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.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Don't you think most people that have been reasonably active throughout their lives could do a century without a whole lot of training?
Not without injuring themselves, no.
Not that a century is super-difficult; I find they're easier than, say, doing a half-marathon. But 8+ hours of repetitive physical activity, even low-impact, puts a tremendous strain on the body. Hydration, nutrition and fit are a big part of successful longer rides but not the whole deal.
It sounds to me like you were lucky or happen to have a rather resilient physiology. I think you are asking for trouble if you plan to do a double century and are inadequately trained.
StanSeven
This subject, and especailly the link to running a marathon, drives me crazy. Just about anyone with a little training can complete a century or do a marathon. But if you haven't trained, you will be sore, tired, and generally feel bad. My goal has always to do one well. That means a relatively fast pace and have some energy left at the end. That means training for 150-200 miles a week and at least several rides of 75 -80 miles in advance.
Others say what's important is to just finish. It might take you 12 hours. But if that's your goal, most people can do it.
It's like people say they "ran" a marathon. In reality, they walked most of it and finished in 8 hours.
Buckshot77
Hmm, I did a blog about this not too long ago. My .02 (and then some) is that anyone that has the desire to ride 100 miles probably can if they're in any type of "reasonable" shape. Even at that, I give reasonable shape a lot of leeway meaning that just about anyone that has any level of physical fitness and can bear to do an activity for 8-10 or more hours would be capable. As others put it, it will probably suck, you'll probably hurt, and you may never want to ride a bike again afterwards if you haven't trained up to that level, but it can be done by a large number of people.
Rick
spokenword
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. I've seen a lot of overweight / high BMI riders on charity centuries. It doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't fit. Similarly I've never been 10 or 20 pounds over my preferred weight, but the first time I signed up for a 75 mile ride, I struggled to even make it to 50 -- but that's largely because I rode it like I would ride a 10 or 15 mile ride, I didn't know how to manage my strength on hills, and I didn't know how often I should've been eating.
Training for endurance rides, whether it's a century, double or 1200km, is only very partially about building physical fitness. It's about knowing how to handle yourself 1 hour, 2 hours or 10 hours into the experience. It's about learning about your body's signals and realizing that you need more electrolytes or water or calories. That sort of self-awareness might need to be developed through experience, but you don't need to be 'fit' to have it.
zac
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
Machka
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.
Yes, I definitely think that someone who is reasonably fit and active could do a century without a whole lot of training, especially if they have good equipment that fits right, and even more especially if they eat and drink regularly all the way through the ride. I have been saying this for years ... and I have seen it done.
Now, a person who does not train for the century will likely find the century more difficult than the person who does train for the century, and might have a slower recovery after, so I also think it is a good idea to train, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
And in response to some of the responses here ...
-- I don't think that the person who is reasonably fit and active, with good equipment, and regular hydration and refueling will necessarily injure themselves.
-- A 10-hour century certainly IS riding a century. A 10-hour century is just as valid as one that is shorter. Same with riding brevets ... the time limit on a 200K is 13.5 hours and a rider who rolls in with seconds to spare has successfully finished the brevet, just like the rider who rolls in in 7.5 hours. They both receive the medals. A fit rider does not necessarily do a century in 6 to 6.5 hours, that is a ridiculous statement ... a fit rider and/or an experienced rider can also be a slow rider. And what about environmental conditions, terrain, or the choice of equipment? I have done centuries anywhere from 6 hours to 15 hours ... it all depended on how I felt, on the bicycle I chose to use, on the terrain, and on the environmental conditions. Implying that a 10 hour century somehow doesn't count is a limited and elitist attitude not welcome here.
zac
Yes, I definitely think that someone who is reasonably fit and active could do a century without a whole lot of training, especially if they have good equipment that fits right, and even more especially if they eat and drink regularly all the way through the ride. I have been saying this for years ... and I have seen it done.
Now, a person who does not train for the century will likely find the century more difficult than the person who does train for the century, and might have a slower recovery after, so I also think it is a good idea to train, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
And in response to some of the responses here ...
-- I don't think that the person who is reasonably fit and active, with good equipment, and regular hydration and refueling will necessarily injure themselves.
-- A 10-hour century certainly IS riding a century. A 10-hour century is just as valid as one that is shorter. Same with riding brevets ... the time limit on a 200K is 13.5 hours and a rider who rolls in with seconds to spare has successfully finished the brevet, just like the rider who rolls in in 7.5 hours. They both receive the medals. A fit rider does not necessarily do a century in 6 to 6.5 hours, that is a ridiculous statement ... a fit rider and/or an experienced rider can also be a slow rider. And what about environmental conditions, terrain, or the choice of equipment? I have done centuries anywhere from 6 hours to 15 hours ... it all depended on how I felt, on the bicycle I chose to use, on the terrain, and on the environmental conditions. Implying that a 10 hour century somehow doesn't count is a limited and elitist attitude not welcome here.
Well Machka you have your opinions and I have mine. I understand that you do brevets and are quite accomplished. But I will stand by mine. 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. 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
InTheRain
+1 Machka! Hey, if a person completes a ride of 100 miles within a reasonable time (i'm fine with under 15 hours) they can tell anyone that they completed a century and be proud of it. Zac does have an elitist attitude. I guess there are those that would not consider him a cyclist though... since nobody has spotted him on the TDF pushing Lance. We aren't all "fit riders" and everyone of us struggles to improve our fitness.
