Back in the days of our Operation: Ultra blogcasts, someone threw out the question:
Which is harder: Ironman or 100 Miler?
I think this was even pre-50-miler days. Since my 100 Miler husband and my recent post Ironman self couldn’t come to a consensus, we proposed a bet:
IF I do 100 mile run, THEN RunLong will do an Ironman.
The idea of 100 seemed SO outrageous then. I’m sure D thought it was a pretty safe bet to make.
In fact, I probably would have never had the guts to retry it after Graveyard if Kim hadn’t proposed Rocky 2013. It was kind of a “if not now, then when” attitude.
Since I am the only one in our family who has done both *clears throat*, my only opinion is:
- They are both challenging.
- Ironman is higher intensity than the 100 miler.
- 100 miles on foot takes longer to cover.
- My body made it through the 100 mile run much better than it did Ironman. That probably speaks more to a couple years more training base and a better nutrition/hydration plan.
- Training for either is uber time consuming, although I think the long rides you do in preparation for Ironman take the cake as far as eating up your schedule.
- 100 miles takes more faith. You cover only half the distance in training at one time. In IM training, you come much closer to covering the full distance of each discipline multiple times, even if you never put it all together until race day.
Now, shouldn’t my more intelligent half be forced to offer an opinion? Will RunLong do an IM? I gave him an out. He doesn’t really like the triathlon because of the swim…and the bike. He’s purely a runner. The last thing I want him to do is spend 9 months training for something his heart really isn’t into.
In response to my offering to let him off the hook, he sold his bike. So, there you have it. Is Ironman tougher than the 100 mile endurance run?
Maybe actions speak louder than words.