What is more difficult: Completeing a marathon or a Century bike ride?

did a hundred mile bike ride during XC but got a stress fracture two weeks after started marathon training. The bike ride was off of one ride a week and was me by myself. Marathon harder

Marathon. I did a 100 mile race on a 25 year old 12 speed with zero training. It was a hard effort but recovery was comparable to a half marathon.

Are you including those 5.5 hr fat azz walkers in your marathon group? I would say it is harder torun under 3hours than bike a century under 5.That being said, almost anyone can walk a marathon, whereas biking a 100 is not so simple.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. The shear number of training hours in preparation for a century probably limit some people from being able to train for it.

Marathon is harder on your legs and feet. Century is harder on your @$$.

Both are not that hard to complete. It does take a certain durability to complete 26 miles on foot, even if you go slowly and walk a lot, but at least running, you won't run into mechanical issues that can come up in cycling (flat tires, etc).

Marathon. I did a century on very unstructured training for only a couple months and it wasn't even that hard. I'm still very hesitant on doing a marathon after 2 consistent years of running ~50 miles/wk. I know I'd really struggle to do a marathon.

Century bike ride.

They are not on closed roads and you could easily get injured by a car.

Has anyone every done a century bike ride on a velodrome?

A marathon is considerably tougher on your body although it depends what speed you run / cycle at.

Cycling a century at around 15 mph is probably about the same, in terms of effort and pain, as walking 26 miles.

I think you're missing the point of "completing" a 'thon.

If I ride a century, it is mostly a pleasure ride, and no straining is involved unless I want to go fast up a few of the hills (or the wind is bad). If I'm running a marathon, it is usually a race (or at least fairly hard) effort.

Walk/jogging a marathon would probably not feel too much different than going on a long bike ride. I suppose blisters might be a bigger deal going that far on foot if not well trained.

Triathl wrote:

Cycling a century at around 15 mph is probably about the same, in terms of effort and pain, as walking 26 miles.

Which qualifies as "completing a marathon".

I'd put the equivalent as more like 12 mph biking for the walking a marathon though, but I'm probably splitting hairs.

Completing a marathon is vastly harder - more pounding and muscle fatigue. But I should say that I always tried running marathons as fast as possible, while my century rides have been mellow cruises with long rest stops.

You don't have to train at all to ride a century, you just need to know how to ride a bike.

Hard to believe this is even a discussion.

A century ride is harder than walking a marathon. Running a marathon is harder than a century ride.

A century ride is equal to walking a Marathon.

Neither is difficult if there's no time clock.

SMJO wrote:

A century ride is equal to walking a Marathon.

I did a century ride once. Most dangerous thing ever. Almost hit twice by cars. Cycling on roads just isn't safe.

Century ride == walking the marathon along the I-405 in L.A. during rush hour traffic.

Degree of difficulty, not danger level.

Ride where there is minimal traffic. Grow a pair also.

If you're in decent shape but not a cyclist, you can train for and complete a century ride in a couple of months. That's what I did. I was a soccer player and while I was not in superb shape I was definitely fit and not overweight. I took up cycling due to a knee injury and after a month I completed a 100km ride, then a 100M ride a month after that. Didn't go super fast but I got through it. The hardest thing was getting my hands, shoulders and butt used to being on a bike for that long. On the 100-miler I was off the bike once for 5-10 mins to do some stretching and hit the bathroom, but getting through it wasn't really that difficult. For the organized rides I took part in, traffic was not an issue but on training rides you certainly encounter some challenges, depending on where you live. I had easy access to some nice rural roads with little traffic back then, and once I moved to a big city I gave up cycling.

Training for my first marathon took about 5 months and I was already running a few times a week before I started. Granted I was a bit heavier by this time but getting into running 30-40 mpw was much more difficult than the cycling. I took a few walk breaks during the marathon and finished comfortably in 3:41. Sure, I could have completed a marathon in a slower time on less training but if the discussion here is running vs. cycling, then completing by mostly walking shouldn't count. Getting your body trained to run or jog 26 miles is definitely harder than for cycling 100 miles, no question.

When I was running a fair amount I could easily go for a hard 20-30 mile ride on my bike with no problems. Simply completing a century would seem very easy to me, much easier than running a marathon, even running one in four hours. I've known fairly "thick" girls who cycled 100+ miles per day through Europe without any problems. I realize that's different than doing 100 miles at once, but these girls definitely would not be able to run 26 miles in a day. It just beats you up so much more.