If I don't hurt a little after a training ride, then I probably didn't push myself hard enough to really improve my level of fitness. So, if you finish a century, and you hurt for a few days after, I think you're fine to go ahead and take credit for completing it, as well as saying you were "fit enough" to do it... - even if it took 15 hours. If a century has to be completed in less than 5 or 6 hours... just go ahead and call that a race. And Zac, if your goal is an elitist time, then don't come in here posting about some sub 5 or 6 hour century only being valid unless you came in first and you can post the link to the results. If it's a competition, I don't want to here about anything else but first place, nobody remembers who took second.
There are difficult centuries that involve alot of climbing and others that are on a much less difficult course. I'm sure that people that just have the goal of completing one will do their research and avoid the climbing centuries. I have yet to hear about the "all downhill" century... that would be a fun "recovery ride."
InTheRain
The goal is fitness, and with that in mind as I said, any person who calls himself fit...., zac
Lance wouldn't call you fit... He would say you were weak, just the same as he would say about me. He would give just as much credence to your century as he would to mine. So, in the minds of the truly elite, he would rate us in the same category - weak - you with your sub 5 hour century and me with my 7+ hour century. But I'm sure that Lance would acknowledge that we both rode and completed a century without regard to our weak level of fitness.
StanSeven
I'm with Zac here and his attitude is not elitist. He's just saying someone that attempts a century should be reasonably fit and should view a century as a challenge that takes proper preparation and training. A Century should be a goal that someone takes pride in doing and puts effort in to be. I certainly wouldn't be proud of a 15 hour finish.
InTheRain
The reason that I brought up the subject of fitness and a century is that I have friends that are fairly active and have talked about doing a century with me. I have no doubt that they could complete one. No, they aren't "Zac fit" but they know how to ride a bicycle and I know that they are more fit than I am. However, many of them have this attitude that they must train for a century ride. They think that if they are slow (8-10 hours,) they will be embarrassed. I don't think you have to be bike fit and properly trained to complete a century. If you're goal is a fast century, then yes... you're most likely going to have to train to complete it in less than 5-6 hours. I'm not exactly sure how you would "hurt yourself" by not being properly trained... if you know how to ride and keep your bike upright, I don't see you getting hurt. I couldn't complete the double century... but I didn't get hurt. However, I do know of a rider that had completed several centuries and doubles and was properly trained, but he fell and broke his arm within the first 300 yards of the ride - his fitness had nothing to do with that... just an accident.
CliftonGK1
If your goal is just to finish without getting anything out of it, except a "medal" then that is equally ridiculous.
If just finishing within the time constraints means that I'm not getting anything out of my riding, then I may as well stay home and play X-box for 9 hours. Everyone who goes out and rides a hundred miles in one day is getting something from it; even the people going 10mph with their picnic lunches and camera gear. They're not getting the same benefit as the person who finished in half the time, but don't discredit their effort.
The goal is fitness... As I said, a 6-6.5 hour RIDE time ride is something to strive for... 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.
Your goal is fitness, and your definition of it is far more restrictive than many "fit" people I know. Suggesting people are wasting their time if they're not aspiring to live up to your standards isn't going to win a lot of people over to the sport. Unless I'm doing a century on the track, I have no plans for a 6 hour RIDE in my future. Should I just save myself the time, sell my bikes and give up now?
Machka
I'm with Zac here and his attitude is not elitist. He's just saying someone that attempts a century should be reasonably fit and should view a century as a challenge that takes proper preparation and training. A Century should be a goal that someone takes pride in doing and puts effort in to be. I certainly wouldn't be proud of a 15 hour finish.
Oh, so the Susitna riders, who finish their centuries in about 24 hours, should not be proud of what they accomplished? http://www.susitna100.com/
My 15 hour century was done in February in Winnipeg in temps between -25C and -32C on a knobby-tired mtn bike ... you had better believe I was proud of that accomplishment. It was the toughest century I have ever done. http://www.machka.net/brevet/Coldest_Century.htm
And what about a person who does a century on a loaded touring bicycle, over somewhat hilly terrain, and finishes in ... say about 11 hours? Should that person not be proud of his/her accomplishment?
zac's attitude IS VERY DEFINITELY limited and elitist because he assumes very limited circumstances under which a century can be completed (relatively flat terrain, and likely a very lightly loaded road bicycle on decent roads), and because he does not take into consideration the fact that people have different levels of fitness based on health, age, and even gender. I'm reading it that in his mind, the only "real" centuries are those completed by the young and healthy in good conditions.
InTheRain
I'm with Zac here and his attitude is not elitist. He's just saying someone that attempts a century should be reasonably fit and should view a century as a challenge that takes proper preparation and training. A Century should be a goal that someone takes pride in doing and puts effort in to be. I certainly wouldn't be proud of a 15 hour finish.
At what point do we tell people that they can't participate? There are some riders that might prepare and train a lot to complete a 15 hour century. I have a friend that had never ridden a bicycle more than 20 miles, yet he completed a century in less than 5 hours - based on your logic, his century shouldn't count either... he didn't prepare and train for it.
