otter wrote:
Bottom line is that if anyone put up 500,000 for a 50 miler record next weekend it would be demolished by someone from Kenya and Kipchoge would not even bother with it at that price.
Bottom line is that nobody will up up 500,000 for a 50 miler. Not next weekend, next year or in the next decade.
Kipchoge couldn't break it wrote:
Kipchoge can't break the 50 mile world record because Kipchoge doesn't train for 50 mile races.
If he trained for it, he would likely obliterate it, but he'll never train for it because there is no real money in bullsh!t circus events.
Hence Kipchoge can't break that dude's record. That doesn't mean that other guy is a better runner than Kipchoge.
This is nonsense.
We all know that Kenyans run 50 miles uphill to school everyday. After school they run uphill back home where they plant potatoes.
After 12 years (25 to you and me) Italian coaches will come and take them to Junior Worlds.
Lol. Ultra runners are frankly lucky that elite marathoners aren’t running ultra races. Their records would be absolutely eclipsed.
Ultra guy wrote:
Delusional ultrarunners? wrote:
Just heard that Ultrarunner Podcast's Eric
Are ultrarunners really this dellusional to what kind of talent and ability someone like Kipchoge/Bekele has?
Short answer: Some are, but not all.
I'm an ultra guy and listened to this podcast earlier today and thought it was ridiculous. Even more ridiculous than the 50 mile claim was that Kipchoge could beat a 50 km record "if given a year worth of training". Are you serious? The guy ran 2:01 and you think he needs a year of training to go 8 km longer and much slower.
It is true that we don't know what elite marathoners can do in ultras, but all information we have points toward these facts:
1. Yes, an ultra is a different race and different people are good at it than at the marathon.
2. Issues can be nutrition, muscle fatigue, elevation,... All of which may exist in the marathon, but get exponentially harder in you're our there twice as long or longer.
3. BUT: All these are trainable!
4. A good distance runner is a good distance runner. If he wanted, Eliud Kipchoge would destroy all ultra records up to and including the 24 hours record within five to eight years (would probably need some tries).
I doubt even kipchoge would get close to Yiannis Kuros 24 hour record.
PrZ wrote:
Lol. Ultra runners are frankly lucky that elite marathoners aren’t running ultra races. Their records would be absolutely eclipsed.
Yeah, that's what all these high school athletes think. They can barley tie their shoes but talk about real men's running.
I like how you bring the science into this Camille! Anyway, as a fellow shuffler (and presumably slow-twitch dominant runner...I mean look at my mile PR compared to my marathon PR!) why can't we just break down the Running Economy numbers? So what if we tested some "marathon elites" at say 5:45 per mile pace (to get the 50-mile WR) and then also at 6:50 per mile pace (to get the 100-miler WR). Using Running Economy numbers (and heck let's thrown in RQ data in there at these paces) on a flat uniform surface like a road /track we could come up with some very convincing "predictor data." Efficiency (Running Economy) is the name of the game in any distance running event. I've always said on the mountains-technical trails and steep trails it is about "Variable Running Economy" because uneven surfaces can tear apart a road runner's efficiency from a biomechanical and neuromuscular standpoint. Maybe Kipchoge is "more efficient" at 5:45 per mile pace....maybe he is more efficient at closer to marathon race pace of 4:40 per mile though (this could easily be the case). Maybe a fast twitch guy is most efficient at 5km or mile race pace. I'd say in Kipchoge's case even if he wasn't quite as efficient at a much slower speed of 5:45 per mile, there is a good chance he could maintain that pace for quite some time though....especially with proper hydration and fueling. With the Running Economy data we are already factoring in the biomechanics of specific form (as you say "Shuffle is the best") at a specific velocity...which is also usually directly tied to muscle fiber type/distribution and weighs heavily on fuel utilization rates. No doubt most long distance guys have a lot of Slow Twitch muscle fibers generally. That's why you don't get too many runners that are world class 800m runners AND world class Marathon runners. But realize those events use totally different energy systems. The marathon, 50k, 50-miles and even 100-miles have more in common (if the surface and elevation profile stays relatively the same). When looking at the marathon or an ultra (on a flat surface) limiting factors are tied up into fueling, heat/cooling, and skeletal muscular fatigue. Great marathon runners are already also pretty efficient at burning fat as a fuel.
