General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IRONMAN vs ULTRA Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2010-02-12 8:57 AM

User image

Regular
454
1001001001002525
Subject: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

At what distance (35,50,100, MILES)  does an endurance run (ULTRA) equal an IRONMAN in difficulty or challenge.  I’m not asking to debate which is a greater accomplishment because they both are incredible feats of human endurance and something to be proud of.  Just wondering if anyone has completed both and can offer a base line of comparison. 

I also just thought it would be great to hear thoughts and experience of those that have completed both and could offer some insight to each. 

"Dancbjammin’s"  Recent post on his Rocky Raccoon 100 mile ultra was great!!  It sounded Brutal hard that is what got me thinking about this?



2010-02-12 9:06 AM
in reply to: #2669557

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
Interesting question and one likely without a single answer. I've never done an Ultra, but from the standpoint of duration, a 50 mile run is kind of similar in duration, but I think it would be much harder in terms of physical difficulty. I'll say the 35 mile race would be more like an IM in terms of physical difficulty/pain.
2010-02-12 9:06 AM
in reply to: #2669557

User image

Veteran
133
10025
Fort Worth, TX
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I have not done a 50k, or 50 miler, but finished IM Louisville last year, and having ran 75.5 miles at Rocky Raccoon last week, hands down the Ultra was WAYYYYYYY tougher. 20+ hours on your feet. At IM you are in the water, off your feet, on the bike, mostly on your butt, and marathon. 24 hours strictly on just your feet is tough. Also, there is something to be said about running on a trail, in the pitch black with just a headlamp. Either way, both are challenging in their own right, but to me, based on difficulty overall, I feel "The Distance Of Truth" 100 mile Ultra is tougher...

Dan
www.trimywill.com
2010-02-12 9:18 AM
in reply to: #2669592

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
Libertyville, IL
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

bryancd - 2010-02-12 9:06 AM Interesting question and one likely without a single answer. I've never done an Ultra, but from the standpoint of duration, a 50 mile run is kind of similar in duration, but I think it would be much harder in terms of physical difficulty. I'll say the 35 mile race would be more like an IM in terms of physical difficulty/pain.
terrain is also a big variable here too.  i did a 50k about 6 weeks after MOO 07 on pretty technical trails with 10k feet of climb and decent.  Having no brakes the last 6 miles or so cuz your quads are scrambled and the recovery the days after felt much worse than my first IM.  Hoping to do the 50 miler on that same course this year perhaps.  Mentally with the terrain it can a bit more taxing at times as you are negotiating not trying to twist an ankle or worse.  Again, a flatter course might make the run easier but running long just beats ya up.  At least with an IM you have the variety.

2010-02-12 10:48 AM
in reply to: #2669557

User image

Extreme Veteran
484
100100100100252525
McHenry, IL
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I've done 7 IMs, and several trail ultras...a couple 50Ks, a couple 50 milers, a 100K and a 100 miler.  Tough question to answer since terrain and weather play a major role in defining the difficulty of all of these events.

But, generally speaking, weather being about equal, I'd say a 50 mile trail ultra takes a comparable toll on your body to that of an IM, perhaps a bit more, even though, at least for me, it's a shorter duration.  I'm a ~9-10 hr 50 miler (Ice Age Trail, WI) and a ~12-13 hr IMer (IMWI).  100K definitely starts to tip the scales of difficulty clearly to the ultra side.  100 miles is a different kind of beast altogether.  There you're dealing with sleep deprivation, negotiating technical trails in the dark of night, and an overall duration that is decidedly unforgiving of nutritional blunders.

Another way to measure this would be to look at finishing percentages of the various events.  I've not done so myself, but I suspect you'd generally find somewhat higher rates of finishing percentage at a typical IM as compared to a typical 50 miler.

You know, another interesting thing I've found in this world of ultras is that it's rather eyebrow-raising surprising how many ultras some of these folks will do in a year.  Most people doing IMs will generally just do one a year.  A much smaller percentage may do 2, and only the fringe of endurance junkies are doing 3 or more IMs per year.  But, I've found it's not uncommon to find ultrarunners who probably average about one ultra per month of 50 miles or more.  It's not that uncommon for these guys and girls to do as many as 3 100 milers in a year.  I've seen some crazy ultra race schedules!  My plans always look pale in general comparison.

