?
?
Pineapple and Coconut wrote:
?
3-hour marathon
geteducated wrote:
Pineapple and Coconut wrote:?
3-hour marathon
^ tru this. Assume here you're talking about a trail hike on something like the PCT. A lot more people can get in good enough shape to complete a week-long hike through the Sierras than run a 3 hour marathon.
You should compare them a little more evenly. The 3 hour marathon has both time and distance. So how long do you have for your 100 miles? The week that a previous poster suggested is pretty darn easy. But 24 hours? That would change things a lot. Gender matters, too. It might be that a female runner has a better chance at a 24 hour 100 miler than breaking 3 in a traditional marathon.
Done both. 100 mile hike is more demanding if it's a real mountain
100 mile hike in lets say 5 days : more physically demanding, less dependent on prior physical fitness, more mentally challenging especially when weather does not cooperate.
3 hour marathon: physically easier, more dependent on prior physical fitness, mentally easier (only lasts 3 hours or its a piece of cake because your in 2:30 shape)
You really can't compare the two.
More people could probably do a 100 mile hike but less people will. Maybe if they started placing finishers medals at trailheads we might see more backpackers.
This is a useless question without context; as in, for whom? Kimetto? A non-runner?
applesandoranges wrote:
You should compare them a little more evenly. The 3 hour marathon has both time and distance. So how long do you have for your 100 miles? The week that a previous poster suggested is pretty darn easy. But 24 hours? That would change things a lot. Gender matters, too. It might be that a female runner has a better chance at a 24 hour 100 miler than breaking 3 in a traditional marathon.
^this. when you are saying walking do you mean actually walking or are you generalizing ultra marathon runners as people who dont actually run but do a slow trot in the mountains