I would agree with most of what you are saying, however, many or most ultra runners get into ultra racing because they did not perform at a high level in the marathon. Lichter ran a 2:39:09 California International Marathon, while good, not even close to Seidel. Its net downhill and point to point. If she had raced a certified course (for records) like New York she would have been in the mid-2:40s. That is not even close to consideration for Worlds or Olympics.
So, while a fit medallist in the marathon isn't necessarily going to dominate an ultra in the first couple of goes, they typically don't give the specific training and racing a serious go due to being able to compete (earn money) racing in the 2:18-2:24-range or 2:04-2:08 for men. For example, Cam Levins (2:05:36) would not even consider a 50K until his international career is over. And why would he. Troyer has a 10,000m pb of 30:45. While good at a local level, Levins ran 27:19 before moving up to the marathon. There is a world of difference in athletic talent between these two.
So while the sport has changed let's give Seidel a few races to show her stuff.
This is always the argument: If top Marathon runners would enter ultrarunning times would drop.
It has never really happened. Why? Top Marathon runners focus on Marathon races. Once their Marathon career is over, most bodies are done from decades of hart training. There are very few exceptions who made a small dent in the ultramarathon world like Alberto Salazar at the Comrades Marathon.
It will be very interesting to see what Molly Seidel is capable off. Can she win Western States in a few years? It's possible but I wait until I actually see it.
Jim Walmsley came into the sport wanting to do course records everywhere. He had to learn the hard way that other countries have great runners too and they are doing running just on the side while tending to their vineyards or engineering job.
Ultrarunning, especially trail ultrarunning is a complex sport and unless you have done it, you have no idea what you are getting into.
I think the clear answer is money. Even with how far the sport has come the past decade, you can probably count on both hands the number of US ultra athletes, male or female, who are legitimate professionals. Even at the highest profile races like Black Canyon, the vast majority of the podium/top 10 finishers are working other jobs alongside their shoe sponsors (or like Cade Michael in the 50k not sponsored at all!).
But that tide seems to be turning to some extent. The current revitalization of Nike's interest in the sport via ACG is a great example of that. You could make the case that thanks to their prize money, the 23k at Broken Arrow this year might be the most competitive domestic footrace of any kind this year.
If over the next decade trail running becomes a viable career path, you would have to assume more top level collegiate talent will go that route immediately, or more at least more quickly, after their collegiate careers conclude.
First of all, the course I ran 7:52 at Black Canyon in 2016 was probably about 2-miles longer (with more climbing and more singletrack) than the course I ran 7:52 at this year. It's short now at just under 61-miles vs the 63 miles it used to be. So there's that....
The whole "Deep Canyon" section (50km finish line) and running on the dirt roads out of there make it a "faster course" nowadays. It was also cooler this year compared to many prior years (not like cloudy, but like 70 instead of 80). Weather plays a bigger role in ultra races because of the exposure and duration.
So no, I'm not "as fast" as I was when I was 30 at this event and pre-pulmonary embolism (I'm an "old and kinda fit" 40 now!). In my defense in 2016 I was coming off back-back marathon races at CIM (where I was 10th place) and Houston (2:20) and had barely done any trail running or Long Runs all winter in 2016. I won by about 50-minutes over guys like Chris Mocko that year.
But Jennifer and Anne going sub 8-hours on Saturday was totally ridiculous. Like super amazing performances! Hans also ran incredible to hit 7:20, but these top two women were only like 7-8% behind (when usually the spread is more like 10%). Tara (despite her falls) also had a great race and course PR and Molly ran pretty dang well. I was actually surprised how far back Des Linden was in the 50km though (who knows how much she specifically trained for this as Marathon Des Sables is coming up?)?
Jennifer also went 5:54 or so at Speedgoat...which if you know that course you know how great of a performance that is. She apparently had a 140 mile training week going into Black Canyon. I'd be confident to bet that she is probably closer to 2:30 flat marathon shape now...especially on a course like CIM.
On Saturday I started off around 20th place overall and split about 3:00 through "the first marathon". The top 3 women (including Molly) were probably within 5-6-min of me at that point (and then obviously Anne and Jennifer started gaining on me a bit!). So they are opening up the race with a 3:05-3:06 marathon. Granted it's a net downhill, but the rocks and turns on a lot of the singletrack trail certainly make 7:00/min mile pace a lot more intense with the relative HR and feelings of fatigue. Not to mention carrying 1L of water/fluid and a fanny pack full of gels and you're hauling an extra 3lbs....
