Ultras Definitely Kill Your Speed - But Why?

If you consider that clear evidence then you are mistaken. Those are just 2 guys' experiences. Neither of which was scientific.

Ultras kill your speed because they are extreme events. They require lots of recovery which many don't do correctly. Not permanent. Just a lot.

ask galen,

nervous system mediated

due to such stress puttin on it regardless if supplement testosterone.

hormones also

The trail/surface distance usually doesn't help (slower cadence, more 8-10min miles or slower). Not very specific to fast/flat running economy on a road/track.

Then there's the hills. 20-30k of vert. a week in the mountains means less time running roads/tracks/flat trails...less speed...less turnover...less muscle tension and a crappy/lazy stride.

But I think it (the "speed") can come back...it just takes time (like months!).

For the record Max Ran 2:17 in LA on a rather warm day. His PR is 2:14...2:17 at LA was a pretty darn good performance considering the course and he didn't do a whole lot of specific marathon/road training to do it!

It comes down to this: Variable Running Economy.

You also tend to not do as many Vo2max workouts and high velocity Lactate Threshold workouts as a ultra-trail runner as there is more focus on long runs and duration of runs. The heart and lungs might get in a decent aerobic base, but the really high end intensity isn't there and the legs don't get the flat speed stimulus.

Jurek is way past his prime. He is no longer an elite athlete. You can´t use him as an example.

I think the problem is losing turnover by too much off-road running/slogging up mountains, NOT because 'ultras' do irreversible damage to the body. If you keep up your turnover with road and track workouts/road racing, speed can most definitely continue to be improved/maintained.

The other factor is age-- most ultra runners are a bit older, so what do you expect? You can only continue to improve leg speed up to a point. Some defy the norm, but getting old generally sucks for leg speed. Doesn't suck so much for being able to go longer and handle the added distance.

Well according to current/common muscle fibre recruitment theory, lots of low intensity exercise essentially recruits larger numbers of 'slow-twitch' fibres and causes fibres currently alligned as 'fast-twitch' to change into slow twitch. So in theory you simply lose the ability to produce the force required to run fast. LSD kills your speed according to current theory.

For track events you need to weigh up the benefits of mileage (endurance) vs the negatives (makes you slow). For ultras, you don't.

runharwell wrote:

Even Max King, one of the best examples of someone who has had success in both marathons and ultra marathons, admitted that he lost foot speed after his first 100 miler. And this was while keeping up his speed work.

King ran his first 100 miler in the mid 30s. Age is the more likely cause of his decline in foot speed.

As usual, an excellent explanation from Sage, who definitely has the right experience to answer this question.

Max's 2:17 in LA was impressive, but that's still about 7 seconds per mile slower than his best effort (conditions no doubt played a factor, but the miles were significantly slower nonetheless). I'll be curious to see if he can best 2:14 at the Olympic Trials in February with more marathon-specific training.

MM is on the right track...

ST fibers use fat as a fuel. While it is great for endurance you'll never have as much power as another runner who has access to more FT fibers and the more powerful fuel source - glycogen.

What you see with ST runners who are really well trained aerobically is their AeT and AnT are almost the same. They can run a marathon at almost the same pace as their 10k!

Ultradudes need a steady dose of Anaerobic work to move their AnT as far away from their AeT as possible to get some sort of speed back. If they have a naturally occurring higher ratio of ST fibers, as well as having worked on endurance for a long time, as MM stated, those types of fibers that can "act" as ST fibers only add to the ultradudes aerobic engine and not his speed.

S. Canaday wrote:

It comes down to this: Variable Running Economy.

Is that the same as event specificity?

Is that why Mo Farah was 4 minutes slower than the winner when he ran his marathon?

Runners' bodies make adaptations to their event. Runners who do middle distance to the marathon see their muscles become leaner and lighter than a 400-800m runner. When you do ultras, you are working more on being able to do a lot of things that do not require a lot of speed (ascend/descend, fuel while running, etc.). The lighter and leaner legs of a distance runner are no longer as important as some more strength and a little bulk is needed to deal with climbing and fatigue. Then, speed is lost as a result. It is not permanent. Uli Steidl used ultras to get down to 2:13 in the marathon. He just varied his training to focus on getting speed back when switching back to the marathon.