Whats tougher??

Arthurdaly

WW200 or marathon? Its been done before but Id be interested to hear the opinions of people who have done both.

My own opinion is its all relative in terms of how many timea you have done it and time you want to achieve!+ training.

WW200 this year was tough, I cant imagine a marathon presenting the same problems.

I mean i can jog 20+ kms at moment, am i gonna break records? Certainlt not.
For your average joe I reckon WW200 has got to be tougher!

el Bastardo

As someone who has neither done the WW200 n'or a marathon, I can say that I'll happily cycle 100K+ on the usual undulating roads, but running more than a few miles would make me VERY unhappy. It's a different discipline and it's not readily transferrable.

blorg

I think anyone could do either with a bit of training; how quickly is another matter. Coming from nowhere I imagine the, WW200 would be easier to survive without injury as cycling is non-load bearing. Running you really need to work on. On the other hand the WW200 takes at least 5h whereas you can be done with the marathon in just over 2h. If you're good.

Joeyde

blorg wrote: »

I think anyone could do either with a bit of training; how quickly is another matter. Coming from nowhere I imagine the, WW200 would be easier to survive without injury as cycling is non-load bearing.

Yeah definitely agree with this, training required for marathon running is to avoid injury and get the miles in the legs. They are different breeds and hard to compare. In reality your going to train the most for which ever you enjoy more, therefore that will be the easier.

blorg wrote: »

whereas you can be done with the marathon in just over 2h. If you're good.

Lads doing marathons in just over 2 are mainly pro's. Average times are more like 3-4.

Quigs Snr

Having done both. Marathon is vastly more difficult in my opinion.

Pat Kavanagh

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Having done both. Marathon is vastly more difficult in my opinion.

Same here.

Inquitus

On a bike, you can stop putting in effort and remain moving, you get no such respite at all when running, I guess that's why the Marathon is perhaps tougher.

Plastik

I've only been h/m distance and I found it quite a bit tougher than most things I've done on the bike. About 2.10 I think for the h/m.

sbs2010

I did the W200 two years ago in around 9.5 hours. Did a marathon a long time ago in 3:50. The marathon was way tougher.

Long spins in the mountains are tough, but ultimately in cycling with very low gearing you can go as pretty much as hard or easy as you want. When you're running -even running slowly - you're still pushing the weight of your body with every step.

manwithaplan

I did the WW200 this year and herself ran the Dublin marathon last year. I have no doubt whatsoever that the marathon is much harder. She is a better runner than I am a cyclist and she trained really hard but still suffered a fair bit. I did the WW200 in dreadful conditions in a quick enough time without much specific preparation. I could have kept going for a good bit longer and I cycled into work the next day feeling fine. No comparison in my view.

Arthurdaly

Well I will find out for myself when I do the Dublin City marathon this year.

I agree re the training, you simply cannot decide 3 months before a marathon but the WW200 is possible with a smaller amount of training.

I guess its all relative depending how hard you want to push. I will aim for sub 3.30 hours in the marathon and have about a year running in my legs and not expecting any surprises. Dont expect it to be that tough considering my long run is 25kms at the mo.

Im a better cyclist than runner and would probably put more effort in on the bike and guess thats where I am coming from.

The average joe could probably cycle 40/50km in the morning with no training whereas he physically could not run 3kms.

arodabomb

Having done both (marathon 3:35, WW200 8:30), marathon hands down. Granted, you hit a bit of a wall a few times in the WW200, but I've never hit a wall like that of the marathon around 20miles in. Was in bits after the marathon, while I made it to coppers after the cycle.

RobFowl

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Having done both. Marathon is vastly more difficult in my opinion.

+1

petethedrummer

Arthurdaly wrote: »

The average joe could probably cycle 40/50km in the morning with no training whereas he physically could not run 3kms.

If you equate cycling very slowly to walking then he could.

Running has a kind of miniumum speed. If there was a minimum speed you could not go under on a bike it would make the WW200 tougher.

Edit: By tougher I didn't mean relative to a marathon. Just tougher than doing it at any old pace on a bike.

a148pro

arodabomb wrote: »

while I made it to coppers after the cycle.

/ end thread:)

smacl

arodabomb wrote: »

Having done both (marathon 3:35, WW200 8:30), marathon hands down. Granted, you hit a bit of a wall a few times in the WW200, but I've never hit a wall like that of the marathon around 20miles in. Was in bits after the marathon, while I made it to coppers after the cycle.

I think long distance running on hard surfaces is much tougher on the body, in terms of impact and repetitive strain. I did the WW200 for the first time this year, and while it was a long slog and hard work, the body was well able, and I was back to training again after one rest day. While I haven't done a marathon, I find recovery times after longer runs (10k+) is much longer. I also find with running that I have to listen to your body much more. If my achilles or calf muscles are telling me they're about to go, it's either time to stop or I'm too late, and will pay the penalty for weeks to come. With cycling, if I get a niggle, I drop a gear, reduce the resistance, spin a bit faster, and keep going. Put another way, sensible use of the equipment can help compensate for physical shortcomings. Nike haven't got a shoe yet that will do this, however much you want to spend.