I've said this over and over the past 14 years that I've bee in ultra-mountain-trail running (coming from a decent level on the roads):
"Marathon fitness generally correlates very well to ultra-trail running. Sure, sometimes the 2:12 guy gets beat by the 2:20 guy, but they are usually crushing the 2:40 guy. For Women it would be more like: the 2:24 marathoner sometimes gets beat by the 2:35 marathoner...but they are crushing the 2:52 marathoner" The steeper and more technical the course (think like SkyRunning events or events like UTMB which is not technical but has a lot of gear requirements and 20%+ grade slopes) sometimes things can be more drastic of course....but even the Ruth Crofts or the Courtney Ds or the Jim Ws or Tom Evans of the world can all run pretty fast marathons....
Sure there are "some other variables" that can go exponentially wrong in the longer ultras (mainly hydration issues and stomach issues honestly), but these are aerobic based events that depend highly on pure endurance fitness. The more runnable the trail, the higher the correlation as the spectrum of paces is a better match (unlike "powerhiking" or jumping on technical rocks etc).
With Running Economy (efficiency) being the name of the game, being fit enough to run 5:45 or 5:30 min per mile on a road for a marathon translates generally pretty well to being able to run 7:30-8:20-min per mile on a "runnable trail" like the Black Canyon course for 3 times the duration of a road marathon event o,p. Western states has even more smooth sections, but the fact that it's 100-miles (and can be quite extreme heat) can really mess you up and cause a big, expotential melt down (me in 2016 for example).
So GI issues and dehydration/fueling issues aside, if you have the aerobic fitness (Threshold fitness and velocity at Vo2max) the only other main physical "limiting factor" is muscular endurance (avoiding "sheer muscle failure" like cramps) and a breakdown in what I call "Variable Running Economy." The legs and core muscles must be strong and they must be coordinated enough to stay efficient over the long haul on variable terrain. You need to be able to sustain relative power output and coordinate your stride so you're not tripping all over the place and you're not wasting energy too much.
That can make it very different from "just road running", but high mileage training, high carb fueling, strength work/plyos, and accumulated volume sessions at LT1 can certainly help with that "conversion" imo.
Great insights.
One comment: I think there's a directionality component at play that people default to that can be counterproductive, or maybe counterintuitive is the better word. We are so used to looking at a result and extrapolating up in distance. How fast could the 1:42 800m guy run a mile...how fast could the 3:48 miler run a 5k...how fast could the 26:45 guy run a marathon etc. While most of the times those are silly questions, because those guys are clearly in the correct events already, we take that lens, and that direction of thought into ultras as well, where it has even less purchase.
What I mean is, instead of saying, Jenn Litcher is a sub 8 hour performer at Black Canyon because she can run 2:30 for a marathon, the more directionally relevant statement is that Jenn Lichter can run a 2:30 marathon because she can run 8 hours at Black Canyon or 5:54 at Speedgoat.
Or, not that Tara Dower can run 13:30 at Javelina because she's in 2:35 marathon shape (or whatever), but instead Tara Dower can run a 2:35 marahon because she can run 13:30 at Javelina (and because she's spent the last decade of her life sharpening herself into a pain resistant monster on massive FKT attempts).
Anyway, maybe that's splitting hairs/semantics, but something worth thinking about in these conversations, particularly when so many top performers in the sport come from non-traditional running backgrounds with out of date/irrelevant road and track PRs.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
First of all, the course I ran 7:52 at Black Canyon in 2016 was probably about 2-miles longer (with more climbing and more singletrack) than the course I ran 7:52 at this year. It's short now at just under 61-miles vs the 63 miles it used to be. So there's that....
The whole "Deep Canyon" section (50km finish line) and running on the dirt roads out of there make it a "faster course" nowadays. It was also cooler this year compared to many prior years (not like cloudy, but like 70 instead of 80). Weather plays a bigger role in ultra races because of the exposure and duration.
So no, I'm not "as fast" as I was when I was 30 at this event and pre-pulmonary embolism (I'm an "old and kinda fit" 40 now!). In my defense in 2016 I was coming off back-back marathon races at CIM (where I was 10th place) and Houston (2:20) and had barely done any trail running or Long Runs all winter in 2016. I won by about 50-minutes over guys like Chris Mocko that year.
