Do you have to be fit to do a century?

[zac]

Since I am the OP... I guess I can give you more information that can give you more amunition to tell me and others that we don't "ride" bikes. The course was the 2007 Seattle-to-Portland (STP.) No, not the most difficult course for an experienced and fit cyclist. This is a 204 mile course. The event takes place in the second week of July with temps in the mid to upper 80's. Just a few hills to climb... no extended mountain type climbs. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was able to do 140 miles without trying? At 140 miles is when I stopped trying.. I couldn't push myself beyond that. I finished the first 102 miles in just under 7 hours bicycle time (8 hours real time.) And yes, that first 100 miles was no piece of cake either... but, I felt I could go on.. so I did. I'm just a 45 year old guy that, in his younger days, was a pretty good athlete but just let things go over the years. I'm 5'10" and 225 lbs. If I were 50 lbs less, I would consider myself quite fit... but in this bicycling world I guess I'm supposed to be 150 lbs.. or maybe even less (that will never happen... in college I was 5'10", 167 lbs, and 3 percent body fat.)


You know what great! Thanks for the info. But your OP does not come off that way, not even close.

You were discussing what to expect when fit, I was assuming a middle aged guy who is probably strong, (obviously) but not fit. You want something to strive for: Go out and ride your fastest 40 miles, over similar terrain. Get to a point where you can do it comfortably. Also, get your body used to riding distance...do some ~80+ mile rides (no or very minimal stopping), not at intensity, but just to get the distances under you. If your goal is 200 miles, then you are going to need some longer rides under your belt, if you plan to do this without stopping. If you are taking planned breaks, then it is not as important.

After this, take your time for the fast 40. Multiply it by .8 prorated over the 100 miles. That is a time to shoot for. You know what. I bet you do it, and do it comfortably. And over 100 miles on a fairly average terrain, I bet you are also under 6 hours ride time (not elapsed).

Maybe someday I'll do a century in less than 6 hours, I think it's achievable for me. However, I'll never say that someone that can't do it in less than 6.5 hours didn't RIDE a century. ......

And neither did I.

zac

[Machka]

See again you are misunderstanding me. Not 80% of your max. 80% of your max over a 40 mile ride. There is a difference. Not many humans on this earth can sustain 80% for 1 hour, let alone 4 or 5 or all day.

So are you trying to say 80% of 80%???

My max cycling HR in 2004 was 194 bpm. I like to ride with my HR between 65% and 70% of max when I do a century or longer ride.

And what you can do on 40 miles has very little to do with what you can do on a century or longer ride.

[Machka]

InTheRain ...
Although I believe that any reasonably fit person, on a bicycle that fits, eating and drinking properly can finish a century ...

And although I believe that if a person takes 4 hours or 6 hours or 8 hours or 12 hours or 24 hours to finish the century it still validly counts as riding a century, and is something to be proud of ....

I also believe that in order to do a century comfortably it is a good idea to get lots of various kinds of riding in before doing that century.

I have done centuries after taking an entire month off exercise. I can go out and do them, but they are difficult centuries. However, when I've been riding regularly (given reasonable weather conditions), I can knock off a century very comfortably. It's nice to go out and do one feeling good with energy to spare.

Besides making the century more comfortable, going out and riding your bicycle 4 to 6 days a week for 60 to 90 minutes a day generally improves your fitness level, and increases your chances of losing weight.
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/recommendations.htm

If you are planning to ride the double century on the STP, I would strongly recommend having a look at the articles I posted in a previous post ... and getting out and riding regularly. The chances that you'll have a much more enjoyable event will increase.

http://www.machka.net/century.htm
http://www.ultracycling.com/

[CliftonGK1]

If you are planning to ride the double century on the STP, I would strongly recommend having a look at the articles I posted in a previous post ... and getting out and riding regularly. The chances that you'll have a much more enjoyable event will increase.

http://www.machka.net/century.htm
http://www.ultracycling.com/

I'm planning STP as my first double in 16 years. I've got my first century in over a decade scheduled for the 13th this month, and about 5 more on the schedule for the year. Since getting back into distance riding, I've upped myself to about 30 miles a day (broken over 2 rides for my daily work commute) and a weekend ride between 50 and 80 miles. I know that I can handle any of the century rides I've got planned, and once I have a couple of them under my belt I'll feel more prepared for STP. A couple friends and I are doing one of our century rides as a double metric by riding to/from the event from our neighbourhood.

[InTheRain]

If you are planning to ride the double century on the STP, I would strongly recommend having a look at the articles I posted in a previous post ... and getting out and riding regularly. The chances that you'll have a much more enjoyable event will increase.



I have been riding regularly. I commute by bicycle 4-5 days per week (14 miles round trip) and through the winter I averaged 1-2 rides per week that ranged from 25-60 miles. With spring here, I'll get in 2 mid-week rides of 25-45 miles, and a weekend ride of 50 -125 miles plus a recovery ride the following day of about 10-20 miles. I will continue to commute. I think that I will have the mileage in to have built up an adequate base for the 204 mile STP. The thing that I will need to continue to work on and experiment with will be hydration and nutrition (I have the added bonus diabetes and insulin.)

My goal this year is to finish... anytime between 14-20 hours is acceptable to me. The course opens at 4:45 am and the finish line closes at 9:00 pm, I'll be happy if I see the clean up crew walking away. It's just a goal, granted.. if it's enjoyable that would be nice. But even if it's pure hell for the last 30-40 miles and I finish I'll be extremely happy... Even if I have no desire left to do an event like that again. I have a friend that just started racing and he completed the one-day STP last year in about 10.5 hours - he said that he would never do it again but he's glad that he can say that he was able to do it. It's crazy what we will put ourselves through for a little patch or medal, but they seem to hold some value to us along with the memories of the event and training and preparation.

