General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2013-10-03 10:47 PM

User image

Member
67
2525
Subject: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
What's harder. A runners Marathon at 26.2 or a cyclists Century at 100 miles? They are both iconic, bucket list distances for their respective sports. Both take special planning and training.

As triathletes we are uniquely positioned to have an opinion on this.
I'm not an exceptionally strong cyclist nor am I a fast runner, more of a middle of the packer AG.
My personal opinion is that a marathon is harder. And thus I was wondering what's the equivalent bike distance to match a marathons agony?

What's your opinion? Are they equal? If not, which do you think is harder and why.


2013-10-03 11:10 PM
in reply to: dswezey

User image


282
100100252525
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

I am a much stronger runner than cyclist and I still think a century is way easier than a marathon.  But that being said when comparing different sports you will never get any accurate comparisons.  

Time wise a Metric century is closer to a marathon, but effort wise maybe a Metric double century?

2013-10-04 12:30 AM
in reply to: Chillin

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

2013-10-04 2:26 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

 

To make them more even, specify a finishing time.

4-hour century vs 4-hour marathon.  Now it's not so easy to say!!

2013-10-04 3:53 AM
in reply to: moondawg14

User image

Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by moondawg14
Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

 

To make them more even, specify a finishing time.

4-hour century vs 4-hour marathon.  Now it's not so easy to say!!

Or to make it more fair, a sub 2:25 marathon vs. a sub 4 century.

2013-10-04 3:53 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

DP



Edited by Jason N 2013-10-04 3:55 AM


2013-10-04 5:49 AM
in reply to: dswezey

User image

Pro
5892
5000500100100100252525
, New Hampshire
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
I agree with most other posts... A century is truly not that difficult (it a challenge, but very much doable by most, even if you would be undertrained), a marathon is quite a different story.

I would say that the only way a century could be close to the agony of a marathon would be if it had LOTS of long and steep climbs and only then if the marathon was flat...

To match the marathon, I think you would need to look at a double-century...
2013-10-04 6:24 AM
in reply to: audiojan

Member
326
10010010025
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Let me know when I can stop moving my legs and keep moving during a marathon. Until then, Century is much, much easier.
2013-10-04 7:15 AM
in reply to: dswezey

User image

Extreme Veteran
1018
1000
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Out of the ones I have done, century is way easier.
2013-10-04 7:21 AM
in reply to: GAUG3

User image

Member
1748
100050010010025
Exton, PA
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Hands down the marathon is harder. A double century would be similar but still would not have the impact on your body that the marathon does.
2013-10-04 8:17 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Royal(PITA)
14270
50005000200020001001002525
West Chester, Ohio
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

FTW

 

I have done 2 century rides, while I was stiff and sore a bit after doing them....the discomfort from those is NOTHING compared to how much I am disliking marathon training and I came into this a runner!



2013-10-04 8:19 AM
in reply to: QueenZipp

User image

Veteran
268
1001002525
Kitchener
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
"What are two distances I will never complete, Alex"! My hat goes off to anyone who has done either/both of these!
2013-10-04 8:26 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
2261
20001001002525
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

This.  You can BS a century.  You will have a much rougher time BS'ing a marathon.

2013-10-04 8:30 AM
in reply to: dswezey

User image

Member
522
500
Saint Paul, MN
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
And have done a handful of centuries, a marathon, and a double century.

The marathon was by far the hardest. Even the hilly 100 mile gravel race was a distant second.
2013-10-04 8:33 AM
in reply to: audiojan

User image

Master
1927
100050010010010010025
Guilford, CT
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by audiojan

I agree with most other posts... A century is truly not that difficult (it a challenge, but very much doable by most, even if you would be undertrained), a marathon is quite a different story.

I would say that the only way a century could be close to the agony of a marathon would be if it had LOTS of long and steep climbs and only then if the marathon was flat...

To match the marathon, I think you would need to look at a double-century...


Agree. Marathon just beats the heck out of your legs. It is a lot of pounding and really takes some real recovery. There is different type of damage to the body I think (don't ask me to use references).

Obviously finishing a century is pretty easy because you are rolling and not required to be pushing the entire time. If you were to do a 100 mile hilly road race and try to really compete and podium you would experience a lot of pain and suffering at certain points. The marathon is a constant grind and is actually pretty enjoyable for about 10 miles or so, morphing into mild discomfort of a few more prior to just really hurting for about 30-45' depending on how fast and well trained you are. Even though you are racing other people you aren't responding to attacks really unless you are elite. Comparing to riding 100 miles TT solo all out. If you were to actually execute that to potential I think it would hurt but I don't think most people have the mental strength to focus on a max effort for 4+hours on the bike unless they are really well trained.
2013-10-04 8:34 AM
in reply to: jlruhnke

User image

Champion
10018
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

Yeah, my impression after my first century this summer was that it's mostly just a nutrition game.  I was pretty undertrained (mileage-wise although I had a good running base this year (for me)) and I felt physically OK at the end due to a diligent attention to my sports drink.   The only part that really hurt were my wrists and my hand was numb for a day after.

