Why Ultrarunning is Dumb

What Distance Then? wrote:

What distance then is the max to be considered real running?

Well you can start with whatever distance an elite can average faster than 5 minutes per mile for the whole distance. I can appreciate anything that has a speed I can't achieve, which is the real reason why I'm not so crazy about ultras.

Teg wrote:

I agree, but the really dangerous distance is the 10k. For example, John Treacy collapsed in the Moscow Olympic 10k and nearly died (probably...). Salazar back in 78 had last rites after he dared to try to go even a mile further than the dangerour 10,000 meters. Any event in which you risk your health (or reputation...) is just too extreme for me!!

Back then AlSal called for the last rites practically every time he sneezed. Always melodramatic, I suspect he was actually never more exhaused than anyone else - he just looked like he was. Sorta like Zatopek.

Its probably been said, but AlSal has said his proudest achievement was the course record @ Comrades (up).

All running is the closest to absurd activity we can find - running around in circles? How inane...who thought this up? Joseph K?

People who run ultras get into it. I never thought I would run a marathon, and now I enjoy it. Its an interesting distance for a waddler like me. I want to do Comrades or a 100km before I turn 50 (43 now).

From the outside, track/XC is the silliest looking sport imaginable. All the opprobrium heaped on ultras, walking etc is just redirected from others.

half marathoner wrote:

What Distance Then? wrote:

What distance then is the max to be considered real running?

Well you can start with whatever distance an elite can average faster than 5 minutes per mile for the whole distance. I can appreciate anything that has a speed I can't achieve, which is the real reason why I'm not so crazy about ultras.

Okay, so you're basically admitting it's subjective and this is just your opinion... so why are you preaching to us? Go away.

So the question is, when Ultras just won't do it for us anymore, where do ya go? Where do ya go....?

Really?

Give us a list of all the times last rites were administered to Al Sal,

other than after his race at Falmouth.

catholic wrote:

Really?

Give us a list of all the times last rites were administered to Al Sal,

other than after his race at Falmouth.

Falmouth '78 and.....?

The urban myth is twice....

Google (the font of all truth) is showing only Falmouth. Although a NY Times article says twice

Whenever I discuss balance, people want to split hairs. They never think to start with the extreme and work backwards. So, I'll do it for you.

Badwater is extreme. Nevermind the distance. Any race that requires a crew to follow you in a vehicle to keep you alive is stupid.

The Yukon Arctic Ultra is the cold weather version of Badwater. I think we can agree that is stupid.

More here:

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/running-article/world-s-toughest-extreme-ultras/707717

Any race that talks about how "extreme" it is would qualify as being an extreme race. I'm wondering when they will have a race that takes you across four states from the desert to frigid cold or what have you.

The real running community is not like this. We talk about training and how we can get better. We want to race well regardless if we are world class, national class, collegiate high school, or a master trying to win an age group. I know some age groupers who can tell you who their rivals are, and they live to see them at the races. It makes me look forward to hitting 40. This is what competition is about. We make each other better. Though these people are rivals, they are also friends.

I'm not against trail races or unusual marathons that have elevation gain or what have you. What I am against are races that don't merely test your fitness but also your health and sanity. Yes, people have had heart attacks running 5K races, but I think we can agree that these people had some health problems before the race. Ultra races require health monitoring and weigh-ins and all that. What kind of race is this?

All of this pits an Aristotelian conception of virtue as opposed to a Stoic conception of virtue. The old Kilgore was a Stoic, but he got older and wiser and realized his error. There is no virtue in self-destruction.

The Aristotelian seeks excellence. The Stoic seeks suffering. The Aristotelian trains 100 miles a week to race 26.2 on some weekend three months away. The Stoic trains 50 miles a week for a crucible of agony that stretches over 100 miles. (The dirty secret of ultras is that they can be completed on basic fitness.)

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244--7556-3-2X3X4-4,00.html

The hard feat is not completing an ultra but completing a marathon or under with a new PR. I've talked to both runners and ultrarunners, and I see more frustration with the runners in trying to achieve their goals. This is because some goals are harder than others. Ask anyone trying to qualify for the Olympic trials.