[zac]

So are you trying to say 80% of 80%???

My max cycling HR in 2004 was 194 bpm. I like to ride with my HR between 65% and 70% of max when I do a century or longer ride.

And what you can do on 40 miles has very little to do with what you can do on a century or longer ride.

Machka, the 80 of 80 I explained in another post a while ago. It is close to what you are saying but not exactly that. Most riders do not ride with HRMs or even care to. (But I am starting to see more and more.) What I am saying is ride your fastest 40 miler. Yes with intensity, no it will not be at 100%, nor will you be (consistently) at 80% of MHR the entire time either. (Indeed I have people who tell me, wow, I just finished a ride at 104% of my MHR. It is funny, because they are still in the process of getting fit and haven't been able to obtain that level of intensity. So as they get more capable, their "Max"HR increases.) The 80 of 80 I referred to in another post, is more of an approximation. Ride your fastest 40 (you will be at a high intensity, but is it 80%? Probably not for most people, but it doesn't matter. That way you are not getting hung up on your maxHR, instead you have a quantifiable performance over a reasonably long distance. Now based on that result, You should be able to do a century, or ride all day for that matter at 75-80% of that intensity, provided that you are comfortable (ride fit, eating, hydration, upper body strength, ability to stretch either on or off the bike).

When you reach a point in your season that you can do that fast (for you) 40 miler comfortably. It is at that time when you are ready for your century. This is the rule of thumb that I have used for many years. Is it exact, no, does it work for everyone, not always, but it is pretty damn close. It is based on my own riding experiences over 35 years, and having taking many folks past those points they never ever thought were sane, let alone they themselves doing them.

Your HR is interesting for a century, as it is on line with the 80 of 80. (64% of maxHR)

I agree, riding 40 has little to do with riding a century. But when you get to the point that you can ride 40 comfortably at a fast pace (for you) the entire ride (no stopping), then you are at the point when you can do a century. Sure you may want a couple of longer rides in there to know what to expect for the mental, and upper body discomfort, but as far as fitness goes, you are there.

Longer than a century, I totally agree. I actually look at it more from the perspective of time in the saddle, and in that regard, view around 4 hours as the point of demarcation. It is difficult to carry enough food and liquid to ride longer than that length, so stopping is a must. I feel that the shorter the stop the better, only stoping long enough to refill supplies. As extended rest triggers recovery activity by our bodies and muscles, which then is not the best to get back on the bike. However keeping warmed up, by moving around (not sitting/laying down) and stretching when stopped helps immensely.

Since, most of us do not ride 4+ hours at a time on a regular basis, our bodies are not used to the physical and mental demands it entails. For a fit rider, sure our legs and lungs can handle it, but it is our upper bodies that suffer. I have seen riders that couldn't even hold their heads up and couldn't even pick there arms up to unbuckle their helmet. The only way to ride long distance, is to ride long distances. You have to build up to it slowly, and it can take some a couple of seasons to get there.

On long intense rides, I always try to ride the final hour at above my average pace for the ride, really pushing it. I no longer ride with a computer, so it is all done by feel and mental sharpness. This helps me, and is one challenge I use to keep me at a high level. This purposely discomforts me, but allows me to do pretty much anything on a bike. The same with you, you ride extreme events, but the only way to get there is to challenge your mental abilities and toughness. It is not the fitness at that level, it is often the minds ability to ignor what the body's suffering.

zac

[cyclezealot]

If you are not ready for that kind of cardio work out; you might find yourself dead. But, if you are used to long periods of elevated cardio work, it should be no big deal ; as long as you are not ascending Mt. Vendoux in the completion of your century. 100 miles of flat riding, its just a matter of how much pain you can endure.

[kill.cactus]

I've been reading lots of threads about preparing and training for a century. I don't consider myself to be really fit - I'm probably 50 - 70 lbs over ideal weight - and I was able to do a century without much trouble. In fact, the longest ride prior to my century was 50 miles. I completed the century by actually starting a 200 mile ride but with no real expectations to finish it. I just thought to myself that I would just go until I got really uncomfortable. That happened at the 125 mile mark, and I threw in the towel at the 140 mile mark.

Don't you think most people that have been reasonably active throughout their lives could do a century without a whole lot of training? If they have good equipment that fits right, I think most people with average fitness could push themselves to complete a slow century (10 hrs +?) I felt like my downfall on the 200 mile ride was my lack of knowledge concerning hydration and nutrition. I thought I had been drinking enough but it was apparent that I had not. My muscles began to cramp severely. However, the next day I felt fine. I was able to climb back on the bike and ride surprisingly well.

This year I will do the 200 mile ride again. I'm planning on using a camelback to insure that I drink often enough. I'm probably not that much more aerobically fit than I was last year (maybe that will change in a few months) but fitness wise I feel that I can complete a double.

A reasonably fit person can do a century at a slow pace no problem. We're talking someone who occasionally runs a mile or two twice a week and eats properly (even if they're overweight). People don't realize how capable a maintained human body is.
For example: The first ride I did last summer (I mean I commuted to school four times a week so that was like 35 miles a week...) was 78 miles long. Without including a quick (sub 20 minute) lunch break, I finished it in just under five hours thirty minutes.

Granted I was very sore and completely out of energy afterwards (mostly due to improper nutrition). After a month of steady riding (I wouldn't call it training) I did the same ride in nearly exactly five hours and felt energetic and well afterwards.

Training helps you do better what you can already do. If you can already do 120 miles, training will allow you to go further and feel better and faster throughout the trip

[ConstantRider]

InTheRain, your initial post can be read as elitist -- or perhaps more accurately, dismissive. After all, lots of people put significant time into preparing for their first century -- and are proud not only of their ability to complete the ride, but of that time they spent getting themselves ready for the event.