I'm just wondering it there are other rules that I don't know about that disqualify me from being a cyclist. I commute daily by bicycle but it's only 15 miles round-trip. I'm sure that must be under some kind of 50 mile limit that actually qualifies you to be a bicycle commuter. I've even participated in charity rides, but since I didn't raise $10,000 I most likely am not considered a "contributer" either. I fix flats, clean my drivetrain, do brake adjustments, etc... but since I haven't built my own set of wheels I guess I don't do my own "wrenching" either.
Machka
They think that if they are slow (8-10 hours,) they will be embarrassed.
Unfortunately there will likely be people like zac at the century (if it is an organized century) who will attempt to make them feel embarrassed. However, if they finish a century in 8 to 10 hours, they should feel anything but embarrassment, they should be very proud of their accomplishment.
I don't think you have to be bike fit and properly trained to complete a century. If you're goal is a fast century, then yes... you're most likely going to have to train to complete it in less than 5-6 hours. I'm not exactly sure how you would "hurt yourself" by not being properly trained... if you know how to ride and keep your bike upright, I don't see you getting hurt.
Where you could get hurt by doing a century without being "bike fit" is in the repetitive strain injury category. If you have put in time on the bicycle prior to the century, you will have discovered if your saddle will be all right for a long distance and you will have discovered if your bicycle fit is right or not ... and you'll have time to fix the situation. If you are active in other ways, but don't do much riding, you could find yourself 40 miles into a century with a very, very sore butt, and a knee or ankle that is in a lot of pain.
Also riding frequently prior to a century ... building up your distances and all that ... gives you a chance to experiment with hydration and fuel, to find out what works for you.
Here are a couple sites which might help with the century (and double century) preparation:
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.
That is very definitely your goal ... and not mine. I ride for fun and for the challenge, not for fitness. If I get more fit in the process, all the better - it's like icing on the cake.
As it happens, my Dr and others classify me as "fit" based on various fitness tests ... but my heart specialist (who also thinks I'm "fit") has warned me against doing something as foolish as riding all day at 80% of my max because I have two damaged valves in my heart. So ... any fit rider "should" be able to ride all day at 80% of their max? NO, absolutely not. A blanket statement like that is not valid. We're all different ... we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
crtreedude
A century is riding 100 miles - correct? No where does it say that there is a time limit (except perhaps 24 hours or something)
I view it a lot like getting old. Yep, I am 49 - and it is a bit of a surprize I am this old, and I choose to consider it an accomplishment. After all, not everyone gets here.
There is a century, and there is a fast century. For many, just doing a century is a big accomplishment and they may never choose to do a fast one. I have done a century before - but it took all day. I was in no hurry and I was riding from bakery shop to bakery shop, enjoying all the wonderful pastries along the way. :lol:
You can consume an amazing amount of pastries while doing a century I can tell you from experience... :D
Machka
A century is riding 100 miles - correct? No where does it say that there is a time limit (except perhaps 24 hours or something)
I view it a lot like getting old. Yep, I am 49 - and it is a bit of a surprize I am this old, and I choose to consider it an accomplishment. After all, not everyone gets here.
There is a century, and there is a fast century. For many, just doing a century is a big accomplishment and they may never choose to do a fast one. I have done a century before - but it took all day. I was in no hurry and I was riding from bakery shop to bakery shop, enjoying all the wonderful pastries along the way. :lol:
You can consume an amazing amount of pastries while doing a century I can tell you from experience... :D
+1
You should go do a century in France ... those patisseries were wonderful!! :D
InTheRain
This is the Long Distance forum, right? It's about riding your bicycle long distances. It's not about speed. If your goal is to do a long distance, and do it fast, maybe you need to be posting in the Road forum under the racing sub-forum. I think that many stages of multi-day races are near, or exceed, the century mark... and the goal there is to do it as fast as you can.
I give credit to anyone that jumps on their bike and tries to ride a distance that is challenging to themselves. It takes alot of perseverance and mental toughness to complete long distance rides and even more so, when you haven't properly trained or don't understand how to keep nourished and hydrated. Some of the people that I respect most as cyclists, are those that many would not consider "fit." Go over to the Clydesdale/Athena forum and read some of the stories of people that have lost hundreds of pounds through riding their bicycles. They have done centuries and doubles, but not many have done them in times that average 15-25 mph. Yet, I respect their accomplishment just as much (maybe even more) than the club rider that goes out on a century as a training ride and completes it in less than 5-6 hours.
StephenH
I recently rode my first "metric century". One issue there was that per the website "all routes close at 2:00 PM". Since the ride started at 9:00 AM, that gave me 5 hours to do it. And a big part of the challenge for me was trying to keep my speed up fast enough to fit within that time. If I could have started at, say, 7:00, it would have been a lot easier, and I could have taken 20 minute rest stops instead of 4 minute rest stops. I'm fairly confident that I could ride a hundred miles on flat ground with no wind. Whether I could do it in a set period of time on a specific course with whatever wind is blowing that day is a very different question. I'm hoping to have a go at it on the HHH this summer. I remember someone mentioning the riders that "will ride a 100 miles but take 8 hours to do it" and that's likely to be me.
