# Mostly Academic Debate: "Which is Harder - A Century or Marathon?"



## OldZaskar

A friend is an avid runner with numerous marathons under his belt. And, I just did a century Sunday. We started the debate, with these assumptions...
- 5 hours or 20 mph for the century
- 3.5 hours for the marathon
- Same conditions; modified for sport, e.g. runners like a bit cooler so drop 10 degrees for the marathon
- Same terrain 

Excerpts...
- "Century must be harder - it's 1.5 hours longer"
- "But you can't coast when you're running"
- "Riders don't coast on decents - they just ride faster"
- "Marathon must be harder - there's no drafting, no coasting"
- "But the century has 50 miles of climbing which, time wise, greatly out weighs the time descending"
- "The runner has no gearing for steep hills"

The irony - we were on opposite sides - the runner was trying to convince me that the century was harder and vice-versa. 

Still think the marathon is harder - I did my first century Sunday on a mildly hilly/rolling (4,500 ft. of elevation gain) route at a 20.0 mph pace with (one nature stop, one bottle fill-up) and while I was tired Sunday and Monday, I wasn't sore and did 27 this morning at usually pace and felt great. The marathon has just got to take more of a toll on the body. 

See... pretty much an academic debate huh...


----------



## Fordy

*Hardest one*

is the one you didn't train for....


----------



## The Weasel

Back when I was a runner, a century would be harder
Now that I ride, a marathon would be harder.

To be competitive, I still think the marathon is harder.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior

*Don't bring a knife to a gun fight*



OldZaskar said:


> A friend is an avid runner with numerous marathons under his belt...
> ...I did my first century Sunday...


Sounds like you came to a battle of wits unarmed. Save the debate until you have a few centuries under your belt.


----------



## StillRiding

Marathon is harder. Elite riders do a century or more every day for a week. No one (in their right mind) runs a marathon every day for a week. Of course, if you rode a century in 3.5 hrs. solo, that might be harder than a marathon.


----------



## mtbbmet

It depends on how fast you do it.
But a 3.5 hr marathon would be much harder on the body than a 5 hour century. Take 45min to an hour off of the century and I think it would be more comparable. Assuming it's done with a group, and what size of group.


----------



## Lonzy

StillRiding said:


> Marathon is harder. Elite riders do a century or more every day for a week. No one (in their right mind) runs a marathon every day for a week. Of course, if you rode a century in 3.5 hrs. solo, that might be harder than a marathon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_des_Sables


Whichever sport you're worse at is the harder one


----------



## iliveonnitro

Marathon, imo. My legs feel like they're going to explode after 2 blocks of running.


----------



## ptfmb71

a marathon

I did a 45mi MTB race in May with 8,500ft of climbing and took me 5:10...two weeks later I ran the LA marathon and it took me 3:34....3 weeks after that I did a 12hr MTB Solo about 100mi with about 15,000ft of climbing.

During each of the races I was in most pain running the LA marathon...given all my training was on the bike and recovery was beyond horrendous (I could not walk down the stairs for days). I would say running brings more pain (especially trail running)....but you need to deal with less pain for longer time with a Century (also depends on the amount of climbing).


----------



## terry b

There is no comparison. 

I couldn't run a marathon if I was being chased by a pack of wolves but I could ride 7 centuries a week if I wanted to. I just did one on crappy Chinese roads after having ridden no more than 30 miles at a time over the past 2 years.

The beating your body takes from pounding the pavement for 3 hours far outclasses what you take from riding 100 miles.

Centuries are easy.


----------



## Hank Stamper

You could make up parameters that would make either seem harder than the other (how'd you come up with 50 miles of climbing?) but in general there's no question that a marathon is tougher than a century.


----------



## ewitz

You have to train for a marathon. Even a decent runner has to do some preparation.

Any average rider can pull off a century with no notice or specific training.


----------



## HikenBike

I am an ex-runner turned cyclist. From my experience a marathon is harder to train for and complete. Even experienced runners need to acclimate the body for the beating the pavement gives to the entire body (feet, shins, knees, back).


----------



## icsloppl

*Marathon*

For most people, the marathon would be much harder. 
For the vast majority over ~ 185 lbs, a 3:30 marathon is close to impossible.


----------



## cervelo-van

The Century would have to be without drafting as you can go pretty fast in a paceline without working too hard. As a former long distance runner who has done a marathon, and now have also done centuries, I would say that overall cycling is harder when going really strong. Now that may only be true for me given that I have only been riding for 1.25 years. 

As for toll on the body,post event at the pace the OP mentioned, marathon is harder.


----------



## Ibashii

We've hashed this one out before, and the result is always the same: 99% of those of us who have done both all know the bodily abuse of a marathon is much more severe. I'll ride centuries until I die: my last marathon was a long time ago and I'm still reasonably young. Running is the essence of high-impact exercise; the figures on joint pressure and stress on the circulatory system are astounding, even when not compared to a sport (cycling) that is often prescribed as a healing/recovery activity for running-related injuries. 

Take RAGBRAI as an example. Thousands of drunken, non-athletic people struggle through close to 500 miles in 7 days and most of them escape with nothing worse than sore knees, while real cyclists do it as a glorified training week (including the 'century day' on day 4 or 5) with a higher-than-average beer intake. Now, are there any 20-mile-a-day running events with a full marathon on the 5th day that are so popular that they have to turn people away every year?

Two caveats:

1) There are a couple of century-length races in the Alps that I've done where I've suffered as much as in the marathons, but we're talking about trying to hang on to packs of very good riders over 12-16,000 feet of climbing, which is a far cry from your average century.

2) There are some people, people I envy very much, who are so incredibly light on their feet that they seem to make distance running a low-impact sport. This is hella-rare, but it's probably true that for these gifted few with the stride of Prefontaine a marathon might not be that hard.

I was a runner first and my cycling exploits will never measure up to the success I had as a competitive runner, but even my 20-something body knew that it wasn't going to be a long-term solution to my need to train and compete for something...running is just plain harsher than riding.


----------



## bike_guy

Immediately after both it may be a toss up, but I can say with almost 100% certainty that the day after you will say the marathon was harder. The punishment to your body from running that distance is much greater.


----------



## MerlinAma

HikenBike said:


> I.......From my experience a marathon is harder to train for and complete. Even experienced runners need to acclimate the body for the beating the pavement gives to the entire body (feet, shins, knees, back).......


I agree if, in fact, you "run" a marathon.

Have any of you read the discussion about how people are "doing a marathon" but taking 8-9 or more hours, even stopping for lunch in the middle?