So when you write that, hey, a century, not a big deal, I rode 140 miles without training much and I'm 50 lbs. overweight, it can certainly read like a slight to those who may have spent weeks/months preparing for their ride. That was probably not your intent, but it can easily be interpreted that way.

Thus, it was pretty funny to see you and Machka to respond so aggressively and dismissively to Zac, just because he offered a different opinion. If you guys think *your* version of what constitutes a century is more valid/correct than his version, that makes you ideological elitists, right?

Zac, nice job of keeping it civil and non-personal in your responses.

[Machka]

Thus, it was pretty funny to see you and Machka to respond so aggressively and dismissively to Zac, just because he offered a different opinion. If you guys think *your* version of what constitutes a century is more valid/correct than his version, that makes you ideological elitists, right?


MY version includes Zac's version. Zac's version excluded anyone's but his own ... although I think, I hope, that we have sorted things out now.

After all, I did say ... "I believe that if a person takes 4 hours or 6 hours or 8 hours or 12 hours or 24 hours to finish the century it still validly counts as riding a century, and is something to be proud of ...." in Post #53.

[ConstantRider]

MY version includes Zac's version. Zac's version excluded anyone's but his own ... although I think, I hope, that we have sorted things out now.

After all, I did say ... "I believe that if a person takes 4 hours or 6 hours or 8 hours or 12 hours or 24 hours to finish the century it still validly counts as riding a century, and is something to be proud of ...." in Post #53.

You also said:

Implying that a 10 hour century somehow doesn't count is a limited and elitist attitude not welcome here.


You also described his contention that a "fit" rider should do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours of ride time as "a ridiculous statement."

Neither of these comments strike me as particularly inclusive.

Ultimately, we all have criteria for what constitutes a century -- it looks like yours may be 24 hours. Is that correct? If it is, why is it more valid to believe that 24 hours -- rather than some shorter time period -- is the upper limit? Why is there a limit at all?

My take on this thread: I didn't really see Zac's initial post as a deliberately mean-spirited or elitist effort to discount or invalidate anyone's achievements -- instead, it seemed to me that he was pointing out that if you want to finish a century at an average speed of more than 10MPH, some training is in order. Was that really grounds for telling him he's "not welcome here" or, as InTheRain put it, he should be posting in the Roadie forum? In my opinion, no.

[Six jours]

If your goal is just to finish without getting anything out of it, except a "medal" then that is equally ridiculous.

The goal is fitness, and with that in mind as I said, any person who calls himself fit, and specifically any like rider, can and should be able to ride all day at 80% of their max for a 40 mile ride. As I said, a 6-6.5 hour RIDE time ride is something to strive for.
IMO, the guy got himself into trouble by seemingly arguing that his goals are somehow more valid than other folk's goals. Things kind of went downhill from there.

FWIW, I -- along with about a hundred other guys -- once completed a 97 mile Belgian road race in well under four hours. At the time, I wouldn't have even wasted the energy to spit on a recreational bicyclist, let alone one that felt 6.5 hours was a good time for a century. Of course, I eventually grew up and realized that I wasn't the center of the universe... :lol:

[Six jours]

My take on this thread: I didn't really see Zac's initial post as a deliberately mean-spirited or elitist effort to discount or invalidate anyone's achievements -- instead, it seemed to me that he was pointing out that if you want to finish a century at an average speed of more than 10MPH, some training is in order. Was that really grounds for telling him he's "not welcome here" or, as InTheRain put it, he should be posting in the Roadie forum? In my opinion, no.
Yeah, I dunno. The LD forum tends to be very polite and friendly, and I understand Machka's reaction. Maybe Zac is guilty only of choosing words poorly, but anyone who's spent time at the roadie forum is familiar with the "anyone who isn't doing it my way is a fred" tone.

HTH!

[Machka]

You also described his contention that a "fit" rider should do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours of ride time as "a ridiculous statement."

Neither of these comments strike me as particularly inclusive.


I objected to the use of the word "should" ... a fit rider should .... "Should" implies obligation ... and creates an impression that if you cannot do a century in 6-6.5 hours, a) you are not fit, and b) you're not really riding a century. And yes, of course I found that implication offensive because I feel that a fit rider can do a century in any time he/she wants (and the sort of standard/traditional idea for a century is that it be completed within a "day", whatever you define a "day" as).

If zac had said instead that a fit rider can or may do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours, that would have been a whole different story, and I would not likely have responded to his post at all. :) Certainly, a fit rider can or may do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours ... or 4 hours ... or 12 hours or whatever.

[stapfam]

The goal is fitness, and with that in mind as I said, any person who calls himself fit, and specifically any like rider, can and should be able to ride all day at 80% of their max for a 40 mile ride. As I said, a 6-6.5 hour RIDE time ride is something to strive for. This opinion is not elitist by any stretch of the imagination. That equates to a 15-16.5 mph average, at which point air resistance, in still air, is just starting to be a significant factor. Any speed less is soft pedal, and but for upper body discomfort, you might as well choose some other sort of exercise that doesnt consume as much time.


EDIT: I am not talking moutain terrain here, very few citizen century rides are that challenging. I am talking reasonably average terrain given typical citizen event conditions. Yes absolutely extreme terrain and conditions will effect ride, but It doesn't appear the OP was discussing that.


zac

I am now a road rider and I struggle to do a 60 mile ride at 80% of my max for all of the distance- Average is getting near it but I just can't push that hard for 60 miles. I also doubt that my average speed on the flat will exceed 20 mph either. But funnily enough- these same figures will be there for a 100 miler and longer. I do not strive for a 7 hour ride time on a century- I strive to finish the ride with enjoyment.