"There are difficult centuries that involve alot of climbing and others that are on a much less difficult course." I've noticed people tend to assume the whole world is like their area, and so people in mountainous areas just sort of assume that a century has a gob of climbing involved. Here in north Texas, any climbing is just hills, and different routes have more or less. But I was looking at an 80 mile ride in Kingsville, and I'm not sure if there's a hill in that whole county. That makes riding a Century a very variable achievement.
StanSeven
Where you could get hurt by doing a century without being "bike fit" is in the repetitive strain injury category. If you have put in time on the bicycle prior to the century, you will have discovered if your saddle will be all right for a long distance and you will have discovered if your bicycle fit is right or not ... and you'll have time to fix the situation. If you are active in other ways, but don't do much riding, you could find yourself 40 miles into a century with a very, very sore butt, and a knee or ankle that is in a lot of pain.
Exactly. In addition knees, ankles, hips, etc. all work on the basis of opposing sets of muscles. Cycling taxes some of those groups but not all. So iof the buildup isn't steady and gradual, problems occur. In addition, overuse injuries happen when you subject muscles to a load they aren't use to. That's why the general rule is don't subject yourself in training to more than 10% of the prior weeks efforts
Machka
"There are difficult centuries that involve alot of climbing and others that are on a much less difficult course." I've noticed people tend to assume the whole world is like their area, and so people in mountainous areas just sort of assume that a century has a gob of climbing involved. Here in north Texas, any climbing is just hills, and different routes have more or less. But I was looking at an 80 mile ride in Kingsville, and I'm not sure if there's a hill in that whole county. That makes riding a Century a very variable achievement.
Very true ... in Manitoba, where I did my 6 hour centuries ... an overpass is considered quite a climb. It is as flat as a pancake out there. I have since moved to Alberta and my "fast" century time has increased to about 8 hours. The altitude is much higher than the Manitoba area, and the terrain is much hillier.
-----------------
InTheRain .... I assume the event you are talking about is the STP. What kind of terrain does that ride have? I've always imagined it to be quite mountainous.
InTheRain
Where you could get hurt by doing a century without being "bike fit" is in the repetitive strain injury category. If you have put in time on the bicycle prior to the century, you will have discovered if your saddle will be all right for a long distance and you will have discovered if your bicycle fit is right or not ... and you'll have time to fix the situation. If you are active in other ways, but don't do much riding, you could find yourself 40 miles into a century with a very, very sore butt, and a knee or ankle that is in a lot of pain.
I totally agree with you on this point Machka. However, I would hope that most people that attempt any distance ride would recognize these symptoms, and if it happens at 40 miles into a century ride, I would hope they would stop. There is no shame in starting something and then abandoning the ride to avoid injury. I'm sure that has happened to all of us on a training ride. I've short-cutted a planned route where my neck or shoulder has been sore and uncomfortable and the cycling has just exacerbated the condition. It can even happen if you think you have trained and prepared correctly. It just takes one night of sleeping in a funny position or an extended multi-hour session of posting on bike forums to get your neck and shoulder muscles tight before you even get on the bike. I think you still get on the bike though... give it a try.. if it goes away.. keep going.. if it keeps hurting, or gets worse, then stop or cut it short.
mattm
in a group? certainly. on the local Seattle-to-Portland ride you'll see people of all levels of fitness & cycling ability. sure, some of them bail, but most of them make it to Portland (two centuries back to back, or one double)
solo, however, would be a different story. that takes more training & fitness, as well as mental fortitude.
zac
Listen I didn't read all the response posts. But Machka: I am not talking about extreme condition riding. Please get away from that. I am not trying to pick a fight here. And to mention a brevet in in subzero temps is not what the OP is talking about, and neither am I. If anything, to mention that is elitist, as to even assume that people would even consider riding in those conditions. In all sincerity, hat's off to you, because I am sure I wouldn't even want to start that, let alone attempt to finish it.
The OP's post comes off as elitist in the fact that the OP claims to be 50-70 lbs over ideal weight and that riding a 10+ hour century is no big deal.
The point of my post is that any fit rider (and people who are fit certainly are not 50-70 lbs over ideal weight, there can be no serious discussion on that), can and should be able to ride at 75-80% of their max over a hard workout. This is not the same as sustained 80% MHR. This is more attuned to 80% of 80% but it is really not that either. This is not an opinion, it is a physiological fact (+/- a few) for the average in shape human being. I am not talking about people with disabilities, I am not talking about other impairments to performance.
IntheRain, I never said they should stay in an play video games, those are your words, and to imply that in my statement is a fallacy of your premise. I suggest you reread my post. I stated they should consider some other form of exercise that is less time consuming. I fail to see how that could be equated to playing video games, perhaps you can educate me. As we all know bicycling is a form of exercise that is very low impact. Consequently we have to spend much longer periods of time on a bike to get the same physical benefits available from other forms of exercise. As Machka would tell you (and I certainly dont want to put words in her mouth) there is so much more to riding a century than pedaling. Yes I am of the opinion that most people without some sort of moderate to serious impairment could probably "ride" a century in 10 hours. But they will be stopping to ease out neck and back pains, arm and hand and finger cramps, foot cramps, mental concentration issues. All of which have nothing to do with what most people associate with pedaling a bike. Those people unprepared for that amount of time in the saddle will suffer for it, some may even end up requiring muscle attention over the coming days.
