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

I say the bike would be easier.

One summer I did one bike ride the whole year. I was on vacation, rented a bike (mountain bike) and road 50 miles on a rail trail in about 3 hours. That was much easier than attempting to run 13 miles without any running for months before.

Again, are we talking about walking vs. a leisurely ride?

I biked 95 miles with a tent, food, and gear on my bike one hot August day in Indiana. I was super out of shape and hadn't exercised *at all* in about five years. I'm also not one of those people who's just in great shape without any training.

It took me all day, but I started well after sunrise and ended well before sunset. I was wrecked the next day, and the 20-30 miles I biked that day were a pain.

At the time, there was no way I could have jogged a marathon, but I'm sure I could have walked one. Doing a marathon at a slightly brisk walking pace (15 min/mile) only takes 6.5 hours. I think most people would be tired after that, but it's also doable for young people without training.

lolzzek wrote:

Again, are we talking about walking vs. a leisurely ride?

I biked 95 miles with a tent, food, and gear on my bike one hot August day in Indiana. I was super out of shape and hadn't exercised *at all* in about five years. I'm also not one of those people who's just in great shape without any training.

It took me all day, but I started well after sunrise and ended well before sunset. I was wrecked the next day, and the 20-30 miles I biked that day were a pain.

At the time, there was no way I could have jogged a marathon, but I'm sure I could have walked one. Doing a marathon at a slightly brisk walking pace (15 min/mile) only takes 6.5 hours. I think most people would be tired after that, but it's also doable for young people without training.

DING! DING! DING!

this is what people keep forgetting. too many on this thread are thinking of jogging (or even racing!) the 'thon vs a leisurely bike ride when walking to complete the marathon would be the comparable activity.

I think what is clouding people's thoughts is that cycling a century is a more common recreational activity than walking a marathon for fun if that 26 miles isn't an organized "race".

I'd say for modest-to-slow marathon runners it would be increasingly more fatiguing to do a marathon the slower they are, as they are fighting gravity on asphalt/concrete and are possibly heavier than your elites and not as smooth a runner...racing a century on a bike, you are still riding with some potential for coasting and not fighting gravity/asphalt quite the same.

The ironman uses 112 miles or 180kms - I assume because they felt that the distance compared to running 26.2 miles or 42.195kms. Perhaps for fuel as well as cardio vascular effort, they are comparable, but for straight up specific muscle damage/fatigue in the specific muscles and of course recovery - the marathon is tougher. The load in the lower leg is the entire weight of the person with 2 to 4 times the body weight for every foot strike. Whereas on a bike, the load is dispersed: legs, butt and a small amount to the arms. Shifting position while riding can relieve a lot of stress, say for climbing for example.

My own experience easily favours the marathon as tougher. For example, each of my modest marathons sub-3:07 nine times, I faded (poor training?) and the next day had trouble with stairs.

I rode my first 150km race last summer, plus 5k ride from car each way, so a total of 160kms - almost 100 miles and I rode the next day. I also wasn't mired in swamp funk the next day either.

The training for most of the marathons was an average of about 12 weeks at roughly 65 miles per week with long runs of typically 20 to 23 miles. I ran 6 to 10 times per week.

Training for the race last summer, I might have rode twice per week or sometimes a third ride per week for 12 or perhaps 15 weeks - I didn't keep track.

In short I trained more (relation to the sport) for the marathons, but found the cycling MUCH easier.

On the other hand if a 2:10 or better marathon runner raced the bike, perhaps the efforts would be closer together, as mentioned above, they typically are smoother runners with less weight and are clearly more fit. Spending 2:10 racing is a lot less time than your average runner.

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

On the other hand if a 2:10 or better marathon runner raced the bike, perhaps the efforts would be closer together, as mentioned above, they typically are smoother runners with less weight and are clearly more fit. Spending 2:10 racing is a lot less time than your average runner.

But sub-2:10 marathoners still only race two a year. Pro cyclists race 21 days out of 23 in the Tour de France (distance well over 100 mi. on most stages) and still ride for several hours on their rest days.

It depends a lot on the century (and I guess the marathon too). For instance, the Leadville 100 mountain bike century is a lot harder than any marathon I did. But the Leadville Marathon I think would actually be harder than the MTB 100 was.

But stick with a basic road century and road marathon and I think the road marathon will beat you up a lot more.

I've done plenty of both. RACING a marathon is much harder than RACING a 100 mile bike race. In a 100 mile bike race, you get to draft at times and the effort just isn't the same as you get past 75% of the distance. Once you're over 20 miles in a marathon (that you are racing), things change.

I don't know about jogging a marathon or leisurely riding 100 miles. I assume the OP wasn't asking that.

Very good point. So clearly marathon is much "tougher" and it is for sure on the specific working muscles, as you have illustrated in your point about racing 21 of 23 days.

The OP didn't ask, but how do they compare in other areas: Cellular damage, Cardio-vascular effort, Fuel consumption etc.

The dynamic of the sports are so different. I have friends that think that cycling directly help running in a big way, I always have a tough time convincing them, that there is little to no cross benefit.

The Neuro-muscular stimulus and development and stress et al to do with the two sports are very different, which affects where the mitochondria (in working muscles) are developed....

Might as well compare Golf to Poker or rowing to speed skating....

People don't understand that a marathon is a race, most centuries are just relaxing group rides. Go hammer 100 miles alone @ tempo pace and report back on how easy it was.

