Which is better? Looking at the next 9-12 months I could probably train for either. Only caveat is I have been injury prone as a runner since running in college 10 years back, so running in either case can likely only happen 3-4 days each week. Which is a better goal to set for myself? Which is rarer?
Having done both, running 2:40 is definitely harder than merely finishing an Ironman but will impress fewer people if you care about that.
If you can only run 3-4 days a week, a triathlon is a decent way to optimize your endurance skills. The training is fairly fun.
But doing an Ironman is expensive AF. The costs just keep adding up and adding up. Registration, pool access to train, bike (even if you do it on the cheap like I did with a serviceable road bike), bike repairs, bike clothing, wetsuit, extra food, lodging at the race destination, the list goes on and on.
Having dabbled in triathlon, I'll go with the 2:40. Both are impressive but I think a 2:40 caliber athlete should be able to finish an IM in a respectable enough time with some training. I think the better question is what can you do in an IM with an open 2:40, which depends on your swimming/biking.
Some can go sub-9 or very close to it without breaking 3 hours at the end of an IM, meaning their open PB might be around 3 hours (probably not much faster, maybe even a little slower). & then you might get someone going sub-10 but not sub-9 with a sub-3 in an IM.
I think a 2:40 marathon runner has all the potential in the world to threaten 9 hours. That can get you your pro card. 1hr swim/5hr bike/3hr run. Savings if you can go any faster in any of the disciplines.
Once a Triathlete wrote:
Having done both, running 2:40 is definitely harder than merely finishing an Ironman but will impress fewer people if you care about that.
If you can only run 3-4 days a week, a triathlon is a decent way to optimize your endurance skills. The training is fairly fun.
But doing an Ironman is expensive AF. The costs just keep adding up and adding up. Registration, pool access to train, bike (even if you do it on the cheap like I did with a serviceable road bike), bike repairs, bike clothing, wetsuit, extra food, lodging at the race destination, the list goes on and on.
I get asked about doing one (Ironman) often, but this is one of the main reasons I've never seriously considered it. It's darn expensive, and just like with running, there's a good chance you will get injured and not make it to the starting line. It's one thing to give up a race registration fee, but all the rest.. meh.. that's enough reason for me to avoid it. (Plus the idea of starting a marathon after doing all that biking still freaks me out.)
People walk the ironman in 17 hours and think they are superior to 2:40 marathoner . A 2:40 marathon indicates fitness to go under 10 hours in IM.
A 2:40 Marathon is kind of faster than walking, but nothing really impressive about it.
This is a really really stupid post unless you post a target finish time for the IM
Price is definitely a barrier.
I feel like you can do 20 hours of triathlon training & stay healthier compared to 10+ hours of pure running (100+ mpw). You're still just gonna hang out in the 40-50 or so range for an IM. 5ish hours/week. I think it's easier to get to the start line of an IM, even if you're training hard.
&, totally, 2:40ish indicates sub-10 potential, sub-9 potential for a complete triathlete. You have to be fit for an open 2:40 and you have to be fit for a sub-10 or sub-9 IM. It's impressive to finish any marathon or triathlon. A good time in either is worth more to me than completing one but I still think that's a good accomplishment.
2:40 is maybe on par with a 9:15 on a legit course. Just completing an Ironman is more on par with a 6:00 marathon.