Famed ultramarathon star Kilian Jornet debuts on the road.... Only runs 29:59 10k

igotoneforyou wrote:

Thanks for the reply, Sage. Very good points. But, is it debatable that his best performances have come at less technical races like S-Z? (I mean, yes, that's a great one of course...but what about his Hard Rock runs, for example?). I do believe he is fast, and probably under-performed in the 10km, but he is legendary on mut while being only faster than average on a road...this is a huge difference. It's more than just 'distance running' or the heart-lung thing. I agree good fitness can only help you on the trails, but there is no denying that skillful running on technical stuff, which Kilian is legendary at, is a different skill compared to a road run, requiring differences in balance, proprioception, the ability to run 'off rhythm' (though he seems to keep in rhythm on technical stuff, at least compared to me ?), trail-reading skills, etc.

I know you're an all surface guy, but don't you also see variations in your relative positions across disciplines, or have strengths or weaknesses related to different styles of running?

I guess my point is: I respect Kilian a ton but I'm not surprised his 10km wasnt close to Olympic fast. Even if he wasn't injured or whatever. Because, in the end, he offers more than just the hearts and lungs.

I think the only thing that would convince me otherwise would be to see a bunch of track/road guys (say, like Mo Farah, or, just pick any track star) show up at a tough high level trail race and dominate on minimal trail training. Why don't we see this happen if the fitness transfers over so well? Is it really only the $?

Thanks again!

S. Canaday wrote:

My general answer: Small sample size.

Yes, his Hardrock and UTMB wins (again also really not that technical courses) shows excellent "long mountain range" as a lot of that requires powerhiking on the climbs (partly because of the altitude and the sheer volume of doing over 30,000' of vert in one push....and the % grade of the climbs) keep in mind his UTMB winning times are not the fastest (and yes, I realize there have been a lot of course variations there and the weather and nature of the race influences times a lot!).

Hardrock is very niche and a very small sample size. Not very many people (especially great road runners) even get the chance to attempt the course as part of the race because it is basically impossible to get into! No doubt Kilian could go faster there if he had some competition, but I'd still argue his CR at Sierre-Zinal is a much better competitive performance.

Sierre-Zinal gets the 2:11 marathoner guys, has decades of history, and has thousands of runners in it each year. It is THE iconic mountain race. For him to run basically an "untouchable" CR there is a way better performance than anything else I can think of that he has done. Maybe someone else can add to this?

But again it comes down to the numbers with the competitive history and relative performances. So many MUT events are quite niche and small scale events that are super obscure with not much depth in competitiion (at least compared to large scale road races or track and xc running at the NCAA/pro level). There are a lot of barriers to entry. A lot of great East African road runners (who in my mind could crush some mountain-ultra-trail events) don't even know they can make money from this sport!

Sure the 2:15 guy loses to the 2:25 guy at UTMB sometimes (or even at Sierre-Zinal), but generally performances correlate very closely to marathon times ....just like fast 10km times often correlate very well to good marathon times.

igotoneforyou wrote:

Thanks for the reply, Sage. Very good points. But, is it debatable that his best performances have come at less technical races like S-Z? (I mean, yes, that's a great one of course...but what about his Hard Rock runs, for example?). I do believe he is fast, and probably under-performed in the 10km, but he is legendary on mut while being only faster than average on a road...this is a huge difference. It's more than just 'distance running' or the heart-lung thing. I agree good fitness can only help you on the trails, but there is no denying that skillful running on technical stuff, which Kilian is legendary at, is a different skill compared to a road run, requiring differences in balance, proprioception, the ability to run 'off rhythm' (though he seems to keep in rhythm on technical stuff, at least compared to me ?), trail-reading skills, etc.

I know you're an all surface guy, but don't you also see variations in your relative positions across disciplines, or have strengths or weaknesses related to different styles of running?

I guess my point is: I respect Kilian a ton but I'm not surprised his 10km wasnt close to Olympic fast. Even if he wasn't injured or whatever. Because, in the end, he offers more than just the hearts and lungs.

I think the only thing that would convince me otherwise would be to see a bunch of track/road guys (say, like Mo Farah, or, just pick any track star) show up at a tough high level trail race and dominate on minimal trail training. Why don't we see this happen if the fitness transfers over so well? Is it really only the $?

Thanks again!

igotoneforyou wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

My general answer: Small sample size.

Yes, his Hardrock and UTMB wins (again also really not that technical courses) shows excellent "long mountain range" as a lot of that requires powerhiking on the climbs (partly because of the altitude and the sheer volume of doing over 30,000' of vert in one push....and the % grade of the climbs) keep in mind his UTMB winning times are not the fastest (and yes, I realize there have been a lot of course variations there and the weather and nature of the race influences times a lot!).

Hardrock is very niche and a very small sample size. Not very many people (especially great road runners) even get the chance to attempt the course as part of the race because it is basically impossible to get into! No doubt Kilian could go faster there if he had some competition, but I'd still argue his CR at Sierre-Zinal is a much better competitive performance.

Sierre-Zinal gets the 2:11 marathoner guys, has decades of history, and has thousands of runners in it each year. It is THE iconic mountain race. For him to run basically an "untouchable" CR there is a way better performance than anything else I can think of that he has done. Maybe someone else can add to this?