Every rider has their own personal goals. A few century rides a year are what I aim for. The majority of my rides are 40 milers with the odd 6 or so metrics thrown in. This will keep me in good condition for my big ride of the year. Only a century- and only 10,000ft of climbing. I have to admit that I cheat as I do it on a Tandem and If I can do it within 12 hours- I have had a good Tailwind and someone up there giving me a push up the hills.

A Century is a century. If you can do it- you can do it. Doesn't matter if you are a young fit rider on a 15lb race bike- Or an old git on a 55lb tandem and you have to keep the HR under control- If you can get it high enough. And that tandem with only a change to slicks- has done a 100 miler in 6hrs 30. It has also done a hard metric in around the same time.

[znomit]

I think you need to be fit to finish a century and want to do another one.
When I was younger and stupider I ran a marathon with no training. I enjoyed it. It hurt, for ages afterwards. I've done a couple of 2 mile runs in the 14 years since.

[Rowan]

IMO, the guy got himself into trouble by seemingly arguing that his goals are somehow more valid than other folk's goals. Things kind of went downhill from there.

FWIW, I -- along with about a hundred other guys -- once completed a 97 mile Belgian road race in well under four hours. At the time, I wouldn't have even wasted the energy to spit on a recreational bicyclist, let alone one that felt 6.5 hours was a good time for a century. Of course, I eventually grew up and realized that I wasn't the center of the universe... :lol:

Post of the Month!!

[crtreedude]

It might be nice to realize that the coach potato that completes a century might have achieved much more than those of us who do a century and are hardened to the seat. If you want to talk accomplishment - wouldn't the person with no prep have the greater accomplishment since he went further, faster than ever?

Just think - their spouses could stand at the finish line and yell at the early arrivers "You wimps, you should be doing 200 miles!" :lol:

[Rollfast]

It might be nice to realize that the coach potato that completes a century might have achieved much more than those of us who do a century and are hardened to the seat. If you want to talk accomplishment - wouldn't the person with no prep have the greater accomplishment since he went further, faster than ever?

Just think - their spouses could stand at the finish line and yell at the early arrivers "You wimps, you should be doing 200 miles!" :lol:

I measure my successes one at a time. If I've been off a bike too long I start by working my way up the hill with the hospital (and the cemetary five blocks to my left) without much fuss. Ironically it is steepest at the hospital and least at Evergreen Cemetary (the road between the front end and the college campus is actually steeper than Hospital Hill in that triangular setup). Longer distances are the 5-10 miles between Ontario, OR and Fruitland or Payette, ID roundabout and I used to travel to Ontario from Nyssa, OR or once from Ontario to Weiser, ID and in and out of rural Caldwell, ID at Lake Lowell to Grandma's old place at Locust Ln and Cool Rd (sure it was cool, a 1/4 mile of worn out asphalt leading to a dirt farmer's road and if you followed the either it or the ditch road you could get to the old county dump eventually as faintly recall when Dad let me drive a '47 Dodge truck eons ago). Do that and you use Hwys 44 and 55 and get to either Karcher Mall or the outskirts of Nampa, ID. The shoulders are very narrow and the traffic was very thick and swift, even in 1992.

A Century is nowhere in my goals, just getting myself where I need to go in Payette, Canyon and Malheur Counties. At 270+ lbs I consider that a good thing.

[zac]

I objected to the use of the word "should" ... a fit rider should .... "Should" implies obligation ... and creates an impression that if you cannot do a century in 6-6.5 hours, a) you are not fit, and b) you're not really riding a century. And yes, of course I found that implication offensive because I feel that a fit rider can do a century in any time he/she wants (and the sort of standard/traditional idea for a century is that it be completed within a "day", whatever you define a "day" as).

If zac had said instead that a fit rider can or may do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours, that would have been a whole different story, and I would not likely have responded to his post at all. :) Certainly, a fit rider can or may do a century in 6 - 6.5 hours ... or 4 hours ... or 12 hours or whatever.

I can see you point Machka, and I can see how my language could be interpreted. That was not my intention. Yes I suppose I could have chosen better words, but why didn't you say that in your first postings, instead of calling me ridiculous. (never mind, let it go, it is not important) As I said earlier, I didn't want to fight over this, and yes, I firmly believe a fit rider should be able to complete a citizen century in under 6-6.5 hrs. But I do not take my "should" to be exclusive, but rather something to "strive" for. I think that shows if you go through the thread.


IMO, the guy got himself into trouble by seemingly arguing that his goals are somehow more valid than other folk's goals. Things kind of went downhill from there.

FWIW, I -- along with about a hundred other guys -- once completed a 97 mile Belgian road race in well under four hours. At the time, I wouldn't have even wasted the energy to spit on a recreational bicyclist, let alone one that felt 6.5 hours was a good time for a century. Of course, I eventually grew up and realized that I wasn't the center of the universe... :lol:

6 days good for you, what is your point? Does my CV disqualify me from commenting? The point of this post, and go reread the title to it: is about having "...to be fit to do a century?" Then what to expect and what should the expectation be.

And if not the center of the universe, why did you include your "FWIW..."? And I can tell you're the type be to welcoming, so let me ask you: Do you do that before or after you spit on them?

[Richard Cranium]

"I've been reading lots of threads about preparing and training for a century. I don't consider myself to be really fit - I'm probably 50 - 70 lbs over ideal weight" There's no rule that says all Century rides are tough. Much of the time the charity events are flat and anyone on a high tech bike that has 'all day" to ride can finish them.

You should understand, that you are diseased, and exercise is not actually alleviating the negative health consequences of your weight. No you don't have to be fit nor healthy to ride a Century. You're dreaming.