I think a great example of the Aristotelian is Ed Whitlock who busted the 3 hour mark for the marathon at 70+. If I'm not mistaken, he could have beaten Lance Armstrong in his first marathon with that time. This old guy puts in a ton of miles week in and week out. I find him simply amazing. When you encounter something like this, it humbles you but in the good way. Truly great people have the way of winning your admiration without provoking your envy. This is what Aristotle called "magnanimity" or "great souled."

The motivation for the ultrarunner is not greatness but attention. Karno is the epitome of this mindset. I admire the guy for being such a shameless self-promoter, but I have never once admired any of his achievements. I don't think Karno is an egomaniac but simply a cheerleader for his sport and lifestyle. I think he is an otherwise cool dude. But he hasn't done anything to warrant my admiration and veneration. He simply runs while eating a pizza and dictating a bestseller.

Out.

You make some interesting points worth thinking about.

How is your "model" applicable to puking marathon finishers and crawling-over-the-finish-line triathletes?

How do people like Hoyt, Terry Fox fare up?

I think marathon pukers like Kempainen and all triathletes fit into the Aristotelian mode. Aristotle did not believe in being a wimp. You want to avoid things like this, but you endure them with magnanimity when they do happen.

The difference is that an Aristotelian pursues a goal and may encounter adversity in that pursuit. The Stoic simply seeks adversity because that is the goal.

Triathletes are more Aristotelian, and I don't see them in the same way as ultrarunners. I just think triathlon is stupid for a non-professional with a career and a family because it costs so much money and eats up a lot of time in training. But they pursue excellence in what they do.

Ultrarunners run their races, so they can say, "Look how insane I am. I ran Badwater and almost died. They gave me an IV at the finish line!"

If you grasp Aristotle's Golden Mean, you see ultrarunners for the fools that they are. We will use an example from Bear Grylls. If Bear sees water, he drinks that and only drinks from the elephant dung when he has no other choice. The ultrarunner would pack the elephant dung instead of a water bottle.

Going to extremes is easy because you don't have to use wisdom on that. Balance is hard. It requires thought and contemplation. This is what true running is about. It is about training hard but also recovery. It is about eating the right things in the right amount. It is about pacing so you run well in the race and don't implode. For the ultrarunner, there is no such thing as a bad race unless you fail to finish. They err on the side of insanity.

Out.

Where does the Ultra line start for you?

Or is it that Ultra is in fact an approach rather than a discipline, and hence not a matter of distance, but balance with different parameters?

As one type of Running comes/derives from another, with Balance being the crucial issue, should we be considering a Platonic running approach?

No sense in trying to deny the material world.

Would your view be one good reason to finally part away from the origins of the marathon as an heroic act negating life for reasons of the collective good?

ilgore wrote:

The real running community is not like this. We talk about training and how we can get better. We want to race well regardless if we are world class, national class, collegiate high school, or a master trying to win an age group. I know some age groupers who can tell you who their rivals are, and they live to see them at the races. It makes me look forward to hitting 40. This is what competition is about. We make each other better. Though these people are rivals, they are also friends.

How is the Ultrarunning community different than this, and how did you find out that none of them talk about training, want to race well, know who their rivals are, enjoy seeing them at races, and look forward to hitting a new age group?

I'm just wondering how you know that none of this is part of ultrarunning, and how you know that none of the athletes have these interests?

I haven't even bothered to read all your philosophical BS, but Aristotle? Seriously Kilgore? What does that have to do with your opinion of whether a sport is stupid to you or not?

Why so bent on trying to get others to agree? All this "I think we can all agree that this is stupid" stuff.

I do 12 and 24 hour cycling races, I love them and feel like they are very satisfying athletically to me. While I do not think they are as extreme as a 100-mile running race, they are also not everyone's cup of tea.

Solution: don't do them.