But again it comes down to the numbers with the competitive history and relative performances. So many MUT events are quite niche and small scale events that are super obscure with not much depth in competitiion (at least compared to large scale road races or track and xc running at the NCAA/pro level). There are a lot of barriers to entry. A lot of great East African road runners (who in my mind could crush some mountain-ultra-trail events) don't even know they can make money from this sport!

Sure the 2:15 guy loses to the 2:25 guy at UTMB sometimes (or even at Sierre-Zinal), but generally performances correlate very closely to marathon times ....just like fast 10km times often correlate very well to good marathon times.

Thanks again Sage (I'm being super polite here to show I'm not one of the usual argumentative guys on Let's Run ?). So, if running is running, I think you're saying there are a ton more people who can go out there and really compete well at mut races who just don't access them for whatever reason? And worldwide? Seems like an interesting theory...I'm not totally sold on it yet, though. But you're slowly convincing me. I do know that a technical mountain course uses my muscles and body systems differently than a flat road course, but I agree that if I'm generally overall fitter, I do better in both.

So, an a related question: what percentage of performance on a course in a mountain race...maybe like Pike's Peak, is based on skills unique to trail running (like being able to run in uneven surfaces, hopping around here and there's etc)? Or SZ? Or hardrock? I assume they're all different in technicality, but how much does having trail/technical type skills impact performance vs overall fitness, in your opinion?

I'm not a great example, but I fare better in road races placing wise than trail/mountain stuff (though I love the trails and mountains). I often have better road racing results than guys who beat me in trail races....even if the trail race is not very technical. I definitely slow down disproportionately compared to my closer competition the more technical a race is, even though I can beat them consistently on roads or track. Interesting!

S. Canaday wrote:

Thanks for your polite comment then!

Like I said...I think it's a numbers game.

So n=1 stories aren't great examples.

Say we throw 10 guys who are 2:10-2:15 marathoners in a race like Sierre-Zinal (7,000' of climbing including grades over 20% on the initial climb!), but only 19 miles and not technical trails (there are a few rocks and really steep downhills in the final 2-3km though). Let's say they do some "hill training" for a couple months, but are in good shape in general with mix of long runs, tempos and speed sessions.

Well I'd say 4-5 of them might totally blow up and have some serious issues (cramping, bonking etc). Probably run over 2:45. But then the other 5-6 are probably going to do pretty well (ie. sub 2:45-2:40 on that course), and maybe 2-3 of them might crack the top 10 and or even run 2:30 and win.

But there's a learning curve with that time period to train and prepare and each MUT race can be very, very different with specific training workouts and fueling/hydration strategy.

The first time I ran Sierre-Zinal (2013) I ran like 2:45 and had debilitating hamstring cramps. Last year I ran 2:38 and chugged 5 gels. But like I said, n=1 stories is not good data for trends.

The other thing: Pikes Peak, Sierre-Zinal and Hardrock are all quite different. Yes, Kilian has won all three, but his best performance by far was at Sierre-Zinal IMO. Again, hardly anyone does Hardrock. Its a 20+ hour race and it's really hard to get entry into. It has a bit more in common with UTMB, but it is unique because of the high altitude and more "rugged" feel (compared to say a Leadville or WS100). Again though, I haven't done Hardrock but I've trained on most of the course.

Sierre-Zinal and Pikes Peak have more in common (not really technical trails although the top half of Pikes is certainly not smooth like Sierre-Zinal is mostly). But the length of race (19 to 26 miles) and the total climb (7000' of vert) is similar. Granted Pikes is more "extreme altitude" going up to 14,000' whereas Sierre-Zinal tops out around 8000' I believe. Sierre Zinal also hits you with 20% grade uphill grades on a massive initial climb, whereas the climb up Pikes only averages about 10% grade only I believe and is very "runnable" until about the final mile.

It's a matter of Variable Running Economy (efficiency) so some of that is tied up in technical skills and muscle/motor patterns depending on the terrain, but some of that is tied up in hydration and fueling and pacing. The other aspect of Running Economy is tied up in Vo2max (well more "wiggle room" with a high Vo2max) and lactate threshold power and managing that... I can't really throw out any percentage guesses because it depends too much on the course, the individual , and exactly how their specific training changes (as well as their athletic history).

Sure a lot of road and track runners aren't going to have that "Full mix" of Any Surface Any Distance (I myself certainly haven't done it that well even though I try!) but some can be trained and the sample size of fast guys going over to MUT is still pretty small.

igotoneforyou wrote:

Thanks again Sage (I'm being super polite here to show I'm not one of the usual argumentative guys on Let's Run ?). So, if running is running, I think you're saying there are a ton more people who can go out there and really compete well at mut races who just don't access them for whatever reason? And worldwide? Seems like an interesting theory...I'm not totally sold on it yet, though. But you're slowly convincing me. I do know that a technical mountain course uses my muscles and body systems differently than a flat road course, but I agree that if I'm generally overall fitter, I do better in both.

So, an a related question: what percentage of performance on a course in a mountain race...maybe like Pike's Peak, is based on skills unique to trail running (like being able to run in uneven surfaces, hopping around here and there's etc)? Or SZ? Or hardrock? I assume they're all different in technicality, but how much does having trail/technical type skills impact performance vs overall fitness, in your opinion?

I'm not a great example, but I fare better in road races placing wise than trail/mountain stuff (though I love the trails and mountains). I often have better road racing results than guys who beat me in trail races....even if the trail race is not very technical. I definitely slow down disproportionately compared to my closer competition the more technical a race is, even though I can beat them consistently on roads or track. Interesting!