I think for those like myself moving from relatively unfit, middle aged and carrying extra weight, road running is much more damaging to the body than cycling, so the road to the WW200 was a way better bet than to the Dublin City Marathon. I love running, but running doesn't love me. I'll likely do a marathon over the next year or two, but doubt its a smart decision.

g0g

I'll add a +1 to most of the comments so far. Reckon I'm a good example because I decided about 9 months before each having done neither sport before to do the events.

2008 - 9/12 months on/off training from scratch to do sub-3:30 marathon. Running 3-5 evenings each week and the marathon was a killer. Was in bits for a fair while afterwards! From the moment I crossed the end line I was stuggling to walk and just about made it to Burger thing followed by the bus stop. The only stop through the whole race was a quick toilet break after just a couple of km. Nothing (that I've tried yet) compares to hitting the wall while running!

2011 - Took big break start of this year but was still able to build to Wicklow 200 fine. Only ever cycled more than once a week on a couple of occasions and never got over 120km in any one go before the event. Finished sub 9 hours but would have been a fair bit less had I not been doing it with a friend I reckon. Would it have hurt more if I'd pushed harder? Yeah, probably, but I still doubt it would compare to the running >40km! It's not to say the W200 isn't a great endurance challenge, but the two just aren't the same. Maybe if you took out the food stops and made a rule that people couldn't get off their bike from start to finish and had to keep pedaling the whole time it'd be harder!

Doubt either would compare to an Ironman. would love to think I'd give thata go someday! :eek:

Lumen

Arthurdaly wrote: »

I agree re the training, you simply cannot decide 3 months before a marathon

3 months? 24 days preparation is more than enough. :pac:

niceonetom

This is like asking what's heavier? Bricks or feathers?

There's an obvious and wrong answer.

The only sensible response is to ask for more details. A tonne of feathers vs a tonne of bricks? Or a bag of each?

Or you could just reflexively keep shouting "BRICKS! Definitely BRICKS!!!!"

Capt'n Midnight

It's been a while since I've done either.

Marathon is tougher on your knees. As others have pointed out you can't coast on a marathon. But it's over in a few hours, unlike some of the Audax events where you have to get up and get back on the bike again after a few hours sleep. There are cycles tougher than a marathon.

Ryder

the 'non competitive' nature of sportives are their own downfall. Theres a difference between completing one and racing one. Most people could do a 9hrs W200 off little training and likewise most could do a 5 -6 hrs marathon off little/no training. Which is harder depends on how hard you train and compete, but I think a 6hr W200 would more than match the average marathon attempt. I think running seems harder because you have to get a sufficient base in to avoid injuries

MrCreosote

niceonetom wrote: »

Or you could just reflexively keep shouting "BRICKS! Definitely BRICKS!!!!"

A tonne of bricks is harder.

And so is a marathon.

Cabaal

I've not done the WW200 however I've done 100km with no previous distances longer then 50km.

To complete the 100km it was easy going, you have easy downhill parts during which you can freewheel abit and you can just put the head down and spin (even if your not doing it very fast). Took me 4hours for the whole thing.

A marathon, that's another creature altogether and having recently done my first in Cork I have to say both physically and emotionally it was far harder then any cycling I've ever done in my life

2 Wheels Good

Don't forget Adventure races...
It's hard to compare them all really..
I've done Gaelforce the last 2 years and a few other adventure races and find them tough but enjoyable. Swapping back and forth between disciplines is challenging but makes it interesting and less taxing on the body.

I did my 1st marathon (Cork) 3 weeks ago without going down the proper training path and found it ok if a little boring, being too familiar with the course didn't help. I'm not going to admit how little distance running I did as it isn't a long list. (And I made Reardans after the marathon )

Doing a long cycle brings its own equal challenges but like the adventure races is helped by the change of pace/climbing/descending that breaks the monotony on your body.

I found with the marathon that the constant pace was the hardest part. I didn't hit the wall as I treated it like a adventure race and brought plenty supplies.

Some of the other posters are right though, Whether it's any of the 3 challenges if you're pushing it they'll all bring their own form of
suffering.
I knew exactly what pace I needed to do the marathon at to finish and stuck to it no matter what. I did it in 4'21", If I'd tried to beat 4 hours I wouldn't have made it.
I think an ironman is a whole different level though!

CramCycle

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Having done both. Marathon is vastly more difficult in my opinion.

Same here, marathon nearly killed me, I have done distances well over 600km on the bike at a sub-reasonable pace and it was no where near as tough as getting through a marathon at a running/jogging pace

Lumen wrote: »

3 months? 24 days preparation is more than enough. :pac:

The most important part of running is buying the pricey runners, the expensive technical top, the "tested by top athletes" shorts, the belts that carry 8 mini bottles of water + gels, an arm holder for your smart phone, Nike earphones etc.

Training is unimportant, in this respect its alot like cycling, the more money you spend, the better you will be regardless of effort :pac::pac::pac: