Poll

Which is more difficult an open marathon or a full ironman

Marathon
0 (0%)
Ironman
3 (100%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Author Topic: Marathon versus ironman  (Read 8191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Marathon versus ironman
« on: December 29, 2017, 12:30:29 PM »
On another board it was HIM versus marathon...which I believe to be a no brainer. 

Even if you did neither, either, or both.  Curious what a running group thinks compared to a tri group

Offline offended by everything

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 3088
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2017, 01:31:24 PM »
All things considered I think a full IM would be more difficult. The percentage of the general population capable of a marathon is likely > than that capable of a 140.6. There are ways to frame the question to make it closer mostly to do with intensity but I'll leave that for another poster. And you're still going to have to tackle the issue of the marathon at the end of the IM vs. "just a marathon".

Offline offended by everything

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 3088
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2017, 01:40:40 PM »
Further reflection - I'm guessing that you believe a HIM is easier than a marathon which I find interesting. Does that conclusion imply the intensity you would run a marathon and therefore the toll that it would exact would be greater than the variety and bike segment of the HIM which you find less taxing?

The other thing that would factor into an individuals assessment is the swim which would stop many before they even got started.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2017, 02:14:50 PM »
Further reflection - I'm guessing that you believe a HIM is easier than a marathon which I find interesting. Does that conclusion imply the intensity you would run a marathon and therefore the toll that it would exact would be greater than the variety and bike segment of the HIM which you find less taxing?

The other thing that would factor into an individuals assessment is the swim which would stop many before they even got started.

Yes, maybe I shouldn't have made that statement.

I kind of didn't want to weigh in..but darn no votes.

And I agree with all your assessments 100%... and yet,  wonder if we come to opposite conclusions...


Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2017, 02:17:57 PM »
I'm just gonna recuse myself, here

No, not allowed.  I am interested in what you think.   


Which way do you think female triathletes are swaying?

Offline Arrojo

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 30567
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2017, 02:23:50 PM »
A marathon is 26.2 miles of running. A full Ironman is that plus a shitload of bicycling and swimming, correct?  What am I missing?
I would get drunk on Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney.

Offline offended by everything

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 3088
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2017, 02:27:22 PM »
Yes, maybe I shouldn't have made that statement.

I kind of didn't want to weigh in..but darn no votes.

And I agree with all your assessments 100%... and yet,  wonder if we come to opposite conclusions...

We don't disagree but I don't tri so my opinion needs to be discounted accordingly. My sister and BIL are active triathletes and would mirror your sentiments. Particularly as it relates to the bike segment which they and a Kona experienced colleague of mine both relate has a much less taxing impact vs the run.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2017, 05:33:18 PM »
A marathon is 26.2 miles of running. A full Ironman is that plus a shitload of bicycling and swimming, correct?  What am I missing?


I just think the marathon is so much more intense.   

The consensus of the tri people ( woman's group) thought an open marathon is harder.   I lean that way.   One woman seemed upset and said that we must be just finishing ironmans if we think that way.   

I dunno.   Maybe a lot is mindset.  I never gave room for mind lapse or mistakes when I did marathons.  Ironman it's expected and my day is more about flexibility in my plans  or maybe, some of us just don't give it our all.

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Q
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2017, 09:55:52 PM »
BQ is JV level. Try sub 2:50, 2:40, 2:30, 2:20.

i.e., I would say a sub 15 5K (17 for women) is tougher to do than just finishing a marathon (or BQing) or dong a tri.
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline Rochey

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2017, 11:06:56 PM »
BQ is JV level. Try sub 2:50, 2:40, 2:30, 2:20.

i.e., I would say a sub 15 5K (17 for women) is tougher to do than just finishing a marathon (or BQing) or dong a tri.

Huh.

IM hands down. I’m not brave enough to ever try one.

Offline Ice Cream

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 19224
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2017, 08:05:31 AM »
I did 2 HIM in preparation for an IM.  I gave up on the idea of IM.  HIM was tougher than a marathon, in my experience.  Even the training for HIM takes much more time.

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2017, 09:34:03 AM »
Huh.

IM hands down. I’m not brave enough to ever try one.

The original question is loaded by not being qualified. At what level are you talking about? I suppose if you are talking about a relatively same level of performance then the IM is tougher because the effort is 3-4 times longer than a full marathon.

Takes talent and years of hard work to run a fast 5K. BQs are at the 65-70% age grade level. Just finishing an IM tri would be hard but it's doable if you have the time and resources to train for it. So my point is higher performance level is more difficult to achieve--therefore harder--than finishing event. OT marathon qualifier is >>>> more difficult than IM finish in 14 hours or a BQ.
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline Fred

  • Turgid
  • Posts: 128
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2017, 11:40:32 AM »
Nothing is hard, other than overcoming the limitations of your talent level.