There is no zac fit. I have ridden countless centuries both fast and slow. I have taken many a companion(s) on said rides. But to anyone who asks me what they need to do to prepare for a century and how do they know if they can ride one, my answer is simple. If you can comfortably ride 40 miles fast (for you) then you can ride a century (and the operative word here is) comfortably. If you are in shape and the course is not some extreme sort of challenge, then a target time is what I have said. This may involve several stops, that is fine. You know what, it works, I have yet to see someone not accomplish this. It may require a little pushing, but they get it done. Machka, you yourself even state that you can do 6 hrs. I am pretty sure over a tame course on a non-self supported ride, you could do much better without even trying hard.
zac
InTheRain
I recently rode my first "metric century". One issue there was that per the website "all routes close at 2:00 PM". Since the ride started at 9:00 AM, that gave me 5 hours to do it. And a big part of the challenge for me was trying to keep my speed up fast enough to fit within that time. If I could have started at, say, 7:00, it would have been a lot easier, and I could have taken 20 minute rest stops instead of 4 minute rest stops. I'm fairly confident that I could ride a hundred miles on flat ground with no wind. Whether I could do it in a set period of time on a specific course with whatever wind is blowing that day is a very different question. I'm hoping to have a go at it on the HHH this summer. I remember someone mentioning the riders that "will ride a 100 miles but take 8 hours to do it" and that's likely to be me.
"There are difficult centuries that involve alot of climbing and others that are on a much less difficult course." I've noticed people tend to assume the whole world is like their area, and so people in mountainous areas just sort of assume that a century has a gob of climbing involved. Here in north Texas, any climbing is just hills, and different routes have more or less. But I was looking at an 80 mile ride in Kingsville, and I'm not sure if there's a hill in that whole county. That makes riding a Century a very variable achievement.
Hey, even if you finish after the course closes, you still completed the distance - you still get credit and you can tell people that you finished the ride and that you did a metric century. (When I was younger, my parents would lock the door at midnight, but as long as I came home before the sun came up, I didn't get grounded for a week.) The one thing that does not make a century a "variable achievement" is that all the centuries that I know of are still at least 100 miles.
Machka
I totally agree with you on this point Machka. However, I would hope that most people that attempt any distance ride would recognize these symptoms, and if it happens at 40 miles into a century ride, I would hope they would stop. There is no shame in starting something and then abandoning the ride to avoid injury.
I would agree with that if the ride was an unsupported century ... one you're doing just for fun on your own. However, if it is a ride where you've paid money to go and do, then I would recommend training enough so that you feel you can finish the ride relatively comfortably. Otherwise you're just throwing your money away.
Incidentally, I hate the word training. To me, training implies a structured routine and I have a lot of difficulty with structured routines of any sort. So I never train for any of my rides. Instead, I ride my bicycle a lot. Sometimes I ride fast-ish, sometimes I ride casually. Sometimes I ride up and down hills, sometimes I ride into the wind. Sometimes I ride short distances, sometimes I ride long distances.
My advice to both you and your friends is to get out there and ride.
Machka
Machka, you yourself even state that you can do 6 hrs. I am pretty sure over a tame course on a non-self supported ride, you could do much better without even trying hard.
That 6-hour century (I did two of them) were supported centuries with about 150 riders on a dead flat course. I was in the best physical shape of my life, and I was riding them flat out to get that time. I highly doubt I could do better. Maybe if I were in my early 30s again, but that's not going to happen.
InTheRain
IntheRain, I never said they should stay in an play video games, those are your words, and to imply that in my statement is a fallacy of your premise. I suggest you reread my post. I stated they should consider some other form of exercise that is less time consuming. I fail to see how that could be equated to playing video games, perhaps you can educate me.
zac
Or.. perhaps you could educate me!... by pointing out where I mentioned video games??? You're right Zac, maybe I'm just to fat and unfit to be riding a bicycle. I should just go back to pumping iron and 300+ lb reps on the bench press. I hope I see you at the gym... maybe I can be a spotter for you.
zac
That is very definitely your goal ... and not mine. I ride for fun and for the challenge, not for fitness. If I get more fit in the process, all the better - it's like icing on the cake.
As it happens, my Dr and others classify me as "fit" based on various fitness tests ... but my heart specialist (who also thinks I'm "fit") has warned me against doing something as foolish as riding all day at 80% of my max because I have two damaged valves in my heart. So ... any fit rider "should" be able to ride all day at 80% of their max? NO, absolutely not. A blanket statement like that is not valid. We're all different ... we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
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.
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.
You were the one who said: 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."
zac
Unfortunately there will likely be people like zac at the century (if it is an organized century) who will attempt to make them feel embarrassed. However, if they finish a century in 8 to 10 hours, they should feel anything but embarrassment, they should be very proud of their accomplishment.
Talk about elitist, you don't even know me. What a blanket assumption!
I have a different philosophy than you do, and choose fitness as a goal to cycling, and have people seek me out, that have the same goal, but yet I am the elitist and ridiculous one?
zac
You were the one who said: 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."
Finish the sentence..."for a 40 mile ride."
EDIT can you ride 40 miles at 100% effort? I cant.
InTheRain
I would agree with that if the ride was an unsupported century ... one you're doing just for fun on your own. However, if it is a ride where you've paid money to go and do, then I would recommend training enough so that you feel you can finish the ride relatively comfortably. Otherwise you're just throwing your money away.