Check out this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It's really tweaking the runners who use the marathon as their badge of honor.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Marathons are a bit tougher IMO. 

But a mountain filled century might be harder


----------



## DIRT BOY

StillRiding said:


> No one (in their right mind) runs a marathon every day for a week.


There is a race Across the Sahara Desert where you nee to run 8 marathons in 7days.
An old client did one. he did 3-7 marathons a week to train.


----------



## Ibashii

MerlinAma said:


> I agree if, in fact, you "run" a marathon.
> 
> Have any of you read the discussion about how people are "doing a marathon" but taking 8-9 or more hours, even stopping for lunch in the middle?
> 
> Check out this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
> 
> It's really tweaking the runners who use the marathon as their badge of honor.


Yeah...this ain't too new though. 

My dad ran his first marathon in 1983 in 3:23. He finished in the middle of the pack. They shut the clock off after 4:30, figuring anyone who took that long would just drop out. That time would put him in the top 10% of most marathons today.

My last marathon--1998--ran the clock for 9 hours. After I finished, went back to the hotel, showered, went for a gimpy walk, ate lunch, went for another walk and drank a very leisurely pint I still couldn't get my car out of the hotel parking lot because 'runners' were still on the course. In 1983 my dad's 'finisher' t-shirt was a badge of respect. In 1998 2/3 of the finishers knew more about how the brownies and smoothies tasted at the finish than they knew about the solitary pain of the long-distance runner. Besides, there is no solitude anyway: most marathons nowadays have live music and circus clowns every 50 meters.

But hey, why be so grumpy, right? It gets people outside and moving around, which is a good thing. We've got an obesity epidemic to fight, and if the end of the marathon as we knew it 20 years ago is the price to get people to run-walk 26 miles in between funnel cakes than I guess that's not the end of the world.


----------



## SystemShock

A marathon vs a *double* century would be a closer comparison, I'd think. 

You ain't successfully doing either without training lots for 'em, unless you wish to take _forever_, and/or enjoy pain. 

The marathon is always going to be rougher on the body, though. The bike carries your weight, the runner doesn't get that benefit.
.


----------



## Richard

In a grand tour, pro cyclists do the equivalent of (or generally greater than) a century everyday for three weeks (yes, I know there are a couple of "rest days").

The best marathoners could never do 19 or so marathons in three weeks.

Running beats the crap out of you with little or no chance for recovery out on the course.


----------



## muscleendurance

*Anyone who says the century is seroiusly misinformed*

the only way to compare is to use two different people at the same level of each of their sport (a marathon runner and a cyclist)
and ask them how long it takes them to recover afterwards. Given that pro's basically do a century a day in grand tours for three weeks, and a marathon runner needs 2-3 weeks to recover from one marathon -can you guess where Im going with this :wink5:

Edit: Didnt see the post above me till mine was posted..wow! -freaky timing!


----------



## tarwheel2

I've done both. The marathon was harder. I felt like I had been run over by a truck the next day. I never ran another one because I figured anything that made me feel that bad couldn't be good for me. I trained well for the marathon and had a decent time (3:26).

You can ride centuries day after day, but your body needs a while to recover from a marathon.

That said, it could be more difficult to ride a fast century over a rigorous course (eg, hills) and/or conditions (eg. winds) than to "run" a marathon at a slow pace with a lot of walking involved.


----------



## Mootsie

I've seen plenty of guys with a beer gut finish a century. I have never seen a beer gut on a marathoner.


----------



## The Weasel

Mootsie said:


> I've seen plenty of guys with a beer gut finish a century. I have never seen a beer gut on a marathoner.


That's usually because you don't stick around long enough for when they're finishing.


----------



## serious

It is the impact of running that make a marathon much harder than a century, even if similar athletes expend similar efforts.

My first (and only) marathon was brutal compared to my first (and only) road century. Even my recent 8 hour mountain bike race where I coverd 130km on a rigid, singlespeed bike did not come close to the pounding I took in that marathon.


----------



## kmunny19

terry b said:


> There is no comparison.
> 
> The beating your body takes from pounding the pavement for 3 hours far outclasses what you take from riding 100 miles.


I agree. cardiovascular wise, and calories burned, they seem pretty similar on paper, (using multiple calories burned by activity indexes). but cycling is so much more efficient, and running is so much more punishing to the body that my opinion is that a marathon is a harder thing to train for and complete than a century, given proportional times compared to average finishers.


----------



## disney

I've done ten marathons as a keen runner before switching back to cycling. No comparison between them. Marathons are far harder. Did not Lance make a comment about how hard his marathons were.He had limited training time etc
Quote:
"For the level of condition that I have now, that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done. I never felt a point where I hit the wall, it was really a gradual progression of fatigue and soreness. I think I bit off more than I could chew, I thought the marathon would be easier. My shins started to hurt in the second half, especially the right one. I could barely walk up here, because the calves are completely knotted up"


----------



## Swish

Marathons by far, besides the aerobic part of the equation there's 42 km of shocks your joints have to deal with.


----------



## milkbaby

I am a marathoner who started cycling for fun and just rode a century this past weekend (eight weeks after getting a bicycle). It was slow, but I wasn't wiped out afterwards and recovery was fine, lifted weights the next day and almost went out to run 16 to 20 miles... but football on the tv was calling me. I ran 4 marathons in 5 months last winter/spring (3 around 3:12 and 1 in 3:36 as a training run), but I was spinning for over 6 hours to ride 100 miles! Next time I will actually TRAIN for the ride instead of doing it on a whim! :mad2: 

As noted earlier, there is a SIGNIFICANT weight penalty involved in running a marathon for heavier runners. I'm guessing the weight penalty for heavier riders is not as significant during a century unless it involved a significant amount of climbing. Also, aerobic endurance and lactate threshold (if you're trying to run/ride faster) are similar limiters in the marathon and century, but the mechanical limitations present in marathon running (mostly due to pounding and probably repeated eccentric muscle contractions involved) are lesser in riding, leastway I think it is...


----------



## Kai Winters

I don't think "harder" is the right term...In my opinion the marathon beats up the body far more than a century.
I've run many half marathons and "one", the Newport RI, marathon and a few centuries. The day after the marathon I was far more "hurting" than after the century. I was properly prepared for both.
I did the marathon in 4/04/04...hit the wall at the 20 mark, after proper preparation, and just could not keep a 7 minute pace...hit the wall hard lol. Never felt that sort of pain and out of gas feeling in any century I've ridden. 
Both were a lot of fun and the memories even better.


----------



## CEVIS

Marathons drove Lance back into competitive cycling.


