A 50k “ultra” isn’t an “ultra”—it is a safe space for hobby joggers to feel good about thems

TempoTom wrote:

Okay you got me with the facts. A 50k is an ultra. A 50k is also a joke. Not a fact, but an opinion shared by the majority of serious runners.

Cool story, bro. Glad I don't have to hang out with this ameboid group of "serious runners." They sound miserable.

I mean, when you really think about, TempoTom has a pretty good point. The majority of folks that do 50k "ultras" are just people who could never break 19 in the 5k and think they are "elite" by doing a distance just barely longer than a marathon. It would be a much better use of their time to try and get the Boston qualifier, it is much more rewarding and valued in the running community. I can't help but think these 50k "ultras" are a waste of money too.....why pay that kind of money to run with 2 other people for 31 miles when you can just do it on your own? Save the money, invest in the market, and make some real money instead of blowing it on some weird distance race.

TempoTom wrote:

Okay you got me with the facts. A 50k is an ultra. A 50k is also a joke. Not a fact, but an opinion shared by the majority of serious runners .

0/10 - a good troll post doesn’t require repeated new troll posts. That sentence is quality trolling, with it’s complete utter inflammatory nonsense but, again, you’re trying to pump up your own original troll post which is just bad trolling.

DudeBroMan wrote:

TempoTom wrote:

Okay you got me with the facts. A 50k is an ultra. A 50k is also a joke. Not a fact, but an opinion shared by the majority of serious runners.

Cool story, bro. Glad I don't have to hang out with this ameboid group of "serious runners." They sound miserable.

I’m starting to understand the appeal. There is a trend toward chicks digging the dad bod which a lot of ultra runners have because they don’t train that much and take energy gels on 3 mile runs while holding a water bottle in each hand.

SeriouslyTho wrote:

I mean, when you really think about, TempoTom has a pretty good point. The majority of folks that do 50k "ultras" are just people who could never break 19 in the 5k and think they are "elite" by doing a distance just barely longer than a marathon. It would be a much better use of their time to try and get the Boston qualifier, it is much more rewarding and valued in the running community. I can't help but think these 50k "ultras" are a waste of money too.....why pay that kind of money to run with 2 other people for 31 miles when you can just do it on your own? Save the money, invest in the market, and make some real money instead of blowing it on some weird distance race.

Have a co worker who thinks he’s elite. I ran a 2:22 marathon the same weekend he ran a 12 min paced 50k. The “ultra” runner made sure the whole office knew about his race. So aggravating when I had other coworkers come up to me and asked if they thought I was capable of running as far as hobby joggers Bob ran.

If that is true you should already know better. You are running for your own achievements. While 2:22 is a excellent performance for anybody who has run a decent Marathon, it's also 20 minutes away from the WR.

And normal people have no idea to judge a 2:22 to a 4:22 Marathon. "They both finished right?

But a 50k that is soooo amazing."

It’s probably a good stepping stone for someone who has done marathons but isn’t sure if they can complete a 40 miler, 50 miler, etc.

I am aspiring to run at least one ultra once life gets more normal.

The race website of my 50k in mind also notes that the course is harder than a marathon not just because of distance, but it has greater elevation change and more technical footing than a standard road marathon; thus requiring more focus in that regard.

And to be honest I am kind of the stereotype you describe; way off my lifetime PRs and fitness (due to injuries among other things) but I want to try something new.

I will also say at this moment in my life, I believe the 5k is the hardest distance. I would rather experience the pain of a marathon than that of the 5k. I would rather log more miles and do a long race than do the hard track sessions and endure the 16-17 min of pain of a 5k. I recognize that I’m not as competitive as I used to be but I am comfortable with that.

I consider a 26.3 mile race to be an "ultra".....but again I don't really care about the distance and lost track of how many "ultras" I've finished compared to just "regular road marathons"

Many of the best mountain-trail races in the world (i.e. Sierre-Zinal or UTMB) are are point-to-point (or a loop) between towns. Sierre-Zinal runs between two towns and is like 18.6 miles or something.

UMTB is like 106-miles (depending the year). Most people in the world (besides some from the US, UK and maybe New Zealand/Australia) wouldn't care if UTMB was only 90 miles or a 116 miles...it would just be a "long mountain race." Some people (mainly Americans) say the only "real ultras" start at 100-miles! But what about a race like Comrades (55-57 miles depending on the year?!). What about 100km? 50km is a very nice distance too.

Most people spend a lot of time walking in the longer ultras anyway. I walked probably about 30-miles during my 100-mile melt downs. A race like Barkley? That's a glorified scavenger hunt/walk/hike in the woods! Sure it would be super hard, but running a 5km all out at Vo2max is also very hard!

Any distance race is going to be a hard challenge if you push yourself 100%....I don't care if it's a 5km or a half marathon or a full marathon or a 100km....it all hurts and its all hard. The pain should be a constant.

I disagree, 50ks are for real marathoners.

TempoTom wrote:

I don’t count 50ks as an ultra event since it is less than 5 miles longer than a marathon. 31 vs 26.2. I do respect ultra runners who run 50 miles, 100k, 100 miles, 24 hour challenge, backyard ultras.