I think it was actually easier than a half marathon...



2013-10-04 9:02 AM
in reply to: BikerGrrrl

Master
1946
100050010010010010025
Memphis, TN
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
It depends on the route. If it's a hilly century like I did this past weekend then it's pretty hard. I'm not a strong runner so running is hard for me compared to cycling. I've done century rides even hilly ones and survived with minimal training. The marathon I could complete but not at a time I'd be happy with.

I've finished century rides with little to no soreness the next day depending on the hills just tired legs. I've never completed the full marathon so I couldn't say how bad it is. I've run 18 miles with training prior and my legs were sore for 3 days.

It's hard to compare the two. Apples and oranges
2013-10-04 9:04 AM
in reply to: msteiner

Master
1946
100050010010010010025
Memphis, TN
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by msteiner

Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

This.  You can BS a century.  You will have a much rougher time BS'ing a marathon.




Depends on the course and time goal.
2013-10-04 9:07 AM
in reply to: Jason N

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by Jason N
Originally posted by moondawg14
Originally posted by Left Brain

100 miles on a bike....piece of cake

26.2 miles running.... slice of hell.

 

To make them more even, specify a finishing time.

4-hour century vs 4-hour marathon.  Now it's not so easy to say!!

Or to make it more fair, a sub 2:25 marathon vs. a sub 4 century.

 

Agree that effort and finish time are huge factors. A 4 hour marathon would be way easier for me than a 4 hour century. 

From a simple "completion" point of view, and century is much easier

2013-10-04 9:18 AM
in reply to: VGT

User image

Member
169
1002525
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by VGT

Let me know when I can stop moving my legs and keep moving during a marathon. Until then, Century is much, much easier.


This.
2013-10-04 9:19 AM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image


754
5001001002525
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
I have never run a marathon, but I think centuries (unless they are incredibly hilly) are easier than half marathons. I can ride all day and never get tired. That isn't the case with running.


2013-10-04 9:31 AM
in reply to: dswezey

User image


191
100252525
Melbourne, Florida
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

Okay, this might sound like bragging, but it all happened when I was 20. Young and very stupid.

I was at a friend's house and decided to go on a bike ride. I headed from her house to the downtown area. I knew that there was an annual bike festival in this town. When I reached the center of the city, I saw festival markings on the ground. They were color coded and had arrows at each corner. I wasn't sure what the colors meant, but I figured that blue would be about 20-25 miles and red would be something harder. Note, I only had a single small water bottle with me.

I followed the markings and enjoyed the scenery. An hour in I realized that this wasn't a 25 mile ride. No biggie. Then, when I thought that I was nearing the end of the rout, I saw a sign welcoming me to the next county. At this point, I had nothing to do but keep following the markers.

At 3 hours I was without water and the smell of orange blossoms along the groves was making me more thirsty by the minute. I was gonna ask some kids sitting along a fence for water, but then saw that they were pumping their shot guns. My ace picked up quickly. I ultimately made it back to town and learned that blue was the century color.

There is no way that I could have survived this kind of mistake if I was running.

2013-10-04 9:33 AM
in reply to: happyscientist

User image


358
1001001002525
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?

When the world's greatest runners can do 26.2+ miles a day, 7 days a week for 3 weeks, at a competitive pace every day, I'll think marathons are easier.

 

But they don't.  Nor can they.

2013-10-04 11:52 AM
in reply to: BikerGrrrl

User image

Master
1681
1000500100252525
Rural Ontario
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
x100 what others said.

While training for my IM I was doing a 140km to 160km ride each Saturday morninig for 2 months. I loved them, The scenery, the wind in my face.
I've run 2 full marathons and they were long, boring, painfull slogs.

I can comfortably ride 160km in under 5hrs. I have not broken 4hrs in a full marathon.
2013-10-04 12:31 PM
in reply to: happyscientist

Master
1946
100050010010010010025
Memphis, TN
Subject: RE: Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard?
Originally posted by happyscientist

I have never run a marathon, but I think centuries (unless they are incredibly hilly) are easier than half marathons. I can ride all day and never get tired. That isn't the case with running.


Then you aren't riding hard enough.

Maybe it's a matter of individuality. I can lay off running but because I've run so many half marathons I could go out there and run one now. Obviously it wouldn't be a PR since I laid off. A marathon on the other hand is far harder than a half marathon.

A century on flat ground is not to bad IF you trained for it a little so you can not have saddle sores and such. If your long rides are 25 miles then you are in for a world of hurt and misery.

I proved that this season with the three century rides I've done. One was VERY flat but VERY hot. I cramped up at mile 20 and it stuck with me the rest of the ride. The other one was VERY hilly but good temps. My long ride had been about 40 miles. I was very lazy this summer and it showed up on the century rides.

I saw so many people getting rides back to the finish on the SAG wagon.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Marathon or Century. Different but equally hard? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2