----------



## Mr. Versatile

The marathon would be harder. I can ride a century any time. If I ran a marathon it'd probably take me a couple of days, after which, I would spend the next week in bed.


----------



## 55x11

OldZaskar said:


> A friend is an avid runner with numerous marathons under his belt. And, I just did a century Sunday. We started the debate, with these assumptions...
> - 5 hours or 20 mph for the century
> - 3.5 hours for the marathon
> - Same conditions; modified for sport, e.g. runners like a bit cooler so drop 10 degrees for the marathon
> - Same terrain
> 
> Excerpts...
> - "Century must be harder - it's 1.5 hours longer"
> - "But you can't coast when you're running"
> - "Riders don't coast on decents - they just ride faster"
> - "Marathon must be harder - there's no drafting, no coasting"
> - "But the century has 50 miles of climbing which, time wise, greatly out weighs the time descending"
> - "The runner has no gearing for steep hills"
> 
> The irony - we were on opposite sides - the runner was trying to convince me that the century was harder and vice-versa.
> 
> Still think the marathon is harder - I did my first century Sunday on a mildly hilly/rolling (4,500 ft. of elevation gain) route at a 20.0 mph pace with (one nature stop, one bottle fill-up) and while I was tired Sunday and Monday, I wasn't sore and did 27 this morning at usually pace and felt great. The marathon has just got to take more of a toll on the body.
> 
> See... pretty much an academic debate huh...


I have run several marathons, all under 3 hours and many centuries+, most under 5 hrs.
Marathons are much, much harder on your body. Bonking on the bike is not as big of a deal as bonking with 5 or 10 miles to go in marathon. Marathons can leave you unable to walk properly for days or weeks - I have troubles going down the stairs after hard marathon. But I can do a hard ride the next day after century. 

Marathons are much harder.


----------



## nOOky

Marathon is much harder imho. I've never done one, only half marathons. I've done many centuries though, and I can safely guess that doubling the running distance is going to be a lot harder. The joints and body overall feel it a lot more after running.


----------



## filtersweep

MerlinAma said:


> I agree if, in fact, you "run" a marathon.


This was my first thought--- having watched the mockery so many people make out of a marathon (Santa suits... crazy outfits.... looks more like Lets Make a Deal than a "race.")


----------



## Dr. Placebo

CEVIS said:


> Marathons drove Lance back into competitive cycling.


funny


----------



## mbcastle

I've done one marathon (in 3:28), and plenty of centuries. As others have stated above, there's no comparison. I enjoy running, but after a little over a year since that marathon I still have zero desire to do another. I'll stick with half-marathons and 10k's from now on.


----------



## Creakyknees

marathons are harder.


----------



## paul2432

The marathon is harder. A marathon is a race. The idea is to push yourself as hard as you can. A century is just a ride, with breaks and so on.

This question reminds of an essay I read by George Sheehan many years ago (excerpt below):

http://www.georgesheehan.com/essays/essay28.html

_They were raw recruits, now fashioned into warriors. Common variety human beings, ready to take on the most grueling challenge devised by man.

I do not exaggerate. World-class runners approach the marathon with trepidation. Olympians fail to finish. Record holders collapse. This contest has consequences in pain and exhaustion unrivaled in sport. _

Paul


----------



## thechriswebb

A long hard day in the saddle leaves me feeling tired, sore, and accomplished.

A day of distance running leaves me in searing agony. The only sense of accomplishment is that its finally over.

Long distance running is abusive to your body in a way that cycling can not be. One of the reasons to cycle is to avoid the impact pain of running. Cycling has never given me stress fractures; running has. Cycling can be very painful if you push yourself, but it is a good pain. When your body starts to hurt from running, it is not a good pain. When I was in the Infantry, we ran every day and at least one day per week had to be a distance run. Almost everybody that I knew in the Infantry had been on a light duty profile at some point in their career due to overuse injuries from running. I had been twice. I simply have not seen the number of cycling related overuse injuries that I have from running. Running is simply harder on your body. 

I think that to make a cycling event as painful as a marathon, one likely has to start looking into cobbled classics at full race pace, and three hour long cyclocross races that I do not think exist.


----------



## m_s

SystemShock said:


> A marathon vs a *double* century would be a closer comparison, I'd think.
> 
> You ain't successfully doing either without training lots for 'em, unless you wish to take _forever_, and/or enjoy pain.
> 
> The marathon is always going to be rougher on the body, though. The bike carries your weight, the runner doesn't get that benefit.
> .


I agree with this. I used to run a lot, though I never did a marathon. I have done plenty of "centuries" and in my mind 200 miles on a bike (which I have done once...don't plan on repeating it for a while) is generally more equivalent to 26 miles running.


----------



## chargerfan32

*ultra marathon man*

www.ultramarathonman.com/

Check this guy out. He is completely out of his mind... I think that its all relative... some people can walk a marathon. Others do a combined run and walk. During marathons, you get a lot of regular people out running, and by the end it looks like a war zone. I had a friend that ran a complete marathon at 38 without any training, and light running prior. I dont think you get a lot of regular people that even think or know what a century ride is...

Wayne



StillRiding said:


> Marathon is harder. Elite riders do a century or more every day for a week. No one (in their right mind) runs a marathon every day for a week. Of course, if you rode a century in 3.5 hrs. solo, that might be harder than a marathon.


----------



## MerlinAma

So to summarize all of this:

A marathon is harder for the same reason that getting beaten with a rubber hose is harder than a pillow fight (or something like that)?

If it hurts more then it is harder.


----------



## akatsuki

In cycling you don't hit the wall in the same way at the 20 mile mark of a marathon. The effort is more constant and you can refresh as you go. Essentially the reason a marathon is tougher is because of that glycogen depletion at 20 where you have to will through it.

I've run a marathon and turned around and done a double century. Marathon, no question.


----------



## serious

There is no "hitting the wall" in marathons if you drink and eat properly. Bonking (hitting the wall) comes in any sport where you go at it until you deplete you glycogen stores. You can do that in cycling too.


----------



## heidelj

I would say a marathon. Riding doesn't give you chafed nipples.


----------



## Ibashii

heidelj said:


> I would say a marathon. Riding doesn't give you chafed nipples.



Ahh, the final word. 8 years out of competitive running and I had almost forgotten about nipple chafing. Is that or is that not the weirdest, worst possible thing in the world? They can get so sensitive the wind blowing on them can feel like 40-grit sandpaper. What's up with that?


