Originally Posted by
Random11
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.
Nice job! I've always wondered about the century/marathon thing. Wouldn't you need to have comparable times to have comparable effort comparison? For instance it would take me 10 hours, maybe a little less to ride a century. Many years ago I did an MS 150. Averaged maybe 13 on a pretty hilly route (very hilly compared to what I rode everyday), after training longer distances. My rear was still pretty dang sore getting on the next day. Now I ride more consistently but only 15-20 miles a ride, maybe a 30 once in awhile. I don't see doing 100 faster then 10-12 miles an hour. To me that would equate to walking a marathon. That seems like a pretty reasonable comparison to me, but I've never done one and likely never will. Running's not my thing, or even wanting to walk that far.