Bruce,
I've been told, but can't report from real experience that a marathon is
roughly equivalent to a century, so we need to stack them up back to back.
Of course the double century then equates to ultramarathons so there are
more comparisons and debates we could have. Runners tend to cycle when they
are injured or after years of running have reduced their competitive
abilities in running and cycling offers an opportunity for a competitive
outlet.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "brucekwells" <bkwells@...>
To: <WCCARides@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:27 PM
Subject: [WCCARides] Re: Off Topic..ish/ The perils of Pedaling (only)


>> Take note of his split times-41:02 at 10k, 1:25:04 halfway, and
> 2:09:36, so
>> his last 10k was 45:03. Slowing in the second half, went out too
> fast a
>> common mistake, especially for first timers. With better pacing I
> feel he
>> could run even faster. How about a run/bike/run for him? That wat he
>> wouldn't have to worry about the swimming.
> No, don't do that, we would kick everyone's butt!
>
> My question is this, is running harder than cycling, or cycling harder
> than running. We need to take a top marathoner and see how they do on
> a bike. I bet cycling is harder, especially if you have to do more
> than one day of it. Marathon running is not a back to back activity,
> those guys tend to go all out and not worry about the next day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>