Just glad we agree.
Just glad we agree.
talking heads wrote:
Just because someone has figured out how to publish a podcast doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Podcasts are just another social media outlet for the masses to spread misinformation.
That's right. I don't like Eric Schranz podcast either. But he has a point.
At the end all these 2:01- 2:05 runners could but have not run any ultras. And there a plenty of reasons for that. This spring there were a couple of good Comrades runners who had a shoot at a 100 mile race in South Africa. They all failed miserably.
No idea how many great 10000 meter track runners transition to Marathon and are successful. I don't think there are too many of them. And from there to ultra the time factor is getting bigger and bigger. 10000 meters is 26 minutes , Marathon a bit more than 2 hours but Comrades is already 5 hours and 100k road races 6 hours +.
Weather, needed nutrition, blisters and all kinds of other little things pop up, Marathon runners have never heard about. The longer the race the less speed is of importance. All the other factors coming into play.
As long as no 2:05 runner steps up to ultras, it's all talk.
Forest Gump again wrote:
talking heads wrote:
Just because someone has figured out how to publish a podcast doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Podcasts are just another social media outlet for the masses to spread misinformation.
That's right. I don't like Eric Schranz podcast either. But he has a point.
At the end all these 2:01- 2:05 runners could but have not run any ultras. And there a plenty of reasons for that. This spring there were a couple of good Comrades runners who had a shoot at a 100 mile race in South Africa. They all failed miserably.
No idea how many great 10000 meter track runners transition to Marathon and are successful. I don't think there are too many of them. And from there to ultra the time factor is getting bigger and bigger. 10000 meters is 26 minutes , Marathon a bit more than 2 hours but Comrades is already 5 hours and 100k road races 6 hours +.
Weather, needed nutrition, blisters and all kinds of other little things pop up, Marathon runners have never heard about. The longer the race the less speed is of importance. All the other factors coming into play.
As long as no 2:05 runner steps up to ultras, it's all talk.
50 miles on the roads is a lot less different than the marathon than most people think. This is especially true for athletes doing the kind of volume kipchoge is (probably more miles and quality than 99% of top ultrarunners).
I hope Galen follows in Alberto's footsteps and does comrades once and smashes the field and CR to put this myth to bed...
Kipchoge couldn't break it wrote:
Kipchoge can't break the 50 mile world record because Kipchoge doesn't train for 50 mile races.
If he trained for it, he would likely obliterate it, but he'll never train for it because there is no real money in bullsh!t circus events.
Hence Kipchoge can't break that dude's record. That doesn't mean that other guy is a better runner than Kipchoge.
Yes. Kipgchoge is in it for the money, he'll never run something like a 50miler.. Fordyce was a great runner who did these runs for the love of the sport.
Have you actually run road 50 miles, let alone fast?
talking heads wrote:
Just because someone has figured out how to publish a podcast doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Podcasts are just another social media outlet for the masses to spread misinformation.
You have misinformation confused with opinion.
LOL. 5:48 pace is kipchoge's training pace.
Any relationship to that Lore of Running guy? He's best buddies with Fordyce, praises him like crazy in his books.
Ridiculous. Kipchoge much better. wrote:
Any relationship to that Lore of Running guy? He's best buddies with Fordyce, praises him like crazy in his books.
Kipchoge probably runs a lot more than Fordyce ever did - which is detailed in Lore of Running. He would cruise to the 50M record. It would still only be a 4+ hour run which isn’t much when you throw down a lot of mileage.
First of all a 50-miler on a road/track is going to correlate pretty darn well to road marathon performances. And a fast 10km also correlates pretty well to 42km BTW.....sure not every 27-26min 10km guy runs sub 2:10 but a lot do (or at least could). No doubt in my mind Kipchoge (or most even sub 2:10 guys) could crush a sub 4:50 for 50-miles on a track or flat road...Kipchoge could probably sub 4:40 without any specific training...Yeah some might go out too fast and cramp up or have stomach issues but I think the vast majority would have a really good shot at it. Other sub 2:10 marathon guys (with a few 28-30 mile Long Runs) and logging 120-140mpw could also probably beat that time and run in the 4:40s for 50-miles. Beating Fordyce at Comrades is another story though as an up year is about 6000' of climbing. I've seen 2:08 guys not win Comrades. Now if we start talking 100-miles in the mountains or super technical "Sky Running" ultras in the mountains/mud/rocks things start to change a lot more.....