All I have on my calendar this year is a Grand Canyon rim to rim to rim run (~47 mi) in April, and Western States 100 miler in June.  I might throw in a 50 miler in May if I'm feeling up to it after the R2R2R.
2010-02-12 11:17 AM
in reply to: #2669557

User image

Champion
7542
5000200050025
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bronze member
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

I've done one 50-mile trail run (11:32) and one Ironman (IMCdA, 13:38) last year.  The guy who finished right behind me on the trail run did IMMoo in a hair over 12 hours a year or two before. 

I'd say, and the guy behind me would agree, that the ultra was harder.  You're on your feet the whole time.  Most ultras are trail runs with at least one water crossing so you're running in wet shoes/socks full of sand.  The downhills take out your quads in a big way, and at least for me, my hip flexors were pretty much toast by the end. 

The thing that makes ultras "easy" is the effort.  The day is almost all Z1 with maybe some Z2 if you like living dangerously.  We've got a "Grand Slam" in Illinois consisting of the Clinton Lake Ultra (30 miles) March 27, McNaughton (50 or 100 miles) April 10-11, Rock Cut (50K) Sept. 19, and Farmdale (32 mile) Oct. 9.  There's a lot of Psychos (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) on the Grand Slam list. 



2010-02-12 11:19 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2010-02-12 11:22 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2010-02-12 11:34 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Expert
936
50010010010010025
Salisbury
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

I've never done an Ultra myself but I wonder how the training would be different.

In some ways the variety in an IM make it much easier since you won't get bored. On the other hand, if you only have to worry about running it's sort of "simpler" if you know what I mean.

Is it equavilant in training time? I know when I did my IM I did a couple 5-6 hr bike rides. Do you do that kind of time on the run? I would think not. Probably just many, many, many shorter runs...

I'm pretty sure I'd have a harder time doing an Ultra than an IM but for someone who is a strong runner it might be "easier".

2010-02-12 1:04 PM
in reply to: #2670006

Veteran
133
10025
Fort Worth, TX
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
Rencor.... My long runs on the weekends leading up to my Ultra last week, I was running 35-40 miles: 7-8 hours, so yeah, THAT many hours in training... Typical weekly totals were 75-90 miles.  There really is no need for shorter runs, or speed work, unless you are trying to win the thing. MHO.... (Hill repeats... Maybe)
2010-02-12 1:17 PM
in reply to: #2669892

Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
Steve in IL - 2010-02-12 6:48 AM
You know, another interesting thing I've found in this world of ultras is that it's rather eyebrow-raising surprising how many ultras some of these folks will do in a year.  Most people doing IMs will generally just do one a year.  A much smaller percentage may do 2, and only the fringe of endurance junkies are doing 3 or more IMs per year.  But, I've found it's not uncommon to find ultrarunners who probably average about one ultra per month of 50 miles or more.  It's not that uncommon for these guys and girls to do as many as 3 100 milers in a year.  I've seen some crazy ultra race schedules!  My plans always look pale in general comparison.

.


That is a good observation.  But it may also have to do with the cost of an IM compared to an Ultra.  Not just race fees, but shipment of your bike, etc.  Still though...even for those with money growing on trees...I have not heard anyone who has tried to do more than 3 Iron distance tris in a year...but I do often hear of people trying to do 6-12 ultras a year.


2010-02-12 3:25 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Regular
454
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

Man some of the Resume of races you guys have completed are just incredible. Most of you have multiple IRONMAN & Ultras under your belt.  You guys are a true inspiration.  

2010-02-12 3:30 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
SAWFISH50 - 2010-02-12 9:57 AM

 

I also just thought it would be great to hear thoughts and experience of those that have completed both and could offer some insight to each. 