But Jennifer and Anne going sub 8-hours on Saturday was totally ridiculous. Like super amazing performances! Hans also ran incredible to hit 7:20, but these top two women were only like 7-8% behind (when usually the spread is more like 10%). Tara (despite her falls) also had a great race and course PR and Molly ran pretty dang well. I was actually surprised how far back Des Linden was in the 50km though (who knows how much she specifically trained for this as Marathon Des Sables is coming up?)?
Jennifer also went 5:54 or so at Speedgoat...which if you know that course you know how great of a performance that is. She apparently had a 140 mile training week going into Black Canyon. I'd be confident to bet that she is probably closer to 2:30 flat marathon shape now...especially on a course like CIM.
On Saturday I started off around 20th place overall and split about 3:00 through "the first marathon". The top 3 women (including Molly) were probably within 5-6-min of me at that point (and then obviously Anne and Jennifer started gaining on me a bit!). So they are opening up the race with a 3:05-3:06 marathon. Granted it's a net downhill, but the rocks and turns on a lot of the singletrack trail certainly make 7:00/min mile pace a lot more intense with the relative HR and feelings of fatigue. Not to mention carrying 1L of water/fluid and a fanny pack full of gels and you're hauling an extra 3lbs....
I've said this over and over the past 14 years that I've bee in ultra-mountain-trail running (coming from a decent level on the roads):
"Marathon fitness generally correlates very well to ultra-trail running. Sure, sometimes the 2:12 guy gets beat by the 2:20 guy, but they are usually crushing the 2:40 guy. For Women it would be more like: the 2:24 marathoner sometimes gets beat by the 2:35 marathoner...but they are crushing the 2:52 marathoner" The steeper and more technical the course (think like SkyRunning events or events like UTMB which is not technical but has a lot of gear requirements and 20%+ grade slopes) sometimes things can be more drastic of course....but even the Ruth Crofts or the Courtney Ds or the Jim Ws or Tom Evans of the world can all run pretty fast marathons....
Sure there are "some other variables" that can go exponentially wrong in the longer ultras (mainly hydration issues and stomach issues honestly), but these are aerobic based events that depend highly on pure endurance fitness. The more runnable the trail, the higher the correlation as the spectrum of paces is a better match (unlike "powerhiking" or jumping on technical rocks etc).
With Running Economy (efficiency) being the name of the game, being fit enough to run 5:45 or 5:30 min per mile on a road for a marathon translates generally pretty well to being able to run 7:30-8:20-min per mile on a "runnable trail" like the Black Canyon course for 3 times the duration of a road marathon event o,p. Western states has even more smooth sections, but the fact that it's 100-miles (and can be quite extreme heat) can really mess you up and cause a big, expotential melt down (me in 2016 for example).
So GI issues and dehydration/fueling issues aside, if you have the aerobic fitness (Threshold fitness and velocity at Vo2max) the only other main physical "limiting factor" is muscular endurance (avoiding "sheer muscle failure" like cramps) and a breakdown in what I call "Variable Running Economy." The legs and core muscles must be strong and they must be coordinated enough to stay efficient over the long haul on variable terrain. You need to be able to sustain relative power output and coordinate your stride so you're not tripping all over the place and you're not wasting energy too much.
That can make it very different from "just road running", but high mileage training, high carb fueling, strength work/plyos, and accumulated volume sessions at LT1 can certainly help with that "conversion" imo.
Good stuff, and it was cool to see you crushing it out there, Sage!
So you're in agreement with my earlier comment (that was mostly down-voted) that marathon fitness matters (though not the only thing that matters). It speaks to the runner's ceiling and their margin for error. And that Molly probably wins this if she were actually in 2:22 marathon shape. I get that the diehards of the ultra/trail world want to believe otherwise, but they're fooling themselves.
Another prominent ultrarunner and coach -- who shall remain nameless because he triggers a bunch of idiots on this site but let's just say his and his wife's athletes crushed it at Black Canyon and they have a popular podcast -- says exactly the same thing. Recall a podcast in which they said that Connor Mantz would dominate the trails if he were to spend some months prepping. The difference needs to be substantial as a few minutes faster over a marathon is probably meaningless, which is where I have Molly vs Jenn as of today. But if someone is at the starting line, like a Mantz, who is world's better than the others, then it's a game-changer.
Sure, down-vote me but y'all are kidding yourselves if you don't thing being a great runner matters. The idea, that I was objecting to, that it doesn't matter if Molly is in 2:22, 2:32 or 2:42 marathon shape is laughable.