I don't like the MMA, the UFC or any of those kinds of competitions. But I don't try to persuade other people that they are stupid. I think they are stupid, but I am OK with other stupid people liking them.

Same with pro football. Think about the hours some people spend on that? Same with college football.

Same with NASCAR.

AND, I don't invoke Aristotle to try and convince people they are wasting their lives by watching football or NASCAR.

The motivation for the ultrarunner is not greatness but attention.

Maybe for some people. Not everyone in the ultramarathon community likes the current attention it's getting.

For them, ultramarathon running is like being an astronaut or becoming a Navy SEAL; it's about being a part of an extreme that only a few people can do. Wouldn't you feel special if you were a comic book character with super powers?

ilgore wrote:

The real running community is not like this. We talk about training and how we can get better. We want to race well regardless if we are world class, national class, collegiate high school, or a master trying to win an age group. I know some age groupers who can tell you who their rivals are, and they live to see them at the races. It makes me look forward to hitting 40. This is what competition is about. We make each other better. Though these people are rivals, they are also friends.

This paragraph could accurately describe most ultrarunners you dolt. Of course you wouldn't know that because you've never been involved with the sport. Clearly you're the best person to pass judgement on the sport as you have zero experience.

The cold weather version of Badwater is actually the Arrowhead 135 in MN. Yes, it is extreme. No, you would not approve.

The problem you are making in your mind is that you are putting a time goal on a shorter race, but saying basic fitness is enough to complete an ultra. Basic fitness or even no fitness is all that is needed to complete a 5k or even a marathon if you're that type of person. The difference is, you have equated finishing an ultra to doing well in one. Sure you can run one off of basic fitness, but are you going to get a good time unless you train? No. It's the same as if you ran a 5k or 10k off of basic fitness, you might be able to do okay even off of basic fitness, but you are not going to improve your achievement and PR unless you train. This gap you have created between the achievement of an ultra and some other race is purely in your head. Whether you are an ultra runner or a marathon runner, you train to get better and achieve more, not just for attention.. you don't know what ultra runners train for anyway, or what their motivation is, so stop acting like they're all the same.

Lastly, your idea of extreme isn't the same as another person's. Sure, it's dangerous to do an ultra, but danger is what makes life so adventurous. Nobody does an ultra just because they want people to see how close they were to death. They have crews so they can protect themselves and finish in the best shape possible, as fast as possible. It's not like they plan on dying out there. If they wanted to be extreme, they would do it just for the hell of it, no need for a crew or even a race just go do it and then try to get on the news. That's not what ultra running is about, so get that through your freaking mind.

I think it should be faster than 4:50 per mile, 5:00 per mile is too slow.

ilgore wrote:

Badwater is extreme. Nevermind the distance. Any race that requires a crew to follow you in a vehicle to keep you alive is stupid.

Why?

The Yukon Arctic Ultra is the cold weather version of Badwater. I think we can agree that is stupid.

Think again.

The motivation for the ultrarunner is not greatness but attention.

Don't kid yourself. That is also the motivation for any runner who ever enters a race with an idea of winning. That is exactly the motivation YOU had for any race you ever entered.

"Greatness". What complete bullshit.

"The motivation for the ultrarunner is not greatness but attention."

Bolt it the biggest attention whore in all of sports presently. I don't see any ultra guys jumping in front of camera and saying film ME. Well, maybe Wardian, but he's really a marathoner.

I like ilgore's style of writing but think he needs to re-think this subject matter.

Most ultra people I know do not do it to seek attention. They are introverts who mostly train by themselves or with a couple of other people and see an ultra event as their big social event to cover some distance on the same day and share in the experience with others.

ilgore is right in that most don't have the same competitive bend that competitive runners have in racing a 5K or marathon. But where ilgore is wrong is that they don't seek out dung water to make them feel more insane.

There are a few ultra events like Badwater that do not make sense to me. That does not mean I don't respect most ultra runners. I am more of in awe of a top age grouper than someone who completes Badwater. I could even see why some people would want to run from the lowest spot to the highest spot but why do it when the conditions suck so much?