And yes I've done both numerous times.

Marathon. Hands down.

I have ridden more than 200 centuries (fastest of 3:59), about 10 double-centuries and done 450 miles for 24 hours and a 2:35 marathon when I was 17, marathon was harder.

Mostly because I was racing the marathon. Many of the 100, 200 and 400 and 500 mile rides were races but even then you are going pretty slowly and you can eat and drink on the ride as much as you want. Most of my century "rides" were just that ... rides done in 4:15 to 5:15 and felt much more like a 20 mile Sunday run.

Also, you don't have the muscle destruction in a 100-mile ride that you do in a marathon.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

DING! DING! DING!

this is what people keep forgetting. too many on this thread are thinking of jogging (or even racing!) the 'thon vs a leisurely bike ride when walking to complete the marathon would be the comparable activity.

I think what is clouding people's thoughts is that cycling a century is a more common recreational activity than walking a marathon for fun if that 26 miles isn't an organized "race".

Walking to complete a marathon is not "completing a marathon". You have to run the whole way or at least only take three breaks for water or bathroom. Same with the century.

I would consider slower than 4:00 to NOT be running a marathon. I guess I would put the century cutoff at 7 hours on flat ground (not including a few short breaks).

What I've learned in this thread is that letsrun really sucks at running. I have a tendency to push it when I'm on the bike, but still, you guys just blow at running. I'm a 14:10 5ker and I have never run a marathon (20 mile long run @ 5:52 average) and I have never biked a century (70 miles longest ride @ 20mph average). Guess which one I bonked harder on... The 20mph on the bike is WAY harder than 7 min pace for a run. I'm also under the impression that if you can't break 3 hours then why bother run a marathon, it's a waste of time...

Keep in mind that guys who are considered fantastic sprinters on a bike can get dragged along for 100 miles and then deliver speed like Usain Bolt in the final sprint.

You're never going to see Bolt jog along in the pack at Western States and kick in for the win.

Cycling is just way easier on the body.

That's why I only started 16 of them, why bother when you just keep running 3:0h, might as well take up darts.

Yer wrong and potentially trolling about.

Horribly flawed logic and 100 % incorrect assumptions/reasoning. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

SMJO wrote:

Keep in mind that guys who are considered fantastic sprinters on a bike can get dragged along for 100 miles and then deliver speed like Usain Bolt in the final sprint.

You're never going to see Bolt jog along in the pack at Western States and kick in for the win.

Cycling is just way easier on the body.

People really?

All of these bonehead comments about pace and physical toll on the body and you all completely miss the most relative topic. FUELING.

I competed in college

Have been a successful triathlete (sprint to ironman distances)

Run many marathons and dabbled in ultras up to 100mi.

I've done all of these as a well trained and prepared athlete

I've also done all of these straight off the couch with zero training in months

By far, the longer you are asking your body to convert carbs/fat to fuel the more likely you are of bonking. Bonk once and you'll never want to do it again. Bonk twice in one race and you'll start talkin to Jesus.

Marathon off the couch- inflammation and muscle/tendon discomfort for last 10 miles and soreness for 3-4 days post

Century off the couch- bonk at mile 60....no aid until 75 pure hell. No real muscle fatigue during nor soreness. Post- ass severely bruised lasted 5 days and muscle stiffness for 2-3 days. No blisters, no sore feet. But the mystery of whether the feeling is going to come back to your dick is initially terrifying.

So my take is this- if muscle pain is your definition of difficult then the marathon is probably going to be harder, but if being in carb starvation, potentially suffering for twice as long and getting the dreaded numb dick is your idea of difficult, then a century is harder.

For reference I'd say a 3hr Thon is = to a 6hr Century give or take.

Well, let's start with your "off the couch" attempts at these distances....or stop there and suggest that someone who goes from "off the couch" more than once into an endurance event and bonks each time shouldn't be listened to. However, on the other hand you have first hand (same hand as the other hand BTW) experience in bonking. Congratulations.

Or we could look at your schizophrenic-like attempts at different disciplines, college likely = middle-distance and then ironmans and ultras. So you get successful and move on? You were succesfull, right? You did say that.

I will give you that, that a 3 hr marathon is probably not far from a 6 hr century, but that would be solely performance, rather than what is harder on the body, which is what we are now into, in this conversation.

For muscle damage, the marathon is harder on the muscles, so therefore is harder, that simple.

Fuelling/not fuelling doesn't really fit in the "hardness" definition because it will be assumed that one is trained to some degree (you weren't - see original slag) and that one is racing with fuel or grabbing fuel at the fuelling tables.

Grossly under-trained means having the ability to utilise fuel well is compromised or under-developed, so again back to original point. Your point is pointless.

Oh. Hang on, Mr. Off the couch, So goes for muscle damage in running. If you haven't run and off the couch you run a marathon, you are not prepared for the exponential-like muscle damage you get in the marathon over the century.

Thanks for your feedback, but this case will have to be thrown out. Next.

i can teach you wrote:

Horribly flawed logic and 100 % incorrect assumptions/reasoning. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

SMJO wrote:

Keep in mind that guys who are considered fantastic sprinters on a bike can get dragged along for 100 miles and then deliver speed like Usain Bolt in the final sprint.

You're never going to see Bolt jog along in the pack at Western States and kick in for the win.

Cycling is just way easier on the body.

Prove it.