Sub 6 hours 50 miler is more impressive than a 2 :45 marathon

Equates to a 3:06 marathon, so no.

my 2c wrote:

Equates to a 3:06 marathon, so no.

Run it back to back and get back to me lol. It’s harder

Not to me.

I think I agree. They both are challenging but achievable goals for a male runner in his prime, provided he has some talent and the time to train. The training alone would be more intense (longer long runs, more volume in general) for the 50 miler. Besides that, a lot of things that can be toughed out in a marathon can completely derail an ultra.

I Agree however ultras aren't as relatable as marathon times. Thus, non runners would disagree and have no concept of ultra paces.

7:12 pace is very impressive lol

goodmorning wrote:

7:12 pace is very impressive lol

My sentiments exactly

RealCici wrote:

I Agree however ultras aren't as relatable as marathon times. Thus, non runners would disagree and have no concept of ultra paces.

Congratulations. Your post has been deemed worthy of recognition.

my 2c wrote:

Equates to a 3:06 marathon, so no.

More precisely, in theory, it is 3:00 dead....2:45, in theory, is 5:30

Kennekuk Jack wrote:

I think I agree. They both are challenging but achievable goals for a male runner in his prime, provided he has some talent and the time to train. The training alone would be more intense (longer long runs, more volume in general) for the 50 miler. Besides that, a lot of things that can be toughed out in a marathon can completely derail an ultra.

All good points, however it also depends what 'suits' you more both physically and mentally. Some people prefer the less intense longer runs, others don't have the mental makeup for it.

Your ability to handle electrolyte/gels over a longer period (intestinal toughness) also derails the best of them , whereas others can happily chug on sweet electrolyte.

..and on the other hand, in a marathon, say you are on margins of sub 3 with your predictors and training, one little thing can mean you totally miss it...one 5km split too quick, a bad patch etc, whereas in double that distance, you have more margin for error.

Even Norrie Williamson' s (Comrades renowned coach) racing strategy for a silver (sub 7:30/90km) has many walk breaks.

I was looking at the criteria for medals. It looks simple enough to get a silver sub 7:30.

Done both, the 50 miler is way more impressive. Probably closer to a 2:35-2:38 marathon equivalent.

Any race over 4 hours and it's a whole different ball game with respect to nutrition and muscle damage. So it becomes exponentially harder to hold any pace.

Fighting Irish wrote:

Done both, the 50 miler is way more impressive. Probably closer to a 2:35-2:38 marathon equivalent.

Any race over 4 hours and it's a whole different ball game with respect to nutrition and muscle damage. So it becomes exponentially harder to hold any pace.

There are a lot more people running

3 hour marathons than 7 hour 50 milers.

Just for fun, Boston should make a last minute switch to 50 miles so we could all watch the 26.2 runners line up at the DNF table.

What's all this BS ultra crap appearing here now?

A 6 hour 50 is a 2:45? I ran a 2:31 when I was 18 years old. Never ran another. Just saying.

I have ran a 2:30 marathon and I have ran a 7:14 50 miler. Running under 6 is equivalent to a 2:15.

Banana Bread wrote:

goodmorning wrote:

7:12 pace is very impressive lol

My sentiments exactly

Show us one ultra race you have done

goodmorning wrote:

7:12 pace is very impressive lol

Exactly. 7:12 pace for 50 miles is VERY IMPRESSIVE. Go try it and get back to us....

Someone that has actually attempted both wrote:

I have ran a 2:30 marathon and I have ran a 7:14 50 miler. Running under 6 is equivalent to a 2:15.

has it occurred to you that maybe your 50 mile just sucked? we're talking a flat, road 50 miler. not a trail race.

I'd take a 2:30 over a 6:00 but only because 50 mile road races aren't very common and aren't prestigious. The closest would be JFK which is half on trails (for something like 25 miles) and in that case a 6:00 would be better than a 2:30.

I've run 2:32 and in 2019 my plan is to race a flat 50k and a flat 50 miler (although still on trails - slower course than JFK).

AR50 (american river 50) is the race if anybody cares to look it up. I think I could run about 6:20s which in my mind would be about equal to a 2:30 marathon depending on course conditions.

Someone that has actually attempted both wrote:

I have ran a 2:30 marathon and I have ran a 7:14 50 miler. Running under 6 is equivalent to a 2:15.

You sound like someone who replied to me on another thread a few months ago. I never got back to you if it was literally you but it would be impossible to run only 7:14 if you done a 2:30 thon. That is nearly literally 3 mins per mile pace difference. You were probably in great shape in the thon and tired in the 50 miles. The aftermat of the thon must have been similar to what Kimetto was after his wr.

Not Banana Bread wrote:

Banana Bread wrote:

My sentiments exactly

Show us one ultra race you have done

I haven't done an ultra. If I do one I'll show you in the future but I don't plan on it now. I want to get faster over short distances. I've done 3:20 in the thon with almost no training when I took up running so I could handle a long race unprepared if I wanted. I'm sure I could run at that thon pace(7:40 mile) for 100k in my current shape so already that is low 6 hr for 50miles. I could someday get to mid 5 hr someday in the future if I wanted.