|
In response to
"Speaking of training, I just fundamentally don't get how people build up to marathons"
by
Reagen
|
and from the other side, bike distances are almost incomprehensible to those on foot
Posted by
JD (aka Jason Dean)
Jul 13 '20, 08:05
|
Excluding overachievers like Dano, runners build up the marathon to be like, uh, getting to the top of the running ' mountain'?
A more realistic benchmark should be half that. The 22K or more commonly known half marathon. I've come to loathe that 'half' description. However, 13.1 miles / 22K is further than nearly anybody will ever go on foot.
But 26 miles is barely worth the getting ready effort for a cyclist. Putting on the shorts, shoes, probably skip the water bottle at that distance but a marathon isn't even 30K. Runners are looking at 2 and half hours to twice that time and that's an end all be all. Cyclists...It's kind of a good start.
So let's look it at the other way. Cyclists have their metric century and centuries. Runners can't even with that. 100K and 100 Miles. Like really? But there's routinely, well there was, events of that distance.
|
Responses:
|
