How rugged/hilly is the Ice Age Trail compared to the AT?

After 13 years of section hiking the AT I had to have total knee replacement. I want to get back hiking but still don't have all the mobility that I once had so would like to do a shakedown hike nearer to home in the MidWest. I have the Ice Age Trail Guidebook which rates different sections by 1-5 for hilliness and ruggedness. I can't imagine that a 5 on the IAT is the same as the White Mountains on the AT but wonder how rugged that might actually be? Can anyone comment on how those compare to conditions on the AT? Thanks.

There are ups and downs since it follows the drumlins and glacial moraines of the last Ice Age, but your talking about 400 hundred feet of altitude gain or loss in a mile. The most scenic sections of the eastern part is in the Kettle Moraine areas north and south have some climbs from 800 - 1200 feet over a couple of miles. in the North and west section there is a section that climbs from 1400 to 1700 feet. In the central section the biggest climbs of 840 ft to 1220 ft in about a mile.

So

Learned a new word today drumlins.

It's super flat compared to the AT.

IAT is a great trail, but its much, much more flatter then the AT will ever be. One of the best hiking areas is the Kettle Moraine north and south, and as indicated before, they have some nice and gradual climbs. IAT is a great trail, but much different then the AT.