[StephenH]

I found me a century:
http://www.alvintexas.org/tdb/tdb_details.shtml

This is about 40 miles from where I grew up, south of Houston, Texas. The whole area is flat as a pancake. Of course, June is hot there, and you may have mosquitoes or rain to contend with, probably some good ol' humidity, but no hills and probably not much breeze.

[InTheRain]

InTheRain, your initial post can be read as elitist -- or perhaps more accurately, dismissive. After all, lots of people put significant time into preparing for their first century -- and are proud not only of their ability to complete the ride, but of that time they spent getting themselves ready for the event.

So when you write that, hey, a century, not a big deal, I rode 140 miles without training much and I'm 50 lbs. overweight, it can certainly read like a slight to those who may have spent weeks/months preparing for their ride. That was probably not your intent, but it can easily be interpreted that way.

Thus, it was pretty funny to see you and Machka to respond so aggressively and dismissively to Zac, just because he offered a different opinion. If you guys think *your* version of what constitutes a century is more valid/correct than his version, that makes you ideological elitists, right?

Zac, nice job of keeping it civil and non-personal in your responses.

If anyone interprets my post as an "elitist" and it's your goal to become "elite"... many of you will have to start eating a lot more. I think 100 miles is a big deal. But I also believe that people that have stayed active and fit (not in the bicycle sense) can push their bodies to complete a century. I guess everyone has their own definition of a century ride.

I guess I was way out of line. I thought a century ride was a 100 miles. I must have been wrong. It appears that it has something to do with time... and hey, maybe it doesn't even have to be 100 miles... or it must be done in certain weather conditions... with a certain amount of climbing. I don't know anymore.

I guess we should just go out and ride our bikes... this doesn't seem to be productive.

[BengeBoy]

This year I will do the 200 mile ride again. I'm planning on using a camelback to insure that I drink often enough. I'm probably not that much more aerobically fit than I was last year (maybe that will change in a few months) but fitness wise I feel that I can complete a double.

Getting back to your original post -- and ignoring most of the subsequent discussion -- I think I agree that lots of people could complete a 100 mile ride, given plenty of time. Depending on their fitness level, though, they might not feel great about it the next few days.

Based on your other posts, looks like you're thinking about STP in one day? I'm assuming you know about the Cascade Bicycle Club's training series that leads up to the STP? It's going on now...there is a ride (or rides) somewhere every weekend, with the goal of getting you "trained up" for the STP. I think there is one series if you're planning to do in two days, another series if you're planning to do in one. Details, of course, at www.cascade.org

Personally I don't know if my plans this year include a double century but I'm going on some of these rides because they're good rides and many are the kinds of rides I really enjoy (40 to 80 miles, moderate hills, moderate to brisk pace).

Also, there's a century next weekend in Orting -- the Daffodil Classic -- that is supposed to be somewhat easier than other centuries around here as it's not as hilly. I'm planning to do that, weather permitting.

[CliftonGK1]

Also, there's a century next weekend in Orting -- the Daffodil Classic -- that is supposed to be somewhat easier than other centuries around here as it's not as hilly. I'm planning to do that, weather permitting.

I'll see you there. A bunch of us from BF are going to be doing that ride, it seems.

[2manybikes]

When I pedal Bailey 100 miles in his trike I will be fit. No mater how flat the terrain. No mater what your definition of "fit" is. :p

It will be ten plus hours.

I will act very elitist about it, and I will deserve a big medal ! :p


I will be the slowest. I will not be embarrassed. :p

A couple of years ago, a friend who broke her ankle rode less than 100 miles all summer. In September I rode alongside her on a century ride. I could not talk her out of it. We all tried.

She rode until almost dead then had a super caffinated energy drink. And some Tylenol. I made sure she stayed hydrated.
She sang and talked the last 30 miles. Then against everyones advice she had a huge cheesburger. She of course threw up.

Did she finish ? YES ! ............Was she fit? NO ! ............ Was it stupid ? YES ! ..............Would I do that? NO ! Can someone else do that who is not fit? It depends on the person, if they have been riding a bicycle, probably.

[InTheRain]

My take on this thread: I didn't really see Zac's initial post as a deliberately mean-spirited or elitist effort to discount or invalidate anyone's achievements -- instead, it seemed to me that he was pointing out that if you want to finish a century at an average speed of more than 10MPH, some training is in order. Was that really grounds for telling him he's "not welcome here" or, as InTheRain put it, he should be posting in the Roadie forum? In my opinion, no.

Actually, I have seen Zac's posts in the road forum. I believe his ideas on fitness and speed would be very welcome there. He is welcome to post in this forum also. I just don't accept all his views as valid.... just as he, and many others, are pretty convinced that I don't know what I'm talking about either.

My goal is to finish a century (and even the double) at significantly more than a 10 mph pace. I am also training. I just wouldn't want someone to be discouraged from trying a distance ride if they didn't feel they could maintain a 16.67 mph pace (100 miles / 6 hours.) I would be extremely impressed with myself (even though others wouldn't... or might even spit on me) if I were to maintain that pace for 100 or 200 miles. If someone tells me that they completed a century ride, I rarely ask them what their average speed was, how long they spent in the saddle, or how many breaks they took. I'm pretty much already impressed just with the distance of the ride.

[Sixty Fiver]

I ride my bicycles a lot and averaged 43 km / day for 2007 (16,000 km) and that saw me riding pretty much every day although I did take days off and put in a good number of longer rides to make up for things.

It is pretty easy for me to ride a metric without ever leaving the city limits and although I only got in one century last year it was easy... I did this on a loaded fixed gear over rolling terrain with some high winds thrown in for extra challenge.

On that ride I had a friend who had not ridden for a month get on her mountain bike and complete the route with nary a complaint while another fellow who had been riding regularly suffered miserably.

