Not a very good troll, and didn't get much bites. Way too obviously overblown.
Not a very good troll, and didn't get much bites. Way too obviously overblown.
One of the cool things about 100 mile races is they vary dramatically from course to course. Discussing whether 24 hours, or 20 hours, or 16 hours is fast or not is pretty worthless without specifying the course. Running on a challenging mountain course at altitude is not "running" the whole way for anyone, even the top guys. We can be picky about semantics, but "running" a 100-miler and racing a fast 5k don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why anyone interested in running would have animosity toward ultra races.
Hardest thing ever?
Hmm... try working 5 jobs, one of which is your own business, taking care of a family, a house, and other "adult" responsibilities, then getting up at 4:30am to go run 10 miles when it is -20F. It makes those 10 miles feel like 100.
Furthest I've run is 116.2 miles in one day. Took me 20 hours 39 minutes. Why I did it? Because I wanted to try it. I could've went more, but I didn't feel like it -- it was getting stupid. Would I do it again? No. Complete waste of time, energy, and was just... stupid. I wouldn't even brag about it either, because it was stupid and it doesn't prove anything. It's one of those things I did when I was younger that I look back at, and I try to hide it.
I remember going out the next day and ran 5 miles, and I was happy with that.
how I know wrote:
YOu know how I know 100 milers are stupid and overrated......
Cause all the ultra-runners get butt-hurt trying to defend their "sporting event" when others make fun of it.
Ever heard a sub 4 minute miler try to defend how hard it was to run a sub 4?
I didn't think so.
What I do know is that I have never known anybody over the age of 21 or having an IQ higher than 87 that used the term "butt-hurt when talking about someone.
Speed Goat wrote:
Hmm11 wrote:
[quote]C. Sanady wrote:
I did my first ever 100 miler in sub 24 hours (~25K of vert in mountains) and while it was hard in some places, I wouldn't say it was hardest thing ever.
My training was about 60 miles per week leading up to it, so not exactly big mileage. The biggest factor in such an event is really nutrition and hydration. As long as you can keep the calories coming in without stomach problems, you're good to go.
You ran Wasatch as your very first Ultra and went sub 24? LOL... I mean it's possible, but I would highly doubt it. If you did, you got incredibly lucky with your fueling and hydration and pacing. INCREDIBLY lucky.
You may not think so and that is why I will bet you can't duplicate the ease or even the time. I'm at the finish line every year and I'll personally hand you $100 if you can prove me wrong... just pat your head and rub your belly as you accept your award and ill hand you your cash.
Good luck- I don't expect to lose this bet.
Grindstone, not Wasatch
You walk up the hill at 20 min Per mile pace and run down the hill at 9:30 per mile pace (which is a slow jog for a downhill). That gets you under the 14:25 per mile pace to go sub 24 hours. That’s very easy. Do you know how slow 14:25 per mile pace is? That’s all it takes for sub 24 hours. Is it easy? No. Is it hard? No. It just takes discipline.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
You walk up the hill at 20 min Per mile pace and run down the hill at 9:30 per mile pace (which is a slow jog for a downhill). That gets you under the 14:25 per mile pace to go sub 24 hours. That’s very easy. Do you know how slow 14:25 per mile pace is? That’s all it takes for sub 24 hours. Is it easy? No. Is it hard? No. It just takes discipline.
Sorry man... but much easier said than done.
Try moving at those paces on terrain like this for 100 miles straight...
http://valhallase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/grindstone-768x1024.jpgI bet Rupp could do it.
Hypothetically lets say a 2:30 marathoner could do it, and I wonder if most barely sub 24 hour 100 mile racers can run 2:30? 2:20?
Obviously the fast elite guys can do both. But can a 23hr guy easily run 2:30? Which isn't the hardest thing ever.
Masterblaster13 wrote:
I bet Rupp could do it.
Hypothetically lets say a 2:30 marathoner could do it, and I wonder if most barely sub 24 hour 100 mile racers can run 2:30? 2:20?
Obviously the fast elite guys can do both. But can a 23hr guy easily run 2:30? Which isn't the hardest thing ever.
There are a lot of 3:30 guys that can run sub 24.. but granted most of those guys avoid road marathons and speed work like the plague. In reality, I'd say 3:00 marathon equates to a sub 24
Why does anyone bother to make to ultra threads anymore. Ultra "runners" are like the color guard kids in highschool who get a letter jacket and pretend they accomplished something. Go make a letsultra website and stop clogging the the boards that are meant for real runners...
