Could you ride 100 miles tomorrow?

EKE_38BPM

I was chatting to some non-cyclists in the Morpeth (I know, how inclusive of me) and said that I could probably cycle 100 miles tomorrow without any training, just relying on my base fitness.

They thought I was bragging/talking b0llocks, but I believe that I could. I'm not talking about setting any speed records, but I'm 99% certain I could do it.
I base this on building up to a 90 mile solo training ride, then a ~140 mile ride (L2B return), about the same (or more) on the Dunwich Dynamo and generally riding regular 50+ mile rides (3-4 a month).

So, could you do a century (imperial) tomorrow?

_Brun_

Yes

_Brun_

Cheers for the pint by the way, I'd have returned the favour but you looked otherwise engaged.

lardboy

Not with my knees. They give up after 20 miles.

PBo

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I was chatting to some very attractive non-cyclists in the Morpeth

_Brun_ wrote:

Cheers for the pint by the way, I'd have returned the favour but you looked on the pull

FTFY

roger_merriman

yes no problem, but most people could of active age.

my wife's granny when she was a young lady ride with friends from london to brighton and back, they weren't cyclists just normal folk, yes they where knackered but doable.

shm_uk

No, I'm busy

acidstrato

yes no problem

most moderately fit people could. how long it would take is a different story. being able to ride 100 miles without stopping and at a good pace requires the right type of legs and mentality

Agent57

Wouldn't be setting any records, but yes, I think I could. It might depend upon the terrain to some extent; 100 miles over all the Lake District passes being somewhat tougher than 100 miles around Kent, probably.

essex-commuter

I would confidently say I could ride 200 miles without training for it. May sound like bragging but it's not. Rode 160 a few weeks ago, was tired after but that was it.

EKE_38BPM

I agree that most active people could do 100 miles in a day, but, boy would they suffer the next day. I think most of the people on here would have the benefit of using the cycling muscles more than non-cyclists, so thoses muscles are stronger/looser and recovery would be much easier.

Also, we've developed techniques to make the recovery that much easier. Recovery rides, hot/cold/hot/cold/hot showers, good nutrition before, during and after the ride etc
A non-cyclist jumping on a BSO in jeans and thin-soled trainers would really suffer.

Casbar

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I agree that most active people could do 100 miles in a day, but, boy would they suffer the next day. I think most of the people on here would have the benefit of using the cycling muscles more than non-cyclists, so thoses muscles are stronger/looser and recovery would be much easier.

Also, we've developed techniques to make the recovery that much easier. Recovery rides, hot/cold/hot/cold/hot showers, good nutrition before, during and after the ride etc
A non-cyclist jumping on a BSO in jeans and thin-soled trainers would really suffer.

...and would probably have to walk up Ditchling Beacon ( or any steep hill for that matter )..... Would that then count as a completed ride ?

ketsbaia

I voted yes, but I don't think it's as easy as some are making out.

Depends on the route profile as well. Do you mean 100 miles in Norfolk or 100 miles in Haute Savoie?

Radioactiveman

A flat ton would be easy. A hilly ton would be more challenging. Not much flat stuff round here

gbsahne001

Was riding 100s most weekends until the family came back but I'm guessing the 175miles I during the week would probably be classed as training

tailwindhome

Yes, but then most reasonable active people could.

Most non cyclists over estimate how difficult cycling is...that's why they drive everywhere.

I also think I could do a Marathon, I'd walk most of the way and it would take ~ 10 hours.

But I could still do it.

suzyb

tbh I'm not sure I wouldn't abandon before reaching 100 miles. My neck starts aching on long distance rides and 100 miles is a long distance.

desweller

Yes, but given how inactive I've been since getting to London it would be slooooow. Or, slower, rather, since I'm quite slow anyway.

A lot of the challenge is in your head, as with so many things. I was shot after doing my first 100km. The extra 40 miles were comparatively easy to add as I had a much better idea of what to expect and what not to do (feeding and drinking properly, mainly).

EKE_38BPM

How about some criteria:
Profile: Some hills, but not mountainous. Walking up a hill is a fail. Think L2B return.
Time: Around the 9 hour mark (including any food and pee breaks).

That sounds reasonable to me. An ~11mph average speed for 9 hours, on hilly terrain with downs as well as ups.

For comparison, DD (~120 miles) took me about 11 hours. It was in the dark and there were many pub stops and food stops. That is an average of ~11mph under nowhere near optimal conditions and it wasn't too bad. With less pub and food stops you could probably take at least 2 hours off that time without me actually riding any faster.

Pokerface

I could 99 miles. But no more than that.

MrChuck

TailWindHome wrote:

Yes, but then most reasonable active people could.

Most non cyclists over estimate how difficult cycling is...that's why they drive everywhere.

I also think I could do a Marathon, I'd walk most of the way and it would take ~ 10 hours.

But I could still do it.

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

Corporate Camper

I think I could do it.

