Marathon vs 100 mile bike ride

The marathon is a much bigger achievement. Although a century ride may take a little longer, it is much easier. I know several serious bikers who do at least one century ride a weekend and have done one Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and not be worn out. Although they are really good cyclists, running multiple marathons a month would be a very painful chore and kind of unheard of.

Marathon definately. After running for four years (through HS), running a marathon would have been a real struggle and painful for many days after the race, even after running a decent amount of mileage. A few weeks ago I picked up cycling and just recently went on two 60 mile rides with no problem whatsoever. Didn't have food or anything on the ride and it was moderately hilly. With a little bit more food I easily could have a ridden 40 more miles. So, riding 60 after sitting on my ass doing absolutely nothing all summer was easy and after 4 years of running I still couldn't have run a marathon. Marathon is easily the more difficult event.

LI Runner wrote:

But that elicits the question: What is the original poster really trying to ask?

Well, the question mark was after this sentence: "For those who have done both, which event is more of an achievement?"

"Century Ride" to me implies a non-competetive event, stop for lunch, see the sights, definitely not a time trial or race. Perhaps the most apt comparison would be a 26.2 mile hike where the only concern is to get to the destination before nightfall. There are a significant number of people who approach marathons with this attitude.

Completing a marathon is a lesser achievement than racing a marathon, that is, completing a marathon at a pace near one's current physical limit. Completing a century ride is a lesser achievement than racing 100 miles on a bicycle.

I believe, having done both, that completing a century ride is a lesser achievement than covering 26.2 miles on foot. I believe that completing a century ride is a much lesser achievement than racing a marathon.

Nonsense. Those bikers do these rides at a relatively easy pace, not all out.

There are lots of runners doing 100+ mile weeks - thats 4 marathons a week.

Even a guy that is a totally untalented runner like Dean K. seems to be able to "run" 50 marathons day after day, so this is obviously not that hard.

How about a 100 mile ride on a fixed gear bike. I did one today with a time of exactly 5 hours and felt like I was going to die.

done both wrote:

Marathon PR 2:54

Ironman PR 10:34

Marathon is much harder than a 100mile bike ride or even 100 mile time trial and is also much harder than an Ironman. It beats you up a ton more.

Isn't a marathon part of doing an Ironman?

I no longer marathon, but do ride and run each week. I also wear a heart monitor a lot of days. Currently I do 8 miles in 68 min with a HR ave of 140. Cycling at about the same effort for 68 min will get me 20 miles. HR for the ride is 135. For me 2.5 mi cycling is about a mile of running. The heart, lungs, arteries, etc. get the same stress as the 8 mile run, but the running muscles do not. The only way I can ride at a decent HR is with clip/pedals and the shoes/w clips. This way you pull and push the pedals and this almost makes up for the lack of the running "support phase" force of cycling vs running.

Is cycling at an honest heart rate for 5 hours better for you than running 25 or 30 miles....probably. I'm convinced that the long runs and marathon races DO have a cumulative effect on the legs...I'd run 50 miles a week, but my knees won't let me. I ran my first marathon in 1971... my first 100 mile week in 1970.

2.5mi.... I was thinking 3.0

done both wrote:

Marathon PR 2:54

Ironman PR 10:34

Marathon is much harder than a 100mile bike ride or even 100 mile time trial and is also much harder than an Ironman. It beats you up a ton more.

An Ironman is 2.4 swim, 112 mile bike AND a marathon, so how is just a marathon alone much harder than and Ironman? I'm just curious...

26.2 miles of running would equal 104.8 of cycling

But racing the marathon would be harder than racing the century by a lot.

Interesting that on a runners site, they all think the Marathon is harder. Also interesting that Many more have finished Marathons than Century rides.

If you compare the same distances at ultimate effort, then they are close. A 42K individual time trial all out is pretty hard during the effort, but you can probably walk normally a bit afterwards. Not so much for an all out marathon effort.

In addition, drafting in a cycling event/race gives you a much bigger benefit than in running.

"...that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done." -Lance Armstrong

I used to do randonneuring, which is basically casual (non-racing) ultra-cycling.

I've done 100 mile, 200km, 300km, 400km, 600km, 24 hr track, and 1200km rides.

All of those except the 1200km I've done with no sleep breaks, all of my 600kms but one have been done with a sleep break.

Racing a marathon is much, much harder than any of these rides were. And I'm not a very fast runner.

That being said, it is a difference between racing and casual riding. Most recreational cyclists do not race or go all out. Racing on a bicycle is extremely awkward and torturous (I don't have a lot of experience with it -- it isn't for me).

oh and most of those brevets/rando's were done on a single speed bike btw.

Are you kidding me? It's not even close.

I have ridden 100 miles numerous times. It's quite possible even to feel good when finished--energized and loose.

I've run 8 marathons,including 7 after having ridden 112 miles.

I'd rather beat myself repeatedly in the big toe with a ball-peen hammer than do one of those again.

Heck, I'd rather shoot myself in the nuts with a nail gun than do one of those again.

The marathon is a much tougher achievement.

Dave August wrote:

How about a 100 mile ride on a fixed gear bike. I did one today with a time of exactly 5 hours and felt like I was going to die.

Even a 40 mile ride on a fixie is brutal.

Nonsensical wrote:

done both wrote:

Marathon PR 2:54

Ironman PR 10:34

Marathon is much harder than a 100mile bike ride or even 100 mile time trial and is also much harder than an Ironman. It beats you up a ton more.

An Ironman is 2.4 swim, 112 mile bike AND a marathon, so how is just a marathon alone much harder than and Ironman? I'm just curious...

my marathon pr is a little different than the above (2:32), but my ironman pr is about the same. would have to agree, though, that from a "racing" perspective, the marathon is harder.

pacing is one issue. swimming 2.4 when you're in shape for it isn't a killer. same on the bike, riding 112 at 20+ when you've done the pre-work, after the swim isn't too bad either. the marathon hurts, but still, you're not running the same as you would in a stand alone. the buffet line along the course is one issue!

the ironman is as much about energy management than anything. getting calories down on the bike is important. done right, you can ingest as many calories are you're burning on the bike and even top stores off going into the run. however, the marathon at the end of the ironman is a completely different animal than a stand alone. when i race a marathon, i'm lucky to get two gels and six drinks of water. in the ironman, there's soup, coke, grapes, oranges, gu, pickles, you name it...

To make cycling almost as hard as running a marathon they have to run hundreds of km day after day for about a month - Tour de France.

Of course, running is much more difficult, that's why evrybody, even if you're sedentary, enjoy biking and not so much people enjoy running.

Runners also have generally higher VO2 Max.

The only sport I think it's harder than running is cross country skiing, because of the altitude, cold, number of muscles involved and how the athletes finish the races (most of the lay on the floor with exhausted)