datlas 

Running a marathon is a lot harder, and a lot dumber, than riding a century.

Shimagnolo

I've done centuries numerous times.
On my several attempts to complete a marathon, I did 18 miles on my best attempt.

surgeonstone

This guy probably knows what he's talking about, let's ask him.......
Lance Armstrong: ?I Admire the Runners Even More? » Take The Magic Step®

datlas 

Are you trying to get this thread locked??

Troublemaker. Provocateur.

surgeonstone

Quoi? Moi? Mais Non!

gregf83 

I would expect that most triathletes are going to go a little harder on the run as it's the last segment. It's also more difficult to take in and digest nutrition while running.

I don't think many tri athletes do many, if any, 26 mile training runs, whereas it wouldn't be uncommon to do 180km bike rides.

RollCNY

So after all of this discussion, the clear answer is:

It depends.

OldTryGuy

I am preparing for another Ironman Florida on November 1, 2014. Two weeks ago on Sunday was a 135 mile bike. Last weekend was a Sprint tri. Today was a 133 mile bike. Next month is another Sprint. Between now and November I will be riding 100+ miles 2 times per month. Long runs not so much since I am 64 years old with bad knees and can only jog/walk BECAUSE for myself, running/jogging is much harder on my body than biking.

There's a select group of athletes who fly when running and for them the marathon is a cake walk. 6mpm pace and far less is nothing for them.

BTW, the swim is 2.4 miles or 3.8624km not 1.5km

THSdrummer

I've run 14 miles at a pretty moderate pace for me. Can get fairly intense.

I've ridden 80 miles really relaxed. Very relaxed.

I felt worse the days after the 80 mile ride (just one, I've ran 14 miles on multiple occasions). I can definitely walk after either. In fact, I played 32 holes of disc golf and worked 6 hours on my feet after my last hilly 14 miler, but getting around after that ride is a bit rougher for me than a long run. Keep in mind I train for running though. Also, the sorest part of me after the 80 mile ride was my saddle region.

I've always compared a running marathon to a century ride. As others say, it comes down to intensity. If I were to relax the pace on my run, I'm sure I could go a lot further than what I've done so far, but that wouldn't necessarily help with what I'm training for. If I picked up the pace on my ride, I wouldn't have made it nearly as far. The long slow ride was just me getting out and celebrating the end of the season. I wanted 80 miles, so I went and got it.

jkuper

Running, at least for me, was tougher. It also took longer to train for than any century I have done. My last hilly ride was Savage Century (12k of climbing) and it wasn't as hard as the marathon. When I was training for the marathon I essentially had to stop riding on Saturdays because the Sunday long runs got to be too hard. Generally I can ride both weekend days.

I still prefer riding, but I kinda do miss my morning runs in the fall around DC.

seypat

I'm a fast twitch muscle type of person. At my age, endurance sports are all that's left. All endurance sports are tough for me. I'm currently training for a marathon and ride a century a month. Running is a lot harder for me unless it is a climbing ride. But it is really about what you are training for. If I tried to play 2 hours of basketball tomorrow, I would be winded after 2 trips up the court. And, I would have trouble getting out of bed and walking the next day.

With the marathon training now I am running over 20 miles a week. But attempting a competitive game of some type of fast twitch sport, even some hard sprinting workouts would most likely result in some immediate cramps or pulled muscles. The muscles are no longer trained for that.

rpeterson

I've done both, and am an avid triathlete. The marathon is way harder simply because it beats the Hell out of your body. I can do 2 or 3 centuries a week no problem, even a hard road race ever couple weeks, but 2 or 3 marathons a year is all my body can physically handle. It takes way more time to recover from the training and racing.

Sdjclevland

I agree with the runnijg is way harder on your body. The farthest I have ran is ten miles at a 8 min 50 sec pace and cardio wise it was pretty easy relatively speaking but at same time I was very tired when done and no way in hell could I have done another 16 miles. My legs could have never taken it even though I was not pushijg at all until the last mile where I sped up a lot. Also I have been runnijg for years and can run a decent 5k time but nothing special.

After a month and a half of cyclijg I ddi a 100 mile ride. I really did not train for it I just did like three 50mile rides and a 60 miler. Again Cardio wise the century was not hard I was e not pushing but I know for a fact I could have put in at lest another 30 miles on the bike.

I feel the the biking is way easier. Your heart rate is lower in general and you can coast if you want to. There is no coasting in running.

caloso

Yes, the answer depends on whether you have ever run a marathon.

bjtesch

The average recreation runner will expend energy much faster running than they would cycling. Cycling your body has a chance to recover a little bit over the time of the ride. Running a marathon you are on the verge of hitting the wall. You can hit the wall cycling too, but if you slow down and pace yourself it will help. Just guessing according to the numbers of marathon runners that I see hit the wall vs. the amount of century riders, I'm guessing that running a marathon is more like 125-150 miles.

gregf83 

You can also slow down running a marathon as well. It's called walking and many people do it during the course of a marathon.

For reference about 40% of the finishers of the last Vancouver Marathon (~5000) took over 5 hrs to complete. That's about the time it would take me if I ran/walked (50/50) the 40km.

Rowan

I think this is the answer everyone should read.

That ability to repeat marathons/centuries each week is the key.

RollCNY

Yes, but didn't two Aussies just finish running a marathon a day for the last year?

To me, the whole thing hinges on "running" a marathon vs "completing" a marathon, and "riding" a century vs "racing" a century. I could walk a Marathon in 6 hours, and it would represent very little appreciable wear and tear (and as a seasoned hiker, I know I maintain 4.5 mph on asphalt). I have gone on a 80 mile bike ride that damn near killed me.

So I will stay with "it depends".

flatlander_48

Marathon is specific to the distance from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens: 26 miles, 385 yards. The messenger ran this distance to convey the news of the successful outcome of the battle to the people of Athens. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply the name to cycling. Not that someone might have a wild-assed idea at some point, but that wouldn't make it right...

Leinster

Yeah, if Pheidippides had a bike he could've been in Athens in about an hour. Might not have collapsed and died when he got there.

RollCNY

It's all Greek to me.

flatlander_48

Well, it he had to do it over...

wallrat

How about double century/marathon and century/half marathon?

rubic

I've run all out marathons while at peak condition during my running days. I have also ridden all out centuries while at peak condition during my riding days. Marathons, at least for me, took considerably more effort and the recovery period was much longer.

rdtompki

No, not even close.