I bet Kilian Jornet is just an unathletic little boy to you guys as well.
I bet Kilian Jornet is just an unathletic little boy to you guys as well.
trollout(mybusiness) wrote:
is it really 'racing' if walking is involved?
If you make the mountain trail steep enough and long enough, there is no human capable of getting to the top without walking. It would still be a race.
I think many runners are misinformed about the difficulty of trail running. A lot of runners go to the local park and run on a nicely groomed, soft, flat trail and that IS easier on the legs. That is far different than running up and down steep technical trail where you have to pay attention to every single step you take so as not to take a hard fall. You can't just "zone out" in a trail race like you can in a roadrace. On the other hand, roads can be harder because you are usually shooting for a certain time or pace and can better judge overall effort. Especially running a trail race you have never been to, it is difficult to really push at times becasue you don't know what is coming up and the risk may cause a blow up. It is more common for me to get to the finish of a trail race with a "little left" than it is when I race on the roads.
Instead of showing your ignorance by posting about activities you know nothing about, my suggestion would be to mix in a few trail races this summer and see how you do.
There are some exceptions, but my experience is the runners who excel on the roads will also excel on the trail with just a little specificity in their training.
WaffleRacer wrote:
Koneko wrote:Ultrarunners are in the same category as cross-fitters and tough mudders. Complete hacks who can\'t handle real running events.
Track, XC, and road racing are the only races that matter.
This^ For the elites it\'s a cynical move to make a buck and eak out a \"pro\" career that would not exist. For the hobby jogger, it\'s a way to avoid racing or competing.
Not eak, dude. Eke
cashews wrote:
so i looked up this tim olson's results:
he ran 50 miles in 6:53:29
this translates to a vdot of...43
yea, enough said.
You do realise that they tend to have hills in this kind of event?
I wouldn't call Olson's comment "stupid". It was perhaps a bit of sour grapes, but he does have a point. Perhaps they would destroy Olson at Western States, but just as a half marathon is perhaps a bit far for Lagat, it's fair to at least wonder if 100 miles is a bit far for a marathoner. Not EVERY 2:16 marathoner would be successful at 100 miles, so you can't just assume that. That said, probably at least half of all 2:16 marathoners could train for and do really well at a hilly 100 mile trail run like Western States.
Sage is pretty fast wrote:
On another note, Timothy Olson made a pretty stupid comment afterwards about how he would "love to see" Max King and Sage try 100 milers, because while they can dominate up to 100k, "things change" over 100 miles. I'm guessing that if either of them went for Western States next year and actually focused on it, they could make Timothy's record look pretty slow. The fact that Sage has dominated his last 2 races (both 100k) after experimenting around with this ultra stuff for only a year indicates that the big 100s are his as soon as he wants them. A little trail training and a lot of slow long runs is really all it takes for a 2:16 guy to crush everyone else at these distances.
Flagpole wrote:
That said, probably at least half of all 2:16 marathoners could train for and do really well at a hilly 100 mile trail run like Western States.
It's possible, but the truth is that we just don't know.
It could be that there are quite different requirements. We know, for example, that a trained athlete can run a marathon pretty much all fuelled by stored carbohydrate. This clearly isn't so for a 100 mile race.
So it's at least plausible that the ability to use fat as fuel, and the ability to digest food whilst exercising are things that might be necessary to do well in longer races, but not so necessary for marathon running.
As with most things these can probably be trained. But only up to a point - as with many other things some people are always going to be better than others.
You do realise that they tend to have hills in this kind of event?
Perhaps it was a 50M on a track?
Yeah maybe...just maybe...if it were a 50M on a track.
The 50mi record is 4:51.49 held by Don Ritchie.
Up to about 70 miles, people seem to just truck along, however, the 100 mile people seem to really fall off.
The record at 100mi is also by Ritchie at 11:30.51
all on track surfaces.
Someone like Ryan Hall is fast for sure, but too fragile to manage a long trail race.
The trail ultras are probably better suited to the more durable marathoner as opposed to the true race horses.
Ultra runners like Karl Metzler and Hal Koerner are already commenting on how the influx of marathon talent is really deepening the fields and pushes the pace. It's just a fact. But to dismiss all ultra runners as hacks, misses the point too.
Sage is pretty fast wrote:
Actual_100K_Finisher wrote:How many of you have actually run 50 miles, 100K, or 100 miles? That's what I thought.
Finishing 100k isn't impressive. I've finished 100k to 100 miles many times, but I will still admit that elite marathoners could crush everyone in the field.
The point wasn't that it is "impressive" (although what is "impressive" depends on your perspective), the point is that I believe most of the comments belittling ultra running have been made by individuals that have never run a 50 mile or greater, technical trail course at altitude. I believe that if they had, they would show more respect for guys like Sage.
