100 Mile WR Holder Zach Bitter Runs 61.5% Of Kouros' 24 Hour Record

Ultramarkus wrote:

You could throw 10 million dollars at the problem and nobody would get even close.

It's like asking 100 meter sprinter to run a Marathon. They should be faster because they have more speed.

You're being deliberately misleading and mischievous....you know sprinters and matrathoners have different physiology.

The point I made earlier was "equal in all other respects" the faster one will be faster over all distances up.

Lets assume that most sub 2:20 marathoners are pretty. "mentally tough".

Then it all comes down to "Running Economy" (fueling included in that as we can measure Economy with % fat burning as well or kcal/mile or the typical oxygen measure etc).

Bottom line:

For a fast road marathon runner (yes, even up to only 42km on a flat road), transitioning to a 100-mile or even 24 hour event on a controlled environment like a 400m track for an ultra has a lot less "variables that can go wrong" when compared to say something like 24 hours out on the UTMB course.

Yes, they have to have good Economy transitioning from low 5:00min per mile pace to 7:40 per mile pace, but keep in mind many road marathoners are very used to running 7-8min mile pace for long easy runs and high easy-paced mileage on a flat road surface. Sure, many probably have better Economy at sub 6-min pace (but a lot are going to be fairly efficient at 7-8min per mile pace)....especially compared to a slower marathon runner.

The other distance comparisons (800m-5km) go too much from anaerobic energy contributions to mainly aerobic based ones. Once you get up toe the marathon you have something that is 99% + Aerobic based and the main limiting factors are always the same: Muscle failure (Cramps) and Nutrition/Hydration. Note that encompasses GI issues and bonking. Sure, people can "mentally lose it" and get blisters or some other issue....but they can in a standard marathon too. If we come at this from a Science view and think of the Physics and Energy Systems involved, that is just the way I see it. The sample size is very small though.

Bonking? That means something else here. Although it would be a limiting factor as well.

What is the longest ultra race that has ever existed? By race I mean more than one person.

I am thinking of stepping up to the ultra from 800/1500 as I heard on this thread it was correlated but I am unsure of how to progress.

My VO2 max is 65 apparently (tested at a uni lab).

There are different kinds of mental toughness.

Nobody questions the mental toughness of a 2:20 Marathoner. They went through a lot of tough training to get where they are.

But does that have much to do with a 24 hour race? No, because a 24 hour race is 21:40 hours longer. That is a lot longer.

Here is an old article from Rune Larsson a former world class ultrarunner with 3 Spartathlon wins:

https://www.loparlarsson.se/articles-in-english/speed-and-ultradistance/

Um have you ever head of wrote:

What is the longest ultra race that has ever existed? By race I mean more than one person.

I am thinking of stepping up to the ultra from 800/1500 as I heard on this thread it was correlated but I am unsure of how to progress.

There are sometimes Trans Continental stage races and then there is the yearly 3100 mile race in New York. This year it was held in Salzburg, Austria because of Covid-19.

TheOhioState wrote:

I'd like to see someone throw out some big money to see if some of those sub 2:10 guys could beat 188 miles.

Given that they are mostly mercenaries that run marathons for big paychecks, it's the only way we're going to know if they can do it.

What's 2nd place...15 miles from YK's 188?

Come on, all you fast marathoners...give up one day and do it!

It has been said that it is strongly correlated... you should only need one. Not a bunch of them. If you need a bunch of sub 2:10 runners then how can it be strongly correlated? These are mid 2:20 to mid 2:30 runners. I’m not sure why Sage hasn’t just taken a day out of his busy schedule to set some new records already. Should be easy.

I think you are confusing 'mental toughness' with having a few lose screws, with being a bit nuts etc.... which is what it seems most ultra runners who really excel have. Take Kouros for example, the guy lined up for an ultra with cracked ribs. You have all these cross over guys such as yourself DNF if they bump their knee or get a tummy ache. I think you think 'mental toughness' means something completely different than what experienced ultra runners consider 'mentally tough'. Its the same thing Scott Jurek had and why he was so successful despite not being a very fast marathoner. Sure most marathoners are 'mentally tough' but they are not showing-up-to-race-with-cracked-ribs tough. Thats the difference. Maybe if you ever figure that out you will win a 100 mile race.

its easy wrote:

TheOhioState wrote:

I'd like to see someone throw out some big money to see if some of those sub 2:10 guys could beat 188 miles.

Given that they are mostly mercenaries that run marathons for big paychecks, it's the only way we're going to know if they can do it.

What's 2nd place...15 miles from YK's 188?

Come on, all you fast marathoners...give up one day and do it!

It has been said that it is strongly correlated... you should only need one. Not a bunch of them. If you need a bunch of sub 2:10 runners then how can it be strongly correlated? These are mid 2:20 to mid 2:30 runners. I’m not sure why Sage hasn’t just taken a day out of his busy schedule to set some new records already. Should be easy.

You might want to take a stats class. You don't seem to understand the difference between 100% correlation and strong correlation.

Ultramarkus wrote:

You could throw 10 million dollars at the problem and nobody would get even close.