Some people have money to burn. I'd much rather that they be out there attempting to ride a century with me than sitting at the poker table drinking beers and eating burgers all day long. Hey, even if they only make it to that 40 mile point before they have to stop... I say, "good effort! You should just take it easy now and go get yourself a burger!" A lot of the century rides that I have been on have been very social events. Most of the people that start the rides, fully expect that they will be able to finish even though they have not trained (ridden there bicycle enough) to finish relatively comfortable. I can think of a lot worse places to "throw your money away" than on a supported bicycle ride.
Machka
Talk about elitist, you don't even know me. What a blanket assumption!
I have a different philosophy than you do, and choose fitness as a goal to cycling, and have people seek me out, that have the same goal, but yet I am the elitist and ridiculous one?
You were the one who said, "Riding a century in 10+ hours, is not exactly "riding" a century." which says to me that if someone finished a century in 10 hours you would be inclined to discount it. That's limited and elitist.
Throughout all the rest of your posts you've put qualifications on your statement ... you're not talking about hilly terrain, you're not talking about bad weather, you are not talking about anyone with any sort of impairment to performance. In other words ... given the perfect terrain, and perfect weather conditions, and perfect health (and of course, being fit, whatever that means) ... a person should be able to finish a century in about 6 to 6.5 hours. Is that what you're saying?
InTheRain
Talk about elitist, you don't even know me. What a blanket assumption!
I have a different philosophy than you do, and choose fitness as a goal to cycling, and have people seek me out, that have the same goal, but yet I am the elitist and ridiculous one?
Zac... you're barking up the wrong tree. Machka is very well respected cyclist and poster on the forums. While I am fairly confident that you are also an excellent cyclist, you have discounted, and maybe not even acknowledged, what some people that are amateur cyclists consider to be quite an accomplishment (a century) by saying that it's not really RIDING a century unless you do it in less than 6 - 6.5 hours. So yes, if you can do it in that time or less.. then in my book.. you're elite. But everyone else that finished behind you or ahead of you still RODE there bicycle for 100 miles.
Machka herself is someone that I would consider an elite rider. But I have never read a post of hers where she belittles the accomplishments and efforts of other people that enjoy cycling. She encourages people to improve and gives lots of helpful and wise advice. What we get from you is more on the lines of " If you can't do 100 miles in 6 hours, maybe you should find another activity to develop your fitness." So yeah, I think you have a few of us a little peeved.
InTheRain
This subject, and especailly the link to running a marathon, drives me crazy. Just about anyone with a little training can complete a century or do a marathon.
Others say what's important is to just finish. It might take you 12 hours. But if that's your goal, most people can do it.
It's like people say they "ran" a marathon. In reality, they walked most of it and finished in 8 hours.
I think you're just talking semantics here. If someone tells me that the "ran" a marathon, I assume they just completed it. Most people that finish in a time even under 5 hours didn't "run" it... they "jogged" alot of it, and maybe even walked. In endurance events, as long as the distance was covered and was self-powered I think you can say that you "ran" it even if you jogged or walked, or you "biked" it even if you stopped and ate lunch and sat on the grass for 20 minutes. As long as you didn't get into, or latch onto, a powered vehicle to cover the distance, your accomplishment is good with me.
zac
You were the one who said, "Riding a century in 10+ hours, is not exactly "riding" a century." which says to me that if someone finished a century in 10 hours you would be inclined to discount it. That's limited and elitist.
Throughout all the rest of your posts you've put qualifications on your statement ... you're not talking about hilly terrain, you're not talking about bad weather, you are not talking about anyone with any sort of impairment to performance. In other words ... given the perfect terrain, and perfect weather conditions, and perfect health (and of course, being fit, whatever that means) ... a person should be able to finish a century in about 6 to 6.5 hours. Is that what you're saying?
I've put the qualifications, simply because you are putting in the extremes. Unless the OP wants to qualify his post, I will assume he is talking about a standard citizen century. Those are, but for the miles, generally pretty tame, as far as conditions go. You bike (and I do too) in a different environment. While I don't go to your extremes (you are a pretty rare breed), those I think we can all safely assume, are not typical and are certainly not what the OP was talking about.
Yes, I did say that in my first sentence, and I immediately qualified it too with the marathon reference: I am amused by those who claim to have "run" the Boston Marathon in 6 hours. You can fast walk it at that pace. That is not running it, you may be jogging, but not running. There is a difference.
Likewise, with riding a bike. I have a different philosophy than you, about "riding," does that make it any less valid? Although, I didn't outright say it wasn't "riding." I did said, "not exactly riding" but that is nitpicking and I don't like to do that, so I will concede that I should have choosen better words. But I certainly will stand by what I have said.
I suppose we differ on our view of what "riding" is: Certainly, "coasting" downhill for 100 miles is going to cause the same upper body discomfort as pedaling for 100 miles (actually maybe less when pedaling), and technically "coasting" is a form of "riding." But would you call that the same "riding" as when you have to pedal to obtain forward motion? Because I certainly would not. Just as I don't consider soft pedaling the same as riding. I consider riding more as resistance to forward motion, when the body is exerting more than minimal effort to sustain forward motion. Believe me, I know there are numerous arguments to counter what I just wrote. And grant you that they are valid. I am just giving you my frame of reference, with respect to the OP's original post.