Mr Realistic wrote:
I think many runners are misinformed about the difficulty of trail running. A lot of runners go to the local park and run on a nicely groomed, soft, flat trail and that IS easier on the legs. That is far different than running up and down steep technical trail where you have to pay attention to every single step you take so as not to take a hard fall. You can't just "zone out" in a trail race like you can in a roadrace. On the other hand, roads can be harder because you are usually shooting for a certain time or pace and can better judge overall effort. Especially running a trail race you have never been to, it is difficult to really push at times becasue you don't know what is coming up and the risk may cause a blow up. It is more common for me to get to the finish of a trail race with a "little left" than it is when I race on the roads.
Instead of showing your ignorance by posting about activities you know nothing about, my suggestion would be to mix in a few trail races this summer and see how you do.
There are some exceptions, but my experience is the runners who excel on the roads will also excel on the trail with just a little specificity in their training.
+1
Bathtubgin wrote:
Yeah maybe...just maybe...if it were a 50M on a track.
Do you think if someone got lapped on a 50M on a track, that they could come back to win?
You are CORRECT! We just don't know. I've run a couple of ultras (a 50 miler and a 40 miler up a mountain and back down), and man is 50 miles WAY different than running a marathon. Definitely eating and drinking replacement fluids not only in the race but during training runs. I'm sure 100 miles is even again WAY different from a 50 even...my former boss and onetime sometimes training partner, 1981 Western States champ Doug Latimer, used to say that 100 miles was very different.The best piece of advice he gave me (and he had lots of good advice) was that in an ultra "You WILL feel despair during the race; just run through it and it will go away, but it will come back."
pr100 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:That said, probably at least half of all 2:16 marathoners could train for and do really well at a hilly 100 mile trail run like Western States.
It's possible, but the truth is that we just don't know.
It could be that there are quite different requirements. We know, for example, that a trained athlete can run a marathon pretty much all fuelled by stored carbohydrate. This clearly isn't so for a 100 mile race.
So it's at least plausible that the ability to use fat as fuel, and the ability to digest food whilst exercising are things that might be necessary to do well in longer races, but not so necessary for marathon running.
As with most things these can probably be trained. But only up to a point - as with many other things some people are always going to be better than others.
The 50mi record is 4:51.49 held by Don Ritchie... Or it's held by Barney Klecker at 24 seconds faster than that. And Barney was 'only' a 2:18 marathoner.
it took the africans A LONG time to figure out the marathon, what makes you think they will fare decent in an ultra? the only non-athletic factor there is in the marathon is knowing your glycerin storages and unless its brutual, a gel or two during the marathon takes direct care of that. In an ultra, you have the following:
- Fueling (Yes, VERY important)
- Hydrating like crazy
- Weather Changes
- Headlamps
etc.
As for the trails being technical, the majority of the Kenyans grew up running Mt Kenya, the Rift Valley and other high altitude trails so they know techincal trails. Also, the Ethiopians are known to run some very rugged trails. North Americans and Europeans on the other hand ... Grew up on the Roads, didn't see trail until they joined HS XC, and treated steep hills as unwalkable apline ski hills, not ideal running terrain.
Also, let's not forget that Tarawera and UROC are relatively flat and nontechnical courses. Yes there is some elevation change, but for the most part Sage's wins came at runnable events. Not to take anything away from those events or Sage's accomplishments. The point is we're comparing apples to oranges when we discuss Sage vs Kilian (or other mountain/ ultra athletes).
Sage on a flat 100km beats Kilian.
Kilian on a mountainous 100km beats Sage (or comparable marathoner).
shuffle wrote:
The 50mi record is 4:51.49 held by Don Ritchie.
Up to about 70 miles, people seem to just truck along, however, the 100 mile people seem to really fall off.
The record at 100mi is also by Ritchie at 11:30.51
all on track surfaces.
Someone like Ryan Hall is fast for sure, but too fragile to manage a long trail race.
The trail ultras are probably better suited to the more durable marathoner as opposed to the true race horses.
Ultra runners like Karl Metzler and Hal Koerner are already commenting on how the influx of marathon talent is really deepening the fields and pushes the pace. It's just a fact. But to dismiss all ultra runners as hacks, misses the point too.
The 100 record holder use to be Ritchie. The record holder in now Oleg Kharitonov. And yes, the record was set on a track and he was lapped before coming back to win.
I have no doubt that just about any serious marathoner who trained specifically for 100-milers could come to just about any 100-miler and crush the field. I won a 100-miler and placed in the top five in a few others, but I'm just a hack. If a 2:15 guy spent some time prepping for a 100-miler, he'd beat me by hours.
In regards to the Kenyans running ultras, Noakes has done some research and theorizes that their thin frames may not be suited to the longer distances. This was based off of years of study at the Comrades which is one place Africans do run ultra distance but do not dominate like they do in the marathon