jaguar1 wrote:
I did some more research on Salazar and muscle fibers. In Lore of Running (I have the 3rd edition, 1991, before Salazar won Comrades), Noakes cited an article by Costill. Salazar was an exception to the norm for elite distance runner having more slow twitch fibers (92%) than other elite distance runners (78-88%). Noakes reasoned the possibility of the slow twitch fibers being able to contract fast too. Muscle fiber % is genetics/born with, so you develop what you’re born with. Slow twitch fibers simply have more mitochondria and aerobic metabolism of fat. Also, he talked about the “Salazar shuffle” and running efficiency.
Salazar had the distinct features that are cited now as being unique of ultrarunners. He was an exception to the norm though for marathoners, as most are more fast twitch. It goes to show that an elite marathoner won’t know if they have the same characteristics until they try.
Science stops when fatigue and blisters set in. Ultras are driven my a certain mental toughness pared with running performance and the experience to deal with discomfort. Running alone doesn't get you anywhere in ultrarunning.
You can measure effectiveness all day long. If Kipchoge gets cold or gets an blister he won't perform as well in hour 4 or 5 in a 6 hour 100k attempt. There is a tiny chance I think, that he could be able to do that.
24 hours? Never, not even close.
PrZ wrote:
Lol. Ultra runners are frankly lucky that elite marathoners aren’t running ultra races. Their records would be absolutely eclipsed.
Lol. Marathon runners are extremely lucky that some true elite runners like Filip Ingebrigtsen aren't moving up to do 26 milers. Those marathon records would be completely demolished if they did. As it is now, marathon running is full of average runners who are dopers, runners with no inherent speed, runners with no serious talent, and runners who had some speed at one point 10 years ago but are now has-beens.
Gordon Gekko wrote:
otter wrote:
Bottom line is that if anyone put up 500,000 for a 50 miler record next weekend it would be demolished by someone from Kenya and Kipchoge would not even bother with it at that price.
Bottom line is that nobody will up up 500,000 for a 50 miler. Not next weekend, next year or in the next decade.
That was my point Gordon
I’ve ran slightly under WR 50-mile pace for 50k on a relatively easy Long Run (5:46 pace for 31.4 miles). Although it felt pretty comfortable I’m sure I would’ve broke down around 35-40 miles (I know I can’t come anywhere close to breaking the record). But I’m a nobody, you’ve never heard my name and never will.
So it’s really hard to imagine that Kipchoge couldn’t do it. Ya, ya, ya, 50k is nothing compared to 50 miles...But again, I’m a random post collegiate who never made NCAA’s in XC and I definitely don’t train for a 50 miler or 50k either. (I ran 40 mpw for a year after college, spent 3 weeks running 60-70 mpw, then ran that 50k long run after 6 weeks of 100 mpw. It may be more running than the average LR poster, but I’m not anywhere close to elite and I’m not an aspiring Ultra guy). Kipchoge is the greatest marathoner of all time and has been running 120-140 miles a week for 10+ years with quality long runs. Have some respect for his training and the accumulation of work he’s put in. I, along with most, can barely run 5k with him at his marathon pace. This notion that I could run 35+ miles with him in a 50 mile race is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree with you. 50 miles isn't that long really, its too close to the marathon. If we are talking a flat road course Kipchoge could break that record.
The only way you would start seeing him not dominate would be to increase the distance, change the terrain or change the conditions. Changes beyond his wheelhouse of fast long road courses. Similar to what happened in Boston. With how cold it was a different body type succeeded.
there was a guy on my college team who could barely break 16 for 5k, and as for 10k xc??? couldn't make the travel squad. that same year he ran a few ultras and finished 1 and a few seconds in them.