Forest Gump again wrote:
talking heads wrote:
Just because someone has figured out how to publish a podcast doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Podcasts are just another social media outlet for the masses to spread misinformation.
That's right. I don't like Eric Schranz podcast either. But he has a point.
At the end all these 2:01- 2:05 runners could but have not run any ultras. And there a plenty of reasons for that. This spring there were a couple of good Comrades runners who had a shoot at a 100 mile race in South Africa. They all failed miserably.
No idea how many great 10000 meter track runners transition to Marathon and are successful. I don't think there are too many of them. And from there to ultra the time factor is getting bigger and bigger. 10000 meters is 26 minutes , Marathon a bit more than 2 hours but Comrades is already 5 hours and 100k road races 6 hours +.
Weather, needed nutrition, blisters and all kinds of other little things pop up, Marathon runners have never heard about. The longer the race the less speed is of importance. All the other factors coming into play.
As long as no 2:05 runner steps up to ultras, it's all talk.
Forest Gump again wrote:
Delusional ultrarunners? wrote:
Are ultrarunners really this dellusional to what kind of talent and ability someone like Kipchoge/Bekele has?
No, some letrun posters are delusional what Marathoners can do on ultradistances.
Some might pull it off like Alberto Salazar did but he only did it once I believe.
Alberto only did it once because he only attempted once. And that was 10 years after he was ranked in the marathon, he was washed up and could no longer compete at a major marathon. Give it up buddy ultra running does not have the best talent in running because it's not as popular and does not pay as well. Until that changes you'll never see a top level marathoner give it a go in their prime. What a joke, as Sage said Kipchoge could easily run much faster than that. That pace is an easy run for him.
Delusional ultrarunners? wrote:
Just heard that Ultrarunner Podcast's Eric Schranz claimed that Kipchoge would not be able to break Bruce Fordyce's 50 mile work record (4h 50min, 5:48/mile...). Kipchoge could run a 4:2x 50 mile easy. Even Jim Walmsley who is far from an elite marathoner could probably break the 50 mile WR if he really tried.
Are ultrarunners really this dellusional to what kind of talent and ability someone like Kipchoge/Bekele has?
Where did you hear this and why would you care?
Takinadump wrote:
Alberto only did it once because he only attempted once. And that was 10 years after he was ranked in the marathon, he was washed up and could no longer compete at a major marathon. Give it up buddy ultra running does not have the best talent in running because it's not as popular and does not pay as well. Until that changes you'll never see a top level marathoner give it a go in their prime. What a joke, as Sage said Kipchoge could easily run much faster than that. That pace is an easy run for him.
Exactly, Alberto Salazar was done. And that is one of my points. Any former Marathon super star is done body wise. There is nothing left. They might have done great thing in ultrarunning but they didn't. Money is one of the big motivators and I get that.
A flat 50k or 50 miler is probably well within reach for top Marathon runners. Comrades as Sage mentioned not so much. A lot of pretty good Marathoners have failed there. And the longer the distance the more the skill set shifts from raw speed to body management.
Ultrarunning has the best talent for the people who are good in running ultras and Marathon has the best talented people for running Marathons but that somebody is as good in Marathons and 100k or 100 miles is impossible.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
Oh please, that record would be DESTROYED if a faster elite took a serious go at it. I love some of the ultramarathon guys, but that WR, on a flat course, we would go down by probably another 10 minutes.
Heck the AR is held by a guy who was "only" a 2:18 marathoner....and he ran 4:51...
Fordyce's record is only a minute faster than that....
Wouldn't matter though because at any time Dean Karnazes could come out of retirement and crush it.
