My first century
I rode my first century today--104 miles. I read Tomm Williams' thread on his century and I took the easy way out. Flat multi-use path, temperature in the 70s, and did four out-and-backs to total up that distance. That allowed me to stop by my car four times to replenish supplies. But, I went over 100 miles, which was my goal. I've been riding a bit less than three years, but ride almost every day (15-20 miles).. I'm 70 years old, so it seems like if I want to do a century, now's the time.
|
Pretty sure that counts, good job!:thumb:
|
:thumb: :thumb: >>>>
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21728381)
I rode my first century today--104 miles........................I took the easy way out. Flat multi-use path, temperature in the 70s, and did four out-and-backs to total up that distance.................... I'm 70 years old, so it seems like if I want to do a century, now's the time.
|
Awesome! Sounds like this might the first of many centuries to come. :thumb:
|
Congratulations! and it's probably easier now than waiting 30 years to ride your age.
|
That's a good way to do it!
|
Congratulations! It feels good doesn’t it!!!!
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21728381)
.........., so it seems like if I want to do a century, now's the time.
Do it again............. |
Thanks for all the positive comments. It wasn't that difficult to do the Century, but I have no plans to do it again. Not to say I won't, but it was something on my "bucket list" as a new rider--ride 100 miles--and now I've done it.
One thing I'll observe: it didn't take too much out of me, and this morning (day after the century) I rode a more typical 15 miles and am feeling no after-effects of the long ride. When I was running, a "bucket list" item was doing a Marathon. I did five of them (the most recent was 30 years ago), and afterwards it took two weeks for me to recover. My Marathon times weren't really fast (all under four hours; fastest was 3:24). Elsewhere on the Forums there's a thread on whether cycling is good exercise, and one thing I can say with certainty is that it is easier to cycle 100 miles than it is to run 26. |
I'd encourage you to keep riding centuries but to mix it up. Sounds like this first century was simply a "see if I could do it" task. Now that's done, I suggest that you do what I do and look for centuries (or longer) that take you over scenic territory that you haven't seen before from a bike or include significant challenges. Once you get a few centuries under your belt the difficulty wanes and you will start looking forward to new adventures. The nice thing about riding 100 or miles at a go is that it allows you to really get to know a wide area and visit some areas that are off the beaten track. Also, many of those areas are much more interesting when viewed from a bike rather than from a car.
|
Originally Posted by davester
(Post 21731354)
...Sounds like this first century was simply a "see if I could do it" task...
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21729789)
Thanks for all the positive comments. It wasn't that difficult to do the Century, but I have no plans to do it again.
|
Outstanding! I’d get too bored doing the same route repeatedly. Well done!
|
Originally Posted by jppe
(Post 21736873)
Outstanding! I’d get too bored doing the same route repeatedly. Well done!
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21729789)
Thanks for all the positive comments. It wasn't that difficult to do the Century, but I have no plans to do it again. Not to say I won't, but it was something on my "bucket list" as a new rider--ride 100 miles--and now I've done it.
One thing I'll observe: it didn't take too much out of me, and this morning (day after the century) I rode a more typical 15 miles and am feeling no after-effects of the long ride. When I was running, a "bucket list" item was doing a Marathon. I did five of them (the most recent was 30 years ago), and afterwards it took two weeks for me to recover. My Marathon times weren't really fast (all under four hours; fastest was 3:24). Elsewhere on the Forums there's a thread on whether cycling is good exercise, and one thing I can say with certainty is that it is easier to cycle 100 miles than it is to run 26. |
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21738635)
I know some people feel that way. I do the same ride just about every day, 15-20 miles, leaving from my house and through nearby residential neighborhoods. I'm riding for the exercise and don't find it boring. The reason I do that is because I can leave from my house and don't have to drive my bike anywhere to ride it. The Century was an unusual ride for me. Maybe once or twice a month I'll drive my bike somewhere to ride.
|
Originally Posted by gear64
(Post 21739596)
Nice job! I've always wondered about the century/marathon thing. Wouldn't you need to have comparable times to have comparable effort comparison?...
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21740802)
Perhaps an interesting comparison is the Tour de France, where cyclists cover approximately 21 centuries in a month. Marthoners can't run 21 marathons in a month. One reason might be that you don't have that pounding of your joints on a bike, but another might be that it's easier to do a century on a bike than run a marathon.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Does someone else need to ask how many times you can bench press 500 pounds and tell us how much harder than cycling it is? |
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21738635)
I know some people feel that way. I do the same ride just about every day, 15-20 miles, leaving from my house and through nearby residential neighborhoods. I'm riding for the exercise and don't find it boring. The reason I do that is because I can leave from my house and don't have to drive my bike anywhere to ride it. The Century was an unusual ride for me. Maybe once or twice a month I'll drive my bike somewhere to ride.
|
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 21741362)
Why do you keep bringing this up? Does someone else need to ask how many times you can bench press 500 pounds and tell us how much harder than cycling it is?
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21743666)
Seems like an interesting question (running vs. cycling), and related to a thread on another one of the forums about whether cycling is good exercise. As to my bench pressing, I have skinny cyclist arms that are barely strong enough to carry groceries from my car to my house. I'm fairly sure I could bench press 5 pounds if I was well-rested, but don't anticipate working my way up to 500.
Running vs cycling arguments usually get presented in effort over distance. But IMO, most people going out to run or cycle are going to go out for the limited amount of time they have to spare for that. So an hour of running might get you what? 8 miles at best? So for a 172 lb person, that comes to 967 Calories expended. For an hour ride I can sometimes average 18 mph. And that works out to 983 Calories expended. https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking/ And using your marathon time of 3hr 40min, then if I could run that, and I couldn't, then the Calorie calculator comes up with 3175 Calories for my 172 lb self to run 25.2 miles in 3hrs 24min. One of the most recent rides I have close to that time is a 58.9 mile ride last year. The calculator for it comes up with 3277 Calories burned. So which is harder? Just too many personal preference things involved IMO than actual difficulty. And I think that really if effort is to be compared, you'd have to consider over time instead of distance to get a truer picture. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 21745889)
... Seemed to be more of "I run therefore I'm better". Don't take offense, think of this as conversation at the tavern with friends...So which is harder? Just too many personal preference things involved IMO than actual difficulty. And I think that really if effort is to be compared, you'd have to consider over time instead of distance to get a truer picture.
|
There is no easy way out of a century:). Congratulations, and be careful on the road.
|
Originally Posted by Jumpski
(Post 21749576)
There is no easy way out of a century:). Congratulations, and be careful on the road.
|
Originally Posted by Random11
(Post 21740802)
Perhaps an interesting comparison is the Tour de France, where cyclists cover approximately 21 centuries in a month. Marthoners can't run 21 marathons in a month. One reason might be that you don't have that pounding of your joints on a bike, but another might be that it's easier to do a century on a bike than run a marathon.
I've also done easy, relatively flat centuries in nice weather where we just cruised along and finished fresh. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:28 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.