Good stuff, and it was cool to see you crushing it out there, Sage!
So you're in agreement with my earlier comment (that was mostly down-voted) that marathon fitness matters (though not the only thing that matters). It speaks to the runner's ceiling and their margin for error. And that Molly probably wins this if she were actually in 2:22 marathon shape. I get that the diehards of the ultra/trail world want to believe otherwise, but they're fooling themselves.
Another prominent ultrarunner and coach -- who shall remain nameless because he triggers a bunch of idiots on this site but let's just say his and his wife's athletes crushed it at Black Canyon and they have a popular podcast -- says exactly the same thing. Recall a podcast in which they said that Connor Mantz would dominate the trails if he were to spend some months prepping. The difference needs to be substantial as a few minutes faster over a marathon is probably meaningless, which is where I have Molly vs Jenn as of today. But if someone is at the starting line, like a Mantz, who is world's better than the others, then it's a game-changer.
Sure, down-vote me but y'all are kidding yourselves if you don't thing being a great runner matters. The idea, that I was objecting to, that it doesn't matter if Molly is in 2:22, 2:32 or 2:42 marathon shape is laughable.
This is nonsense. Conner Mantz can run ultras if he wants to, but he doesn't. The people at the starting line make a race not the ones who could have signed up, but didn't.
This is always the argument: If top Marathon runners would enter ultrarunning times would drop.
It has never really happened. Why? Top Marathon runners focus on Marathon races. Once their Marathon career is over, most bodies are done from decades of hart training. There are very few exceptions who made a small dent in the ultramarathon world like Alberto Salazar at the Comrades Marathon.
It will be very interesting to see what Molly Seidel is capable off. Can she win Western States in a few years? It's possible but I wait until I actually see it.
Jim Walmsley came into the sport wanting to do course records everywhere. He had to learn the hard way that other countries have great runners too and they are doing running just on the side while tending to their vineyards or engineering job.
Ultrarunning, especially trail ultrarunning is a complex sport and unless you have done it, you have no idea what you are getting into.
I think the clear answer is money. Even with how far the sport has come the past decade, you can probably count on both hands the number of US ultra athletes, male or female, who are legitimate professionals. Even at the highest profile races like Black Canyon, the vast majority of the podium/top 10 finishers are working other jobs alongside their shoe sponsors (or like Cade Michael in the 50k not sponsored at all!).
But that tide seems to be turning to some extent. The current revitalization of Nike's interest in the sport via ACG is a great example of that. You could make the case that thanks to their prize money, the 23k at Broken Arrow this year might be the most competitive domestic footrace of any kind this year.
If over the next decade trail running becomes a viable career path, you would have to assume more top level collegiate talent will go that route immediately, or more at least more quickly, after their collegiate careers conclude.
Maybe, but if a good collegiate runner is not good enough to run pro track or the marathon, he’s likely to start his real career over running the trails. There might be money for the first such runner that moves to ultras, but not so much for the next 10.
Come on now. Everyone knows that all things being equal running fitness at the marathon matters, just not to the point Sage believes for some reason. He would have you believe the top women that would have passed him if the race was 10 miles longer are somehow in the same marathon shape as him. That Molly some how was out classed in marathon ability in this race.
At the same time he brushes aside fueling and says anyone can do that despite never having a good result at the 100 mile distance. It is just weird that 20 years later he still defends this position, learning nothing.
Come on now. Everyone knows that all things being equal running fitness at the marathon matters, just not to the point Sage believes for some reason. He would have you believe the top women that would have passed him if the race was 10 miles longer are somehow in the same marathon shape as him. That Molly some how was out classed in marathon ability in this race.
At the same time he brushes aside fueling and says anyone can do that despite never having a good result at the 100 mile distance. It is just weird that 20 years later he still defends this position, learning nothing.
You sure that "everyone knows"? Someone posted that it doesn't matter if Molly was in 2:22 vs 2:32 vs 2:42 shape. That's ridiculous. Of course it matters. As I keep saying, it's not the only thing that matters (no sh-t) but it's the starting point for everything else.
The die-hard ultra traditionalists seem to get offended by the idea that speed matters. Get over it. You're living in the past. The races are getting faster and it will matter more and more since high-carb fueling has both increased speeds and leveled the playing field in some respects.
Oh, and my point about Mantz wasn't mine but that of a well-known trail coach and podcaster who happens to coach the men's winner of Black Canyon 100k.