So you want us to have actual experience before we offer an opinion? What fun is that?
2010-02-12 3:35 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Regular
454
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
Na if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express you can give your opinion too Cool
2010-02-12 4:32 PM
in reply to: #2670536

Champion
7542
5000200050025
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bronze member
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

SAWFISH50 - 2010-02-12 3:25 PM

Man some of the Resume of races you guys have completed are just incredible. Most of you have multiple IRONMAN & Ultras under your belt.  You guys are a true inspiration.  

It isn't that incredible. 

Sign up
Train
Show up
Finish

You should try it! 

Rencor,
Training for the 50-miler, we did long runs of 22 (5.5 hours) and 28 (7 hours).  The guy training for the 100-miler would turn around on Sunday and do another 15-20.  I was running 25-30 miles per week (1-2 short runs plus the long run on Saturday) but also swimming/biking.   

2010-02-12 6:30 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Regular
454
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I'm working in that direction 5k next weekend. 1/2 Marithon in April. Plan to build milage over the summer for a Fall Marithon if that goes well a 50 Mile Ultra is next on the list.  Just started back running (Nov 2009) after several years off. Looking forward to the Journey. 


2010-02-14 12:02 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Veteran
144
10025
Vienna, Austria (temporarily)
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
Last year I did a half ironman, IM Arizona, several marathons, several 50 milers, and the Hardrock 100 mile. Although the IM and ultramarathon are two different beasts, I would say that a 50 mile run is a little harder than an IM. I generally take a little bit longer to complete the IM but with the different events it mixes things up and feels easier than running 50 miles. For me the training for the IM was much harder becuase it required much more time with the three disciplines. Training for the ultrarunning just required 1-2 hour runs most day, hill repeats, and a couple of longer runs. In fact, I only average ~30-35 miles/week last year during the peak training time.
2010-02-14 8:07 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Veteran
213
100100
Colorado Springs
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I did a 50miler yesterday. There were at least 5 people that I ran with that were using this to work on the nutrition for the 100milers later this year.  Just like IM's terrain makes all the difference.  The course was flooded and we were running in ankle/calf deep water for about 10 miles throughout the course.  What was dry was sand; but the course was flat and my legs felt solid after this.  I DNF'd a 40miler (got to 29 miles) in Nov which was so rocky you could had to go slow even on the downhill and the uphills had enough loose rocks you really had to watch the footing. Similar nutrition plan for both races but legs felt like they were hit with a bat
2010-02-14 8:45 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Expert
944
50010010010010025
Waller County, TX
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I've done a 50-miler (9:51), a hard IM, and DNF'd the RR-100 at mile 80 last weekend and hands down, the 100-miler is harder.

Yeah the cardio pace of an ultra is less, but the constant effort of 20-24+ hours on your feet, on uneven terrain, combined with sleep deprivation and whatever other physical situations you have going on with your feet & legs, etc. extracts a higher toll on your body.

My body did well at the 100, but I just flat ran out of energy and once I got into that deficit, I couldn't climb back out. I was still moving (slowly), but I wasn't going to finish within the cut-off time, so I threw in the chip. Once I stopped, I was so tired I couldn't hardly sleep, and was so hungry I couldn't hardly eat. Recovery happened in stages.

In short; I overestimated my conditioning and underestimated the distance. Ultras require a different kind of physical preparation and your whole mental conditioning of what is considered "long" has to adapt.

Going from a 50 to a 100-miler is twice the distance, but it's 4 times harder.
2010-02-14 5:10 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Extreme Veteran
438
10010010010025
Surprise, AZ
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I did the Zane Grey 50 miler in Payson AZ around 13 1/2 hours and IMAZ in 10:18. Zane grey is a very slow and hard race to run. In the 50 miler my avg HR was about 10 beats lower then at IM.

TO ME... training for an IM is much harder and more hours then the 50, but the 50 is much harder on race day then IM.

Edited by Focker 2010-02-14 5:13 PM
2010-02-16 11:07 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
SAWFISH50 - 2010-02-12 8:57 AM

At what distance (35,50,100, MILES)  does an endurance run (ULTRA) equal an IRONMAN in difficulty or challenge.  I’m not asking to debate which is a greater accomplishment because they both are incredible feats of human endurance and something to be proud of.  Just wondering if anyone has completed both and can offer a base line of comparison. 

