which is harder - Iron Man or 100 Mile Run? - Triathlon Week

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

minor war going on in the ULTRA list over whice is harder.

Any thoughts?

I've done a 100 miler and it's damn hard - never tried and IM but
suspect it's a bit easier (to just finish before cutoff).

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"Phil" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:8bd8dc13.0405140631.6770e240@posting.google.c om...
> minor war going on in the ULTRA list over whice is harder.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I've done a 100 miler and it's damn hard - never tried and IM but
> suspect it's a bit easier (to just finish before cutoff).
>
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Different game. Different training. Different Persona.

You could ask an equally challenging question:

Who is more fit: A pro cyclist, A pro Runner, A pro Swimmer, A pro Triathlete,
or A pro weight lifter.

It's an easy anser if you can define "fit".

-CF

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

The the run would be alot harder...for me anyway.

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Phil) wrote:

> minor war going on in the ULTRA list over whice is harder.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I've done a 100 miler and it's damn hard - never tried and IM but
> suspect it's a bit easier (to just finish before cutoff).

Well, let's see: 26.2 miles cancel out. That leaves 2.4 swim + 112 bike
vs. 74.8-mile run. I'd take the swim and bike as easier in general
terms. This is compounded by the fact that for the 100-mile run, you
have to do the same thing the whole time.

I'd think the run would be tougher.

Of course, I'd bet you run into the general psychological phenomena of
people who've done one thinking the other one is tougher, since the
known is less daunting than the unknown. The real question is therefore
"What do people think who've actually DONE both?"

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

I can't imagine doing a 100 mile run. I can imagine doing an IM. For me,
it is a no brainer.

Curt

"Phil" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:8bd8dc13.0405140631.6770e240@posting.google.c om...
> minor war going on in the ULTRA list over whice is harder.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I've done a 100 miler and it's damn hard - never tried and IM but
> suspect it's a bit easier (to just finish before cutoff).
>
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"Phil" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:8bd8dc13.0405140631.6770e240@posting.google.c om

> minor war going on in the ULTRA list over whice is harder.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
Having done IM 4 times and WEs 100 twice.... WS 100 is harder. focuses
on one
sport with difficult terrain... four marathons and not one. One shot.
Harder on feet. Longer mental push.
Ken Burres

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

I've done both and there is no question that a 100 mile run is more difficult
than an Ironman. For me it's 24 hours of using the same muscles, with the
pounding of running added to it vs. 12 hours of using 3 different sets of
muscles. Interestingly enough training for an Ironman is more difficult and
takes much more time than training for a 100 miles run.

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"Roger Moore" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<40a4fb7e$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>...
> Having done an IM, I would think a 100 mile run would be more difficult --
> and certainly take longer. That's an awful lot of painful running miles at
> one time. I can't imagine how your legs feel the days after that effort. And
> how the heck do you train for one of those?
>
> AB
>

The medical term for post 100 mile run legs is they HURT LIKE HELL!
Actually the whole body is sort of 'off' for a while.

Training for me is just lots of slow running - to finish it's more of
a huge mental challenge.

htttp://runners4bush2004.rantweb.com

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (TriRClark) wrote in message news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>...
> I've done both and there is no question that a 100 mile run is more difficult
> than an Ironman. For me it's 24 hours of using the same muscles, with the
> pounding of running added to it vs. 12 hours of using 3 different sets of
> muscles. Interestingly enough training for an Ironman is more difficult and
> takes much more time than training for a 100 miles run.

See Harold...

That's exactly what the guy at FleetFeet said...

Just because the man's from Boulder doesn't mean he's a strung out
hippy...

Hell most of Boulder is yuppy at this point except for the
trustafarian CU students (maybe 15% of total student population). If
you want to talk about hippies = Humboldt State University in Arcata,
CA and anyone from Vermont.