Come on now. Everyone knows that all things being equal running fitness at the marathon matters, just not to the point Sage believes for some reason. He would have you believe the top women that would have passed him if the race was 10 miles longer are somehow in the same marathon shape as him. That Molly some how was out classed in marathon ability in this race.
At the same time he brushes aside fueling and says anyone can do that despite never having a good result at the 100 mile distance. It is just weird that 20 years later he still defends this position, learning nothing.
You sure that "everyone knows"? Someone posted that it doesn't matter if Molly was in 2:22 vs 2:32 vs 2:42 shape. That's ridiculous. Of course it matters. As I keep saying, it's not the only thing that matters (no sh-t) but it's the starting point for everything else.
The die-hard ultra traditionalists seem to get offended by the idea that speed matters. Get over it. You're living in the past. The races are getting faster and it will matter more and more since high-carb fueling has both increased speeds and leveled the playing field in some respects.
Oh, and my point about Mantz wasn't mine but that of a well-known trail coach and podcaster who happens to coach the men's winner of Black Canyon 100k.
TLDR: Sage is right.
Yeah I don't even really understand what point "Swedish Fish" is trying to make here actually?
Yes, I've personally struggled at 100-milers (DNFs at UTMB...the one time I did Western States 100 in 2016 I puked my guts out walking it in from Foresthill to the Finish but still got 11th place because I went out behind Jim and we were on sub 14-hour pace through halfway). And yes, even last Fall Tara Dower beat me at Javelina and I "only" ran 13:34 for 100-miles. I do think I can improve on that still though (GI issues are the main factor for me generally when I "struggle" traditionally...like a lot of ultra runners who "move up" in distances). I'm still learning but i got things a lot better dialed at Black Canyon this past weekend imo. But I'm also 40 now and had a bilateral pulmonary embolism. I never said "Marathon Fitness and speed always guarantees 100-miler (or 100km) success....just that it's obviously highly correlated....
Olympic Marathoners have "done well in ultras". Actually Magda Lewy Boulet is a good example because she was an Olympic Marathoner (that like Molly) set her Marathon PR a few years after the Olympics (still in her late 30s) of 2:26 and then 5 years later won the Western States 100. She also won some high level 50-milers (TNF 50 San Fran etc.)
Jim Walmsley (2:15), Ruth Croft (2:34), Tom Evans (1:03 Half) and heck now even Courtney Dauwalter (2:38) all have shown that if you're at least "Olympic Trials Marathon Speed" (or around that) you are in a good position to have the turn-over and aerobic capacity to win at Western States 100 or UTMB 100. Sure they could all probably run even faster at the marathon if they "just focused on the road or track for 6 months" instead of doing 100-mile trail ultras inbetween though...
It's a matter of "wiggle room" with your range in Running Economy (the "Variable Running Economy" that I've preached the last 14 years). If you are efficient running 5-min miles on the road, then 7-min or 8-min/ miles on the trail feel a heck of a lot more relaxed. Sure there are fat oxidation factors (RER) and muscle fiber distribution aspects (as well as not getting dehydrated or puking or bonking). But it's all tied together and all related (CO2 balance, running form as terrain changes, muscular fatigue/endurance, managing pace and mechanics, substrate utilization and heat management). It's why "Velocity at Vo2max" (and heck probably more "Velocity at Lactate and Velocity at Aerobic Threshold") really matter. Because it not only ties in your aerobic fitness with your heart and lung and blood flow capacity (Vo2max and Lactate Threshold), but also Running Economy....which is the name of the game. Efficiency. Over Variable Terrain. For hours on end.
In layman's terms look at "The Physics" of it: If a Tara Dower is splitting 3:05 or 3:10 for her *first 26.2 miles* *on a trail* *en route to a 100km (Black Canyon 8:10) or 100-mile (13:30 Javelina)*...then she basically "has to be" in *at least* sub 2:50 road marathon shape all-out on a flat road course for a single marathon....
And generally it's *better* if she's actually in sub 2:40 shape because the Anne Flower's of the world can put TWO *back to back* 2:47 marathons IN A ROW (with her 50-mile record performance at Tunnel Hill which is 6:23/mile pace!).
Again, sometimes the 2:35 Women beats the 2:25 Marathoner. I'm not saying it's all this "direct correlation 1:1: thing 100% of the time." I'm just saying all these Women can probably run significantly under 2:45-2:40 flat out. And "top ultra guys" are significantly usually under 2:25-2:20 (if not closer to 2:15) in terms of marathon fitness at of the time.