Now if the OP came on here and said he was a 65 year old grandad, and what should he expect at a century, my comment would have been different. In stead I have an OP who is overweight and says he can ride 140 miles his first time without trying; and that doing a century in 10 hours is no big deal. The first I call bull****, the second I hardly call riding, I think I could scooter my bike that fast over a hundred miles, I dont think that is too special, and nor do I think it is "riding."
zac
Or.. perhaps you could educate me!... by pointing out where I mentioned video games??? You're right Zac, maybe I'm just to fat and unfit to be riding a bicycle. I should just go back to pumping iron and 300+ lb reps on the bench press. I hope I see you at the gym... maybe I can be a spotter for you.
IntheRain, Apologies! I should have referenced CliftonGK, that's what I get for not quoting.
But you know, I am trying to stay on the subject of the OP, and not lead this discussion astray, with extreme examples. I agree with Machka, and her examples that a 6.5 hour century is nonsense given some of her stated conditions and abilities, but that is not what the OP is talking about. Yes, I made an assumption, but mine was much more logical than Machka's examples. If I am wrong, I invite the OP to better define the course parameters. I am pretty certain OP was not talking about a self supported heavy tour century at night in sleeting conditions with 15,000 feet of climbing either :D
And in that regard, what does bench pressing 300 lbs, which is pretty impressive, have to do with this post, please dont answer, I am just being light. ;)
vik
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 think the key is what you said about equipment that fits right. My concern for anyone who goes from very low, possibly inconsistent mileage to 160kms+ is injury. Many people ride bikes that are not well setup, but work okay on shorter rides. If you train up to a 160km ride you'll figure what is working and be able to fix it. If you go from 50kms to 160kms+ you may find out too late you have a problem when you are injured.
Another part of the equation is building up your body's ability to do similar movements for very long periods of time. Your bike may fit fine, but you can still get various repetitive strain injuries if you make huge jumps in mileage. Also nerve injuries from being very static on the bars.
The final aspect is knowing how to take care of your body on a long ride - drinking, eating, stretching, chaffing, dealing with hot/cold/wet weather, etc...
Like many things in life - what's possible and what is a good idea are two different things. Ultimately it is up to the individual rider to decide what level of effort they want to put into training for a long ride. For the most part they are the ones that will have to deal with consequences of their choices.
CliftonGK1
IntheRain, I never said they should stay in an play video games, those are your words, and to imply that in my statement is a fallacy of your premise. I suggest you reread my post. I stated they should consider some other form of exercise that is less time consuming. I fail to see how that could be equated to playing video games, perhaps you can educate me.
Zac... you're barking up the wrong tree. Machka is very well respected cyclist and poster on the forums. While I am fairly confident that you are also an excellent cyclist, you have discounted, and maybe not even acknowledged, what some people that are amateur cyclists consider to be quite an accomplishment (a century) by saying that it's not really RIDING a century unless you do it in less than 6 - 6.5 hours. So yes, if you can do it in that time or less.. then in my book.. you're elite. But everyone else that finished behind you or ahead of you still RODE there bicycle for 100 miles.
Machka herself is someone that I would consider an elite rider. But I have never read a post of hers where she belittles the accomplishments and efforts of other people that enjoy cycling. She encourages people to improve and gives lots of helpful and wise advice. What we get from you is more on the lines of " If you can't do 100 miles in 6 hours, maybe you should find another activity to develop your fitness." So yeah, I think you have a few of us a little peeved.
IntheRain, I realize Machka is a well respected cyclist, no doubt. But likewise, I have several hundred–thousands of those things we all call miles under my wheels too. I never suggested what you are saying in your second to last sentence, nor did I imply it. I am not talking to all cyclists: I am talking to the OP. The same OP who doesn't think that "riding" 140 miles his first time out is a big deal, and thinks anyone can do 10+ for a century. Is he not the elitist...think about it. He is the one saying a fit rider should be able to do that, and why should anyone train. I merely countered with, that people who do train to ride a century, usually expect to do much better than that. And in my experience, many do do much better than that. Thus my comment that 10+ is not what many who have ridden a century (this is ride time now, not elapsed) would consider impressive for a fit rider.
Yes, of course there are people who ride for fun, that is wonderful, it is awesome, and I encourage everyone is know and see to do that. But the OP is not one of them, again go reread his post.
Just to mix things up, I disagree with your response re the differences of running, jogging a marathon. Just finishing (combo of walking, jogging, running), while an accomplishment, yes, is not the same as running the entire distance. If I am misunderstanding your response, please tell me. But as with walking, jogging and running, I think there is a fundamental difference for the typical fit rider: between coasting, soft pedaling, pedaling, and hammering. They are different levels of intensity, and I dont think someone coasting or soft pedaling for 100 miles is all that impressive a physical feat. Does that mean I would discourage them from doing it? No, I love people to ride. But if fitness is the goal, then 10+ hours on a bike is not going to get you the same intensity of training as, say even in your example of bench pressing 120 lbs. for 10 reps repeated 5 times over 30 minutes, now would it?