I also just thought it would be great to hear thoughts and experience of those that have completed both and could offer some insight to each. 

"Dancbjammin’s"  Recent post on his Rocky Raccoon 100 mile ultra was great!!  It sounded Brutal hard that is what got me thinking about this?



Oh... I think any run at 50 miles and further is harder than an IM. If you are going fast, it's rough on the body. If you are going slow, you are doing the same motion for many hours... the same time spent doing an IM... and for 100 miles... way longer than an IM! Shoot, when there is a 30 HOUR time limit... that says it all!

Mind you, I have done an IM... and I supported my cousin at Rocky Raccoon a couple of weeks back... he made it 80 miles out of 100 miles... in 24 hours. He too did an IM. And that 100 mile run looked a lot worse!



2010-02-17 3:13 AM
in reply to: #2672656

Plano, Tx
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

Focker - 2010-02-14 5:10 PM I did the Zane Grey 50 miler in Payson AZ around 13 1/2 hours and IMAZ in 10:18. Zane grey is a very slow and hard race to run. In the 50 miler my avg HR was about 10 beats lower then at IM. TO ME... training for an IM is much harder and more hours then the 50, but the 50 is much harder on race day then IM.

Focker,

You got it right on. I've done four IMs, and three ultras ranging from a mountainous (12,000ft of gain and loss) 100K, a fairly flat 50 miler, and flat 50K.

Training for a "competitive" IM versus the kind of training I do for an ultra run is completely different. For me, ultra runs are WAY more mental.

I'd say the pain I experienced in my last 50 miler (long run of 15 miles) was equal to the pain I experienced after IM Hawaii. (Trained like a nut job, went 10:40)

I'm rambling now. **shutting up**

2010-02-17 8:00 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Extreme Veteran
353
1001001002525
New York
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
I've done three 50k races and they seemed "easy." Maybe that's because I ran them so very slowly! I finished all of them feeling like I could run many more miles. I am currently training for Ironman Lake Placid and it would certainly be cool if it was as "easy" as those runs were. Somehow I doubt it though!

50k is only a few more miles than a marathon. Anyone who can comfortably do a marathon could do a 50k, especially if it's on a trail--you get so much less pounding that your legs are not nearly as trashed as in a road marathon. However, trail runs always have way more hills than any road race, a tradeoff.

Anyway I don't think a 50k is comparable to an Ironman. Maybe 50-mile runs are comparable to an Ironman?

Kelly
2010-02-17 10:05 AM
in reply to: #2669557

Extreme Veteran
384
100100100252525
Chatham. Ontario
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA

Last year I did IMLP, IMLO, and IMWI as training days leading up to a Triple Ironman event held in Virginia in October.

Definetely a huge difference between both events.  The Ultra distances tend to push you to your limits,  survival and finishing becomes your main focus.  Most do an Ironman event with the mindset that they want to be as fast as possible and a predetermined time goal is always constant.  We judge ourselves by our time goal.  Surviving the Ultra is far more important than the time that you finish it in.

Definetely weather also plays a big factor.  The wind was so bad in Virginia they could not keep the buoys in the water.  112 miles of wind is punishing, 336 miles of wind takes you down to your lowest denominator.

2010-02-24 5:15 PM
in reply to: #2669557

Master
1391
1000100100100252525
Subject: RE: IRONMAN vs ULTRA
The other year I did my first 50K, and the race also had a 100K option. Basically it was out and back 15.5 miles on a paved road. It was cold and raining, so not much fun. I was talking to one of the guys at the start and he was asking me if this was my first 50K and I told him yes. He than told me he was doing the 100K and he shouldn't have any problems doing it because he does Ironmans. Of course, I don't know why he didn't do the 100K, but I have a feeling that he might not have been prepared as he could have been.

I will say that the ultra community is awesome. It's a different breed of people, and to me it seems more about finishing the race. One of my good friends ventured into ultras a few years ago and got hooked. He just loved the comraderie and the people he met out on the course.

I'm slowly considering on doing a 50 miler this year. I heard JFK 50 is pretty good. Has anyone else done it?

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IRONMAN vs ULTRA Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2