How hard is a 100K?

It's as hard as you make it. If you jog, well then it's a long jog. If you run hard to try to get everything out, it will take ALL OF YOU, like any other distance. It's about matching the effort to the distance.

Tbrownruns wrote:

It is easy you just have to keep going. I am a 2:22 marathoner and I did an FKT two days ago that was 97K in 7 hours. It was totally flat but I was surprised at how easy it was. I know it is changing now but ultra runners just are not that great of athletes.

7:24 for 97k is not very good. You ran over an hour slower than the top men.

not impressed. wrote:

Tbrownruns wrote:

It is easy you just have to keep going. I am a 2:22 marathoner and I did an FKT two days ago that was 97K in 7 hours. It was totally flat but I was surprised at how easy it was. I know it is changing now but ultra runners just are not that great of athletes.

7:24 for 97k is not very good. You ran over an hour slower than the top men.

Only on Letsrun can a guy run for 7.5 hours straight, alone, and people not be impressed.

He’s the one who said, “ultra runners are just not that great.” He should put up or shut up.

shootpost wrote:

Only on Letsrun can a guy run for 7.5 hours straight, alone, and people not be impressed.

Let's not forget that most runners on letsrun are sub 5 min milers.

They have no idea what it takes to run an ultra.

I'm no expert on ultra running, but from my observations, it appears that some people will bonk at about 50 miles, no matter how well they train, pace themselves and fuel. I assume that would be a miserable experience.

not impressed. wrote:

He’s the one who said, “ultra runners are just not that great.” He should put up or shut up.

He is right though. A 7:24 for 97k effort would win 99% of ultras out there. Only the big races with Walmsley or Jornet types he wouldn't win.

And guess what I am- an ultra runner. I don't think there is any top ultra runner out there who thinks there is loads of talent in the sport. Just in the last couple years we are starting to see some more talented runners take the sport seriously (Walmsley for example and look how average even he is compared to the US marathoners).

I'm a 2:50 marathoner, and I ran several 100k's, but none of them were flat or road races. They were all very hilly, mostly on trails and I did them in the summer for training, so they were all run in warm and humid weather (anywhere from 80F to 95F). So, well, how should I put it. I never broke 12 hours in the 100k and the combination of trails and hills really forced me to walk a fair amount on every attempt, especially after dark. If you find a flat road 100k and on a cool day I'm sure you can do better. My main experience with those slow 100k "runs" was pain. It's very different from a typical marathon experience. During the 100k I am in pain for a very long time, basically after 40k, and it does not get better afterwards, it gets worse. I am unable to sleep the first night after finishing the race, the pain is just too strong. I am unable to properly walk for a few days and overall it takes me well over a month to recover. Just my two cents.

Thanks for posts from ultra runners. I read over and over about 'talent', usually when others are talking down ultra running, but talent is a relative thing. At such extreme distances, other talents come into play, things like pain threshold and tolerance, talent at being able to take in calories, talent at being able to maintain motivation during hallucinations and extreme fatigue. How do these not define talent? The more I look into ultras the more impressed I am by people who run them. I used to think of them as stunts, but they are their own thing and worthy of respect just as much as any other disciplines and distances.

shootpost wrote:

not impressed. wrote:

He’s the one who said, “ultra runners are just not that great.” He should put up or shut up.

He is right though. A 7:24 for 97k effort would win 99% of ultras out there. Only the big races with Walmsley or Jornet types he wouldn't win.

And guess what I am- an ultra runner. I don't think there is any top ultra runner out there who thinks there is loads of talent in the sport. Just in the last couple years we are starting to see some more talented runners take the sport seriously (Walmsley for example and look how average even he is compared to the US marathoners).

what is your mpw training for these? age? long runs in training?

That recovery seems very serious.

I can't feel my pace wrote:

My main experience with those slow 100k "runs" was pain. It's very different from a typical marathon experience. During the 100k I am in pain for a very long time, basically after 40k, and it does not get better afterwards, it gets worse. I am unable to sleep the first night after finishing the race, the pain is just too strong. I am unable to properly walk for a few days and overall it takes me well over a month to recover. Just my two cents.

Sounds like you did it right.

If you can't walk well for a day or two after an ultra, you did a good effort.

And of course it takes at least a month to recover from a hard run ultra but that is probably also true for a Marathon.

shootpost wrote:

what is your mpw training for these? age? long runs in training?

That recovery seems very serious.

Training was 70 to 80 miles per week, in singles, with two longer runs over the weekend. I would always try to log at least two or three "sandwiches" of 20+20 miles on back to back days. I ran my first 100k when I was 48, but that was 6 years ago. In general, it felt like perfect training for a marathon, or maybe 50k. But, yes, for a hilly 100k effort it was probably not enough

shootpost wrote:

not impressed. wrote:

He’s the one who said, “ultra runners are just not that great.” He should put up or shut up.

He is right though. A 7:24 for 97k effort would win 99% of ultras out there. Only the big races with Walmsley or Jornet types he wouldn't win.

No he’s not. He basically ran a road ultra in a time that puts him an hour behind the best 100k runners. Then he puts them down, acting as if what he did is impressive when it isn’t. This is the same s*** you see from other non-ultrarunners. Either put up or show up.

not impressed. wrote:

shootpost wrote:

He is right though. A 7:24 for 97k effort would win 99% of ultras out there. Only the big races with Walmsley or Jornet types he wouldn't win.

No he’s not. He basically ran a road ultra in a time that puts him an hour behind the best 100k runners. Then he puts them down, acting as if what he did is impressive when it isn’t. This is the same s*** you see from other non-ultrarunners. Either put up or show up.

Drop your strava link then.

regarding the guy who ran 97k around Lake Zurich in 7:24...

he went out and broke an FKT, or established one. let's not knock his effort, because maybe he could've run an hour faster if he needed to. It doesn't matter. On the other hand, if he didn't really run all-out, then maybe he's not qualified to describe his experience as a race effort.

The guy put his name out there publicly so cut him some slack.

To respond to another poster...7:24 might be faster than winning times of 99% of TRAIL 100ks, but this lake zurich FKT is neither trail nor a full 100k. it's flat and not at elevation. The effort required to run 7:24 for this 97k route might be enough to win some ultras but it won't win any decently competitive ultras...and not just the biggest races.

so please, let's stop talking about this 97k time of the 2:22 guy.

Good luck, if and when you do an ultra.

100k and marathon are simply not comparable, so don't bother with calculating your finishing time.

I could run a 3:30 marathon after a cup of coffee, with zero calories. 100k is an eating contest, with some running in between. I did a 50-miler with 11,000 feet of climbing and probably ate 3,000 calories or so during the run (after a big breakfast). For a completely non-competitive person like me, an ultra is 1) staying aerobic at all costs, at all times; and 2) monitoring the big 6 of fuel, liquid, salt, sun, blisters, and chafing. If you do that, you'll be passing people non-stop the last 3 hours.

A trail effort equivalent to 7:24 97k on the roads will win 99% of trail 100ks.

shootpost wrote:

A trail effort equivalent to 7:24 97k on the roads will win 99% of trail 100ks.

No it won't. You can't compare road and trail ultras at all. Total different things really.

ultrarunner here wrote:

shootpost wrote:

A trail effort equivalent to 7:24 97k on the roads will win 99% of trail 100ks.

No it won't. You can't compare road and trail ultras at all. Total different things really.

nah. fitness is fitness.