Why even sign up for a 50k? I know I sound like an elitist, but I would rather these hobby joggers focus on getting better at running in general and seriously train for a marathon rather than just crawl their way to a 50k and brag to their co-workers about how they are an ultra runner who probably trains less than a marathon runner trying to BQ. Maybe it is cool to finish 12th out of 100 instead of 4000th out of 10,000.

Thoughts?

Ultra "running" is a safe space for people who weren't good enough to make it on the track or the road. No one on earth cares if you think 50k is ultra or not.

800 dude wrote:

shootpost wrote:It is harder to run a fast marathon than slog your way through an ultra.

You do know you can run fast 50ks right?

No kidding.

Here's my take: 50ks are the best ultras because competitors are actually running. Beyond 50k, even the best ultrarunners are mostly just jogging. Jim Walmsley's Lake Sonoma 50-mile course record is over 7-minute pace![/quote]

The Lake Sonoma course has about 10500 feet of vertical. 7:02 pace is impressive. I’m sure he was well under 6-6:30 pace on any flat or downhill sections. Sure, you may be at a “jogging” pace on a 12% climb, but it definitely isn’t a jogging effort.

Seems to me like OP cares too much about what other people think. If that’s what matters to you, you need to switch to ultras. Someone mentioned it, but it’s worth repeating that if you’re trying to impress people (which it sounds like you are, OP, based on how devastated you were that no one at your job gave a rat’s ass about your 2:22 marathon), people are more impressed by someone who ran 31 miles than 26.2. People have no idea how to translate pace, so that doesn’t matter.

subelite hobbyjogger wrote:

The Lake Sonoma course has about 10500 feet of vertical. 7:02 pace is impressive. I’m sure he was well under 6-6:30 pace on any flat or downhill sections. Sure, you may be at a “jogging” pace on a 12% climb, but it definitely isn’t a jogging effort.

Come on, people. I'm not trying to denigrate Walmsley or suggest that ultrarunning or Lake Sonoma in particular is easy. It's obviously not. My point is just that beyond 50k, even the very best ultrarunners are moving at a pace that's essentially jogging.

My defense of the 50k is that it's the longest race at which your race pace is still a hard, workout-type pace. Once you get beyond that, your race pace is something that you'll sometimes hit on your easy days, just because you're feeling good. Nobody really runs 50k pace by accident. (I'm talking about competitive runners here. Obviously the slower you get, the closer your race pace and easy pace get.)

My criterion for defending the 50k is, of course, entirely aesthetic and arbitrary.

It really doesn’t matter dude wrote:

Seems to me like OP cares too much about what other people think. If that’s what matters to you, you need to switch to ultras. Someone mentioned it, but it’s worth repeating that if you’re trying to impress people (which it sounds like you are, OP, based on how devastated you were that no one at your job gave a rat’s ass about your 2:22 marathon), people are more impressed by someone who ran 31 miles than 26.2. People have no idea how to translate pace, so that doesn’t matter.

You would be incorrect. I did not tell any of my co workers about my marathon. I got a laugh out of Bob talking a big game in the office for “running” an “ultra”. What frustrated me was when the boss was so impressed by his “endurance” that she slept with him instead of me and promoted him. Then the next time he ran an ultra the whole team went out to support him and saw what a joke the event was and how much of a joke Bob was that she dumped and fired him. True story.

People focus on the just the distance number too much IMO.

You could run a mountain 50km in the same time it takes to run a flat 50-miler.

Your average heart rate and breathing rate could be the very same for 5hours in either race....but your average pace could either be 6:00/mile pace (flat) or 9:30/mile pace (up and down mountains). Was one "harder or more impressive than the other". I don't think it should be. You pushed equally hard.

But yes, the general public is more impressed with the longer distances and "big numbers". That's why some people are more intrigued by things like Barkley and Hardrock and 100+ milers (and even the Backyard ultra or Badwater/ etc). Unless you're doing a 100-miler on a flat track you're probably going to be walking quite a bit at some point!

ceck. I did two laps of the coronavirus backyard ultra and DNFd at 9 miles.

I am not an ultra runner.

I am an ultra racer.

LRC is full of people who claim only their distance is a proper distance. stfu.

hobbyjoggers.

we are all runners. lets celebrate that.

I do not believe this. Great LRC fanfiction.

I would not envy someone who hooked up with his boss at all. Keeping your head down at work is ideal. Irresponsible people get what's coming to them, eventually. Do people getting high on drugs, blowing their money in the casino or eating horribly unhealthy foods also frustrate you? I am not jealous at all of those people's lives. Somewhat happy with myself for being better than them.

Everyone has to start somewhere, you don’t just wake up one day and suddenly become able to complete 31 miles (at any speed), or a marathon (at any speed), or a half, 10k, 5k, mile, etc. You don’t just magically have the ability to run a 6 min mile (or whatever pace) for however long. Some people have different goals than you, or reasons for why they want to run! And that’s FINE.

An ultra, by definition, is longer than a marathon. It often involves technical terrain. It always involves community, and individuals celebrating others’ accomplishments - however “insignificant” they may seem to someone far more advanced in their running journey.

So stick to your road runs, we don’t want you on the trails. You can’t call yourself an ultra runner if you don’t celebrate others, and instead put them down. I bet you’re the kind of person who yells at race volunteers instead of thanking them. Even the elites care about the community - you’re just a sad runner who knows you’ll never be that good, and puts others down to protect your own fragile ego.