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> ,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Becca) wrote:

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (TriRClark) wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>...
> > I've done both and there is no question that a 100 mile run is more
> > difficult
> > than an Ironman. For me it's 24 hours of using the same muscles, with the
> > pounding of running added to it vs. 12 hours of using 3 different sets of
> > muscles. Interestingly enough training for an Ironman is more difficult
> > and
> > takes much more time than training for a 100 miles run.
>
> See Harold...
>
> That's exactly what the guy at FleetFeet said...
>
> Just because the man's from Boulder doesn't mean he's a strung out
> hippy...
>
> Hell most of Boulder is yuppy at this point except for the
> trustafarian CU students (maybe 15% of total student population). If
> you want to talk about hippies = Humboldt State University in Arcata,
> CA and anyone from Vermont.

I'm not sure to what you're referring, except possibly for my
tongue-in-cheek "joint" post.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

Harold Buck <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com>...
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> ,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Becca) wrote:
>
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (TriRClark) wrote in message
> > news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>...
> > > I've done both and there is no question that a 100 mile run is more
> > > difficult
> > > than an Ironman. For me it's 24 hours of using the same muscles, with the
> > > pounding of running added to it vs. 12 hours of using 3 different sets of
> > > muscles. Interestingly enough training for an Ironman is more difficult
> > > and
> > > takes much more time than training for a 100 miles run.
> >
> > See Harold...
> >
> > That's exactly what the guy at FleetFeet said...
> >
> > Just because the man's from Boulder doesn't mean he's a strung out
> > hippy...
> >
> > Hell most of Boulder is yuppy at this point except for the
> > trustafarian CU students (maybe 15% of total student population). If
> > you want to talk about hippies = Humboldt State University in Arcata,
> > CA and anyone from Vermont.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure to what you're referring, except possibly for my
> tongue-in-cheek "joint" post.

ding, ding, ding - we have a winner...

>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

I think without question the 100 Mile is harder, both mentally and
physically. While I have not done a 100 miler, I have completed a 24 hour
race covering 86+ miles. I have also finsihed the Ironman.

The thrashing on the legs during a 24 hour--or 100 miler--demands a new
level of pain tolerance and acceptance from your body. I never reached that
domain during the Ironman. The interesting thing is that the training for
the Ironman is 10 times more difficult than training for an ultra. My
longest run prior to the 24 hour race was only a marathon.

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"JAC" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> I think without question the 100 Mile is harder, both mentally and
> physically. While I have not done a 100 miler, I have completed a 24 hour
> race covering 86+ miles. I have also finsihed the Ironman.
>
> The thrashing on the legs during a 24 hour--or 100 miler--demands a new
> level of pain tolerance and acceptance from your body. I never reached
that
> domain during the Ironman. The interesting thing is that the training for
> the Ironman is 10 times more difficult than training for an ultra. My
> longest run prior to the 24 hour race was only a marathon.
>
>

<Ignorance On>

I have yet to complete an Ironman or a 100 miler so pardon my ignorance on a
few things. I would think logically speaking the Ironman would be easier as
it is easier to train your body to withstand the effects of an Ironman. Just
from reading some of the posts here and other places, it appears to me that
people who train for a 100 miler, never even come close to getting their
body adapted for that kind of race. I mean, we train for Ironman races and
usually at some point in our training we will actually do most or all of the
distances needed at some point. Whereas, I doubt anyone training for a 100
miler actually does a 100 miler in training. There may be a few, however, I
doubt too many. So your body would never get to the point where it could
tolerate or make a 100 mile run "easy". Although I also doubt any amount of
training could get someone ready for that sort of race. I would have to say
the 100 miler would be much harder physically for certain. I will have to
wait and see about the mental aspect ;)

