The day after my century ride i felt OK and was capable of going for another ride. The day after any of the marathons/50ks just walking was uncomfortable.

 

[ergmonkey]

I have a fair bit of experience with distance running, but much more experience with racing the bike and doing long, hard rides. The main reason why I don't have more experience with running is that my body won't let me push myself as hard as I want to while running. As has been mentioned here already, it's possible to really dig deep on the bike but still be okay the next day. With running, I firmly believe that only the rare, gifted runners with excellent resilience, biomechanics, and joint spaces can really push their physiological limits as long-distance runners. Quite simply, very few athletes can do the events that Dean Karnazes does, or put in the mileage that Kenyan marathoners put in. In cycling, most of us can do the training and find out how fast or slow our potential will let us be.

This doesn't make riding easier per se. I have never been more tired (i.e. completely devoid of energy, blood sugar, fluids, etc.) and my major leg muscles have never been more exhausted than after hilly 6+ hrs. rides at a challenging tempo. On the other hand, I've never been more sore than when I tried to push my limits as a runner. Choose your poison.

But, I agree that it's possible to ride very easy and cruise. Easy running never really seemed to work for me--no rhythm, still lots of pounding on the joints.

 

[eleven]

For what it's worth, I found the Marathon to be far, far harder than your average century. The only bike experiences that have felt like a similar effort were a couple very long days in The Alps attempting to do as many TDF climbs as possible on very limited times. And even those had the advantage of some long descents to get your legs back, which obviously doesn't happen on a run.

 

[WC Roadie]

I have a fair bit of experience with distance running, but much more experience with racing the bike and doing long, hard rides. The main reason why I don't have more experience with running is that my body won't let me push myself as hard as I want to while running. As has been mentioned here already, it's possible to really dig deep on the bike but still be okay the next day.

This doesn't make riding easier per se. I have never been more tired (i.e. completely devoid of energy, blood sugar, fluids, etc.) and my major leg muscles have never been more exhausted than after hilly 6+ hrs. rides at a challenging tempo. On the other hand, I've never been more sore than when I tried to push my limits as a runner. Choose your poison.

But, I agree that it's possible to ride very easy and cruise. Easy running never really seemed to work for me--no rhythm, still lots of pounding on the joints.

I agree with you. Having run several marathons before I switched to racing bikes, longer runs were something I really enjoyed but it wrecked havoc on my knees. And after running a marathon walking the next day was very painful.

But I could never push myself as hard running then I can on my bike. I have actually thrown up a little in a race before and have been near throwing up multiple times during hard training and racing.

I think running a marathon is more difficult (if you run the whole time and not walk) but racing a bike is more intense.

 

[mherm79]

when i first started running and riding i completed my first 100mile ride 6mths prior to running my first half marathon, and hadn't trained adequately for either.

for the ride - after 50mile i was gone (went too hard to early). spent the rest of the ride cramping and battling the mind to stay on the bike. I had to stop regularly. I had a mate with me and we encouraged each other to the end. That night I was able to party and booze on!

For the half marathon i was struggling from km 1 (thanks to a big booze weekend prior.) I did it on my own so I only had to motivate myself. I only allowed myself to stop twice because my legs where like lead and each time i stopped i was worried I wouldn't be able to get moving again.

after the run i had to have a nanna nap.

for me - hands down running long distance without proper training was much harder than doing the same on the bike.

 

[BroDeal]

I've done a lot of trail running, including 100 mile races. I think it is hard to compare the two. For a fit cyclist, a century at a moderate pace is easy; it's just putting time in the saddle. On the other hand, when training for ultras, I do slow twenty to twenty-five mile runs with five or six thousand feet of climbing and they are not too bad either as long as I don't push the pace too much. A good runner can do their weekly 20 -22 mile long run and not be much worse off than a fit cyclist doing their weekly 90 or 100. While training for one ultra I did a month of three day cycles of a 22 mile run one day, 100 miles on bike the next day, and rest on the third day. The running was not much harder than the cycling, and I was undereating to drop my weight as low as possible.

I think a lot of it comes down to the pace. A fit person can run or ride within his limits and not have much ill effects the day after. Push the pace up close to your limits and things get hard. Ultimately running will always have more recovery issues because of the abuse your legs and joints take.