zac
Mr. Beanz
And in that regard, what does bench pressing 300 lbs, which is pretty impressive, have to do with this post, please dont answer, I am just being light. ;)
Absloutely nothing! I've benched 330, done a 5:45 solo century and a 7:40/7:10 ride time century with 10,000 ft of climbing!:D
Maybe the OP is underestimating his fitness level. I did. When I first started riding, my buds and I did 40 mile rides at a hard pace. We signed up for our first century and ended up with a 5:30 time (Solvang). I agree, anyone who does a 40 miler can do 100. I've said it many times before but get negative comments from others that say I expect too much. I guess that's what you get with a 'You can do it' attitude!:p
IMO, a century is a century whether it's 5.5 or 10.5. But there will come a point when the 10 hour rider will want or feel that he can do the 5.5! Just the competitive nature in MOST of us:D
InTheRain
IntheRain, Apologies! I should have referenced CliftonGK, that's what I get for not quoting.
But you know, I am trying to stay on the subject of the OP, and not lead this discussion astray, with extreme examples. I agree with Machka, and her examples that a 6.5 hour century is nonsense given some of her stated conditions and abilities, but that is not what the OP is talking about. Yes, I made an assumption, but mine was much more logical than Machka's examples. If I am wrong, I invite the OP to better define the course parameters. I am pretty certain OP was not talking about a self supported heavy tour century at night in sleeting conditions with 15,000 feet of climbing either :D
And in that regard, what does bench pressing 300 lbs, which is pretty impressive, have to do with this post, please dont answer, I am just being light. ;)
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.)
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. That would be like me saying that someone that cannot bench press 175 percent of their body weight isn't really doing weight training. It's just not true... my first weightlifting competition in high school, I could only bench press 50 lbs. I didn't give up and go find another activity that wasn't so strenuous - instead I persevered to the point where I could compete and place in the top 5 on a regular basis.
If we all considered your criteria for riding a bicycle to be "the word," many of us would have become discouraged enough and already quit trying to ride centuries. We would all be playing video games (which, I must admit, I much worse at than cycling.)
crtreedude
Though someone can do a century with no prep, I am not sure it is a good idea. Much better if someone gets a few small rides in to dial in their bike and themselves.
I did ride a 60 mile charity ride once with a character who prepared the night before by drinking two six packs - not exactly a great idea. He was seriously overweight. I was amazed how well he did - perhaps he was in such pain from the hangover that he didn't notice any other pain... :lol:
crtreedude
By the way - though someone might be able to ride a century without preparing - I suggest during certain times, it would be suicide. Here in Costa Rica on a sunny day - I don't know if I want to be out in the tropical sun that long. Honestly, I have done 80 kilometers here (20 was rock / gravel road) but that was on a rainy day. Heat stroke can be really dangerous, and it is more likely if a person thinks that the suffering is just because they are out of shape.
Mr. Beanz
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.)
Like I said before, I think you are underestimating you fitness level. I'm 45, and did a 12,000ft climbing century back in May. My faster time was 3 years ago at 220 but I didn't train hard for this ride like I did back then. The ride I did was no joke and I know several cyclist that would not be able to complete it within the time limits, big or small.
I considered myself out of shape but after doing the ride, I felt good about my level of fitness. Wasn't at the same level as 3 years ago without the training but still consider myself fit.:D
BTW, last time I took a bodyfat test, I registered at 29% borderline obese at 6'1 220lbs. Goes to show how wrong the standards can be:D
Pinyon
All this "elitist" talk on here....whew. There is a large population of guys around these parts that won't talk to you at all, unless you've pulled a few sub 5-hour, total time, century rides. Basically, you have to qualify to ride in time cut-off century rides, or you are not worthy.
They scoff equally at shorter distance road racers, super-long distance randy-riders, etc. Just like the road races look down on everyone else, just like the stump-jumping crowd looks down on everyone else...
It is all silly to me. Ride and be happy. Geesh.
InTheRain
Like I said before, I think you are underestimating you fitness level. I'm 45, and did a 12,000ft climbing century back in May. My faster time was 3 years ago at 220 but I didn't train hard for this ride like I did back then. The ride I did was no joke and I know several cyclist that would not be able to complete it within the time limits, big or small.
I considered myself out of shape but after doing the ride, I felt good about my level of fitness. Wasn't at the same level as 3 years ago without the training but still consider myself fit.:D
BTW, last time I took a bodyfat test, I registered at 29% borderline obese at 6'1 220lbs. Goes to show how wrong the standards can be:D
I think alot of people underestimate their fitness. I think there are alot of people that could complete a century without much bicycle training. People that are active - i.e. run on a regular basis, play basketball or tennis a 3-4 times a week, hike and climb on a regular basis - I think many of these people could complete a century without much cycling training (i'm assuming that they all know how to ride a bike fairly well.) In my opening statement, I was trying to point out, that many people are already fit enough to do a century without a serious cycling training plan. However, many people in this category, would not be able to finish in 6.5 hours as suggested by Zac - and I disagree, if they completed the distance, they "RODE" a century... not merely pedaled their bicycle.
The BMI charts say that I'm obese (32.3 BMI.) However, even if I can get to my ideal weight of 175, I'm still considered overweight. My last bodyfat test put me at 21%... so if I lost all my fat that would put me at 177.75 lbs and 0% fat ... but I would still be considered overweight. Looks like I'll never be fit, and I'll never be fast.