Offline Arrojo

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 30567
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2017, 08:02:39 PM »
A marathon is a marathon. You do the best you can for 26.2 miles. An IM is obviously more difficult; I will never do it and have no desire to. Anyone can run a marathon.
I would get drunk on Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2017, 09:27:48 PM »
The original question is loaded by not being qualified. At what level are you talking about? I suppose if you are talking about a relatively same level of performance then the IM is tougher because the effort is 3-4 times longer than a full marathon.

Takes talent and years of hard work to run a fast 5K. BQs are at the 65-70% age grade level. Just finishing an IM tri would be hard but it's doable if you have the time and resources to train for it. So my point is higher performance level is more difficult to achieve--therefore harder--than finishing event. OT marathon qualifier is >>>> more difficult than IM finish in 14 hours or a BQ.

Well duh.  Colleen derueck is not doing 14 hours for her ironmans, more like 10-10:30, pretty sure she has a few OT under her belt.  Maybe I should just ask her.😜

Offline Fred

  • Turgid
  • Posts: 128
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2017, 07:36:48 PM »
Well duh.  Colleen derueck is not doing 14 hours for her ironmans, more like 10-10:30, pretty sure she has a few OT under her belt.  Maybe I should just ask her.😜

"In Hawaii,  she swam 2.4 miles in 1:09:33, biked 112 miles in 5:53:14 and ran the 26.2-mile marathon portion in 3:19:09—a pace of 7:37 per mile"

Seeing as you are asking runners, the 7:37 a mile is kind of slow compared to a female running 5:37 per mile. So Wilson's point stands.

Offline Fred

  • Turgid
  • Posts: 128
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2017, 08:27:25 PM »
And de Rueck's 1:08:39 would have been close to the women's half world record in 1989.
( 1:08:32 Ingrid Kristiansen  Norway March 19, 1989 New Bedford IAAF )

The effort to run 13.1 @ 5:14 a mile for a woman in 89 was the more difficult training and racing.

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2018, 10:04:34 AM »
what?

Did I instigate some controversy?

not over analyzing - but a bit of context does matter--otherwise it's all pretty much a wash.
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2018, 10:20:33 AM »
what?

Did I instigate some controversy?

not over analyzing - but a bit of context does matter--otherwise it's all pretty much a wash.

Eh.  I was trying to figure if runners thought HIM harder, because triathletes(much larger sample) thought marathon harder.

However, I think I figured something else out that kind of coincides with my tri friends that has to do more with men versus women rather than the two sports.   I will now follow RandMart's lead.  My second conclusion...RandMart is hella smart

Offline Richard21142

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 9324
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2018, 04:34:58 PM »
Since I can't swim, a marathon at any level, for me, would be much easier.

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2018, 01:02:59 PM »
How about reframing this question slightly differently, but adding context and intensity?

Which would be more difficult to do (as far as being physically taxing, not necessarily something to accomplish)?

Top 5 or 10 in age group at something like the Hawaii IM (or similar major event), vs. top 5 or 10 in age group at Boston (or World Major). Maybe exclude pros in open divisions.

To tell the truth, I don't even think you can even objectively answer that question! Both are pretty hard to do and physically demanding (individual perception of difficulty). Racing a hard marathon is tough but so would being out there for 9-12 hours doing a tri at a highly competitive level. 
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline nadra's babydaddy

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 37942
  • Official CH Trainwreck Historian
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2018, 01:15:43 PM »
It's a loaded question, depending on how you define 'more difficult'.  I don't know if I agree with the degree of difficulty based on speed argument.  You could say that you get X many more difficulty points for running 2:30 than for 4 hours, but Eliud Kipchoge could drop a 2:30 in his sleep.  You can't say that that's more difficult for him than the first-timer who started running to lose weight, or many others in similar circumstances who run 4 hour marathons and collapse in exhaustion at the end.  So many variables to think about including raw talent, mental toughness, duration of stress, etc.   You could argue that devoted training could factor into the degree of difficulty when you look at the top tier kenyans, but a lot of folks who log similar hours per week have a much slower top gear.   It's not that the kenyans just have more willpower. 

As far as the OP, on the surface it seems like a silly argument.  You're talking about something taxing, vs. the same taxing thing plus a bunch of other stuff on top of it.   Unless you're using a similar thought process to runners who say that a 5k is a lot tougher than an ultra because you're in top gear during a 5k vs. a casual stroll in an ultra....like the letsrun argument I see sometimes that guys like haile gebrselassie should've just jumped into 100 milers because they could annihilate all the course records by several hours.  Of course there are a lot more variables to consider for a 100 miler than for a 5k or even a marathon.  You're talking about doing something physically taxing for up to 24 hours and beyond, sleep deprivation, possible organ failure, your bowels in full mutiny, hitting multiple 'walls' before you're even halfway, etc.   So again, defining difficulty over a single metric like how fast you're going doesn't hold up. 