----------



## snail male

Richard said:


> ...
> The best marathoners could never do 19 or so marathons in three weeks.
> Running beats the crap out of you with little or no chance for recovery out on the course.


Ladies & Gents, a pause to remember a true Original, from before HTFU, tech shirts, and motion control soles.


----------



## mtbbmet

snail male said:


> Ladies & Gents, a pause to remember a true Original, from before HTFU, tech shirts, and motion control soles.


Yeah, but he only had half the number of joints to get sore, so that doesn't count. Anyone can do what Terry did.


----------



## nightfend

The problem is, that people doing century don't usually "race" the century. It's all a matter of what your heartrate is throughout the century. In a marathon, you'll be pushing 80% of your max heartrate for 3 or 4 hours. In a century, many recreational riders don't even push past their recovery heart rate, let alone their lactate threshold.

Try doing a century at 80% of your max heartrate for 4 hours and see how it feels when you are finished. I guarantee you that you'll be suffering big time with glycogen depletion, muscle cramps, etc.


----------



## nacho

*Marathon: next question*

Under those conditions, the marathon is harder.

The only marathon I did felt like a "can-you-eat-the-whole-thing?" meal from when I was in college and couldn't put on weight if I tried. You know, those Bar Harbor Ice Cream Orgies or the 32 oz. steaks that give you the funny white chefs hat if you finish? Those.

Some runners talk about enlightened, soul-altering experiences. Whatever. You would have to knock it to just under a 25 mph avg. to start comparing with a 3.5 hr. marathon.


----------



## Kai Winters

LOL I run some in the fall/winter to do something different. My nipples are suffering the usual chafing and hearing it here is very funny.
My running pace now...maybe not "running"...is approx 10 minute miles and I usually run 45 to 60 minutes compared to my competition 30min/32sec average 10k pace...it hurts more now...


----------



## bobthib

ewitz said:


> You have to train for a *century.* Even a decent runner has to do some preparation.
> 
> Any average rider can pull off a century with no notice or specific training.



ewitz, don't you mean *Marathon?*

If not, your statement about century makes no sense.

I've never ran a marathon. Hell I never ran over a mile or two. My brain is too small for my skull and it rattles when I run and I get a headache and my eyes bounce. Never had a problem riding a bike. 

Haven't ridden a true century, but I know I can easily do it. It's more a matter of time. Don't have 5 or 6 hrs to devote to a ride in one day. Started riding again after 50 years and ride 100 - 120 miles a week, and half and metric centuries regularly. Always have reserve.


----------



## AndyP.

Mootsie said:


> I've seen plenty of guys with a beer gut finish a century. I have never seen a beer gut on a marathoner.


Then you've never seen me!  I've done both and I've done both on the same day (Ironman Lake Placid 2008). Centuries leave you drained, especially if you did not eat and drink enough. Marathons are the same, but you also pound the hell out of your body and have a different pain factor. Therefore, I feel that the marathon is much harder. That being said, however, when I finished the bike in the Ironman, all I wanted to do was start running. The marathon was just something to get through at that point and the finish line was some serious motivation. I ran the whole thing, but didn't suffer as much as I have on some "lone" marathons. I guess I don't "race" marathons, centuries, or Ironmans. For real pain, however, half-Irons and half-marathons are brutal...:cryin:


----------



## Scott in MD

"The halfway point in a marathon is twenty miles". - Lance Armstrong

I guess that closes off this thread.


----------



## ksanbon

To me, it's all about motivation - I wouldn't think about running a marathon because I hate running unless it involves a sport that uses a ball.

Regarding people who do both, the extremely motivated add a 2.4 mile ocean swim and 12 miles to the bike ride to compete in iron-man triathlons. Now that's tough!

Congrats Andy P!


----------



## 1885

*depends on the pace*

I've done 6 marathons with a 2:42 PR. The first 20 was at 2 hours.
My best 100 miler on a bike is 5:20 this year. Which was the first 100 of a 200 mile ride.
I'm 52 now. I was 28 when I ran a 2:42.

It really depends on the pace. At my ages it's hard to compare. Running is very hard on your body. I was training for an ultra and really did some damage on my back. Cycling is much more forgiving but takes more skill. Riding in a pack at 50 mile is a lot different than at 100 when everyone is tired. (What out for wandering riders)

I'd say running a sub 3 hour marathon is more difficult than a 5 hour century. There is no way I could do a 3 hour marathon now, even if I could run 60 - 70 miles a week. My body could not handle it. I do think I have the potential to pop a 5 hour century. I've done a 2:30 50 miler. 

I love cycling and I miss running.


----------



## schnee

With running, your entire body mass is self-supported and driven. With cycling, you're supported on a saddle, and coasting on wheels that let you maintain forward momentum for much less work. 

Unless I'm missing something fundamental, the marathon seems obviously harder to me.


----------



## hrumpole

Marathon is way harder. (I've never run one). I'm more sore after a hard 10K than I am after a hard 50 miler. I think the 200 mile day comparison is pretty apt. (Never done that either).


----------



## Urb

Marathon is harder. Ever see anyone trying to eat a sandwich in a marathon? Not so hard on a bike while maintaining some sort of speed.

Cycling, you get tired and stop turning crank, you coast.

Running, you get tired and stop running, you stop.

Every weekend I climb a hard 60 to 80 kms on the bike and more often than not I think I should've done more. My long run nights of 21+ kms I never think I should do more. Always glad I made it back with no injury.


----------



## WaynefromOrlando

I'll let you know personally as I will be riding in a century next weekend, a half marathon in October and November and running my first formal marathon in December. I will ride in my first double century in February at Sebring, which will give that perspective too.

There is a lady on my tri team who will finish her 50 marathons in 50 states this year. She runs 16 miles for fun at times, but does not like to ride more than 60 miles despite having as much experience riding as running.

To me, it's a personal question. I know runners who tremble at a cycling century and cyclists who cannot imagine a marathon. I have run 24 hr relays and informal marathons in the past and found them to not be the demons that some have found them to be, and I rode a century + (120 miles), the week I bought my first bike back in 1983. I don't plan on running under 4:00 in my marathon though, probably close to it though. I hope to finish my century at about 5:00, but the hills (or what passes for hills in central Florida) might have some impact on that.

I'll be back for a report as my plans progress

Update: Did the century ride in 5:20, slowed at the end due to a torn calf muscle at the 45 mile mark. Ran the 2 half marathons in 2:26 and 2:17, rescheduled my full marathon to Feb to run with my tri team.