Bruce Fordyce could never run 2:10, let alone 2:01.
Kipchoge could jog 80km faster than Bruce Fordyce ever could.
We all know and understand that here in SA.
Are you replying directly to me? Of course I respect any guy that has run a super fast marathon (like Kipchoge)...as long as they do it clean. Even ultra running has had some dopers over the years though. Of course I Kipchoge could smash the 50-mile and 100-mile record on a track... As for "blisters?" C'mon top level guys do not slow down much from something like a minor blister issue (unless if hampers their form). We're talking about running on a dry track in decent weather conditions. Usually there is a lot more serious pain to work through than getting a blister. I actually think a lot of guys who have run a 2:15 marathon or faster have a good chance at these records. Not that many have really tired yet though.
c7runner7 wrote:
I’ve ran slightly under WR 50-mile pace for 50k on a relatively easy Long Run (5:46 pace for 31.4 miles). Although it felt pretty comfortable I’m sure I would’ve broke down around 35-40 miles (I know I can’t come anywhere close to breaking the record). But I’m a nobody, you’ve never heard my name and never will.
So it’s really hard to imagine that Kipchoge couldn’t do it. Ya, ya, ya, 50k is nothing compared to 50 miles...But again, I’m a random post collegiate who never made NCAA’s in XC and I definitely don’t train for a 50 miler or 50k either. (I ran 40 mpw for a year after college, spent 3 weeks running 60-70 mpw, then ran that 50k long run after 6 weeks of 100 mpw. It may be more running than the average LR poster, but I’m not anywhere close to elite and I’m not an aspiring Ultra guy). Kipchoge is the greatest marathoner of all time and has been running 120-140 miles a week for 10+ years with quality long runs. Have some respect for his training and the accumulation of work he’s put in. I, along with most, can barely run 5k with him at his marathon pace. This notion that I could run 35+ miles with him in a 50 mile race is absolutely ridiculous.
Typo: *meant to say: "I think Kipchoge could smash the records..."
I wasn't replying directly to you. When I started my post you were the last to post so I just hit 'reply'. (I was doing other tasks so it took me awhile to submit my post). I agree with what you've been saying.
You've got a great point about efficiency at slower paces. It's like watching the breaking 2 project where the three runners had the characteristics for a 2 hr marathon, but as we watched it unfold Kipchoge simply looked more comfortable, less sweating, and handling the fueling better. Marathon predicts marathon. Ultrarunning predicts ultrarunning too.
I still reason that it's the 1 out of 10 elite marathoners, like Salazar, who are more slow twitch and could handle the metabolic shift after 35-40 mi. For the other 9 out of 10, it's probably going to be a struggle like the breaking 2 project for whatever reason. To add some more names, 2:08 marathoners/South Africans Zithulele Sinqe and Willy Mtolo, never won Comrades. Their best finishes were 4th and 2nd, respectively, despite all the money and prestige being South Africans. Those yrs, a 2:21 marathoner and 2:22 non-South African master's marathoner won. While they performed good, like Salazar, their performances are not on the all-time top 10 lists. In contrast, 2:23 marathoner Bongmusa is on the downhill course list twice.
Another example was 2:23 marathoner, Isabellah Andersson, taking on the lucrative and more runnable Ultravasan 2 yrs ago. In discussion with Geoff B, I said the moment of truth would happen around 35-40 mi. Sure enough, she bonked and dropped out at 62K (38 mi) citing muscle cramps.