I don't cycle very much, I'm not fit and I weigh 19 stone, but I still think I could do it.

At the start of the month I did a 62 mile Sportive with next to no training before hand, it went OK and I finished in a reasonable time (for a fat bloke) somewhere around 13-14mph average.

The biggest "make or break" factor is mental; I said at the start of the summer that I would do it, so I did (I also said I'd train for it, but I didn't)

EKE_38BPM

MrChuck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Yes, but then most reasonable active people could.

Most non cyclists over estimate how difficult cycling is...that's why they drive everywhere.

I also think I could do a Marathon, I'd walk most of the way and it would take ~ 10 hours.

But I could still do it.

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

So Eddie Izzard didn't do 43 marathons in 51 days?

MrChuck

EKE_38BPM wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Yes, but then most reasonable active people could.

Most non cyclists over estimate how difficult cycling is...that's why they drive everywhere.

I also think I could do a Marathon, I'd walk most of the way and it would take ~ 10 hours.

But I could still do it.

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

So Eddie Izzard didn't do 43 marathons in 51 days?

Dunno, but I always thought a marathon is about running for 26 miles (which would be very difficult for most people), not covering 26 miles on foot (which most people could do much more easily).

That's not to knock Eddie Izzrad though, that sort of total distance in 51 days is an amazing effort.

desweller

EKE_38BPM wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Yes, but then most reasonable active people could.

Most non cyclists over estimate how difficult cycling is...that's why they drive everywhere.

I also think I could do a Marathon, I'd walk most of the way and it would take ~ 10 hours.

But I could still do it.

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

So Eddie Izzard didn't do 43 marathons in 51 days?

That's hardly a representative example, is it? There are always exceptions. But, in general, if a fit and healthy person is walking all the hills and taking great big 30-minute breaks every 30 miles on a one-off 100-mile bike ride then, come on, they're not really meeting the challenge are they? You have to be honest with yourself. The requirements for running 26 miles are significantly greater than for walking that distance.

salsarider79

Two days ago, I rode 78miles, yesterday, about 6 miles with my partner, today about 74miles and tomorrow am planning somewhere about the 100mile marker. Our club runs often hit 70-80miles and I have a 10mile ride to and from, so often do touch 90ish+ miles. Having a good week so far....Must be a good boy and keep it up for the winter.


Ok, stop sniggering you at the back. I didn't mean it like that.

lastant

Original question? Yep, confident that most people that ride even rarely could do a century ride over the course of a day. Yes, it might take from sunrise to sunset for some, but they could do it.

In the same sense, I'm convinced most people could cover the marathon distance without realising it...

MrChuck wrote:

Dunno, but I always thought a marathon is about running for 26 miles (which would be very difficult for most people), not covering 26 miles on foot (which most people could do much more easily).

...although I sort of agree with this too. Decided I wanted to do a marathon a couple of years ago. Now I'm not a runner, never have been, and at that point my cycling was no more than perhaps fifty miles a week at the most and certainly not every week.

My first ever run for the sake of running (as opposed to chasing a football etc., not that I did that any more than at five-a-side once a week) was on January 12th 2008, I followed a twelve-week training plan (although not too rigidly, missed a good few long distance runs) andI ran the London Marathon on April 12th the same year and finished with a time just shy of 5hrs 28mins after picking up an injury 16miles in and more or less 'power' walking the last ten miles, bar the last half mile which in my head I ran with the grace of Usain Bolt...lol.

So, my point I guess is that most challenges that people baulk at and automatically think are unachievable are actually within their grasp if they're willing put their mind to it.

Oddjob62

Yeah why not.... gears though this time

EDIT: while i think of it EKE have you built your FG yet?

EKE_38BPM

Technically, when you are running, you are momentarily airbourne. When you are walking, you are always in contact with the ground. Eddie Izzard was shuffling along, so he did all of those marathons, but he didn't really run them. I think we can all agree with that.
Cycling is a bit different though. As long as there is only your tyres on the road and you are in motion, you are cycling. Walking up a hill isn't cycling.
I must admit though, coming back from Brighton, the pee breaks and map checks became longer and more frequent. Nothing like 30 mins though.

Oddjob. Just need to choose the wheels and put it together. Should have it built around the end of the month. I really need to pull my finger out and get it done before the weather gets any worse.

stuaff

Yes. I've done four 100+ days so far, including two back-to-back a fortnight ago, and a 141 mile day back in July. I did 85 miles last night/this morning, plus a few miles to and from railway stations to take it to 93, and with a few more miles later on, that will be a fifth.

Big Wib

yes I could do it - not sure how much fun it would be but that depends on the criteria.

I did the Etape Caledonia 4 weeks after a marathon and with only 1 training ride & last week I did a half marathon after not doing any running for 2 months (it wasn't fun and I had to sit down for a while rather than collapse - but i did it)

not sure it sounds any less stupid when I type it