So far, the 1/2 marathons felt about like the century ride as far as the demands on my body and muscle aches afterwards, not counting the torn muscle which was my fault (tried to shift on an ascent). Last weekend I ran 15 miles with nearly zero muscle aches after the second day, judged by how easy it is to walk up or down the stairs in my house. We'll see how the marathon goes though, I will run at least 1 20 mile run before then, but the last 6 miles may be something extraordinary according to what I have heard.


----------



## Fixed

*marathon*

Marathon is far harder, as you get beaten up so badly.

My best marathon was 3:07, and best 100 miles bike solo was 4:34. I felt fine the next day after the century, but was hammered for 2 weeks after the marathon. In fact, I've done 508 miles on a bike in 36 hours, and still felt better afterwards than after a marathon. Wheels make a huge difference.


----------



## vincemacmillan

The real question here is: Who would win in a fight, a lion or a shark? It does might heart good to know that these sort of "academic" discussions have continued into adulthood! So, umm, marathon and shark.


----------



## spookyload

SystemShock said:


> A marathon vs a *double* century would be a closer comparison, I'd think.
> 
> You ain't successfully doing either without training lots for 'em, unless you wish to take _forever_, and/or enjoy pain.
> 
> The marathon is always going to be rougher on the body, though. The bike carries your weight, the runner doesn't get that benefit.
> .


I was thinking the same thing. Not many folks could hop out and ride a double without some form of training. Same for a marathon.


----------



## iherald

StillRiding said:


> No one (in their right mind) runs a marathon every day for a week. O


Terry Fox ran a marathon a day for 143 days in a row, with one leg. He's a national hero in Canada. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fox


----------



## vontress

I do both biking and running. I don't do quite as much running but to me there is no comparison. The marathon is a lot tougher. I actually find a marathon closer to the double century. I'd compare a flatter century to a flat half marathon. During centuries I take breaks and refuel. I would never do that in a marathon.


----------



## bobthib

For me, running is way harder. My brain is way smaller than my skull so it bounces when I run and it gives me a headache.  

In cycling you can sit or stand and move about a bit. You have a lot of positions. There is no impact unless you fall  or if you are a "masher." My feet and knees can't handle running, but I can cycle all day.

Also, drafting has more advantage at higher speeds, not so much at running speed.

IMHO


----------



## racerx

*Easy...*

I am a runner. I bike as well. I run 6:15 (mpm) marathons, not awesome, but not shabby.
I am a biker. I do solo centuries at just over 20 (mph). 
But put quite simply, low impact is going to win over high impact every time....

On a side note, I can't imagine who would have those biggest losers heavy weights sign up for marathons, the damage to middle aged stressed bones and cartilage is unimaginable...


----------



## Undecided

What about thinking about energy expenditure? There are many assumptions in what I'm about to say, I know (and I relied on the internet for the running assumptions), but: I know I can maintain about 1,000 kJ/hour on the bike for four hours, and assuming I could push that to 4.5 hours (I'm sure I could) and find a "flat" century, I would probably be looking at finishing the century in about that time. Assuming that's like "burning" the same number of calories/hour (1,000), then if I ran at a pace that 
burns that many calories, how long would it take me to finish a marathon? According to this calculator, I'd burn about that amount running 8.5 mph (I'm 165 pounds), which would get me through the marathon in just over 3 hours. So, for the same rate of work, it would take me 50% longer to finish a century on a bike than a marathon on foot.

That said, I can't run that fast, and from experience having run a single marathon, I know that for me, a marathon at 800 calories/hour (four hours) is painful (i.e., in my muscles, skin and joints), while riding 25% "harder" than that for the same amount of time is just a moderately-tiring training ride that can be repeated the next day. But I'm a cyclist, not a runner.


----------



## dwgranda

*averaging* 280W for 4 hours is a moderately tiring training ride. Damn, I suck.


----------



## gs1962

Without a doubt the marathon is much harder. The marathon is run at a much higher heart rate than cycling. Marathons run fast beat you up. You can do centuries day after day but no way with a marathon. You recover from cycling stress much more readily than running. That, in part is why I like cycling so much. I came at it from marathoning.


----------



## RedRex

I've done 7 marathons, and four Ironmans.

I suppose I've probably ridden close to 100 centuries in northern california on my way to 14 double centuries and four California Triple Crowns, including (((((shudder)))) Devil Mountain Double three times, the Terrible Two, The Death Ride, and a 24 hour time trial.

And I used to race 10ks (running) for many years....



Friends?.......

....a marathon is WAY harder, or at least harder on you, than a century.

Devil Mountain Double, however.......


----------



## atpjunkie

*I'd agree*

Marathon
unless you do it like some of these people these days where they essentially walk.
Saw someone talking about doing a marathon in 7-8 hrs
When I was a boy scout we did 25 mile hikes in boots, up mountains with 40 lbs of gear on our backs in that kind of time

but if you are running and running hard a marathon

a century is a good training ride for a serious cyclist NOT the pinnacle race of ones career


----------



## nnswoosh8

marathon, a double century may be a better comparison, kinda comparing apples and oranges though.


----------



## meadowsdad

Off road century would be a better comparison. My wife runs marathons in about 4 hours, but it takes more out of her than a road century. 

I could go and ride 100 miles in the time it takes her to run a thon. The difference is I would go for some kind of bike ride the next day, no way she's running for a couple of days.


----------



## Ibashii

Funny, I just noticed (after more than a year of reading this thread) that it's in the "endurance riding" section!

A century is a spirited warm-up or recovery ride for a true endurance rider, who might have multiple training days of that distance and much more each week during the busy season. This has nothing to do with the peak endurance event that a marathon represents to all but the most elite distance runners (and of course the rare, gifted and slightly deranged ultra-runners who occasionally _run_ a century, but they're a whole 'nother story).


----------



## WaynefromOrlando

I ran my first marathon last weekend, and have riden a number of century rides over the last year and for me, the marathon is significantly more difficult than the century ride. I completed each event with similar levels of preparation, intent and pacing; relaxed and not striving for a fast time.

The post event muscle discomfort and recovery is worse and longer for the for the marathon, and the stresses on the feet, knee and hips are noticibly worse for the marathon.

Talking with other runners who also ride, my experience is not unusual. I also know individuals who run many marathons, have completed a marathon in all 50 states, and run them on back to back weekends with no apparent difficulties, so my experience is not universal either. In the end, it will come down to the individual's perceptions and experiences. 

I will be competing in a half Ironman in September of 2011 and a full Ironman in 2012, I will post how the cycling/running compares back to back as I complete those events.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead

I would rather bike 100 miles than run 10 miles.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead

dwgranda said:


> *averaging* 280W for 4 hours is a moderately tiring training ride. Damn, I suck.


