Just read David Goggins interview on Ironman.com. No surprise that he put Ironman well below on the pain meter compared to 100 mile Ultra; I don’t see how anyone can even make the argument that they are comparable. However he also puts 100 mile Ultra above Ultraman. I’m sure it depends on the Ultra course, climate and elevation but anyone else who has done both; how do they compare?
when he does a 100 mile run
he is just running it right? not racing it?
i wonder how the pain of racing an ironman compares to doing a 100 mile run
the 100 mile run might still be worse
Isn’t the pain really just a function of run distance
.
Just read David Goggins interview on Ironman.com. No surprise that he put Ironman well below on the pain meter compared to 100 mile Ultra; I don’t see how anyone can even make the argument that they are comparable. However he also puts 100 mile Ultra above Ultraman. I’m sure it depends on the Ultra course, climate and elevation but anyone else who has done both; how do they compare?
What makes one harder than the other depends upon how fast one is trying to do each one and how well trained one is. He is obviously well trained for all these events so I suspect, since he is probably always “racing”, he is seeing the difference as to how hard he is “racing”.
Just read David Goggins interview on Ironman.com. No surprise that he put Ironman well below on the pain meter compared to 100 mile Ultra; I don’t see how anyone can even make the argument that they are comparable. However he also puts 100 mile Ultra above Ultraman. I’m sure it depends on the Ultra course, climate and elevation but anyone else who has done both; how do they compare?
Have not read the interview yet but will soon; Goggins has said many times that he hates running! So I think we are looking at this from his completely subjective perspective. I am guessing if they doubled the swim and bike for Ironman and eliminated the run he would do one most weekends. 
he says he hates biking even more than running!
I did Ultraman Canada last year (2007), and will do Ultraman Worlds in two weeks. I was supposed to do the Western States 100 last year (cancelled due to fires) but am signed up for next June. IMHO I have to think that 100 miles is tougher based on the fact that your running/execising for 24 straight hours. At least at Ultraman you get to sleep at night. : )
Ask me again next June and I’ll let you know for sure.
I have not done Ultraman, but I’ve done two double IMs (a consecutive 4.8 mile swim, 224 mile bike, 52.4 mile run), which if I recall, is at least somewhat similar to Ultraman distances? When I was in my builds for the double IMs I often did 10 hour bike/1 hour run bricks and they weren’t that bad (to someone like Goggins, the workouts that us “mere mortals” do for IMs and such is child’s play). Now, someone like Goggins is unbelievably fit and, after a solid build period and taper for something like Ultraman, he is recovering like a beast in the time from the end of one day’s events to the start of the next day’s events. With a 100-mile ultra (I’ve done one as well), there is no break and non-stop running like that is really tough. So, in my opinion, because he is “recovering” and sleeping between the Ultraman days, I can definitely see why he might think a 100-mile ultra is so tough. Just my two cents.
IMHO a 100mile run(even a downhill one) would be harder than either of the Ultraman races.I will qualify that though 'cause if you are a really bad swimmer then day one of Ultraman can be a bit of a nightmare.
He races full out.
If you define pain as the feeling/soreness your body has the days after, I don’t think there is anything worse than running. The way I felt after a 2 1/2 hour marathon, does not even come close to what Ironman distance races felt like. It is all about the fast pounding…
Now if it is the pain endured during the event, then which ever one you go out too hard in, that is the worst one…
I have not done Ultraman; but, have done numerous Eco-Challenge Expedition Races (5-7 days), other multi-day adventure races, and 8 Ironmans. When asked what was the “toughest/hardest” race I have ever done, I always say the Leadville Trail 100. I was by no means “racing” (I did get a buckle); but 24+ hours continuous on the feet on trail was brutal - period. If you look at the finish rate of that race - and probably most 100’s - it is 50% or less; and, believe me, people go into these events well trained. They are just tough - period.
Of course a 11:30 Im doesn´t hurt … 2:59 Marathon? How impressive, what an athlete.
No, seriously. “Hard” can be very different for different people and different races. And it depends on how hard you go.
I live in the mountains, I run long races (I put on a trailrun with 48 miles plus 10000feet climb next year). I agree that a long run-race can be extremely hard, because of the pounding your muscles and joints have to take.
But a all-out Ironman can be extremely tough too.
I guess the equation would have to include: Training you have done, overall experience, distance and speed.
Axel
It comes down to time on the feet. You can be out on an Ironman course for the same length of time as a 50 miler but on an Ironman you swim and ride for most of the time so you aren’t getting beaten up nearly as hard. The 50 miler I did was far more painful than my IMs. I can see Ultraman being less painful than a 100 for the reasons already mentioned in particular recovery between events. You have 12 hours each day at Ultraman to finish the event for that day, then you get recovery. You don’t get to do that with a 100. The sleep deprivation on the 100 alone makes it hard.
I would have to agree with David. I’ve never done ultraman or a 100 miler, but the mental aspect of my 50 miler was harder than my ironman. Ironman allows you to break the race up into small chunks (swim, bike, run), where running can become monotonous and daunting. As far as pain goes, my memory has dulled the discomfort that you are left with after each of these events, but I think they were similar.
Totally agree. I’ve done 3 IM, 2 600k bike rides and a bunch of marathons. The aftermath of the marathons is worse. I’ve done 2 50K off road run races, those were relatively easy, mainly because the courseis so technical in places you get a natural rest.
Styrrell
I’m doing a 100 miler this weekend and the course record is 15 hours that’s roughly a 9 minute mile pace. Not flying, but it is pretty crazy to hold this over 100 miles.
Good luck this weekend! 15 hours is pretty fast for a 100-miler, that’s for sure! I read that the guy that won Badwater this year has a 100-mile PR of something like 12.5-13 hours (pavement).
Axel, his 2:59 marathon he did after running 26 miles TO the marathon.
The guy is no joke. He treats the events we call races as training, he isn’t going all out or tapering for them.
Of course a 11:30 Im doesn´t hurt … 2:59 Marathon? How impressive, what an athlete.
No, seriously. “Hard” can be very different for different people and different races. And it depends on how hard you go.
I live in the mountains, I run long races (I put on a trailrun with 48 miles plus 10000feet climb next year). I agree that a long run-race can be extremely hard, because of the pounding your muscles and joints have to take.
But a all-out Ironman can be extremely tough too.
I guess the equation would have to include: Training you have done, overall experience, distance and speed.
Axel
I can tell you from first hand experience that racing a 50 miler in the mountains is harder than racing Ironman, and I have a running background. They take roughly the same time, but you don’t get the break of riding you bike for 4.5-5 hours. There is a reason that people will do 5 hour rides week after week in training for Ironman, but you don’t hear so much about the 5 hour runs. :>