Uni-century vs running marathon

[DSchmitt]

^..yeah..i wish i could ride without soreness...after freaking 5 miles im already constantly moving around on the seat to try to reduce numbness. this is why i hate distance riding, i never do it anymore on the 36. all i do is go sprint around on and off for like 10 miles, and im prob standing on the pedals for 2 miles.


how bout 100 miles on a 12" unicycle

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by DSchmitt

^..yeah..i wish i could ride without soreness...after freaking 5 miles im already constantly moving around on the seat to try to reduce numbness. this is why i hate distance riding, i never do it anymore on the 36. all i do is go sprint around on and off for like 10 miles, and im prob standing on the pedals for 2 miles.


how bout 100 miles on a 12" unicycle

Haha, or a giraffe!

[redwelly]

Originally Posted by corbin

You are comparing things that are not comparable. A skilled and well trained marathon runner can easily run a marathon without difficulty. A skilled and well trained century unicyclist rider can easily ride 100 miles. Each is equally difficult, or equally easy; it depends on how you look at it.

corbin

I've done both and I think this hits it on the head. They are both a challenge, especially the first time. But how hard depends on the speed you want to do in either. I've only done one marathon, and wanted to get a good time (and beat my training partner!) so had to work hard and got 3:24. In the second half I had to push harder than I ever would on a unicycle to maintain the pace.

Running is more intense than any amount of unicycling, but the recovery stiffness and fatigue of my marathon was very similar to a moderately fast (sub 10 hour) uni century.

So if you want to get exercise, go running

Sam

[MuniSano]

These things totally don't compare. I'm an avid ultra-marathoner, having run more than 135 ultramarathons (races over 26.2 miles) and ~25-30 marathons. I've also now unicycled 50 miles at a trail 12 hour mountain bike race and have done a metric century on roads. I can say, based on my experience, that "it depends." If I just go out and run 26.2 miles as a training run (which I do regularly) then I'd say that running that would be far easier (for me) than riding an ungeared 36er 100 miles (based on how I felt riding the metric). Even that 9 1/2 hours it took me to ride 50 miles on hilly single track trail on my 24er was a whole lot more difficult than if I'd run the same distance! Phew! However, if you're talking about racing a marathon on foot, giving it 100% then the marathon, hands down, is much "harder" (at least for me).

I still believe MUni is, mile per mile, tougher than running on the same terrain, at least for more techinical terrain not flat XC type stuff where you can just fly along at 10 mph. This is one reason I love to do MUni to cross-train for my running. Riding on roads is not nearly as taxing (for the most part) compared to running on roads. Even though the uni is fixed gear you can still sort of cruise or coast (kind of let the big wheel drive itself sometimes), in running you get no such respite!

I love both activities equally, so why compare?

[tholub]

The marathon is more intense work, but you only have to do it for 3-4 hours. The uni century will take 10 hours.

[MuniSano]

There is still not a 1:1 corrolation between miles/hours running and miles/hours riding. 10 hours for running would feel infinitely more tiring than riding for 10 hours on roads, however 10 hours of MUni on hilly, sometimes technical, single track would feel much more like running the same time over the same terrain IMHO. I've run some sub 3 hour marathons and I can tell you right now I'd much rather go ride a uni century in 10 hours or more! Marathons hurt really bad if you really push!

[Nurse Ben]

Depends on the distance. Marathons are pretty short, not that hard for the average joe, just need to develop the endurance.

I guess the same would go for riding a uni over a long distance, but I haven't done more than ten miles on a 36er, so that's a hard one for me to figure. A 100 miles on a uni seems like a hard way to travel.

I have run very long distances and the real killer is time. It takes a lot longer time to run 100 miles than it would to ride 100 miles.

If I had a choice between spending ten hours on a uni and ten hours running, I'd choose to run. That said, I don't reall see the point in riding long distances on a uni. My only real interest in unicycling is muni. Even my 36er is set up for trail use.

Good to see another ultyra runner on a uni. I hung up for shoes a few years back, just running shorter stiff now and riding muni.