I suck too. When I am in shape 280W for an hour would have me seeing spots.


----------



## SlowMover

I may have some insight here having just come back to my roadie roots from a 24 year hiatus in triathlon.

IMHO running is hands down the harder of the 2 in your particular comparison. I don't even care if you run/walk the marathon, forget 3:30, you are gonna hurt like a mudda. I have 2 open marathons and one IM for the run comparison. Even my long ride build up for the IM of 140 miles didn't hurt as badly as any of my marathons. The beating on your skeletal structure is so much higher. Not that riding is easy, but for this old dog the comparison is really easy for me to lean at the marathon hands down.


----------



## dwgranda

Blue CheeseHead said:


> I suck too. When I am in shape 280W for an hour would have me seeing spots.



Well, I don't doubt he can do it. I think an above average fit person can. I was just suprized to see someone claim that it would be a moderately hard training ride. I remember a couple of years ago lance said on twitter that he did 4000kJ in 4 hours and was completely thrashed. I'm thinking of trying it someday but it would have to be on a trainer I think because to average 280W for 4 hours outside you'd have to spend the majority of the time above 300W which I'm pretty sure I couldn't do.


----------



## chuckice

I've been doing 13-17mi runs in training for the past year now and still not happy at marathon distances. I can get on my bike and ride a hard 100 no problem but ask me to run a hard 26 and there's no joy in mudville. And the day after is really not pretty. No contest on this one.


----------



## SlowMover

The hardest road race, crit, tt or ultra hasn't equaled the pain I felt in my marathons. My biggest 2 days ever were 140 and 115 over a weekend through the Blue Ridge Mountains peaking for my first IM. It hurt for sure, but a marathon is just a deep, deep venture into the recesses of your own Pain Cave. It just sucks.


----------



## eksai

marathons are harder


----------



## C6Rider

*Marathons are easier*

I've run seven marathons under 3 hours, and have just one century which took just over 5 hours. Since my background is running, I obviously find the marathon to be much easier.


----------



## Marcus75

I have friends who don't know what a century is and when I explain its a 100 mile bike ride, they all think Century is crazy. OP with all the factors involved in century like sag stops and drafting, I think a marathon is harder...But I never did a marathon so that's probably why


----------



## enzo269

I live in Colorado and have ridden 2 dozen centuries over the last 8 years or so. I have completed the Triple Bypass century 10 times with over 10,000 feet of climbing and at altitudes reaching over 11,000 feet... They are not easy, especially here in Colorado, but a marathon is significantly harder than a century on the body... Both are great athletic achievements...


----------



## latman

I have done both and say marathon is harder


----------



## Arcem

how about marathon vs century on a fixed gear? either way your legs are moving the entire time


----------



## briandk

In a flat marathon vs. flat century, the marathon is definitely much harder. Even well prepared (running 100km/week in training) a marathon is quite an effort. My fastest was 3:48 so not that far from 3½. 

I'm a runner that also began cycling and I've done several centuries in the same week, something I surely wouldn't be able to do with marathons.


----------



## colorado_felix

I suppose we already have a near consensus here, but I will chime in too.

I've done a couple dozen marathons and several ultras (including a couple 100-mile runs), with a best marathon time of 3:03. I mention this not to boast (especially since there are so many people in Colorado for which these stats would be mediocre!) but to show that I have put in some time running over the years.

But for me there is no question marathons are harder than century rides. I can finish a century (including hard ones like the Torture 10,000) with no problem without training. But for running, even after doing as many races as I have done, if I am not running at least 35-50 miles/week, my running pace will drop off from 7-minute-miles to 9-,10-, or even 11-minute miles at some point in the last 5-6 miles of a marathon while hurting pretty badly.

With cycling, you can coast if you are tired unless you are going uphill (and if you can't coast uphill, at least you will have a nice downhill to recover on). With running, if you are tired, all you can do is slow or walk... which usually doesn't help much.


----------



## husonfirst

I've never done a marathon and I'm sure I couldn't do one without specific training. I could do a century though with nothing more than a base of leisurely weekend rides. I've even done the Death Ride without training for the climbs but that was a big mistake.

Therefore, I'd say a century is easier, for me at least.


----------



## krott5333

Marathon is definitely harder, no question about it. 

But instead of arguing, just go balls to the wall and do an Ironman, and then you'll get to do a century AND a marathon after swimming 2.4 miles!


----------



## LandShark'n

Marathons are harder.


----------



## loudog

no question: marathon. running long distances is much harder on the body.


----------



## nathanb131

*For 'amateur' people, marathon is much tougher*

I've been a middle distance runner my entire life (I'm 33 now). Usually running 5k's but only being 'in shape' like half the time. I ran my first marathon this year in 3:43 after training for about 3 months starting out in not very good running shape at all. Was still at least 5lbs overweight for the race after losing 15 in the training. I've always been a natural runner but it was definitely one of the hardest things I've ever done. It was hot and humid and when I was done my body felt numb and there was about 20 minutes afterwords where I thought I might pass out. I could barely walk down steps for 4 days after. Was still feeling sore a week after and had to take several weeks off running due to a stress fracture in my foot.

Last year, my buddy and I decided to try out RAGBRAI and didn't prepare well at all. I rode my old college mountain bike which I bought new for $350 back in 1998. I had some street tires put on it so it sort of resembled a heavier version of those 'hybrid' bikes. Our 'training' for that consisted of like 3 rides of less than 10 miles. The first day was 76 miles and about 3000 feet of hills. I made it ok, averaged maybe 15mph on the road, of course we stopped to drink and eat many times. Was really hurting the next day but still rode every mile pretty hard. By the start of day 4 I wasn't hurting too bad any more and was able to keep up with drafting lines whenever I wanted to catch a fast ride. I even led a few times, not for very long though. I could sustain 20mph without drafting for many miles. By the end of the week (420 miles) I was in good bike shape and have no doubt I could have handled a century on my old Raleigh. This was with no recovery days and LOTS of very poor diet choices, alcoholic drinking, and not very good sleep.

I don't like to slack off at either activity and go hard as I can. No walking the bike up the hill or walking for miles of the run. If I'm completely out of shape I would need AT LEAST 10 weeks of training to even _survive_ a marathon....but I could go from out of shape to being 'century ready' in 2 weeks. And by 'ready' I'm talking about maybe averaging 18mph on a good bike with no more than 2 quick stops. Marathon 'ready' for me would be sub 4 hours. 