I set my friend up on her bike so knew it was fitted really well but did not do the same for the other fellow who I had not met before the ride.

Another friend is a rather fit 240 pounds and competed centuries on a single speed road bike and a full suspension mountain bike with very good times (6-7 hours)... I really have to hook him up with a proper touring bike.

I agree that how fast you go isn't as important as completing the distance but on the flip side, there is something to be said about being able to finish a metric in 3 hours or finishing a full century in 5.

[Rollfast]

I ride my bicycles a lot and averaged 43 km / day for 2007 (16,000 km) and that saw me riding pretty much every day although I did take days off and put in a good number of longer rides to make up for things.

It is pretty easy for me to ride a metric without ever leaving the city limits and although I only got in one century last year it was easy... I did this on a loaded fixed gear over rolling terrain with some high winds thrown in for extra challenge.

On that ride I had a friend who had not ridden for a month get on her mountain bike and complete the route with nary a complaint while another fellow who had been riding regularly suffered miserably.

I set my friend up on her bike so knew it was fitted really well but did not do the same for the other fellow who I had not met before the ride.

Another friend is a rather fit 240 pounds and competed centuries on a single speed road bike and a full suspension mountain bike with very good times (6-7 hours)... I really have to hook him up with a proper touring bike.

I agree that how fast you go isn't as important as completing the distance but on the flip side, there is something to be said about being able to finish a metric in 3 hours or finishing a full century in 5.

I agree with finding him a touring bike but in my case I am a Klutz and also break cables and mess up derailleurs (they shift themselves) for no apparent reasons, and I'd take out wheels at an early age before the internet, eBay or even knowing my LBS owner well and Mom and I just decided the bike junkyard that used to be near Parma, Idaho (he passed in my early 30's I think) was hog heaven. I've never tried a bicycle with disc brakes but it takes a few minutes to stop pulling the cable too hard and not trying to buck the bike if I ride one with calipers. Pain comes to me also yet I endure as the ease and speed are much more important. Modifying the pain into strength is my goal. I were called while biking, at least I was biking. I would not see what was bad...your mileage might vary.

[spokenword]

If someone tells me that they completed a century ride, I rarely ask them what their average speed was, how long they spent in the saddle, or how many breaks they took. I'm pretty much already impressed just with the distance of the ride.

this post wins the thread.

last year, while riding a multiple sclerosis charity century to raise funds for a friend with MS, I was hanging out with some of guys at a rest stop, one of them saw my New England Randonneurs jersey and said, "ah, this must be like a sprint for you, then."

"no, man. A century's a century. It's a tough distance no matter how far or how fast you've gone."

I still believe that. And I also believe that someone else being able to finish a century with less training or prep than I put in, does not take away from any achievements that I may have. Nor do I think that my finishing ahead of them, diminishes there. We're all out there to face our own challenges -- however we wish to define them.

[ConstantRider]

I thought a century ride was a 100 miles. I must have been wrong. It appears that it has something to do with time...

Thing is, no one ever said it wasn't 100 miles. Zac simply said that a "fit" rider "should be able" to ride a century in 6 - 6.5 hours of ride time. To me, that doesn't mean that any rider must ride a century in that time for it to count (whatever "count" means). It means that a "fit" rider has the capacity, under ideal conditions (flat terrain, temperate weather) to ride a century at that speed.

Which doesn't discount anyone's efforts or achievements if they don't match that pace. It just means they're not a "fit" rider. And since your argument was that you don't have to be fit to ride a century, why would you have issue with that?

Obviously, people will have different opinions about whether or not his time frame is too low -- or too high. But to me at least, the idea that there might be objective criteria for determining one's level of fitness is not that controversial. Nor did I read his post as being a personal attack on you, or an effort to diminish your or anyone else's efforts and achievements -- it was just an attempt to explain why someone might want to train for a century...

Okay, as much as I keep telling myself I need to do more cross-training, I am done beating this dead horse.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I certainly don't think that one should be able to finish in 6 hours, or 8 hours, or 10 hours, before attempting a century. If someone wants to try a century, they should try it. And, as others have said, completing a century, whatever the conditions and pace, is a significant achievement.

[Six jours]

6 days good for you, what is your point? Does my CV disqualify me from commenting? The point of this post, and go reread the title to it: is about having "...to be fit to do a century?" Then what to expect and what should the expectation be.
The point is that we all have our own cycling goals, that statements like "a 6-6.5 hour RIDE time ride is something to strive for" do not apply to anyone other than the person who makes them, and that no matter how worthy you believe your own goals to be, there's somebody out there who thinks they are stupid and pointless. (I'm not that guy, BTW, but I hope you'll see how that knife cuts both ways.)

And if not the center of the universe, why did you include your "FWIW..."? And I can tell you're the type be to welcoming, so let me ask you: Do you do that before or after you spit on them?
I'm pretty much the biggest fred out there. My "goal" is to go for a pleasant ride on a nice bike and enjoy the scenery, and as long as my fellow cyclists aren't actively endangering me, I'm happy to strike up a friendly conversation with anybody from Lance Armstrong Jr. to the guy with tube socks and an antenna ball.

As simply as possible, mate, your first few posts made it sound as thought you think your goals should be something for everyone to strive for. My responses are intended to illustrate the error in your thinking.

[Machka]

Originally Posted by Machka: Implying that a 10 hour century somehow doesn't count is a limited and elitist attitude not welcome here.


Was that really grounds for telling him he's "not welcome here"

Incidentally, I just wanted to clarify another point of semantics that seems to have been misinterpreted ... I NEVER said that zac was not welcome here. I said that a certain attitude is not welcome here.

[Rowan]

You know, I have more admiration for someone who struggles through a century (or any other ride) and shows the determination to finish.

