Marathon versus ironman

[Coyote Mas Loco]

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. 

[nadra's babydaddy]

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. 

[Coyote Mas Loco]

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

[Fred]

  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

[Fred]

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.

[Coyote Mas Loco]

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!

[rocketgirl]

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.

[MoCo]

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.

[SnarlyMarly]

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.