So I just completed a 100km hiking challenge which was easily the hardest physical thing I've ever done. I've never tried even a half marathon before and I was wondering how hard a marathon is compared to something like this for the average person. Obviously they're completely different kinds of difficulty but for most people which is usually harder to complete overall?
I see you've posted an image. Thanks for your contribution!
Did you include the required title information? [Your text.] [Most Specific place], [Specific place], [General place], [COUNTRY].
If you didn't include this information, please delete your post and resubmit it. Your post will be removed without warning if it does not follow this rule!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
the marathon i woud say I did a 60km hiking event and ran half marathon the half marathon was far more demanding in the joints, especialy the knees After the 60km, i was fresh and ready to continue
60km is very very different to 100km. You're barely running into the foot swelling at 60km, haven't got sleep deprivation, muscular fatigue and injury chance is a low lower. I'd say it's significantly less than half the effort.
I ran a half marathon when I was 16 once, and by the 19th K I was ready for it to be done, so a marathon would be pretty tough I reckon
I walked several similar challenges and I ran a half marathon on a whim once (i planned to run 14 k, then thought, hey I can go for a larger loop to make it 21). These walking distances are tough but doable basically for any reasonably fit person. A half marathon is (i think) doable when you are used to 12-15 k runs. But…. If somebody had told me that morning after 21k:” good effort sir, now turn around and run back.”.. I would have caved. A marathon requires, I think, something completely different from your physiology. Walking 100k does not compare to running 21, let alone running 42, if you ask me.
My brother who did a marathon earlier this year and I just dropped out of the 100 van Leeghwater (at 74k). Long before that point he told me this was much harder than a marathon. That's because you have to skip a night of sleep and the walking for so many hours is much harder on your feet, legs and psyche.
I find even 42k way more exhausting when walking than when running.
I think it depends on what you think is difficult. A marathon is more intense but also over much faster. 100k in 24 hours, especially of there lots of elevation in, is a different kind of tough. Both are hard and great achievements. But it’s almost like compating. A 400m race with a 10k. If you do both at your max pace you will come at the finish fully spent. Arguably the shorter faster events are more intense and being able to push beyond when you have the lactic acid coming out of your wars. The longer events are more geared towards being able to keep going when your body says - enough for today.
The NYC marathon stays open for around 9 hours after you have started (depending on when you start), if you walk the pace you have walked for 21 hours you ''complete'' the marathon.
I guess it depends on how seriously you take the marathon. You walked more than two marathons by walking 100k, so if you just walk the marathon it’d be a hell of a lot easier. But if you want to give the marathon a real effort, you’re going to feel a totally different kind of pain. Walking 60 miles is hard and grinds you down, but the intensity of running a marathon is going to make for a couple of hours of real suck.
A marathon PR only sucks in the last 6 or so honestly. So at most it only sucks in the last hour or less. Walk 100k is gonna suck so much more mentally. Either from physical anguish or from mental boredom.
A marathon is a physical and mental challenge, walking 100k is a much tougher mental one. Depends what you find more difficult I did a 100k walk without any training and it was rough but I made it. I trained 9 months for a marathon and it was rough but I made it They’re different challenges; that take different prep and a certain mindset
Neither are as hard as "The Long Walk"
I have done both. The 100km was far easier
I've ran marathons and I've walked them. Walking them is harder as you're longer on your feet. Id suspect the same for a 100k
2.37x harder for 100k ? nice work.
Interesting question. I'm a long term walker and hiker, but couldn't run to save myself until I started doing 5km runs one a week a couple of years ago. In January I did 100km in 24 hours. The last 20km was rough, mainly due to sleep deprivation (I was up early the previous morning, so by the time I finished I had been awake for 40 hours). Despite doing the weekly 5km runs, I only ran 10km for the first time last week. My longest run now is 16km. I think I could probably do a half marathon very soon if I took it slowly. I don't think there is any way I could run a full marathon yet (though I could "do" one if I walked at least half). So, at the moment the marathon (all run) is harder because it is beyond my capacity. Attempting to do it would be harder for me g than the 100km walk. But that will hopefully change.
I did several marathons and I once challenged myself to take 100.000 steps in a day (which approximated to about 84km). Taking 100.000 steps was way harder than the marathons. The blisters that formed and eventually popped throughout that walk were horrible. Doing 100km would be so much more intense than a “mere” marathon.
