What does it take to run a sub-4 hour 50k?

That is nowhere near the time needed to be regarded as sub-elite

3:30 and you're sub-elite

I'm not the OP, but I am also interested in the training part of the question. Arguments about what to label such a time ("elite", "sub-elite", "hobby jogger", "D3", "your momma", etc.) are not useful. Anyone care to share their thoughts on training to go "sub 4" over 50k?

To answer your question, 50k training is essentially the same as marathon training, with extended long runs, and more emphasis on nutrition

It's important to not forget track workouts, tempo runs, strength training, etc. The farther the distance you're training for, the less those matter (with the exception of strength training - that always matters)

Running sub-4 in the 50k really depends on the course. Assuming elevation is minimal and the race isn't technical enough to alter your stride, then your marathon time should be in the 2:55-3:15 range; 2:55 if long distances aren't your specialty, or 3:15 if you find you're more competitive in long distances as opposed to 5ks or 10ks or you find that you consistently negative split your longer races

With 50k racing, nutrition is even more important than it is for a marathon. They say the best ultrarunners are the ones with the strongest stomachs, and that holds true time and time again. Find something that gives fast-absorbing energy and is easy to digest

Long runs - With 50ks, you have a two options. Slow and long (say, 8:15 pace for 28 miles), or shorter and slightly faster (7:30 pace for 21 miles). Either will get the job done, but the former will give you more confidence. If you could, try to incorporate both into your training!

- John

TrackBot! VDOT 03:59:59.99 50k

VDOT for 03:59:59.99 50km: 46.8

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 03:21:40

Half marathon: 01:36:59

15K: 01:07:21

10K: 00:43:46

5K: 00:21:06

3Mi: 00:20:20

2Mi: 00:13:13

3200m: 00:13:08

3K: 00:12:15

1Mi: 00:06:12

1600m: 00:06:09

1500m: 00:05:44

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

I was in 2:40 shape many years ago and jogged through Sunmart Texas Trails in sub-4.

Very fun event, btw.

VegetableSoup wrote:

That is nowhere near the time needed to be regarded as sub-elite

3:30 and you're sub-elite

Sub-elite has got to be faster than that. I'm a 48 year old hobby jogger who could run a 3:29:59 50k fairly easily.

It's only worth about a 2:53 marathon, only 7.8km less. Are you going to call a 2:53 marathoner sub-elite?

A 3:00 50k is roughly equal to a 2:30 marathon. I would consider that to be "entry-level" sub-elite at best. If not, it should be.

... and on top of that, the WR for 50km race walk is 3:34:14.

TrackBot wrote:

VDOT for 03:59:59.99 50km: 46.8

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 03:21:40

Half marathon: 01:36:59

15K: 01:07:21

10K: 00:43:46

5K: 00:21:06

3Mi: 00:20:20

2Mi: 00:13:13

3200m: 00:13:08

3K: 00:12:15

1Mi: 00:06:12

1600m: 00:06:09

1500m: 00:05:44

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Lol, 6:12 mile?

First you have to add about a minute per mile for trails. Then add more time for a lot of elevation gain and loss. A 3 flat marathoner will run 325 on trails. Add in another minute per mile for a few thousand ft of climbing and you are at a 350 marathon or 435 50k. Somebody would have to be a 230 marathoner to run sub 4. I just did a marathon on the treadmill with 8,000 ft of gain. My pace was 2.5 minutes per mile than flat pace.

As for training, long runs fast runs steady runs, interval runs, hill run, flat runs, trail runs, road runs, treadmill runs!!

easy weeks wrote:

VegetableSoup wrote:

That is nowhere near the time needed to be regarded as sub-elite

3:30 and you're sub-elite

Sub-elite has got to be faster than that. I'm a 48 year old hobby jogger who could run a 3:29:59 50k fairly easily.

It's only worth about a 2:53 marathon, only 7.8km less. Are you going to call a 2:53 marathoner sub-elite?

A 3:00 50k is roughly equal to a 2:30 marathon. I would consider that to be "entry-level" sub-elite at best. If not, it should be.

In terms of times, you're correct, and I completely agree. But we need to consider that ultra running is a much smaller field than road running, and "elite" is a relative term; it's where you rank among everyone participating. Since the field of participation is much smaller, the times needed to be "elite" or "sub-elite" are much different.

If everyone who takes part in road racing were to take part in ultra trail running, then winning times and average finishing times would drop, and it would take much faster times to be considered "elite"

John

easy weeks wrote:

VegetableSoup wrote:

That is nowhere near the time needed to be regarded as sub-elite

3:30 and you're sub-elite

Sub-elite has got to be faster than that. I'm a 48 year old hobby jogger who could run a 3:29:59 50k fairly easily.