Of course when you start talking about professional-level biking, maybe it takes longer to build up that leg power (years, I'm assuming) to reach your highest potential. Running would take less time to reach your highest potential I think. Also, when you start comparing times it all changes. Like it'd be 'easier' for me to run a 3:30 marathon than a 17 minute 5k because of the training I'd have to do. And both of those would probably be easier for me to accomplish than finishing in the top 10% of a century race. So is Cadel Evans a more exceptional endurance athlete than the winner of Boston? Who knows.

I'm not saying that running is generally harder or runners are tougher, it's all relative. I think most people (young or old, average or athletic) could do a century on a bike if they really wanted to. Way less people could run a marathon. 

So my 2 cents is:
Slow century = most people, very little training
Slow marathon =most people, moderate training
Solid century = most people, moderate training
Solid marathon =some people, lots of training
Fast century = some people, lots of training, good bike
Fast marathon= few people, epic training

All this being said I am looking forward to getting my first road bike one of these years but for now am having fun pedaling with the 'big boys' on my old Raleigh m45. Because it still comes down to the engine being the most important thing on the bike. Once you step up to that fancy carbon racer, it's a little harder to explain being slow that day.  There's also a lot to be said for reliability, my old beast has NEVER broken down on me.


----------



## bradXism

I'm am a pretty small guy and was an exceptional distance runner. The pounding my body took from 4-6 marathons a year for 6 years forced me into competitive cycling, which I am competitive at a local level. Marathons, for pounding or maintained effort, without a question is harder.
You can hideously bonk, crash and die from an hour and a half effort running,with weeks to recover. I have raced half marathons that took me 2 weeks to fully recover Several times the Big Boys beat me to a little pile of protein on rides over 3 hours.(much longer than my marathons) Not only could I ride the same distance the next day I was riding the local weekly group hammer ride in 2 days.
Tour riders will do TT's at eye popping efforts and still be in the pack the next day.


----------



## Ibashii

So...what're we gonna do to celebrate the two-year anniversary of this thread in a couple months??


----------



## bradXism

Obviously go ride a century instead of running a marathn


----------



## waterobert

My first marathon was much harder for me than my first century.


----------



## photobug

*Marathon way harder*

I have done both a century and a marathon, both with about 2 months of serious training. Both were in the New Orleans area so sea level with almost no elevation gain. I did the century after working late in a restaurant, getting up early to drive an hour to start the race, then worked the night of the race. I averaged 20 mph and was fairly tired the night of the race, fairly useless but still at work.

The marathon was after a night of carbo loading and rest I ran a 4 hr 16 minute race. I could not walk for about a week and could not really run for about 3 weeks after. Seven years later I am still recovering.


----------



## chk

I did an half marathon and that was harder than a century.


----------



## MadRussian

Marathons for sure are harder. After years of running (~10 or so) and 5 and 10k runs, my knees have given up. Running takes a lot out of you.


----------



## RoadSwag

Lonzy said:


> Marathon des Sables - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Whichever sport you're worse at is the harder one


I never in my life knew something like this existed 

These people are nuts lol


----------



## playijssica

OldZaskar said:


> A friend is an avid runner with numerous marathons under his belt. And, I just did a century Sunday. We started the debate, with these assumptions...
> - 5 hours or 20 mph for the century
> - 3.5 hours for the marathon
> - Same conditions; modified for sport, e.g. runners like a bit cooler so drop 10 degrees for the marathon
> - Same terrain
> 
> Excerpts...
> - "Century must be harder - it's 1.5 hours longer"
> - "But you can't coast when you're running"
> - "Riders don't coast on decents - they just ride faster"
> - "Marathon must be harder - there's no drafting, no coasting"
> - "But the century has 50 miles of climbing which, time wise, greatly out weighs the time descending"
> - "The runner has no gearing for steep hills"
> 
> The irony - we were on opposite sides - the runner was trying to convince me that the century was harder and vice-versa.
> 
> Still think the marathon is harder - I did my first century Sunday on a mildly hilly/rolling (4,500 ft. of elevation gain) route at a 20.0 mph pace with (one nature stop, one bottle fill-up) and while I was tired Sunday and Monday, I wasn't sore and did 27 this morning at usually pace and felt great. The marathon has just got to take more of a toll on the body.
> 
> See... pretty much an academic debate huh...


:aureola::aureola:


----------



## playijssica

Fordy said:


> is the one you didn't train for....


:aureola::aureola::aureola:


----------



## Emdee406

LandShark'n said:


> Marathons are harder.


Please tell me that he spilled hot cocoa on himself? Looking at the faces of the spectators...they are not smelling chocolate!
Wouldn't most runners just slip off down a side street? Just proves to me Marathoners are crazy as bat sh*t!


----------



## speed metal

Would a marathon be a challenge if it had rest stops every 5 miles where you could stop sit down eat some snacks and drink Gatorade? Would a century be easy if you was competing for a award/prize if you do it sub 5 hours? A fit runner or cyclist could do either both events are hard as you make them.
Maybe the topic should be "Race a century or run a marathon".:idea:


----------



## Guest

speed metal said:


> Would a marathon be a challenge if it had rest stops every 5 miles where you could stop sit down eat some snacks and drink Gatorade?


I used to run 1500/5000m/10000m competitively through my first 2 years of college. I usually did better in the longer events, though I've never attempted to race a marathon. After I stopped running competitively, I made a hobby of running "multi-day hikes" within in a single day. Often I'd cover about 26miles in several hours doing these hikes. For example, one "hike" about the length of a marathon and included descending and ascending the Grand Canyon. Though we took breaks every so often to refill water, and take some quick snapshots next to signs stating "NEVER descend to the river and climb back in one day" signs. It took about 4 hours to complete the "marathon hike". 

I was trying to train to try to race a marathon though today, I'd be aiming for a time well under 2hrs 40minutes, which would be an order of magnitude more difficult IMO than covering that same distance in ~4hours in a "spirited hike". I think my jogging on hiking routes is more comparable to the way most people ride organized centuries. (for that matter, most participants in major marathons are running very slowly, or often not even running the entire time, either)


----------



## sadisticnoob

oh man i did a half marathon last week . came in at 2 27 i must say its way harder than a century which i did it in 4 48


----------



## speed metal

Did you ride the century at the same intensity that you ran the half marathon? Did you stop at any of the SAG stops during the century? Did you stop at any aid stations during the half marathon?
I think intensity of an event dictates how hard it is not. Why not start a thread which is harder a marathon or 100 mile road race.:idea:


----------



## bds3

sadisticnoob said:


> oh man i did a half marathon last week . came in at 2 27 i must say its way harder than a century which i did it in 4 48


My 1:20 half marathon and 2:58 marathon were both easier for me than a 5 hour century (the latter was just a ride with friends too; if I was going as hard as possible I might have done it in a little less time but would have been even harder), but they were pretty comparable. That's what's so funny about this debate. I have some friends that run 80+ miles a week, with a long run of 30-40 miles every Saturday. And some people on here probably ride 400+ miles a week, which is why they think a century is easier than a marathon. If you go on a runner's forum I'm sure people there would think a 100 mile ride is ridiculously tough.