I've said this before here, and although it doesn't relate to a century but to a 1200 randonnee, the rider who had me verging on tears with heartfelt admiration was the woman who finished with minutes to spare after a huge struggle through the worst downpour you could imagine as well as just hanging in there for most of the event. Few of us were there to welcome her in with fantastic applause... of course, all the fast riders like zac had packed up and gone out to dinner or whatever fast riders do to amuise themselves after they've finished.

The key element out of this discussion is that yes, a person who has a reasonable level of fitness probably could finish century, albeit fairly slowly compared with our elitist friend's targets. But that fit thing applies to how the interfaces between bike and body work as well, and the only way to find out that, is by riding and "training" over progressively longer distances to determine what works and what doesn't. It;s a dual benefit thing -- you get fitter, and you find out how your bike and body fit together.

And seeing you brought it up in one of your posts... yes, I am interested in your CV. Start with your age, your long-term cycling background, and the longest distance you have ridden (you can toss in the time although that's not really of interest to me).

Oddly, I and others here have done more centuries than we can remember. I haven't kept a record of those I have done, and I couldn't tell you what my times were on all but a handful. But I DO remember some of the experiences, the scenery and the people. And those things, in MY personal estimation, are more important than whether I have broken six. seven, eight, nine, 10 or whatever hours.

[dobovedo]

Seems to me a more important question that whether a person HAS to be fit to ride a century is whether they SHOULD be fit to ride one. Or... how best to GET fit if they are not.

The question has been answered... no, a person doesn't have to be fit to spend all day riding a century and finish it. People do it on 'cause' tours all the time, quite often out of sheer guts and willpower, and caring for the cause of for someone(s) in particular related to that cause. And I applaud those people.

But why be miserable just to survive something that could be done more enjoyably and still serve the same purpose? I would hope that the experience would lead them to want to improve their fitness, stay on the bike and maybe even become touring/distance junkies like many of us. Or at least continue riding and be healthier, happier individuals. What I fear is that the resulting pain and soreness for days, perhaps even weeks afterwards, turns many off, rather than on and they never ride a bike again. That is a bad end result regardless of the completion of the ride or not.

I would say one should be fit to finish a century. How much, or little time it takes, or how difficult the century is (terrain, weather, type of bike, etc.) is up to the individual. It matters not one bit what I or anyone else thinks.

Last year a guy rode the 3 State 3 Mountain challenge on a unicycle. Took him forever, as you would expect, but he did it. How he got up Lookout Moutain I have no idea. He did it in 16.5 hours. I did it with 3 friends in 5.5 hours. 100 people did it faster than we did. Who's more fit? Who did it better? Who cares? I think he's nuts. And I'm quite certain he doesn't care what I think.

[crtreedude]

I hate to mention it but... to the non-bike riding public, anyone who rides a century is nuts, so lets not compare levels on mental instability shall we?

[dobovedo]

I hate to mention it but... to the non-bike riding public, anyone who rides a century is nuts, so lets not compare levels on mental instability shall we?

LOL. Very true, but the non-bike riding public isn't typically found within the confines of an internet site called BIKEforums. :D

Unless they're here to bait commuters and vehicular cyclists into flame wars.

[ronfinch]

Dont worry guys. I have contacted contact@einstein-online.info - part of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in order to resolve this one once and for all - may as well speak to an expert.



.....I assure you it is a genuine enquiry. If you are unable to answer this question directly I would very much appreciate it if you could forward it to somebody with the relevant knowledge.
I would very much like to know whether the distance of 100 miles remains 100 miles regardless of the time taken to travel it. Put another way, does a distance change in relation to the time taken to travel it?
I thank you very much in advance for your help in this matter.

Yours with much gratitude

ronfinch


I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

[jefferee]

Dont worry guys. I have contacted contact@einstein-online.info - part of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in order to resolve this one once and for all - may as well speak to an expert.




I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

If you ride at speeds where time dilation/length contraction have any substantial effect (say equal to that of your odometer uncertainty), you're definitely going to fail any doping test after the ride. ;)

Oh, and you'll also burn to a crisp instantly from atmospheric drag!

[dobovedo]

It never fails. Fitness debates always have to get escalated into studies in gravitational physics.

I hate it when that happens! :D

[john bono]

Riding a century in 10+ hours, is not exactly "riding" a century. I would liken that to the poster above who mentioned jogging/walking a 6 hour marathon. There are riders who consider a 5 hour solo with no stops to be an okay time, and many of us have done sub 5s. A "fit" rider should be able to do a 6-6.5 hour ride time century. If you want to take a break, that is up to you. IMO, any well fit rider, with proper hydration & nutrition, can ride all day at about 75-80% of their fastest for a 40 mile ride.

Generally what gets most people is upper body and neck and back not being used to that position for extended lengths of time. It may not hit you that day, but you will be paying for it for the next week or so, and often seriously so.

zac


So let me get this straight. If I take 10 hrs to do the Hat City Cyclefest(riding over every hill in Western CT) I'm out of shape, and don't get cred for a century. However, if I do the same distance in 6 hrs a week later in pool-table-flat Long Island that will count?

[Catweazle]

If someone tells me that they completed a century ride, I rarely ask them what their average speed was, how long they spent in the saddle, or how many breaks they took. I'm pretty much already impressed just with the distance of the ride.
this post wins the thread.

We're all out there to face our own challenges -- however we wish to define them.

To a newbie rider like myself, who has just recently completed his first 'metric century' ride, seeing comments like those is particularly heartening and very welcome. 100 kilometres. 100 miles. When we talk distances like these we're talking cycling distances which leave non-riders (and thus most folk) completely gob-smacked. And rightfully so. Most folk who jump on a pushbike only ever ride down the corner store, or to work and back. These are damned decent distances, and they merit respect purely for the fact of doing them.



