2 totally different race, I know, but what is your opinion on this.
Yesterday I started out doing a 24 hr. run on a 3.1 mile loop but dropped out out of sheer boredom. My hat goes off to anyone that can sustain that kind of boredom for 24 hours.
I friend of my that has done both says that an Ironman is comparable to a 50 mile run. Any opinions (yes, even the sarcastic ones will work here)…
In terms of energy expenditure, an IM tri is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 75-mile run. But, in terms of abuse on your body (due to the impact), I’d peg an IM tri as less than a 50-mile run. YMMV.
If it takes 24 hours to do 100 miles on a short loop, you are not in good condition.
100 miles runs should be in the range of 13 hours for the fast runners and 16-18 hours fo rthe slow runners. More or less the same as an IM.
50 miles or 100K are too short to compare to an IM.
There is not a lot of motivation for running 100 miles fast. No large prizes. No sponsors contracts. So the participants don’t get beat up as much as in an IM.
I don’t think you can do an easy comparison. Running is just harder on your body and an Ironman is mostly swimming and biking.
I hurt after my 50s more than I hurt after my Ironmans.
Here are the rsults of the first 100 miler I pulled up…
http://www.bighorntrailrun.com/images/100MOverall.pdf
You are full of shit. Please show me a 100 milere where even the top 25% is under 18 hrs. Obviously you have never done ultra’s
If it takes 24 hours to do 100 miles on a short loop, you are not in good condition.
100 miles runs should be in the range of 13 hours for the fast runners and 16-18 hours fo rthe slow runners. More or less the same as an IM.
50 miles or 100K are too short to compare to an IM.
There is not a lot of motivation for running 100 miles fast. No large prizes. No sponsors contracts. So the participants don’t get beat up as much as in an IM.
As afar as the rest of your quote. I have done 6 fulls in the 12 hr range. I am not nearly as beat up as I have been in 50k's. You have any idea the elecation gains and decents in ultra's and how that beats up your quads. Can you please give links to your full IM times and 50 mile times to back up your statement? Thanks
I think my auto signature sums up my feelings on this subject
.
An Old Guy, have you done both?? Based on your criteria for the ultrarunning I would say that I don’t know anyone that is in good condition.
This is what I was looking for when I put up the post. Wow!!
I don’t think you can do an easy comparison. Running is just harder on your body and an Ironman is mostly swimming and biking. I hurt after my 50s more than I hurt after my Ironmans.
Um, at the risk of quibbling, an iron distance race is mostly biking and running, since the swim is only 8-12% of most competitors’ total time. I do agree though that an iron distance race is probably easier for most people than a 50-mi running race, because you’re spreading the work over different muscle groups. Sure there’s some overlap between the bike and run but really they are apples and oranges.
Honestly, I’, usually more physically beat up and sore after open marathons than Ironmans. Doesn’t make a lot of logical sense, but has consistently been the case.
Please, show us all of your sub 24 buckles
Guess the guy that won western states the past two years is only a little faster than a “slow runner”
.
A trail 50 miler ultra is similar to an Ironman. A 50 or 100 mile run on track should be much easier than trails.
Honestly, I usually am more physically beat up and sore after open marathons than Ironmans. Doesn’t make a lot of logic sense, but has consistently been the case.
Actually, I think it does make some sense as you are running harder in the stand-alone race, prob 30-60 sec/mile faster than in an IM marathon, so your legs are more sore afterwards. You expend more total energy, obviously, in the IM but it is spread over three diff sets of muscles, with only moderate overlap.
Sure it would be easier on track. But as the previous poster on times inferred…can you show me races (plural) that are around the country that do 50 and 100’s on the track? So when someone posts time it has to be shown the speeds that people are doing it in. Or to just plain answer the question you would have to do one, which would be trails
Uh, not to quibble but most people spend a majority of their time swim + bike.
In a 10 hour Ironman, how many hours are spent on the run? Let’s say 3.5.
10
- 3.5 (marathon time)
6.5 (swim + bike)
If I remember my elementary school math, 6.5 is more than 3.5. Therefore, most people spend a majority of their time on the swim + bike.
I did a quick search and all I found that is mildly relevant is the 100 mile track record is 11:30ish. Can’t find what the average finish time is.
Uh, not to quibble but most people spend a majority of their time swim + bike.
In a 10 hour Ironman, how many hours are spent on the run? Let’s say 3.5.
10
- 3.5 (marathon time)
6.5 (swim + bike)
If I remember my elementary school math, 6.5 is more than 3.5. Therefore, most people spend a majority of their time on the swim + bike.
My point is that the run time is much greater than the swim time, for everyone. So, if you are going to pick 2 out of the three to say the iron distance is “mostly about”, it would be the bike and run. To use your 10-hr iron race example, if we assume a 1-hr swim, 5.5 hr bike, and 3.5 hr run, then we have 9 hrs on bike + run, or 90% of the race. The swim + bike = 6.5 hrs or 65% of the race. Thus, I would say that the iron distance is more about the bike and run than about the swim and bike.
The thought occurs to me that you were specifically talking about the iron distance vs the 50-mile run, in which case certainly the pure running race is obviously much more about running.
No disrespect intended.
I think Old Guy is talking about 100 miles on a track or equivalent (which is rarely done), not 10-20K of vertical on mountain trails.
However, 95% of those who finish 100 miles run their 100 milers on trails & in the mountains and take 20 to 36 hours to do it. Very few people run 100 miles on a track or on the roads. If so, times would be as fast as Old Guy says … There is a 50 miler on gravel here in October with maybe 3k(?) gentle vertical and the winners are usually sub 6, lots of 7& 8-hour times with the 9 to 11 hour crowd as very slow / walk jog.
I have run maybe fifteen 100’s and IM’s are a lot easier. 100’s beat you up a lot more. Comparing an IM to ultra miles just doesn’t work. Depends on if you’re talking Hardrock or something flatter like Leanhorse.