It's only worth about a 2:53 marathon, only 7.8km less. Are you going to call a 2:53 marathoner sub-elite?

A 3:00 50k is roughly equal to a 2:30 marathon. I would consider that to be "entry-level" sub-elite at best. If not, it should be.

Do you always give an opinion for stuff that you have no idea about, or do you just save your prime stupidity for here?

Pace calculators and Trackbot won't help. 50k ultras are A) never flat B) raced on trails.

This isn't the Nike project. When people are asking about elite race times in ultras, no one in the know assumes that it's what Rupp can run on the road! FFS you are stupid.

The Chuckanut 50k was just last weekend and the winner Max King ran in 3:33:11, with Hayden Hawks and Sage in 2nd and 3rd. While Chuckanut has far from minimal elevation, you're never going to get a FLAT ultra either.

eyeroll squared wrote:

Do you always give an opinion for stuff that you have no idea about, or do you just save your prime stupidity for here?

Pace calculators and Trackbot won't help. 50k ultras are A) never flat B) raced on trails.

haha, never? On both accounts? Sure, bud. The Niagara Ultra, which I've volunteered at and run (not raced) on most of the course, is on an asphalt path and has about 300' difference between the lowest and highest point. I could name more.

Do you always give an opinion for stuff that you have no idea about, or do you just save your prime stupidity for here? :)

easy weeks wrote:

eyeroll squared wrote:

Do you always give an opinion for stuff that you have no idea about, or do you just save your prime stupidity for here?

Pace calculators and Trackbot won't help. 50k ultras are A) never flat B) raced on trails.

haha, never? On both accounts? Sure, bud. The Niagara Ultra, which I've volunteered at and run (not raced) on most of the course, is on an asphalt path and has about 300' difference between the lowest and highest point. I could name more.

Holey cash you're pedantic lmao. Sure, just ignore that your time assessment flaws in your 50k analysis were fully exposed as complete BS and focus on the word never.

The majority of courses are not on a$$phalt and are nowhere near flat. LOL armchair critic, try racing a few! I'm sure you can run that 3:01 50k on your 50-55 AG BQ training you ran that one time.

The first step is to not walk. Walking is for hobby joggers.

The question was about training to run sub-4 for 50km. We are about 15 posts in, and only 1 of them addresses the question (thanks John). The rest are arguing about a completely arbitrary distinction in nomenclature, now devolving into personal attacks between complete strangers. Yup, that's LRC.

If anyone else would care to add their thoughts about training methods, I for one would appreciate it.

But if you're going to argue about what counts as "(sub-)elite", do us all a favor and unplug from the internet for the night.

I've run a bunch of 50ks under 4 hours, with a best of 3:35 on a "fast course" (around a lake, rolling terrain, certainly no mountains). Most were around 3:45-3:55.

In that time period my marathons on roads were in the 2:35-2:42 range.

Decent mileage, hitting the 70-80 a week spot, rarely any more.

I'd hit some road races along the way, with times arouns 15:45 5k, 33:00 10k, 1:13 Half.

Trainjng was about as predictable as can be: weekend long run (20 MAX), a speedier workout once a week (ex. 10x800 at 2:30) and some sort of tempo effort (maybe 2x3 mile at 5:30 pace). And if possible, I'd put that tempo run into a decently long mid week run, say 13-16 miles.

First off, I'm an "also ran" runner, and am probably in the bottom 1% of LRC with no significant PR's to speak of (marathon PR: 3:19)

I ran a 50km road race on Saturday past at an easy long run training pace, and was marginally over the 4 hour mark. I placed about 200th out of almost 2 800 runners. Fair enough, it was a road race so it would be quicker than off-road, but is still one of the hotter and tougher races here in South Africa.

I've also run 2 x marathons in 2017 thus far, with a 48km coming up on the 2nd of April, and Two Oceans 56km coming up 2 weeks after that. I had no taper, no recovery, ran this 50km as a training run as part of a 130km week, with a brutal hill session 2 days before and a 16km interval workout the day before the race.

I'm not a quick runner by any means, I went into the run feeling dead tired already, and still ran in the vicinity of 4 hours. The point is, sub 4 is not going to turn heads. It's a nice number to aim for depending on your ability, but it's nothing special

Training-wise, same as the marathon (aiming for roundabout 3:15 finish)

If you are talking trail running, time doesn't mean much. On the roads, a 4 hours 50K is jogging for a 3 hours marathoner and most likely achievable for a 3:15 one.

In the region I am, you can probably find a 50K no one would ever do under 4. While I was hiking at high altitude, I've witnessed a 26K ultra that was won in something like 3:40. Pro ultra-runners were present, including a US American, Max King, but he may just have jogged the thing, who knows.