Old 09-26-21, 12:16 PM
  #6  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,381
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4388 Post(s)
Liked 4,828 Times in 2,984 Posts
Originally Posted by Random11
As a former runner who recently turned to cycling, I can assure you that running uses far more energy. As a runner, one of my goals was to run a marathon (I eventually did five), and when I picked up cycling, I viewed riding a century as a similar goal, which I accomplished last year. It is much easier to ride 100 miles than to run 26. It took me several weeks to recover from my marathons, but the day after my century I was riding as usual. Also relevant to the comparison, I ran my last marathon at age 40, and I was 70 when I rode my century last year.
This is meaningless without talking about pace. What if you rode those 100 miles faster? You can definitely bury yourself over 100 miles on a bike if you want to. It's just easier to cruise on a bike compared to running where you have to put in a fairly high minimum effort to call it running.
PeteHski is offline