Congratulations. It's different, not necessarily harder. But your hiking prowess won't translate, you'll have to train. Given you're in good shape, go for it.
I wasn't asking because I'm thinking of doing a marathon, just out of interest but thanks anyway
I've never done a marathon, best I've ever done was 31km. And that was a grind. Walking, I've done just shy 50km in 14 hours. With a backpack on. At the end I was so exhausted I could hardly eat. Felt sick from exhaustion. 100km walking without a pack might be achievable, but if say probably requires prep. Same as a marathon. But of the two, probably 100k in 24 hours, given I couldn't even do 50 in 12.
It isn't simply 2.4 x harder than walking a marathon. Your body and particularly the feet / legs need conditioning. And most importantly you need to develop a hydration and nutrition system training. Drink and eat early. Know what they will supply or what you will consume and train with it extensively with it.
Having done both, the 100k was harder for me personally
Depends a lot on terrain. Having done ultras on trails, I'd say that in some ways the faster running gets you finished sooner and hence less time out on your feet and exposed. But it can use more energy at times, and running slopes can get much more exhausting faster than walking them. Speed matters. Doing a quick marathon is harder than the walking pace. Just finishing the marathon, meaning walking it, would of course be easier.
I did both the 100km was way harder
I have done several 50 km powerwalks with elevation gain between 2-3k meters. Took me between 7-10 hours lol. Back in spring 24 I ran a half marathon in 1:41, with ca 300 meters of elevation gain because I live in a hilly region. Wähile this time of course is anything but special, for me it was super super hard. I enjoyed the power hikes very much yet hated the half lol. Now, I never ran a marathon but can imagine how brutal that one would be.:/
Worst case in a marathon you walk the last 10 or 20 or 30 kms. Worst case in a 100k is you walk the last 100 or 100 or 100kms
You didn’t post a time for a marathon, so it’s impossible to compare. After all, running a sub 2:30 marathon is impossible for most people. But walking a marathon in 6 hours is possible for most people.
i've done many marathons, about 6 of them sub-3, and many ultras from 100km to 400km. A marathon when raced at your absolute limit following an intense 5month training schedule is a lot harder than a 100km ultra if you are not worried about your finish time (but still push yourself). Marathons are difficult when raced at your PR pace, but with a goal of simply finishing are much easier simply because of the distance. 40km can be a training runnfor a 200-300km ultra. A marathon raced to my limit would take weeks to recover. A 100km ultra raced for fun / as training prep would see me rexovyinna few days and i might only take 1-2 days off training. Training volume wise, i might do 10-12 hours for a marathon with a peak at 14hours. Ultra training might be 12-14 with a peak at 18 due to a longer long run. But the marathon training was much harder on the body due to repetitive nature, lots of speed work and higher impact. For ultras nost of my time is spent power hiking. And there is a big variety of muscular-skeletal stress between hiking up, running down, slow running up a gentle hill, moderate pace running on the flat.
Having done both a few times… and counter to most of the opinions here. An all out marathon (full effort) is harder than walking a 100km in 24 hours. You simply push a lot harder in a marathon. Even with elevation and kit the 100km is ‘just’ a long grind.
I ran multiple marathon in a pace which is fast for me (<4hours), I walked 100km (slow running the first 26km, but the rest was walking), I did backyard ultras with 80km/106km (mainly running with breaks. Marathons are for me "harder" in terms intensity. When I run a marathon there comes the point where my body screams "I want to stop immediately". For the longer distances at lower intensity, I can go quite long, because the next km is not that painful in terms of intensity compared to a marathon. I "just" have to make more steps, but I don't have to make them fast. My body is more like "It's not super fun anymore, but if you insist, I can do it" However I have to admit, the aftermath is the opposite. While after the marathon, I have a nice meal and everything is fine. Laying down after 100km means laying in bed with high stress levels, unable to sleep although awake for more than 24 hours and feeling pain everywhere. The next day I walk like a granny.
100km is harder, especially if you have high elevation gain. I've done 100 km hikes in 15-16 hours with 2000m elevation gain and once you go past the 10-hour mark, it gets really mentally challenging, especially on steep terrain. Marathons start off hard, but once you get in the zone, it is not that hard, especially if you're not chasing a PR but just want to finish.