[boisei]

I voted for the unicycle century. I've done a handful of unicycle centuries and dozens of marathons and ultramarathons. A unicycle is in "ultra" territory where you have to be able to keep going all day, keep all systems go, endure discomfort for many hours, etc, all the while keeping functional enough to stay up on that one wheel. There's no walking in a unicycle century

Originally Posted by JBAB

An easy way for you also to put to rest this question, would be for you personally to buy a heart rate monitor and measure your heart rate. Marathon running at your age of about 55 you would probably have a heart rate of about 150-180 for about 4-5 hrs. Unicycling a century it will probably never top 130-140 bpm for about 8-10 hrs. The marathon is harder.

I'm not sure about this measure. How does one decide that double the time at the lower heart rate is easier? At what point does going longer at a lower heart rate become more difficult? Is my 24 or more hours running 100 miles at a heart rate somewhere close to the unicycle century still easier than my marathon?

Cheers,
Z

[GizmoDuck]

I've done both, and these days I spend as much time running as cycling.

In terms of effort, both are pretty similar, except that you spend longer doing a Unicycle Century than a running marathon, so I'd have to say the unicycle century. For the same distance though, unicycling is much faster, and as a result less effort overall.

[saskatchewanian]

Haven't quite done either but have an idea of how they would feel.

Longest uni ride I have done was about 100km (~60 miles) and didn't really feel like adding another 60km to make it a century but I probably could have.

The longest jog I have ever done was actually not that long after. I had 2 flat tires on a "not very traveled road" with no cell service and the black flies were driving me crazy. I grabbed a water bottle and started to jog/run knowing that I was 40-50 km from my destination and help. I went about 30km in 4 hours when a vehicle finally came up the road behind me and the guy gave me a ride. I am sure I could have made it but was glad for the reprieve.

So yah I voted "Both would be about equally challenging."

[joemarshall]

I think I found doing long unicycle rides at the speed I did them (roughly 10 hour pace for our 100 miler), you are never really pushing your body that hard - it is just about keeping awake and keeping turning the pedals.

Whereas running I don't have the same ability to relax and let the seat take the strain, so it seems like I'm constantly putting in physical effort. I've never run as far as a marathon. Although obviously I have trained far less at running, so I can't really answer the original question.

Thinking about it, I have walked 35 or so miles in a day, carrying a massive rucksack (week's worth of camping gear & clothes), and I would probably rate that as similarly hard to a 100 miler. Which might well make running a marathon harder.

Joe

[skilewis74]

I've never come close to doing either, but I voted marathon.

To level them out, make it all steep uphill. Before I got hurt I would alternately mtb or run a trail that was virtually all uphill I could run up it nearly as fast as I could ride up (but took more effort). If I took a more direct trail to the top that was not rideable I could get up and down the mountain easily with time to spare before the bike me would have reached the top.

I bet if the terrain was the same but mostly up hill the uni century would be harder.

[danger_uni]

I think that one of the reasons it's hard to compare is that we just don't operate at identical output with different sports and distances. For anyone who paces themselves, they try for a pace that results in a certain level of exhaustion by the finish. Hence why it's possible to go for a long ride or a short ride, distance wise, and end with a similar level of fatigue.

[Cyc]

In 2004 I did run my one and only marathon. Before I was regularly running up to 15 km and I had done one half marathon. The preparation for the marathon was intense. It lasted three months in which I was running more than 700 km. I finished the marathon in 3:37. I do not remember exactly, but it took me quite a while to recover.

I am unicycling since two and a half years. Since about three months I got a 36 “. Twice I did tours of about marathon distance. Then two weeks ago I spontaneously decided to go for a long ride. I ended up with 127km (triple marathon). Yesterday I wanted to top it and cycled 170km (125mm, no gear, cycling avg 15.7 km/h in about 13h including 2h of rests). This was again a spontaneous idea at the evening before. I am not used to miles and it is only now that I discover that with this I hit a “century”. Now I am already fully recovered.

For me a marathon and the unicycling century are totally different. The marathon is a lot more physical, needs much more training and preparation and is much more exhausting. The century on one wheel is to a large extend mental, requiring a bit of masochism and therefore I can do it without any preparation.

Having said this, I can see 150 miles with shorter cranks at higher speed being a totally different game.