I find it funny how there are suddenly so many ultra threads at the moment. It is especially ironic for this site with people comparing sub 20 hour 100 millers or sub 6 50 millers with marathon times which would get you into the Olympic trials. Maybe people have bad math here. It is a joke. If running an ultra at this level is as good as a thoner in the trials then that is implying that the ultra world records are much better then a sub 2 hour marathon. There are some ludicrous comments the past few days.
Example: A sub 23 hour 100 miller is like a 2:20-2:30 thoner. So basically that implies that the world record is as good as a 1:15 marathon lol. Again math might be a weakness in some people here. Do people not realise that the worlds best runner is 2:03:03. Evan that is nearly 50 minutes slower then this thon time.
Banana Bread wrote:
One thing is for certain, I've been ultra bullied this week from these people. It has been such harsh bullying(reed, not banana bread etc.), that I think the pain for 100 miles would be easy to deal with. I've built up so much endurance from the bullying that I could do well in 100 miles. I wouldn't feel anything. Oh Please and theJeff etc was my main antagonists before, the ultra bullys now make them look tame.
I am literally the nicest person you know.
SorryBud wrote:
sbeefyk2 wrote:
You walk up the hill at 20 min Per mile pace and run down the hill at 9:30 per mile pace (which is a slow jog for a downhill). That gets you under the 14:25 per mile pace to go sub 24 hours. That’s very easy. Do you know how slow 14:25 per mile pace is? That’s all it takes for sub 24 hours. Is it easy? No. Is it hard? No. It just takes discipline.
Sorry man... but much easier said than done.
Try moving at those paces on terrain like this for 100 miles straight...
http://valhallase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/grindstone-768x1024.jpg
Good thing a large portion of the 100 miles isn't like that on just about every course.
Also why are ultra runners on this website so wimpy that they try to make sub-24 hours a 'goal' pace? Everyone with even a minor connection to the ultra community knows that 20 hours is when it gets respectable and that lots of dedicated young men aim for sub-16.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
You walk up the hill at 20 min Per mile pace and run down the hill at 9:30 per mile pace (which is a slow jog for a downhill). That gets you under the 14:25 per mile pace to go sub 24 hours. That’s very easy. Do you know how slow 14:25 per mile pace is? That’s all it takes for sub 24 hours. Is it easy? No. Is it hard? No. It just takes discipline.
There are so many varying factors is the difference. Running a sub 24 hr time in the east is pretty easy. Running sub 24 at hardrock is pretty much impossible even by the most elite runners on earth. 20 min miles can be hard on mile 85 after climbing and descending for hours and hours at high elevation in cold weather and wet conditions. You also have to account aid station times, crossing rivers, and navigation. You are also carrying an extra 10 lb of gear which can slow you way down. That approach is a relatively known way of doing it. But its more like 12 -18 mile up and 5-7 min down. Glycogen depletion is the main reason why a lot of elite road runners dont make it. A lot of marathoners have developed the ability to run hard for 23 miles (around where glycogen stores are emptied) and survive 3 more if they have gels. 100s you simply cannot run on your own stores. You have to train your body through the year to digest and run and push through the empty times. Its like running with a fever for 70 miles. Countless sub 2:20 runners have fought to run sub 24 there. You just gotta try it instead of it thinking you can do it.
Ultra Trail John wrote:
sbeefyk2 wrote:
You walk up the hill at 20 min Per mile pace and run down the hill at 9:30 per mile pace (which is a slow jog for a downhill). That gets you under the 14:25 per mile pace to go sub 24 hours. That’s very easy. Do you know how slow 14:25 per mile pace is? That’s all it takes for sub 24 hours. Is it easy? No. Is it hard? No. It just takes discipline.
There are so many varying factors is the difference. Running a sub 24 hr time in the east is pretty easy. Running sub 24 at hardrock is pretty much impossible even by the most elite runners on earth. 20 min miles can be hard on mile 85 after climbing and descending for hours and hours at high elevation in cold weather and wet conditions. You also have to account aid station times, crossing rivers, and navigation. You are also carrying an extra 10 lb of gear which can slow you way down. That approach is a relatively known way of doing it. But its more like 12 -18 mile up and 5-7 min down. Glycogen depletion is the main reason why a lot of elite road runners dont make it. A lot of marathoners have developed the ability to run hard for 23 miles (around where glycogen stores are emptied) and survive 3 more if they have gels. 100s you simply cannot run on your own stores. You have to train your body through the year to digest and run and push through the empty times. Its like running with a fever for 70 miles. Countless sub 2:20 runners have fought to run sub 24 there. You just gotta try it instead of it thinking you can do it.