Could Connor Mantz or sub some 2:10-2:05 guy show up and clean up? Probably! Depends on the sample size and "learning curve". Some super fast guys may never hack it and the 2:10 guy loses to the 2:20 guy. But more often then not they are going to crush anything at 2:30+ marathoner is doing or has done (on average).
You sure that "everyone knows"? Someone posted that it doesn't matter if Molly was in 2:22 vs 2:32 vs 2:42 shape. That's ridiculous. Of course it matters. As I keep saying, it's not the only thing that matters (no sh-t) but it's the starting point for everything else.
The die-hard ultra traditionalists seem to get offended by the idea that speed matters. Get over it. You're living in the past. The races are getting faster and it will matter more and more since high-carb fueling has both increased speeds and leveled the playing field in some respects.
Oh, and my point about Mantz wasn't mine but that of a well-known trail coach and podcaster who happens to coach the men's winner of Black Canyon 100k.
TLDR: Sage is right.
Yeah I don't even really understand what point "Swedish Fish" is trying to make here actually?
Yes, I've personally struggled at 100-milers (DNFs at UTMB...the one time I did Western States 100 in 2016 I puked my guts out walking it in from Foresthill to the Finish but still got 11th place because I went out behind Jim and we were on sub 14-hour pace through halfway). And yes, even last Fall Tara Dower beat me at Javelina and I "only" ran 13:34 for 100-miles. I do think I can improve on that still though (GI issues are the main factor for me generally when I "struggle" traditionally...like a lot of ultra runners who "move up" in distances). I'm still learning but i got things a lot better dialed at Black Canyon this past weekend imo. But I'm also 40 now and had a bilateral pulmonary embolism. I never said "Marathon Fitness and speed always guarantees 100-miler (or 100km) success....just that it's obviously highly correlated....
Olympic Marathoners have "done well in ultras". Actually Magda Lewy Boulet is a good example because she was an Olympic Marathoner (that like Molly) set her Marathon PR a few years after the Olympics (still in her late 30s) of 2:26 and then 5 years later won the Western States 100. She also won some high level 50-milers (TNF 50 San Fran etc.)
Jim Walmsley (2:15), Ruth Croft (2:34), Tom Evans (1:03 Half) and heck now even Courtney Dauwalter (2:38) all have shown that if you're at least "Olympic Trials Marathon Speed" (or around that) you are in a good position to have the turn-over and aerobic capacity to win at Western States 100 or UTMB 100. Sure they could all probably run even faster at the marathon if they "just focused on the road or track for 6 months" instead of doing 100-mile trail ultras inbetween though...
It's a matter of "wiggle room" with your range in Running Economy (the "Variable Running Economy" that I've preached the last 14 years). If you are efficient running 5-min miles on the road, then 7-min or 8-min/ miles on the trail feel a heck of a lot more relaxed. Sure there are fat oxidation factors (RER) and muscle fiber distribution aspects (as well as not getting dehydrated or puking or bonking). But it's all tied together and all related (CO2 balance, running form as terrain changes, muscular fatigue/endurance, managing pace and mechanics, substrate utilization and heat management). It's why "Velocity at Vo2max" (and heck probably more "Velocity at Lactate and Velocity at Aerobic Threshold") really matter. Because it not only ties in your aerobic fitness with your heart and lung and blood flow capacity (Vo2max and Lactate Threshold), but also Running Economy....which is the name of the game. Efficiency. Over Variable Terrain. For hours on end.
In layman's terms look at "The Physics" of it: If a Tara Dower is splitting 3:05 or 3:10 for her *first 26.2 miles* *on a trail* *en route to a 100km (Black Canyon 8:10) or 100-mile (13:30 Javelina)*...then she basically "has to be" in *at least* sub 2:50 road marathon shape all-out on a flat road course for a single marathon....
And generally it's *better* if she's actually in sub 2:40 shape because the Anne Flower's of the world can put TWO *back to back* 2:47 marathons IN A ROW (with her 50-mile record performance at Tunnel Hill which is 6:23/mile pace!).
Again, sometimes the 2:35 Women beats the 2:25 Marathoner. I'm not saying it's all this "direct correlation 1:1: thing 100% of the time." I'm just saying all these Women can probably run significantly under 2:45-2:40 flat out. And "top ultra guys" are significantly usually under 2:25-2:20 (if not closer to 2:15) in terms of marathon fitness at of the time.