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2018, 04:58:27 PM »
It's a loaded question, depending on how you define 'more difficult'.  I don't know if I agree with the degree of difficulty based on speed argument.  You could say that you get X many more difficulty points for running 2:30 than for 4 hours, but Eliud Kipchoge could drop a 2:30 in his sleep.  You can't say that that's more difficult for him than the first-timer who started running to lose weight, or many others in similar circumstances who run 4 hour marathons and collapse in exhaustion at the end.  So many variables to think about including raw talent, mental toughness, duration of stress, etc.   You could argue that devoted training could factor into the degree of difficulty when you look at the top tier kenyans, but a lot of folks who log similar hours per week have a much slower top gear.   It's not that the kenyans just have more willpower. 

As far as the OP, on the surface it seems like a silly argument.  You're talking about something taxing, vs. the same taxing thing plus a bunch of other stuff on top of it.   Unless you're using a similar thought process to runners who say that a 5k is a lot tougher than an ultra because you're in top gear during a 5k vs. a casual stroll in an ultra....like the letsrun argument I see sometimes that guys like haile gebrselassie should've just jumped into 100 milers because they could annihilate all the course records by several hours.  Of course there are a lot more variables to consider for a 100 miler than for a 5k or even a marathon.  You're talking about doing something physically taxing for up to 24 hours and beyond, sleep deprivation, possible organ failure, your bowels in full mutiny, hitting multiple 'walls' before you're even halfway, etc.   So again, defining difficulty over a single metric like how fast you're going doesn't hold up.

troublemaker
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline Fred

  • Turgid
  • Posts: 128
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2018, 05:48:34 PM »
  You could argue that devoted training could factor into the degree of difficulty when you look at the top tier kenyans, but a lot of folks who log similar hours per week have a much slower top gear.   It's not that the kenyans just have more willpower. 
 

Yes, the drug store in Iten sells/sold EPO and other drugs without a prescription

Offline Fred

  • Turgid
  • Posts: 128
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2018, 05:54:18 PM »
Yes, the drug store in Iten sells/sold EPO and other drugs without a prescription

Same for Ethiopia. Lots of performance enhancing drugs and no out of competition testing.

Offline Coyote Mas Loco

  • I really have a life. It's around here someplace....
  • ****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2018, 10:30:55 PM »
Yes, the drug store in Iten sells/sold EPO and other drugs without a prescription

but Canova says EPO doesn't work on the Kenyans!
I'll stick to running, thank you.

Offline rocketgirl

  • The Runners
  • ******
  • Posts: 53657
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2018, 06:11:03 PM »
Are we comparing a full IM to a marathon?  Because it's got to be harder to do a swim and a bike and a marathon at at once, just "just a marathon.  I don't think either are a walk in the park or that just because it has more "stuff" that an IM is less intense than a marathon.  I don't ever think IM and NOT think "intense".

IF we are comparing a HIM and a marathon, I think whether something is easier or harder is going to depend on an individual's own strengths and weaknesses.

Not that either are within (or likely to become within) my capabilities, but I have a much lower threshold for injury at running than the other two.  It would be "easier" for me to do an Olympic distance triathlon than a half-marathon because running just KILLS my achilles tendons.  For a lot of people who are less injury prone (or have a hang up about swimming - which is a surprising lot of people), a half-marathon would be "easier".

Maybe there's is something to the intensity argument if you are comparing an ultra to a marathon; maybe someone who has done both has thoughts.

Honestly, I'm doing good to get a walk in.  Carry on.

Ellen stole my joy and I want it back!

Offline MoCo

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 3331
  • la la la
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2018, 12:42:35 PM »
I've done a couple HIM, a couple stand-alone marathons, and a couple open water swim marathons*.  I live with AdCo, who has done a bunch of HIM, a bunch of stand-alone marathons, (zero swim marathons because he hates swimming), and 5 IMs.

I'm going to say the IM is more difficult, because it's more difficult to get to the start line appropriately prepared and not injured.  At the age-group level, the training demands are substantially greater, and balancing 3 sports gives you far more opportunity to f it up.  Can't speak to the elite/pro level.

If you're solely talking day-of, it's a choice between whether you do better at higher intensity for shorter time, or lower intensity for longer.  But the longer the day is, the more opportunities there are for things to go wrong - nutrition and mental game.



*defined as open water swim distances greater than 10K.
I prefer thoughtful, long form written journalism.   Or memes.

Offline SnarlyMarly

  • I Can't now, I'm Busy Posting
  • ***
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Marathon versus ironman
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2018, 12:48:30 PM »
The more difficult one is the one I can't fathom doing.   I made the decision in 2008 to never run another marathon.  My last was painful (kidney stones).  Yet, if I can get the miles in...maybe...

Ironman.   I don't know. This last one makes me feel like it's 2008 again  It took something from me.

I think it's like MoCo stated.  I had been drained of every ounce of mental fortitude trying to get to the starting line.   

 

+-SUPPORT US

Powered by EzPortal