But I don't particularly think that they require "fitness" as such. They require a bit of practice, to get the legs working the right way. Unless your leg muscles are already developed well enough from other activities you wouldn't be wise to jump on a bike and go 100 miles straight up front. They require a bit of mental acuity and perseverence. You gotta be sure to pace yourself to what's achievable rather than succumbing to the urge to go a bit too hard too early on.

But that's not 'fitness' really. Not in any particularly physical sense. Get the legs used to spinning around for lengthy periods and you can ride long distances. I can walk all day. Riding all day can only really make the legs hurt in a different way :)

[Six jours]

So let me get this straight. If I take 10 hrs to do the Hat City Cyclefest(riding over every hill in Western CT) I'm out of shape, and don't get cred for a century. However, if I do the same distance in 6 hrs a week later in pool-table-flat Long Island that will count?
Looks like "zac" done bought himself a pony. Bets on how long it's going to take for the forum to forget? :p

[Rowan]

Ummmm... speaking of zac... where has he gone?

Touching up his CV, I trust. ;)

[zowie]

Since "fit" is an amorphous term at best, the debate is a little silly.

[ConstantRider]

Ummmm... speaking of zac... where has he gone?

Touching up his CV, I trust. ;)

So the size queens win, is that it, Rowan?

[ericgu]

I've been reading lots of threads about preparing and training for a century. I don't consider myself to be really fit - I'm probably 50 - 70 lbs over ideal weight - and I was able to do a century without much trouble. In fact, the longest ride prior to my century was 50 miles. I completed the century by actually starting a 200 mile ride but with no real expectations to finish it. I just thought to myself that I would just go until I got really uncomfortable. That happened at the 125 mile mark, and I threw in the towel at the 140 mile mark.

Don't you think most people that have been reasonably active throughout their lives could do a century without a whole lot of training? If they have good equipment that fits right, I think most people with average fitness could push themselves to complete a slow century (10 hrs +?) I felt like my downfall on the 200 mile ride was my lack of knowledge concerning hydration and nutrition. I thought I had been drinking enough but it was apparent that I had not. My muscles began to cramp severely. However, the next day I felt fine. I was able to climb back on the bike and ride surprisingly well.

This year I will do the 200 mile ride again. I'm planning on using a camelback to insure that I drink often enough. I'm probably not that much more aerobically fit than I was last year (maybe that will change in a few months) but fitness wise I feel that I can complete a double.

Depends entirely on the century, or the double. If it's flat and doesn't have steep hills, you can just ride slower, and may people can ride 12 MPH for a long time with a modest amount of fitness.

But, if you try a century like Seattle's Flying Wheels (say, 3500' of elevation in 7 hills), you're going to be really miserable and will likely abandon. If you try RAMROD or the SR "Mountain Populaire" (145 miles 10K or 70 miles 5K) and you aren't well-trained, you're going to abandon on the first real climb.

Doubles are more of a challenge just because of the time required. If you ride 12.5 MPH and spend no time off the bike, you're going to spend 16 hours on the bike. If you try STP, you get to start at 5AM, and you have until 8PM (or 9PM?) to finish, which gives you 16 hours.

[Rowan]

So the size queens win, is that it, Rowan?

I am scratching my head wondering what you mean. It must be a uniquely quaint American term.

I simply asked where the guy had gone, and seeing *he* mentioned CVs, and I asked him to post his, I made the observation that he might be tidying it up for just that purpose.

I can't recall mentioning size or queens in any of my posts in this thread.

Now.... drama queen... hmmmmm.

[ConstantRider]

Now.... drama queen... hmmmmm.

No argument there. You certainly have acted like a drama queen in your responses to this thread. This soliloquy was especially moving:

I've said this before here, and although it doesn't relate to a century but to a 1200 randonnee, the rider who had me verging on tears with heartfelt admiration was the woman who finished with minutes to spare after a huge struggle through the worst downpour you could imagine as well as just hanging in there for most of the event. Few of us were there to welcome her in with fantastic applause... of course, all the fast riders like zac had packed up and gone out to dinner or whatever fast riders do to amuise themselves after they've finished.

But why the obvious contempt for the fast riders? I thought the spirit of randonneuring involved celebrating and respecting the efforts of all who participate in an event.

And seeing you brought it up in one of your posts... yes, I am interested in your CV. Start with your age, your long-term cycling background, and the longest distance you have ridden (you can toss in the time although that's not really of interest to me).

This is an awesome Inspector Clouseau impression, but why are you interested in his CV? And why are you only interested in how long he's been riding, and the longest distance he's ridden? This thread was about riding centuries -- and how fast a fit rider should be able to ride one in. The relevant questions to ask would be, "How many centuries have you ridden, and what were you times?" Your questions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. So, seriously, why did you ask them?

[InTheRain]

Doubles are more of a challenge just because of the time required. If you ride 12.5 MPH and spend no time off the bike, you're going to spend 16 hours on the bike. If you try STP, you get to start at 5AM, and you have until 8PM (or 9PM?) to finish, which gives you 16 hours.

This scenario would be just fine with me. In fact, If I were to finish before midnight, I will meet the goal I set out for myself.... whether or not there is someone at the finish line to hand me a one-day rider patch. For me, it's about finishing. I recently did a 40 mile solo ride and averaged 16.1 mph. I think Zac suggested that I should be able to go at about 80 % of my 40 mile pace... that comes out to 12.88 mph - not much different than the scenario you explained above... except that I'm sure that I'm going to have to stop for breaks. Hopefully, riding behind someone in a group will help me conserve some energy and maybe even increase my average speed by maybe a half mile per hour. So, 16 hours sounds realistic to me.