It's like asking 100 meter sprinter to run a Marathon. They should be faster because they have more speed.

More like asking a 3k runner to do a marathon. You will notice that a lot of the top marathoners (Kipchoge, Bekele, Haile, Tergat,...) also so up on the 3k list.

I am not sure just offering 10 million bucks for the next person to run 24 hour record would do it. But 10 million spread out over 10 years in a series of races would undoubtly result in some fast times. If there were a couple of 24 hour races year with like a 100k first place price, 50k 2nd, 25k 3rd AND some big bonuses for performance (i.e. 1 million for the record and like 100k for 175 miles), it would be interesting to see how the sport changes. Records always seem unbreakable until the next superstar shows up. When that will be is hard to say.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

its easy wrote:

It has been said that it is strongly correlated... you should only need one. Not a bunch of them. If you need a bunch of sub 2:10 runners then how can it be strongly correlated? These are mid 2:20 to mid 2:30 runners. I’m not sure why Sage hasn’t just taken a day out of his busy schedule to set some new records already. Should be easy.

You might want to take a stats class. You don't seem to understand the difference between 100% correlation and strong correlation.

If it takes a bunch of sub 2:10 marathoners to find one that can break the record of a mid 2:20 marathoner that isn’t really a strong correlation as it is being used in this thread. How many 13 min 5k runners do I need to find to beat a 15 min 5k runner in a 10k? A bunch or just one (maybe two)?

ultra blow hard wrote:

I think you are confusing 'mental toughness' with having a few lose screws, with being a bit nuts etc.... which is what it seems most ultra runners who really excel have. Take Kouros for example, the guy lined up for an ultra with cracked ribs. You have all these cross over guys such as yourself DNF if they bump their knee or get a tummy ache. I think you think 'mental toughness' means something completely different than what experienced ultra runners consider 'mentally tough'. Its the same thing Scott Jurek had and why he was so successful despite not being a very fast marathoner. Sure most marathoners are 'mentally tough' but they are not showing-up-to-race-with-cracked-ribs tough. Thats the difference. Maybe if you ever figure that out you will win a 100 mile race.

This has sold it for me considering I once ran a race on a broken foot.

PLOT 1:

If we were to randomly select a group of amateur marathoners, having marathon Personal Bests (PB's) anywhere from 3:10:00 to 2:15:00, and plot the VDOT's from their 5k PB against their half-marathon PB (PLOT 1), we would not only only see a linear trend in the data, but there would not be much 'scatter' (relatively speaking) in it, with most of the data points agglomerated around the linear trend line. We could conclude from such a plot that one's PB at the shorter 5k distance is a very good indicator of how well they will perform in the half-marathon.

PLOT 2:

If we repeated the exercise and plotted the the VDOT's from their 5k PB against their full-marathon PB (PLOT 2), again we would see a linear trend in the data, but we would likely see more scatter in PLOT 2 compared to that of PLOT 1. This would be indicative that although one's 5k PB is fairly indicative of how well they will perform at the marathon, it is not as correlative as PLOT 1 (in which their 5k PB VDOT's were compared against their half-marathon times).

PLOT 3:

If we were to randomly select a group of amateurs that have finished a 24-hr race, and plotted their marathon PB's against their 24-race times, we would likely see a lot more scatter in the data when compared to PLOT2, and more so when compared to PLOT 1. Even if we were to restrict the plot to those finishers that have marathon PB's of 3:10:00 or greater, the plot would still likely have a lot more scatter in it when compared to PLOT 2 and PLOT 1.

PLOT 4:

Even if we were to select the upper echelon of 24-hr finishers (being more selective with the data), and plotted it against their respective marathon PB's, I surmise we would still a lot more scatter in the data when compared to PLOT 2 and PLOT 1. If that were the case (it remains conjecture until such plots are created), we would conclude that one's marathon PB is not as good of indicator of their 24-hr PB, as their shorter distance PB in the 5k is of their marathon time.

The question would be "why" PLOT 3 or PLOT 4 are not as correlative as PLOT 1 or PLOT 2, particularly since the marathon and 24-hr races are almost completely aerobic, while the 5k has a significant anaerobic requirement.

I changed a few words in the previous text for clarity, to read as follows:

PLOT 1:

If we were to randomly select a group of amateur marathoners, having marathon Personal Bests (PB's) anywhere from 3:10:00 to 2:15:00, and plot the VDOT's from their 5k PB against their half-marathon PB (i.e., PLOT 1), we would not only only see a linear trend in the data, but there would not be much 'scatter' (relatively speaking) in it, with most of the data points agglomerated near the linear trend line. We could conclude from such a plot that one's PB at the shorter 5k distance is a very good indicator of how well they will perform in the half-marathon.

PLOT 2:

If we repeated the exercise and plotted the the VDOT's from their 5k PB against their full-marathon PB (i.e., PLOT 2), again we would see a linear trend in the data, but we would likely see more scatter in PLOT 2 compared to that of PLOT 1; although one's 5k PB is fairly indicative of how well they will perform at the marathon, it is not as correlative as PLOT 1 (in which their 5k PB VDOT's were compared against their half-marathon times).