I disagree with what you wrote there. I think on a FLAT road/track a lot of top marathon runners will have a strong correlation in performances from 26.2 mile to 100-miles. Sure, some would have issues probably after 50-miles-100km, but those that are well trained in a marathon are flat out good distance runners period. You get too caught up on the race/event DISTANCE. It's the HILLS and nature of the running SURFACE that matter more. Sure at a race like UTMB sometimes the 2:28 marathoner beats the 2:18 guy. But (barring an epic meltdown) they are going to both usually beat the 2:48 guy most times. Even a road ultra like Comrades is "less predictable" because it is quite hilly....not because it is 55-56 miles in distance. (like I said 6000' of climbing on a "uphill year"...which is the significant number here). So a great runner like Fordyce (who had that race dialed much like Matt Carpenter had Pikes Peak dialed) can really excel over slightly faster marathon runners. Same goes for the "extreme" trail-ultra-mountain events that have very technical trails, steep uphills and downhills, mud/snow, night running etc. The ski mountaineer guys can do better in these types of events. Kilian is a great mountain athlete from 5km to 100-mile events....because they are all "mountain running events." A great marathon runner would also likely have very good range from 5km/10km up to 50-100miles on a road/track because they are all "distance running events on a smooth surface with minimal hills". Sure there are more issues that can go wrong the longer the duration of the race (mainly stomach/dehydration/fueling issues...and that can wreck havoc and cause some inconsistency), but a sub 2:10 marathon runner is going to have a lot of wiggle room with their thresholds and efficiency heading into an ultra at a much slower pace... even at double or quadruple the distance. Small sample size, but consider 2:14 marathoner Max King (who back in the day had range to also run an 8:30 3km steeple). He also won the IAAF world champs 100km on the roads. However, Max's performances are "less predictable" in the mountains at events like Speedgoat, Pikes Peak, or even North Face 50-miler/Lake Sonoma 50....not because those are ultra distances but because those trail/mountain races have thousands of feet of climbing in them and lots of hills. BTW I greatly respect and admire Max because like me he does #AnySurfaceAnyDistance ... plus competes quite well in a variety of events and the bigger, more competitive events in the relatively niche MUT Running scene. He's a cool dude and is tough as nails.
Forest Gump again wrote:
Ultrarunning has the best talent for the people who are good in running ultras and Marathon has the best talented people for running Marathons but that somebody is as good in Marathons and 100k or 100 miles is impossible.
I've run all types of road ultras. Whether the course is flat or hilly- after 35-40 miles when you've depleted your glycogen, if you don't have the slow twitch fibers and ability to metabolize fat well, it's going to get really hard. Muscles are more likely to cramp and run out of steam. A marathoner won't know if they have it until they try. There's a very loose correlation to marathon speed because you need a certain fitness level to be up front, but being too fast/too much fast twitch is likely a disadvantage after 40 miles. The best runners at Comrades and road 100K are rarely ever the fastest marathoners, and plenty of fast marathoners have tried. You can see the variations in who's the better fat metabolizers comparing marathon vs 100K times.
Also, flat road 50 mi-100K is IMHO the hardest event on your body. It's very repetitive, and the sheer sustained speed is stressful on your feet, legs, gut, and mentally hard continuing to push at a high speed beyond glycogen depletion. If you're prone to overuse injuries and can't handle a lot of concrete a lot of runners break down at some point. Even watching a few top marathoners step up at Two Oceans (56K) this yr, their bodies broke. A lot of the best road ultrarunners have a shuffly gait/higher stride frequency. Reading the research, they mention the likelihood of ultrarunners altering their mechanics to become more fuel efficient and fatigue resistent to reduce stress/injury. It seems that on trail there's a lot more variability in stride types. For road/track ultras, a shuffly gait may be more favorable.
Camille, I agree with you on the slow twitch...wasn't Salazar like "90+ % slow switch"? ....and with efficiency that that can bring in Running Economy at 75-80% of Vo2max velocity. Of course FT fibers can also be trained to have more ST like properties.
I think with running economy at sub-maximal speeds it often helps to have that trained adaptation of endurance fibers (and of course leg muscle/endurance-strength to withstand the pounding).
However, one can also "run out of glycogen" at mile 20 of a regular road marathon (esp if they go out too fast). So these demands aren't unique to ultra-marathons. The longer duration of the event/race can cause little mistakes (i.e. dehydration) to become exponentially bad though.
I don't know the women's history with events like Comrades and the long road/track ultras as much, but for the guys I don't think there really have been that many sub 2:10 marathons that have ventured into ANY ultras. Sure, there is a 2:08 guy here and there...but there really aren't that many that I can think of. The numbers simply aren't there yet.
I also think your background/ability to run a marathon in the 2:30s has translated directly into your great success to win a race like Comrades and set the 100-mile record. For the record of course I have never run a "flat and runnable" 50-mile-100-mile race I was only 15th at Comrades (well 13th if you count the two dopers that got caught ahead of me).