I'm not sure the breaking 2 project is a good example here....again sample size (3 runners!) was very small. Likewise with ultras we still see a very small sample size of sub 2:15 marathon runners going after records (especially on flat courses). Like I said earlier, I still believe a 2:20 or so guy can win Comrades... And obviously Comrades is a very different race depending if it is "up or down" nowadays and it is far from a flat track in good weather conditions. You're dealing with generally more outside variables like significant heat and somewhat limited aid station support/fueling (well at least compared to other events). I will still say that a good marathon runner (on a flat course) has a very good chance at doing well at an ultra marathon (also on a flat course). I think they (26.2 miles and ultras) still correlate very very well....especially with more mid-pack runners (and where we have more data points). Those 2:08 guys you use as examples still placed top 4 at Comrades...I'm not saying being a fast marathoner guarantees a win/record time at an ultra...but it sure helps! Another thing: What is this "metabolic shift" you are talking about at 35-40 miles? What is so magical at that mileage point - and does this only include road/runnable ultras with out a ton of climbing? I've honestly never heard of this and am curious. Appreciate your posts!
jaguar1 wrote:
You've got a great point about efficiency at slower paces. It's like watching the breaking 2 project where the three runners had the characteristics for a 2 hr marathon, but as we watched it unfold Kipchoge simply looked more comfortable, less sweating, and handling the fueling better. Marathon predicts marathon. Ultrarunning predicts ultrarunning too.
I still reason that it's the 1 out of 10 elite marathoners, like Salazar, who are more slow twitch and could handle the metabolic shift after 35-40 mi. For the other 9 out of 10, it's probably going to be a struggle like the breaking 2 project for whatever reason. To add some more names, 2:08 marathoners/South Africans Zithulele Sinqe and Willy Mtolo, never won Comrades. Their best finishes were 4th and 2nd, respectively, despite all the money and prestige being South Africans. Those yrs, a 2:21 marathoner and 2:22 non-South African master's marathoner won. While they performed good, like Salazar, their performances are not on the all-time top 10 lists. In contrast, 2:23 marathoner Bongmusa is on the downhill course list twice.
Another example was 2:23 marathoner, Isabellah Andersson, taking on the lucrative and more runnable Ultravasan 2 yrs ago. In discussion with Geoff B, I said the moment of truth would happen around 35-40 mi. Sure enough, she bonked and dropped out at 62K (38 mi) citing muscle cramps.
There's actually been quite a lot of sub 2:15 marathoners who have taken on Comrades/100K WC. As another example, Jonas B beat several 2:13-2:16 guys at the 100K WC, and yet he's only a 2:22 marathoner and finished 2nd at Comrades. As with Comrades, there's still all kinds of variability with marathon/100K times. Yet, it continues to hold true that it's usually the 2nd-3rd tier marathoners who prevail, while the faster marathoners perform good but not exceptional as hypothetically assumed.
Notably too, the South African team has gone to the past two 100K WCs. Was it 'easy' for them? No. As mentioned, a flat course is faster and more repetitive/stressful on your legs/gut/mentally, vs a more variable course like Comrades that changes up the muscle usage. I've felt much fresher on rolling road ultras vs the flat road ultras that destroy you in every way. Also of interest, there's more women who have faired better at 'both' Comrades and flatter 100K WCs. Women seem to usually pace more reasonably and within themselves, vs the men's races which tend to be more tactical.
As far as the metabolic shift, it's the point of glycogen depletion when running at 50 mi-100K pace on road. I say 35-40 mi based on personal experience of where I consistently start to catch faster men or open a gap. I've noticed it too following races. I think with the slower, fartlek-like pace on mountain trail and variable muscle usage, you're mostly sipping glycogen. It's not the same 1:1 level of whole body depletion and repetitive strain as high intensity road ultras. For this reason, I'm inclined to believe more variable gaits and skill sets (steeple-marathon) can thrive on mountain trail ultras (50K-100K). The longer the distance though, the more it starts to be comparable in whole body fatigue to road ultras.
Altogether, what is hypothetical doesn't reflect reality. Faster marathoners are usually 'good' at ultras but are still more often than not beaten by slower marathoners who are plausibly more slow twitch.
Just some additional thoughts for perspective -
1) Alberto Salazar remains to this day the fastest 5000/10,000m runner to have won Comrades.
2) Science does not fully understand ST vs FT completely. Obviously, Alberto had more fast twitch fibers recruited than every other Comrades champion.