PLOT 3:

If we were to randomly select a group of amateurs that have finished a 24-hr race, and plotted their marathon PB's against their 24-race times, we would likely see a lot more scatter in the data when compared to PLOT2, and more so when compared to PLOT 1. Even if we were to restrict the plot to those finishers that have marathon PB's of 3:10:00 or faster, the plot would still likely have a lot more scatter in it when compared to PLOT 2 and PLOT 1.

PLOT 4:

Even if we were to select the upper echelon of 24-hr finishers (being more selective with the population), and plotted their finishing times against their respective marathon PB's, I surmise we would still see a lot more scatter in the data when compared to PLOT 2 and PLOT 1. If that were the case (it remains conjecture until such plots are created), we would conclude that one's marathon PB is not as good of indicator of their 24-hr PB, as their shorter distance PB in the 5k is of their marathon time.

The question would be "why" PLOT 3 or PLOT 4 are not as correlative as PLOT 1 or PLOT 2, particularly since the marathon and 24-hr races are almost completely aerobic, while the 5k has a significant anaerobic contribution.

I’ll stop my trolling and be serious here haha

Great runners will likely be good at running a 5K, a marathon, or 100 miles with years of specific training for each event. Their success in each distance will vary, but they will likely be good.

What is interesting is that some runners who are rather mediocre at the 5K and marathon distance can end up being quite good at running 100+ miles. Sure some of this could be from lack of depth but I think we are starting to have enough data points to see that this is the case. So, being a good runner at shorter distances means that you will be good at 100+ miles, but the opposite is not necessarily true. What does that tell us about these events and how we should train for them?

I worry that it might, might, not be very helpful to think that marathon performance is a large predictor of 100 mile or 24 hour success. In part because it can create a paradigm where athletes and coaches think that the only way to get faster at the 100 mile distance is to do workouts that would effectively make them faster at the marathon distance.

Let me explain. While there are some differences in marathon training, we essentially agree on the basic tenants of how to train for this distance. Some of this is from exercise science, but a lot of it is from years of anecdotal experience that has created a sort synthesis of training methodology.

However, with long ultras there is little consensus on how to get faster for the distance. You have some athletes running a lot of slow miles, some scaling up marathon training plans, and everything in-between.

This notion that speed correlates to ultra performance is very popular right now in ultra running and that idea is leading athletes and coaches to train in a certain way. I myself have subscribed to this over the years so I am in part playing devil’s advocate here.

What is interesting about many of the top performers in the 100+ mile distances is that while they spent their early years working on speed (or aerobic top end in Kilian’s case with skimo), they seemingly then shifted their training to include very little focused intensity. Again I know there are some counter examples - Clare Gallagher, Matt Daniels, etc...

Athletes like Walmsley, Krupicka, Roes, etc... essentially shifted to more specific training, focusing on volume, and perhaps most importantly - density and quantity of long runs.

I would not claim to know the precise training that will lead to success at distances of 100+ miles. But what I am suggesting is that this focus on ‘speed’ and/or running economy might not be the best path to follow for runners who have already worked on these areas for several years.

Now, before I get jumped on, I do not know that this is the best way for athletes to train for very long events. Again, I have personally subscribed to the ‘speed matters’ philosophy. But I think that it is at least worth considering that success at, and training for, these long races might not parallel shorter distances as much as some might think.

its easy wrote:

If it takes a bunch of sub 2:10 marathoners to find one that can break the record of a mid 2:20 marathoner that isn’t really a strong correlation as it is being used in this thread. How many 13 min 5k runners do I need to find to beat a 15 min 5k runner in a 10k? A bunch or just one (maybe two)?

5k/10k is almost perfect corellation. marathon to ultras is just a strong correlation. But sure lets use your analogy. At the start of the next ultra I get the guys with 10 fastest marathon PRs and you get 10 guys with PRs 15 mins slower. Do you like your chances? After all if marathon times don't matter, you will be fine with the 15 min slower guys.

To put it another way: it might take 100 2:10 guys to find one who can run 300km. It might take 10k 2:20 guys to find one who can run 300km. The slower you are, the more everything else will need to line up.

Well, Larsson's article didn't age well!!! Those fast marathoners he questioned have now run and won and dominated Comrades for the last few years. Hilarious.

Ultramarkus wrote:

There are different kinds of mental toughness.

Nobody questions the mental toughness of a 2:20 Marathoner. They went through a lot of tough training to get where they are.

But does that have much to do with a 24 hour race? No, because a 24 hour race is 21:40 hours longer. That is a lot longer.

Here is an old article from Rune Larsson a former world class ultrarunner with 3 Spartathlon wins:

https://www.loparlarsson.se/articles-in-english/speed-and-ultradistance/

Standard Setter wrote:

Well, Larsson's article didn't age well!!! Those fast marathoners he questioned have now run and won and dominated Comrades for the last few years. Hilarious.

That article is about 20 years old.

How about instead I draft my team based on who was finished a 24hr before and how they did. You pick your team only based on marathon time. How do you like your chances?