Anyone blindly assuming that they can run 100 miles in 24 hours or less is basically kidding themselves, banana bread included. 9minutes a mile downhill after doing it over 40 times during 100 miles is hard and just stating that it isn't is a joke. It's so easy to say that a 9 minute mile downhill is easy when you only run 10 miles in training, It's another when youre literally 90 miles in to a race. Talk is truly cheap. Also, that 9minute mile is over gravel, dirt and stone and yes to the poster who doesn't think that 100 miles is what the picture above shows...I've done some where that is the entire course. So you have the conditions and then you also have the fact that 9 minutes a mile feels like 12 minute miles when you do it for 100 miles straight. PLEASE go do one if it's so easy.
not dean wrote:
Ultra Trail John wrote:
There are so many varying factors is the difference. Running a sub 24 hr time in the east is pretty easy. Running sub 24 at hardrock is pretty much impossible even by the most elite runners on earth. 20 min miles can be hard on mile 85 after climbing and descending for hours and hours at high elevation in cold weather and wet conditions. You also have to account aid station times, crossing rivers, and navigation. You are also carrying an extra 10 lb of gear which can slow you way down. That approach is a relatively known way of doing it. But its more like 12 -18 mile up and 5-7 min down. Glycogen depletion is the main reason why a lot of elite road runners dont make it. A lot of marathoners have developed the ability to run hard for 23 miles (around where glycogen stores are emptied) and survive 3 more if they have gels. 100s you simply cannot run on your own stores. You have to train your body through the year to digest and run and push through the empty times. Its like running with a fever for 70 miles. Countless sub 2:20 runners have fought to run sub 24 there. You just gotta try it instead of it thinking you can do it.
Anyone blindly assuming that they can run 100 miles in 24 hours or less is basically kidding themselves, banana bread included. 9minutes a mile downhill after doing it over 40 times during 100 miles is hard and just stating that it isn't is a joke. It's so easy to say that a 9 minute mile downhill is easy when you only run 10 miles in training, It's another when youre literally 90 miles in to a race. Talk is truly cheap. Also, that 9minute mile is over gravel, dirt and stone and yes to the poster who doesn't think that 100 miles is what the picture above shows...I've done some where that is the entire course. So you have the conditions and then you also have the fact that 9 minutes a mile feels like 12 minute miles when you do it for 100 miles straight. PLEASE go do one if it's so easy.
This is the truth. And yes banana bread is a punk and is getting banned by admin.
the truth d wrote:
not dean wrote:
Anyone blindly assuming that they can run 100 miles in 24 hours or less is basically kidding themselves, banana bread included. 9minutes a mile downhill after doing it over 40 times during 100 miles is hard and just stating that it isn't is a joke. It's so easy to say that a 9 minute mile downhill is easy when you only run 10 miles in training, It's another when youre literally 90 miles in to a race. Talk is truly cheap. Also, that 9minute mile is over gravel, dirt and stone and yes to the poster who doesn't think that 100 miles is what the picture above shows...I've done some where that is the entire course. So you have the conditions and then you also have the fact that 9 minutes a mile feels like 12 minute miles when you do it for 100 miles straight. PLEASE go do one if it's so easy.
This is the truth. And yes banana bread is a punk and is getting banned by admin.
I take back the 24 hours in the east being easy. I forgot about Eastern States and Vermont. Honestly almost all trail 100s under 24 take a couple years of prep
Ultra Trail John wrote:
the truth d wrote:
This is the truth. And yes banana bread is a punk and is getting banned by admin.
I take back the 24 hours in the east being easy. I forgot about Eastern States and Vermont. Honestly almost all trail 100s under 24 take a couple years of prep
I ran worlds End 50K, which is basically the same terrain as Eastern States, in high too Chuck Taylor Allstars. I did it not because I wanted to run the fastest but to test my ability under difficult situations. Something these "track stars" will never understand.
Banabread is a poser
How am I a poser? When did I ever claim to be Bekele, or anything like him? I'm just saying 100 miles is not hard under 24 hours if you have some running endurance. I've never picked oranges of a tree before but I literally know it's easy. I have no intention of doing it anytime soon. Does that mean I'm been unfair and avoiding the task because I couldn't really do it?