 

[The Hitch]

the better comparison would be:
which is harder. Running a marathon or doing L'Étape du Tour.

 

[elizabeth]

I'm a runner, can't ride to save my life (some day, I hope) so was curious to see what others thought.

My first thought was no way is running a marathon more difficult than a century, but that's probably the familiar versus the unfamiliar for me.

Reading the comments, though, I do see where you all are coming from picking the marathon as easier. I've gone from one injury to another for more than a year, and about the only time my legs aren't hurting, stiff, and/or sore is for a few hours right after a good run - it can beat you up. For me personally, the marathon itself may always be easier than a century, but what it takes to get there could be a completely different story.

 

[nickel999]

I do both 10ks and charity rides that average between 40 miles and 75 miles.

For training, I do a simple 3x a week run 3x a week cycle (whether that ends up being on the wind trainer or on the road) and 1 rest day.

When I first started exercising i was "run only" but since I've moved to the bike over the last 8 years I've remained virtually injury free (knock on carbon) accept for the aches and pains right after the a 6-mile training run etc.

I was wondering though if anyone could confirm the run to bike ratio for training with regard to mileage?

Is it 5:1?

1 mile flat terrain equals 5 miles on the bike assuming a moderate pace?

 

[elizabeth]

I've been told 3:1 ratio, but have never seen any documentation, one of the things I keep meaning to check.

 

[nickel999]

I've been told 3:1 ratio, but have never seen any documentation, one of the things I keep meaning to check.

Same here, perhaps a triathlete web site might have some info?

I'm wondering if they use HRM data to calculate the ratio.

I'll check and report back.

 

[elizabeth]

I've done a little digging around on the ratio question, most sites I've seen give the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. The comparisons were being made by HRM or calories burned, and qualified with the fact that the profile of the ride could make a big difference in the ratio.

 

[BroDeal]

I've done a little digging around on the ratio question, most sites I've seen give the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. The comparisons were being made by HRM or calories burned, and qualified with the fact that the profile of the ride could make a big difference in the ratio.

For long rides I think the 3:1 would be out of whack.

100 miles of moderate cycling != 33 miles of moderate running

I think a ratio upwards of 5:1 might be better.

 

[VeloEcosse]

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone.

As a bit of background, I'm a fairly serious (but recreational) cyclist, doing 4-5000 per year, lots of long rides and climbs. I've always been a casual runner and regularly do 3-6 mile runs. I'm running my first marathon next week.

My friend is a serious marathoner (2:40ish) and has almost no experience on a bike.

I was explaining how hard I found marathon training and he said "How can a marathon be hard when you ride 120 miles on any given saturday?" That's what sparked the discussion.

Accepting that his opinion differs, I really do think a 100 mile ride is easier. I'll have to look back at old training logs after my marathon to look at calorie comparisons (if you believe the calorie count on a HR monitor).

Best of luck with your first marathon. Only advice I would give there is go at your own pace and run your own race. Don't get caught up in the start line madness. If you are feeling the pace or the potential of a blow up then walk through the feed stations.

I would agree that doing 100 miles on a bike and doing 26.2 miles on foot are completely different. Different in training, approach, mental toughness and physical stress.

I would also suggest that more calories would be burned on the bike as it is of similar aerobic nature, but at a higher intensity and over a longer sustained period (unless of course you are Gabri Haile Selassie. Not sure I would trust any bike meter or HR meter on that one though.

 

[usedtobefast]

For long rides I think the 3:1 would be out of whack.

100 miles of moderate cycling != 33 miles of moderate running

I think a ratio upwards of 5:1 might be better.

that seems closer in calorie use

 

[durianrider]

Great question.

I ran the Brisbane marathon 9 days ago and the Gold Coast marathon 36 days ago..I say for sure that a marathon is harder on the body if your untrained in both sports.

I rode 225km on Saturday (4days ago) and did 142km 2 days ago. For sure a marathon is 'harder'. why?

In running you cant just coast like you can in cycilng and there is no real drafting either. You have a very high impact sport vs a very low impact sport.

Id put all my money on coaching a newbie thru a century ride vs a marathon. Ive done a triple century solo once. 321miles in one day. I wasnt even that trashed. I was way more trashed doing a 56km trail ultramarathon though.

So making everything even with HR/training..Id for sure say the marathon is harder.