Every founder who has finished a long race wants to tell you it is like building a company. Most of that does not survive contact with either activity.
Both require discipline, both are long, both hurt, therefore one prepares you for the other.
It is a satisfying story and it is mostly wrong in a way that matters.
A race has a published date, a fixed distance, and a marked course. You know precisely what the task is and precisely when it ends.
Building anything has none of those properties. The distance is unknown, the course is not marked, and there is no finish line — only a series of points where things become less difficult.
A race tells you where the finish is. That is the single largest thing it does not have in common with building a company.
Tolerance for a long, unglamorous middle. Most training is not interesting and produces no visible result for months.
People who need frequent feedback do not finish, and they usually do not build anything either. That is a real and narrow transferable trait.
A specific relationship with discomfort — distinguishing the pain that means stop from the pain that means continue.
That judgement is trainable, and it is genuinely useful in a business, where those two signals look identical from the inside.
Suffering as a strategy. Endurance sport rewards showing up and repeating the same thing. Companies punish that.
Persistence is a strength right up to the moment the correct answer is to stop, and endurance training trains that instinct out of you. That is worth saying, because the founder-athlete story is always told as if persistence were free.
Endurance sport taught me to keep going when it is boring. It taught me nothing about whether to keep going, and that is the harder question in every business I have been part of.
Read next
Athletics →