Could Connor Mantz or sub some 2:10-2:05 guy show up and clean up? Probably! Depends on the sample size and "learning curve". Some super fast guys may never hack it and the 2:10 guy loses to the 2:20 guy. But more often then not they are going to crush anything at 2:30+ marathoner is doing or has done (on average).
Agree with this, but there does however seem to be a big difference in that correlation from 'fast' 100k trail, where it is well correlated, to anything longer than 10-12 hours where it is much more of a grey area. It's notable that many fast marathoners, and indeed 100k runners, aren't able to translate their performances to 100 mile plus. Beyond say, 2:25-30 marathon fitness for men, I think the most important component of performance at these longer distances is actually muscular endurance, ability to oxidise fat, mental fortitude etc. All of these can be trained to some extent, but I think there are also significant genetic/innate differences between some individuals. Look at Sorokin - he has world record over 100k, 100 miles and 24 hours and only has a marathon PB of 2:25, despite a few marathon specific blocks/attempts.
Yeah I don't even really understand what point "Swedish Fish" is trying to make here actually?
Yes, I've personally struggled at 100-milers (DNFs at UTMB...the one time I did Western States 100 in 2016 I puked my guts out walking it in from Foresthill to the Finish but still got 11th place because I went out behind Jim and we were on sub 14-hour pace through halfway). And yes, even last Fall Tara Dower beat me at Javelina and I "only" ran 13:34 for 100-miles. I do think I can improve on that still though (GI issues are the main factor for me generally when I "struggle" traditionally...like a lot of ultra runners who "move up" in distances). I'm still learning but i got things a lot better dialed at Black Canyon this past weekend imo. But I'm also 40 now and had a bilateral pulmonary embolism. I never said "Marathon Fitness and speed always guarantees 100-miler (or 100km) success....just that it's obviously highly correlated....
Olympic Marathoners have "done well in ultras". Actually Magda Lewy Boulet is a good example because she was an Olympic Marathoner (that like Molly) set her Marathon PR a few years after the Olympics (still in her late 30s) of 2:26 and then 5 years later won the Western States 100. She also won some high level 50-milers (TNF 50 San Fran etc.)
Jim Walmsley (2:15), Ruth Croft (2:34), Tom Evans (1:03 Half) and heck now even Courtney Dauwalter (2:38) all have shown that if you're at least "Olympic Trials Marathon Speed" (or around that) you are in a good position to have the turn-over and aerobic capacity to win at Western States 100 or UTMB 100. Sure they could all probably run even faster at the marathon if they "just focused on the road or track for 6 months" instead of doing 100-mile trail ultras inbetween though...
It's a matter of "wiggle room" with your range in Running Economy (the "Variable Running Economy" that I've preached the last 14 years). If you are efficient running 5-min miles on the road, then 7-min or 8-min/ miles on the trail feel a heck of a lot more relaxed. Sure there are fat oxidation factors (RER) and muscle fiber distribution aspects (as well as not getting dehydrated or puking or bonking). But it's all tied together and all related (CO2 balance, running form as terrain changes, muscular fatigue/endurance, managing pace and mechanics, substrate utilization and heat management). It's why "Velocity at Vo2max" (and heck probably more "Velocity at Lactate and Velocity at Aerobic Threshold") really matter. Because it not only ties in your aerobic fitness with your heart and lung and blood flow capacity (Vo2max and Lactate Threshold), but also Running Economy....which is the name of the game. Efficiency. Over Variable Terrain. For hours on end.
In layman's terms look at "The Physics" of it: If a Tara Dower is splitting 3:05 or 3:10 for her *first 26.2 miles* *on a trail* *en route to a 100km (Black Canyon 8:10) or 100-mile (13:30 Javelina)*...then she basically "has to be" in *at least* sub 2:50 road marathon shape all-out on a flat road course for a single marathon....
And generally it's *better* if she's actually in sub 2:40 shape because the Anne Flower's of the world can put TWO *back to back* 2:47 marathons IN A ROW (with her 50-mile record performance at Tunnel Hill which is 6:23/mile pace!).
Again, sometimes the 2:35 Women beats the 2:25 Marathoner. I'm not saying it's all this "direct correlation 1:1: thing 100% of the time." I'm just saying all these Women can probably run significantly under 2:45-2:40 flat out. And "top ultra guys" are significantly usually under 2:25-2:20 (if not closer to 2:15) in terms of marathon fitness at of the time.
