Are most ultra “runners” just walking?

It’s not the same thing. I’ve seen a 100 mile race in person, with my own eyes. I’ve worked an aid station. I can tell you that outside the front runners, the majority of the participants spend most of their time walking. Yet, when they are done they will tell anyone that will listen that they ran 100 miles.

The only counter argument that the very best ultra athletes only walk sometimes, strengthens my argument.

Don’t say you ran 100 miles if you walked most of it.

Real world example

UTMB 1757 finishers

Exact mid pack 878.5

878 pace 40hrs 17 mins; 879 place 40hrs 18mins

The mid pack of the race is doing 22:46/mile!

22:46/mile is not running. Traveling 2.63 miles per hour is not running.

Call it the toughest race in the world if you want. But, stop claiming that 22:46/mile is running. It just isn't.

Did you take in to account that the UMTB is much longer than 100 miles?

106 or so, I think.

Yes, the calculation is based on 106 miles. 106/40.283 = 2.63 miles per hour.

I'll stand by my statement 22:46/mile isn't running.

I took a family camping trip, we traveled around a lake. My nephew was really tired so I carried him for part of it. He basically walked when he wanted to. When we got home, he said he walked all the way around the lake. And that's ultrarunning, and the level of mindset most of them have. It's okay to bend the truth because it was hard and so you should just give respect and think too hard. Because let's be honest, if you were good at thinking, you wouldn't be an ultrarunner in the first place.

15 minute miles is walking at a fast pace, and doing it for 24 hours nonstop to do 100 miles. So no, even if it was just a flat course, obviously it's not walking. Now throw in mountains and terrain and whatnot and that's a lot faster than walking pace for a lot longer than anyone is going to be walking at anything close to that pace. Try hiking 100 miles in 24 hours lol. That ain't gonna work. Also 24 hours is sort of the bar for being good, haven't looked at times in a while but I'm pretty sure the top people are doing it in like 17 hours or faster.

Nobody is running 100 miles straight. Which is why the pace is slow, cuz you obviously have to stop to walk at a times to be able to keep going, to eat at aid stations, to take a piss, etc. 100 milers is a long distance endurance race, even something like a marathon doesn't remotely compare to it. Marathon is still just a very long race, 100 miles is straight up endurance survival but doing it as fast as you can.

So, ignore that they're walking because it's far and hilly? Call it running because it's hard?

In that case is takes the average Everest runner 40 days to reach the summit. It's 12.78 miles from basecamp to the summit. Their average running pace is 3.26 days/mile. See we can call it running because it's hilly and hard.

Unless you are a race walker, nobody is walking 4 miles per hour. 3 maybe but even that will be very hard to keep up for 24 hours. Running 100 miles on roads is possible for a lot of runners. Even I have done it.

Neat, a couple points:

1) Post the average of the NYC Marathon.

2) Recognize UTMB is 4 times farther NYCM, with more than 40 TIMES the elevation gain, on any/all kinds of surfaces. Yes 40 times - that's not a typo.

3) Just be honest and admit straight up you're not a mountain runner to begin with, given it's so obvious. Ergo - per mile average is not even a thing to us since "pace" is so wildly variable regardless of distance. (ex: I know a low-2:20's guy who ran a high altitude 17ish mile race with a lot of vert. Strava data showed an average 13xx min/mile "pace", but also, not one of the mile splits was even within a minute of that. All were way faster or slower.)

So back to that 22:46 average you calculated - it's made up of excruciatingly slow climbs, faster descents, aid station time, and everything in between. They weren't just "walking along" at 22:46 "pace".

The larger point: obviously only a very small fraction of those doing mountain ultras are elite. Exactly like every single race out there - from the marathon majors, etc... right down to your local Turkey trot. That nearly everyone at UTMB will be reduced to a walk (re: power hike) at some point should come as no surprise, given even the elites are.

The any surface WR for 💯 is roughly 10 hours 50 minutes, which works out to roughly 6:30/mile. Set by a Lithuania on a city park loop course I believe. Outside of a pit stop or two, I don't imagine there was any downtime or walking involved. I'm sure there were others in this event that moved along pretty well without walking either. When people on this board imagine Kipchoge and the rest of the EA's destroying 100 mile records, they are more than likely envisioning events like that if for no other reason than they themselves simply cannot envision what a mountain 100 actually entails.

And yes, Kip and gang almost assuredly would destroy road/track style 100's with aplomb. But the mountains are a crapshoot - some will shine, others will fail, miserably.

WALMSLEY DID HIS SHARE OF WALKING AND DNEFFING

IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A 215 GUY AND A 201 GUY IN AN ULTRA ILL TAKE A 201 GUY AS BOTH WILL LEARN AT THEIR PACE. THIS IDEA THAT WALMSLEY IS SOMEHOW SPECIAL IS ONLY TRUE IN THE SENSE THAT ULTRAS ARENT ATTACKED EN MASSE BY AFRICANS THE WAY MARATHONS ARE. ID LIKE TO SEE THAT 212 CHICK AGAINST DEWALTER LOL

First of all, any 100-mile races with serious ultrarunners taking 24 hours have LOTS of vertical.

