Maybe you've completed an IM, but who's ran a 100 mile ultra? (Page 2)

trixie - 2008-02-26 1:48 PM Met a guy at my first 100 miler that has done a double IM. He said the 100's are way more difficult....I disagree.....I don't have to SWIM in 100 milers....wade through some water, yeah maybe, swim....nope

lorabby - 2008-02-26 2:02 PM

hate to hijack, but, for those of you who have done the 100s, how long did it take you to train for them? Was it like marathon training only more mileage, or was your training time (meaning over days months and years) a lot longer? I guess this is a multi-faceted question given that you all probably had huge bases to begin with. The question really is, how long would it take the "average" person to be able to do a 100? any random ideas?

EDIT: this is purely a hypothetical question...at least for the near future. I cannot vouch for 2010.

What about an extreme bike event, like RAAM? I'd love to do that someday, more than an 100 miler. I kind of put them both in the same category though.

jcbolton - 2008-02-27 10:31 AM

I share your RAAM dreams as well. But I'm thinking 2-man with my SO. RAAM solo is an INCREDIBLE feat!

p>

Personally, I did my first IM in Sept 06, and then my first 50 mile ultra in March 07.  Despite taking about 3 hrs less, I think the 50 miler was tougher.   So much pounding on my flat feet really took it's toll on me.  As Ken mentioned, the training was definitely more monotonous for the ultra, but it helps some if you run on different off-road trails.  Also, due in part to this monotony, I personally felt that the ultra was more difficult mentally than the IM. 

I hope to do a trail 100 one day, and I certainly realize that it will be a whole different ballgame from either a 50 or IM! 

 

Triguy67 - 2008-02-27 3:36 PM Having done both, while maybe more monotonous, would you say the hours spent on preparing for the ultra were fewer than what you did for the IM, based on 1 discipline versus all 3 for an IM?

dgillen - 2008-02-27 10:57 AM

Come on, Clint!  With your particular SO, that's like saying "Yeah, I want to do the Tour de France, but on a tandem w/ Lance Armstrong."

Personally, I did my first IM in Sept 06, and then my first 50 mile ultra in March 07.  Despite taking about 3 hrs less, I think the 50 miler was tougher.   So much pounding on my flat feet really took it's toll on me.  As Ken mentioned, the training was definitely more monotonous for the ultra, but it helps some if you run on different off-road trails.  Also, due in part to this monotony, I personally felt that the ultra was more difficult mentally than the IM. 

I hope to do a trail 100 one day, and I certainly realize that it will be a whole different ballgame from either a 50 or IM! 

 

velasqu7 - 2010-03-11 11:25 AM I have done Ironmans and 100 milers...  they are both difficult and each is on its own category.   I love them both...    However 100 miler is a much bigger mental challenge than an ironman.    Mostly because you will probably do much of the event on your own...  Ultras and specially 100 milers are not that popular (at the moment),  so the field spreads out pretty thin pretty fast.   

Even on one of the most difficult 50 milers of the west coast (Mount diable 50 Miler),  the event was much harder (mentally) than any ironman I have ever done.   During an ironman, I have never thought of quitting,  on an ultra that thought has gone through my head many times..  Good thing that the aid stations are so far apart that I need to get to one and when I am finally there,  somehow I find the motivation and the will to go on.     Ultras have thought me one thing,  we are stronger than we think we are..  

Cheers...

PS...  I cannot tell you how a lemon tastes unless you have tasted a lemon,  and even then it might not be the same lemon.  <b>so wanna know how it really feels.... do both...  you can.. </b>