Could Connor Mantz or sub some 2:10-2:05 guy show up and clean up? Probably! Depends on the sample size and "learning curve". Some super fast guys may never hack it and the 2:10 guy loses to the 2:20 guy. But more often then not they are going to crush anything at 2:30+ marathoner is doing or has done (on average).
Agree with this, but there does however seem to be a big difference in that correlation from 'fast' 100k trail, where it is well correlated, to anything longer than 10-12 hours where it is much more of a grey area. It's notable that many fast marathoners, and indeed 100k runners, aren't able to translate their performances to 100 mile plus. Beyond say, 2:25-30 marathon fitness for men, I think the most important component of performance at these longer distances is actually muscular endurance, ability to oxidise fat, mental fortitude etc. All of these can be trained to some extent, but I think there are also significant genetic/innate differences between some individuals. Look at Sorokin - he has world record over 100k, 100 miles and 24 hours and only has a marathon PB of 2:25, despite a few marathon specific blocks/attempts.
So you listed an "n =1" example? You're also assuming Sorokin is clean. What's the "gray area" you mention?
Again I already cited all these great 100-mile performances and marathon times by groups of runners at multiple data points (with Jim et. al.) at events like UTMB and Western States 100 (if we want to move up to the 100-mile distance now) vs the road marathon.
"Mental fortitude" is subjective. Every pro road marathon runner is "mentally tough". There's nothing "more tough" about longer ultras imo. There are more gear requirements and more "problem solving" issues though.... and nutrition/hydration can certainly go very bad over 10-12 hours...
But in terms of the Physics...just keep a steady stream of 75-100g of carbs per hour and you don't need to be super efficient at "fat burning" as much as along as you have the aerobic fitness (Vo2max and Lactate Threshold) to run these events with a manageable HR.
"Muscular endurance" or fatigue resistance is certainly a key though. And it's all part of the "Variable Running Economy" equation and consideration with holding form over distance and it's also tied together with carb intake and fueling too. This is probably even more true on technical trails and steep mountain ultras were more variance in footstike and stride length and changes in pace (from powerhiking at 3.2mph up a 20% grade mountain to dropping 6min/miles down a techy trail come into play)
Come on now. Everyone knows that all things being equal running fitness at the marathon matters, just not to the point Sage believes for some reason. He would have you believe the top women that would have passed him if the race was 10 miles longer are somehow in the same marathon shape as him. That Molly some how was out classed in marathon ability in this race.
At the same time he brushes aside fueling and says anyone can do that despite never having a good result at the 100 mile distance. It is just weird that 20 years later he still defends this position, learning nothing.
You sure that "everyone knows"? Someone posted that it doesn't matter if Molly was in 2:22 vs 2:32 vs 2:42 shape. That's ridiculous. Of course it matters. As I keep saying, it's not the only thing that matters (no sh-t) but it's the starting point for everything else.
The die-hard ultra traditionalists seem to get offended by the idea that speed matters. Get over it. You're living in the past. The races are getting faster and it will matter more and more since high-carb fueling has both increased speeds and leveled the playing field in some respects.
Oh, and my point about Mantz wasn't mine but that of a well-known trail coach and podcaster who happens to coach the men's winner of Black Canyon 100k.
TLDR: Sage is right.
The 2:22 vs 2:32 vs 2:42 quip was mine, and you’ll excuse me for trying to be stylistically cute with the threesome of times. Of course all things being equal Molly (or anyone) being in better marathon shape should correlate to better ultra distance outcomes. In fact I think you said something to the effect of “if the exact Molly who ran Black Canyon was in 2:22 shape, she would have won.”
Besides the issue of I’m not sure ANYONE was beating Litcher on that day, the bigger issue that no such Molly exists (or insert any other high level ultra athlete here).
Molly being in 2:22 shape would be at the expense of other physical characteristics that would diminish her 100k or 100m potential. Or Jim chasing 2:10 would leave him worse off at WSER or UTMB.
I know for Molly it’s easy to say that marathon fitness is “the starting point for everything else” because that’s our reference point for her, but I disagree in a general sense. Marathon fitness is a byproduct of ultra training, not the cause of ultra fitness.
Put it another way: if Mantz is in 2:05 shape, that probably correlates to some specific 5k fitness. But I find it hard to believe he is overly concerned with 5k fitness in and of itself, and is more concerned with the specific demands of the marathon event.
In any case, I appreciate the back and forth. Good food for thought.