Maybe you've never hiked up a mountain, but for most people it will be SLOWER overall if they stay in a running motion rather than hiking. It would be like running a marathon with sprint form.

Anyway, the 100-mile world record (on a flatter course, obviously) is 10 hours, 51 minutes, and 39 seconds, or about 6:30 per mile.

So what's you're problem? (And can you even run 26 miles that fast? If so, please post a link to your 2:50 marathon result, then start training to do that four times back-to-back.)

I'd love to see that too, and Kip.

The mistake you are making is assuming *a specific elite marathoner* would destroy the current mountain ultra elites. Yes, if you took 100 or more elite marathoners and had them train for a season in real mountains for UTMB there's a pretty good chance one (or more) of them would shine. But many more would fail, miserably. It would be an utter crapshoot trying to identify who's going to shine, way too many variables.

I don’t have a problem.

I’m very confident in my statement that most ultra competitors walk the majority of their races. You can’t dispute it. It’s a fact.

You keep bringing up the world record or the amount of vertical. The world record or the amount of vertical doesn’t change the fact that most ultra competitors walk the majority of their races.

For the vast majority of people that participate it’s a hiking/walking competition.

Sorry it hurts your feelings, but it’s true.

WHEN 240 GUYS START WINNING THESE MAJOR ULTRAS ILL SAY THERE IS MORE OF A SPECIFIC SKILL SET, BUT WHEN ITS WON BY SUB 30 10K GUYS LIKE KILLIAN AND WALMSLEY....JUST EXTEND THE LINE WHEN YOU GET 100 SUB 28/SUB 212 GUYS THAT THERE WILL BE QUITE A FEW THAT BREAK THROUGH. I WOULD RATHER TAKE 100 13:10 GUYS AND FASTER AND BREAK THEM INTO ULTRAS THAN 100 13:50GUYS LIKE WALMSLEY.

ANY DISTANCE RUNNING WITHOUT AFRICANS IS NOT DISTANCE RUNNING

True. Jim was so damn slow this year. Kipchoge would train and run sub 18 with his nap and tea and ugali. The weather would prove no issue as he is mentally tough as anyone. If Kilian ran he might have to cheat (he is a notorious switchback cutter.) Zach would be in big, big trouble, too.

Imagine Kipchoge doing this? Would never happen.

I think the real problem with this thread is the generalization. It seems very obvious to me that in both ultra racing and marathon racing and even 10k racing there are both those who run and those who walk.

Now, who gets to call themselves a runner is a better question. Clearly the lines are not defined by race. The are certainly ultra, marathon, and 10k 'runners' out there. There are also ultra, marathon, and 10k 'walkers', 'joggers', and 'mixed-breeds' out there.

Obviously the solution is to treat this like race. If you are half Mexican half Canadian you say you are Mexican-Canadian. So if you Walk/Jog a race you are a Walk-Jogger.

Now, also important is the percentage. If you are 75% Irish but have that one German Grandma, you better tell all the world that you are 75% Irish, 25% German, lest you play them for fools regarding your true heritage.

So yeah, I consider myself to be a marathon '89% Runner, 9% Jogger, 1% Sprinter, .5% Aid Station Grabber, .5% Crapper'. But I most associate myself with my crapper identity so that's me now. I crapped my last marathon. Big marathon crapper over here.

I am thinking that OP has a personal experience with an individual who has run parts of an ultra at a pace unworthy of the 'runner' race (likely a mixed breed of sorts). Because clearly the problem is not specific to ultra marathons. It also sems a bit 'runner' supremacist to be making specific claims of which paces are included in the 'runner' race. My guess is OP can't run ultra marathons himself, as the fact this thread exists points to the fact that OP is a little bit insecure about his own place in the 'runner' race.

"Just Another Run of the Mill ex-D1 er" Really sticking it out on a limb there with "there's a pretty good chance one (or more) of them would shine......"

I guess it depends on what you define as an "elite marathoner"? Sub 2:10? Sub 2:05? Doesn't really matter. Let's just take sub 2:20 guys:

But as you say if there were 100 "elite marathoners" (lets just say only sub 2:15 guys) and they had an entire season in the Alps to train for something like UTMB, I'd be willing to bet A LOT of them would shine. It would probably help if they at least had a 50km or a 100km race under their belt first too though.

Yeah maybe not 80% or even 60% would do great at UTMB, but probably quite a few (dozens and dozens) would most likely be top 10 and top 20.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: success in ultras correlates very well with road marathon fitness. There is obviously some nuance with mountain courses and when one gets into 100-miler + range, but it's all just distance "running"