Which one is easier to "just finish"? Ironman or 100 miler?

Neither are doable "off the couch"--both require some basic fitness and likely a BMI below 30. I'd say a person meeting that description could train 6-10 hours/week for 6 months and do either one within standard cutoff times.

The training could even be pretty haphazard--for the ironman just some basic swimming and 100 miles/week of cycling. For the 100 miler just walk a lot, and maybe a long hike every weekend.

Both require a mental toughness to just keep moving for 17-26 hours. If you hate the idea of open water swimming, the 100 miles is probably easier. If you hate the idea of 24+ hours without sleep, the ironman is probably easier.

Anyone who considers themselves a "runner" could finish the 100 miles right now. Likewise anyone who considers themselves a "triathlete" could finish the ironman right now.

Just some basic swimming? 2.4 miles in open water. If you are just a basic swimmer you will drown.

I once helped a buddy train for an Ironman, did rides and long runs with him, swam a tad on my own. When he went off to do his event I was feeling pretty good and decided to hop into a 100. Didn't slay it but did finish, 20-21 hours somewhere in there. Remember it did take a toll on me and recovery took a bit of time.

Even a 50 miler is way harder than an ironman.

Ironman is a joke.

You can cruise on the bike then walk 6 hours.

You'll be sore for sure, but a 50 miler run is way more challenging - and a 100 miler, not even close.

Hobby100 wrote:

Both require a mental toughness to just keep moving for 17-26 hours.

I agreed with almost everything in your post except this. I did a quick Google search and the "average time" a participant in an Ironman is going to be out there is only about 12 hours (or so).

The average finish time of a 100 miler is about 28 hours (granted, races like Hardrock skew this number higher, but overall its probably pretty accurate).

Harder to just finish any race that would require you to be moving for 24+ straight hours. Sleep deprivation on a fatigued, calorie depleted body is not a fun thing to go thru.

A 50 miler means walking for 12-13 hours. You consider that hard?People who finish an ironman in 12-13 have at least trained for it, and are reasonably decent age-group athletes. The "just finish" crowd is taking 16-17 hours.

no contest bro wrote:

Even a 50 miler is way harder than an ironman.

Ironman is a joke.

You can cruise on the bike then walk 6 hours.

You'll be sore for sure, but a 50 miler run is way more challenging - and a 100 miler, not even close.

That's racist.

You're right. I was underestimating the "just finish" time for the 100 miler. I agree with 12 hours for avg. ironman time--the "just finish" ironman time is 16-17 hours.

Old Man Runner wrote:

I agreed with almost everything in your post except this. I did a quick Google search and the "average time" a participant in an Ironman is going to be out there is only about 12 hours (or so).

The average finish time of a 100 miler is about 28 hours (granted, races like Hardrock skew this number higher, but overall its probably pretty accurate).

Harder to just finish any race that would require you to be moving for 24+ straight hours. Sleep deprivation on a fatigued, calorie depleted body is not a fun thing to go thru.

BullSlacker wrote:

Just some basic swimming? 2.4 miles in open water. If you are just a basic swimmer you will drown.

Once you "learn to swim" (ie: can swim a couple of laps without stopping), I'd bet that 2 hours of swimming per week for 6-8 months would prep you for an ironman swim. I'd call that "basic swimming," but fair enough if you don't.

You get close to 2:30 hours to finish it, which is 3+ minutes per 100 yds, which is basically doggie paddle speed. Plus, in most races you wear a wetsuit, meaning you can stop and just hang out and float for awhile if you're tired.

Hobby100 wrote:

For the 100 miler just walk a lot, and maybe a long hike every weekend.

Anyone who considers themselves a "runner" could finish the 100 miles right now. Likewise anyone who considers themselves a "triathlete" could finish the ironman right now.

I disagree and do not think you have much credibility here. Remind us all, how many of each have you done?

I actually have done both, multiple times. Don't be fooled into thinking you can do a 100 mile run in 17-26 hours just because the math works out. And I know a lot of people who consider themselves "triathletes" that would never finish an ironman distance event. Too much can go wrong in an event like that to just be able breeze through it, as you suggest.

Not saying they are impossible events. But they are much more involved than you think. Disagree? Go out today, right now, and "just walk" 50 miles. Let us all know how long it takes, and how you are feeling when you are done. You don't "walk" 100 mile races.

Hobby100 wrote:

BullSlacker wrote:

Just some basic swimming? 2.4 miles in open water. If you are just a basic swimmer you will drown.

Once you "learn to swim" (ie: can swim a couple of laps without stopping), I'd bet that 2 hours of swimming per week for 6-8 months would prep you for an ironman swim. I'd call that "basic swimming," but fair enough if you don't.

You get close to 2:30 hours to finish it, which is 3+ minutes per 100 yds, which is basically doggie paddle speed. Plus, in most races you wear a wetsuit, meaning you can stop and just hang out and float for awhile if you're tired.

Without a wetsuit or floatation device, a basic swimmer is not going to keep treading water for two and a half hours, no.

100 mile races vary tremendously in difficulty. Hardrock will take roughly twice as long to finish as perfect conditions on a track. Conditions and courses vary in iron man too, but not nearly as much. A typical western US mountain 100 with 15000+ ft of elevation change is certainly harder than any iron man, with a possible exception if you're a horrific swimmer in a no wetsuit iron man.

I've done one more of each than you have. So my credibility can be calculated as [Not Close] +1.

Is that enough?

[quote]Not Close wrote:

I disagree and do not think you have much credibility here. Remind us all, how many of each have you done?

/quote]

BullSlacker wrote:

Hobby100 wrote:

Once you "learn to swim" (ie: can swim a couple of laps without stopping), I'd bet that 2 hours of swimming per week for 6-8 months would prep you for an ironman swim. I'd call that "basic swimming," but fair enough if you don't.

You get close to 2:30 hours to finish it, which is 3+ minutes per 100 yds, which is basically doggie paddle speed. Plus, in most races you wear a wetsuit, meaning you can stop and just hang out and float for awhile if you're tired.

Without a wetsuit or floatation device, a basic swimmer is not going to keep treading water for two and a half hours, no.

....and even someone who has been swimming 2 miles a day for a year is going to have a hard time doing a 2.4 open water ocean swim. No comparison to a pool. None.

Former AA swimmer wrote:

....and even someone who has been swimming 2 miles a day for a year is going to have a hard time doing a 2.4 open water ocean swim. No comparison to a pool. None.

This is very, very true. One of the most common things I hear from friends that have done tri's (not just ironman distance) is how the open water just beats the crap out of you. Most people don't train it, rather doing pool work or even lake work. Nothing compares to an ocean or even a major river swim.

Ask anyone who has done both and they will tell you that the 100 miler is infinitely tougher. I'm not saying that the Ironman isn't tough (Hell, I can't imagine sitting on a bike for 6 hours) but I don't think it's comparable to 100 miles of pounding on your legs.

The great wild card is swimming. If you can manage the swim under the cut off time, I would think Ironman is way easier. The bike would be unpleasant if you aren't used to it, but it can be done by reasonably fit people.

2.5 hour swim, 7 hour bike, 6 hour marathon...15.5. Add in 30 mins for transitions and 16 hours.

No one is running 100 miles in 16 hours unless they are elite. Common runners will be 25-30.

The vast majority of ironmans are not open water ocean swims. They are 2 laps in a lake or protected harbor. One is a downriver course--an unaccompanied pool noodle recorded a 1:07 time.

100 miler is harder, definitely. The physical beating alone makes it harder.

I've done both and the 100m is far more difficult. The first 2/3 of an ironman are not weight bearing. It's not even close.