Finally, I'd say if there is a guy that is like a 1:00 half runner and a 2:08 marathon runner VS a guy that is a 1:03 half runner and a 2:11 marathoner...then it is MORE LIKELY that the latter runner is probably going to be better at ultras compared to the first guy....and that might be because he has more ST fibers and is therefore not only more efficient at 6:00/mile pace (in terms of running economy), but he also may be less resistant to injury at high mileage and doing long runs over 20-miles in training. Sure, they may both get beat by the "slower" 2:15 guy who specializes in ultras, but still the relative correlation between marathon PRs and the extension up into "flat runnable ultras" is quite strong. ...historically we've had a pretty small sample size though....especially at the super fast marathon end.
Perhaps Salazar was one of the Daniels/Costill athletes who had a muscle biopsy and was more slow twitch? I feel like I've read this at one time. His uphill time is not one of the fastest times though. However, he was 10 yrs past his prime. There's huge variations in marathon PRs of the top 10 uphill/downhill performers for both men and women. 3-time winner Bongmusa is only a 2:23 marathoner and beat guys with PRs in the 2:10-16 range (including 2:14 marathoner David Gatebe, who set the downhill CR in 2016). 50K WR holder Thompson Magawana (2:10 marathoner) could only manage a best place of 5th at Comrades in several tries-- this is with a tremendous amount of money and prestige on the line, being South African. The best ultrarunners tend to be 2nd or 3rd tier marathoners. I would theorize these runners have good enough speed, but have more slowtwitch fibers and better fat metabolism, being more apt to resist fatigue after 40 miles. Here's a good study breaking down the differences:
it can be assumed that the selection of economical stride length, as well as lower impact peak magnitudes and decreased vertical impulse are related to ultramarathon performance. However, it has yet to be determined if distance and ultramarathon runners run in mechanically similar manners. What research has been conducted regarding the biomechanics of ultramarathon running indicates that runners alter their gait, perhaps in an effort to adapt to fatigue induced changes or to avoid injury. These gait changes consist of a higher stride frequency and duty factor, and a reduced aerial time without a change in contact time (Morin et al. 2011b). Additionally, ultramarathon runners exhibit lower maximal vertical GRFs and loading rate at impact (Morin et al. 2011b). Further, it has been noted that ultramarathon runners exhibit considerable gait variability, which is likely dependent on terrain, but further research in this area is needed (Giandolini et al. 2015).
....predictors of ultramarathon performance include V˙O 2max, fractional utilization, and mean energy cost of running (Lazzer et al. 2012), as well as peak treadmill velocity during maximal exercise testing and velocity at lactate turn point (Noakes et al. 1990). Given the extreme duration or ultramarathon events, fatigue resistance is clearly an important determinant of performance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28859414
Sorry I am not buying it.
Just because you are a "well trained in a marathon are flat out good distance runner period. " does not mean you can handle the added challenges which get more and more importance in ultras the longer they get. Nutrition is a big one, than there are blisters and weather challenges. In a Marathon you just plow through for 2 hours and a bit. A 100k takes 6:30 for the best, that is more than 3 times as long.
And history shows that top Marathoners don't put a big impact into 100k times at all.
100 miles on road and track is a little different since it is not an official distance and was only raced a couple of times over the decades. There is no existing 100 mile record list anywhere on the internet. Don Ritchie set a high mark in 1977 and it was improved 25 years later in an anniversary event by Oleg Kharitonov in 11:28:03.
These are probably no soft times but we don't really know.
But in 100k running the records are well established over the last 30 years. Interestingly enough Don Ritchie's record from 1978 was just improved a tiny bit days after his passing. Don had a Marathon best of 2:17 I think.
The discussion what would happen if a 2:05 Marathoner would show up is just pure speculation.
You can only race against the people who show up at the start line.
Forest Gump again wrote:
Delusional ultrarunners? wrote:
Are ultrarunners really this dellusional to what kind of talent and ability someone like Kipchoge/Bekele has?
No, some letrun posters are delusional what Marathoners can do on ultradistances.
Some might pull it off like Alberto Salazar did but he only did it once I believe.
lets recap. salazar was a 208 marathoner in his prime at athletics west(we all know what that means) and then decades past his prime he destroys so called world class ultra runners...... kipchoge is a 201 marathoner and in his prime now.