<Ignorance Off>

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"Mark" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<c8dp6h$c3p$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>...
> "JAC" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> > I think without question the 100 Mile is harder, both mentally and
> > physically. While I have not done a 100 miler, I have completed a 24 hour
> > race covering 86+ miles. I have also finsihed the Ironman.
> >
> > The thrashing on the legs during a 24 hour--or 100 miler--demands a new
> > level of pain tolerance and acceptance from your body. I never reached
> that
> > domain during the Ironman. The interesting thing is that the training for
> > the Ironman is 10 times more difficult than training for an ultra. My
> > longest run prior to the 24 hour race was only a marathon.
> >
> >
>
> <Ignorance On>
>
> I have yet to complete an Ironman or a 100 miler so pardon my ignorance on a
> few things. I would think logically speaking the Ironman would be easier as
> it is easier to train your body to withstand the effects of an Ironman.

I think you misunderstand why it's hard to train for an Ironman. It's
hard to train because you have to make time to train for all 3 sports.
To train for a 100 mi run - you just need to make time to run. Check
the post about training for a marathon as training for a 100 miler.

Just
> from reading some of the posts here and other places, it appears to me that
> people who train for a 100 miler, never even come close to getting their
> body adapted for that kind of race.

Sure - you can't train for all of it...so it's easier to train. You
can and must (should) train for all of an IM.

<snip>

Whereas, I doubt anyone training for a 100
> miler actually does a 100 miler in training.

which is why the 100 miler in the end is harder. Not harder to train
for. Harder to do.

There may be a few, however, I
> doubt too many. So your body would never get to the point where it could
> tolerate or make a 100 mile run "easy". Although I also doubt any amount of
> training could get someone ready for that sort of race. I would have to say
> the 100 miler would be much harder physically for certain. I will have to
> wait and see about the mental aspect ;)
>
> <Ignorance Off>

08-23-2004, 06:39 PM

"Becca" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] m...
> "Mark" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<c8dp6h$c3p$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>...
> > "JAC" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> > > I think without question the 100 Mile is harder, both mentally and
> > > physically. While I have not done a 100 miler, I have completed a 24
hour
> > > race covering 86+ miles. I have also finsihed the Ironman.
> > >
> > > The thrashing on the legs during a 24 hour--or 100 miler--demands a
new
> > > level of pain tolerance and acceptance from your body. I never reached
> > that
> > > domain during the Ironman. The interesting thing is that the training
for
> > > the Ironman is 10 times more difficult than training for an ultra. My
> > > longest run prior to the 24 hour race was only a marathon.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <Ignorance On>
> >
> > I have yet to complete an Ironman or a 100 miler so pardon my ignorance
on a
> > few things. I would think logically speaking the Ironman would be easier
as
> > it is easier to train your body to withstand the effects of an Ironman.
>
> I think you misunderstand why it's hard to train for an Ironman. It's
> hard to train because you have to make time to train for all 3 sports.
> To train for a 100 mi run - you just need to make time to run. Check
> the post about training for a marathon as training for a 100 miler.
>

I was just talking about what is actually harder to race in this instance.
Sorry should have clarified.

>
> Just
> > from reading some of the posts here and other places, it appears to me
that
> > people who train for a 100 miler, never even come close to getting their
> > body adapted for that kind of race.
>
> Sure - you can't train for all of it...so it's easier to train. You
> can and must (should) train for all of an IM.

I suppose I should have made that more clear. I would agree it is much
harder to train for an Ironman as it is to train for a 100 miler. No doubt
about that. :)

>
> <snip>
>
> Whereas, I doubt anyone training for a 100
> > miler actually does a 100 miler in training.
>
> which is why the 100 miler in the end is harder. Not harder to train
> for. Harder to do.
>
> There may be a few, however, I
> > doubt too many. So your body would never get to the point where it could
> > tolerate or make a 100 mile run "easy". Although I also doubt any amount
of
> > training could get someone ready for that sort of race. I would have to
say
> > the 100 miler would be much harder physically for certain. I will have
to
> > wait and see about the mental aspect ;)
> >
> > <Ignorance Off>