Running expert must eat his words...

YMMV is a tool wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Evidence you don't understand stand analogies.

Hey Nick, fvck off.

You do the same.

Sand Dunes wrote:

YMMV is a tool wrote:

Hey Nick, fvck off.

You do the same.

I won't and fvck you, you stupid tool.

Change handles all you want, Nick.

We all know it's you.

yeuh5j67j wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

You do the same.

I won't and fvck you, you stupid tool.

Change handles all you want, Nick.

We all know it's you.

Why must you be so angry? Did your mother forget to get you your Twinkies last time she went to the store?

jesseriley wrote:

Still seems like 7-10 percent difference at every distance from sprints to ultras. After Kouros (always a statistical outlier) however, Herron is only about 6 percent behind all others, so she is breathing some rare air.

No.

The difference is 10-11% in everything from sprints to marathon.

It is ONLY in ultras that women get closer.

delete your acccount wrote:

jesseriley wrote:

Still seems like 7-10 percent difference at every distance from sprints to ultras. After Kouros (always a statistical outlier) however, Herron is only about 6 percent behind all others, so she is breathing some rare air.

No.

The difference is 10-11% in everything from sprints to marathon.

It is ONLY in ultras that women get closer.

What are the distances in ultras where the women get closer?

Camille Herron is 14% behind Kouros in 24 hour racing. 188 to 163 miles.

You’re comparing apples to watermelons. Kouros ran 172 miles in his debut and took over 10 years to get to 188. The learning curve in 24 hours is huge or any ultra for that matter. It’s not fair to compare a debut to someone else’s lifetime best.

Pete Kostelnick's race record for 24 hours is only .7M farther than Herron's, which is second-best all-time. That is awfully good.

Women haven't come close to the all-time records for 24h or 100M yet, though.

reality check on reality wrote:

You’re comparing apples to watermelons. Kouros ran 172 miles in his debut and took over 10 years to get to 188. The learning curve in 24 hours is huge or any ultra for that matter. It’s not fair to compare a debut to someone else’s lifetime best.

He was comparing the world records, doofus.

reality check on reality wrote:

You’re comparing apples to watermelons. Kouros ran 172 miles in his debut and took over 10 years to get to 188. The learning curve in 24 hours is huge or any ultra for that matter. It’s not fair to compare a debut to someone else’s lifetime best.

Woop woop this is an official Camille alert.

Camille you wrote this.

Yiannis Kouros has at least 14 results further than Camille in his career. Kouros was born 1956, so he was 39 in 1995.

He ran already 13 miles further than Camille in 1985 when he was 29. The year before he had done over 1000k in a 6 day race twice!

Camille will be 39 on Christmas day. She might has a couple more good races if she prepares right but the next Yiannis Kouros or Ann Trason she is not. Let's not forget that Ann had already won Western States TEN times before she was 39. Camille got only a concussion at Western States which might be a record too.

My question is:

How many calories?

Nutritioneffect?

No I’m not. Show a little respect man. She’s 3 years into the sport and just ran nearly 163 miles for her first 24 hour race to beat a stacked field. That’s a hell of a debut for a man, let alone a woman. Ultra runners getting into the sport late are going well into their 40s and even 50s. No one is going to get it perfect the first try. Wouldn’t expect any less than to see her go much higher.

No, it was her first time running the full 24 hours. Are you seriously making fun of someone's health? She was in the hospital. GTFO.

Ann wasn't as strong as Camille at 12 hours and beyond. She ran 13:55 en route to 143 miles for 24 hours, vs 13:25 and 162.9 for Camille. Ann ran 13:47 for 100 miles vs 12:42 for Camille. I don't get these trolls.

ultra history wrote:

Ann wasn't as strong as Camille at 12 hours and beyond. She ran 13:55 en route to 143 miles for 24 hours, vs 13:25 and 162.9 for Camille. Ann ran 13:47 for 100 miles vs 12:42 for Camille. I don't get these trolls.

Ohhh Camille, stop it.

Ann Trason never had a really good shot at 24 hour races because there weren't any. BUT she already had won Western States 10 times when she was 39 like you are. She also ran 7:00:47 over 100k in Winschoten when she was 35.

You make yourself look ridiculous if you keep yourself comparing with Kouros and Trason. Let your results speak for you.

Not a chance mate. You’re cherry picking history. Ann DNFed her first two Western States. She had 7 years of race experience under her belt to run 7:00 for 100k vs Camille running 7:08 in only her 3rd ultra. Then beyond 12 hours the results speak for themselves. Also, Camille is listed as age 36 and three years into the sport since her first 100k.

http://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=68591

http://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultperson.php?runner=406224

Any run over 2 hours is unhealthy.

Ultras are dumb wrote:

Any run over 2 hours is unhealthy.

Only for slow hobbyjoggers like you.

We have not seen Camille's birthday certificate yet so we have to rely on the data at hand.

The website you listed states that Camille was born on December 25th 1981. That should make her 39 on Tuesday.

You totally dismiss the fact that when Ann Trason was getting into ultras there was almost no information about it.

And if are you really want to weight the two DNF's of Ann Trason higher than 14 (fourteen!) wins at Western States that says a lot about you.

The lack of respect for ultrarunning history and respect for other runners is really astonishing Camille.

So now go back and drink more Guinness.

Pardon? You're off your rocker mate with your accusations and lack of respect for the history. Let their performances and experience speak for itself. It's 2018, so Camille is 36.