----------



## sadisticnoob

Just some information, the region where I am in the temperature ranges from 27 deg-35 deg C. I rode the century in a peleton which is relatively flat , only with hills in the middle of the century with one having about 7-10% gradient .

The half marathon has a upslope in the 17-18 km mark.

The century was easier as the peleton was going at about 40 kph for the first 90 km or so. Did a little bit of pulling . I only stopped at one rest point at 140 km to top up my water . Not very difficult .

The half marathon I was consistently stopping in every 4 km or so. It was so hot . Coupled with the fact that my hips was killing me at the 16km mark or so. Guess I'm not a runner.


----------



## mikeyc38

I didn't do the math but the consensus seems to be that the marathon is harder?


----------



## ChazMan428

*century or marathon*

For starters, you must be in GREAT condition to average 20 mph on your first century. 

I was a runner through high school (nearly 30 years ago) and ran lots of road races in the summer but never a marathon. Now that I'm riding I look back on that as the activities are similar. My quick answer is they would be about the same, mainly due to the elapsed time. Bikes have wheels and gears, the rider has the mechanical advantage. Each crank rotation provides momentum for the next. However, any headwind for a cyclist is tougher because drag increases with speed and the rider is faster. Yes, I do coast on descents in an aero position to save as much as possible. And yes, runners can draft but the effect isn't as great. 

I'd also like to add that in my totally unscientific estimation, the ratio of cycling "work" to running is 3 or 3.5 to 1. That is, a 30-35 mile ride at moderate effort is equal to a 10-mile run at moderate effort on the same course, same weather, etc.

Overall, I enjoy cycling more as you cover a lot of ground and there's an element of speed under your own power. It sure eats up time though!!


----------



## mpre53

I have two sub-3 hour marathons to my credit. I don't remember, to this day, the last 6 miles of the second one.

Marathons are tougher. While running downhill might be easier on the lungs than running uphill, it's tougher on your legs. Downhills kill your hamstrings. It hits you like a freight train in the last quarter of the race.


----------



## dan49mc

Marathon definitely. Having done 4 marathons and 1 century I found the marathons to be much more difficult. Heck on a bike you're sitting down!


----------



## JBHackk

Ran track in high school (440 - never long distances) and still hate running to this day - but doing a century is a piece of cake. Did Georgia's 6 gap (a century over the 6 gaps of North Georgia - about 10,000 feet of climbing - and did in on a mountain bike) and really didn't feel much pain (was 40), but helps that there are lots of sag stops.


----------



## krott5333

why has thread even gone on for 5 pages? I did a hilly century and it was about as hard as a half marathon, which isn't very hard. Running 26 miles is way more difficult and taxing than riding 100 miles, no debate needed, /thread.


----------



## Undecided

krott5333 said:


> why has thread even gone on for 5 pages? I did a hilly century and it was about as hard as a half marathon, which isn't very hard. Running 26 miles is way more difficult and taxing than riding 100 miles, no debate needed, /thread.


I suspect that a 4:30 solo century is much "harder" than a 4:30 solo marathon.


----------



## Fourthbook

I've done both under the conditions set forth in the 1st post: comparable terrain/conditions for each event; serious training for both; 3.5 hr marathon and 5 hr century (little drafting): To me the marathon is more difficult... as others have pointed out, it's harder on the body before/during/after and people w/relatively little prep can ride a century easier than they can run a marathon although neither probably at the specified 3.5 & 5 hr times.


----------



## jaelinfunk

a marathon. cycling is non weight bearing . much easier on the body


----------



## mpre53

Undecided said:


> I suspect that a 4:30 solo century is much "harder" than a 4:30 solo marathon.


My theory on this is that it is "easier" for the better conditioned and more efficient practitioner of a sport.

A 4:30 marathon is pretty tough for someone who's only capable of running a 4:30 marathon. Their stride is extremely inefficient, and they waste much more energy than a cyclist who can average 22-25 mph for 100 miles.

A 2:20 marathon is an easy jog for someone who could run a 2:06 marathon, on the other hand.


----------



## Local Hero

The marathon is probably more difficult for the average couch potato. 

That said, any schmo can pedal a bike at 10mph for 10 hours or jog/walk at 4mph for 6.5 hours.


----------



## nOOky

It's not even Thursday yet 

Just wanted to chime in since it's a few days after my first marathon has been completed. I can't remember having been this sore for this long after any biking event I have done. The closest thing I can mention is a 100 mile mountain bike race where I was cramping badly and pretty beat up at the end.

For reference I have ridden a solo century with over 5,000 feet of climbing in 5 1/2 hours, the marathon took 3:38. I think aerobically the effort was fairly equivalent to a hard century, but the pounding on the joints and muscles is quite a bit worse. There was no coasting during the run, and my heart rate stayed pretty consistent over the whole time. 

Bottom line, I can't imagine running one of those endurance races 50 miles or over, but I also couldn't imagine a 200 mile ride right now either


----------



## Social Climber

nOOky said:


> It's not even Thursday yet
> 
> Just wanted to chime in since it's a few days after my first marathon has been completed. I can't remember having been this sore for this long after any biking event I have done. The closest thing I can mention is a 100 mile mountain bike race where I was cramping badly and pretty beat up at the end.
> 
> For reference I have ridden a solo century with over 5,000 feet of climbing in 5 1/2 hours, the marathon took 3:38. I think aerobically the effort was fairly equivalent to a hard century, but the pounding on the joints and muscles is quite a bit worse. There was no coasting during the run, and my heart rate stayed pretty consistent over the whole time.
> 
> Bottom line, I can't imagine running one of those endurance races 50 miles or over, but I also couldn't imagine a 200 mile ride right now either


Not having looked through 4 years worth of posts, I would have said that the marathon is harder because it is harder on your body. I come off century rides a bit tired, but can (and do) usually ride the next day. I don't run marathons but my friends who do are usually quite sore, if not outright limping around, for a few days afterwards.


----------



## spdntrxi

26.2 at a moderate pace is hell.. I vote Marathon


----------

