I've been reading some threads on here the past few months and just about any time ultra running is brought up, there's been an overwhelming amount of negativity towards it. Why is that?
I've been reading some threads on here the past few months and just about any time ultra running is brought up, there's been an overwhelming amount of negativity towards it. Why is that?
It's a meme around here.
But in reality ultra running is the most complicated and serious of all the distances. All hail the ultra.
Because they think longer means more difficult. They tend to be afraid of running any intensity.
The only thing worse is OCR “runners”.
Pretty much everything past the marathon requires the same training - and its long slow plodding runs with food breaks and walk breaks
I read a post on fb by a pretty good ultra runner the other day saying how its ok and probably even the best strategy to walk up long hills.
T&/marathon require competing a distance as fast as possible. The goal in ultra seems to be just to run a further and further distance until you can win. Can't win a 100 miler? Well how about a 48 hour event!
Then you have things like the barkley where there is more walking than running.
Add on that most ultra runners are elitest and tend to look down on any fast training sessions or really anything that doesn't take place in the woods.
Its an entirely different sport. Also if you live in a suburban area, you probably can't do it. I can't even fathom where I'd go for a 6 hour run. To get a long run in, I have to run the longest trail available to me twice out and back and then do a portion of it out and back a third time, we just can't relate to spending hours and hours on technical single track slower than our warm up pace.
Because people think it is impressive to jog/hike for 12+ hours when it is not.
Ultra running is boring.
Kvothe wrote:
Pretty much everything past the marathon requires the same training - and its long slow plodding runs with food breaks and walk breaks
I read a post on fb by a pretty good ultra runner the other day saying how its ok and probably even the best strategy to walk up long hills.
T&/marathon require competing a distance as fast as possible. The goal in ultra seems to be just to run a further and further distance until you can win. Can't win a 100 miler? Well how about a 48 hour event!
Then you have things like the barkley where there is more walking than running.
Add on that most ultra runners are elitest and tend to look down on any fast training sessions or really anything that doesn't take place in the woods.
Its an entirely different sport. Also if you live in a suburban area, you probably can't do it. I can't even fathom where I'd go for a 6 hour run. To get a long run in, I have to run the longest trail available to me twice out and back and then do a portion of it out and back a third time, we just can't relate to spending hours and hours on technical single track slower than our warm up pace.
So is it ok for sprinters to have the same attitude for middle and long distance runners? You small minded pace snob.
Ultra runners are the jazz musicians and road runners (i.e., LRCers) are the classical musicians of the running world.
Ultra running is the most pure form of running for us humans. Go try to run down a deer with your 16 minute 5k. It won't happen. You need to be able to run for 8 hours to fully exhaust a deer, hold it in your arms and carry it back to your village. Running fast is for kids.
spartanrunner97 wrote:
I've been reading some threads on here the past few months and just about any time ultra running is brought up, there's been an overwhelming amount of negativity towards it. Why is that?
Running 100 miles at nine or ten or eleven minutes per mile is not talent.
No sh&t! wrote:
spartanrunner97 wrote:
I've been reading some threads on here the past few months and just about any time ultra running is brought up, there's been an overwhelming amount of negativity towards it. Why is that?
Running 100 miles at nine or ten or eleven minutes per mile is not talent.
Running any distance at any speed is not really talent. It's more of an absurd display of selfishness.
Caveman wrote:
Ultra running is the most pure form of running for us humans. Go try to run down a deer with your 16 minute 5k. It won't happen. You need to be able to run for 8 hours to fully exhaust a deer, hold it in your arms and carry it back to your village. Running fast is for kids.
lol
Caveman wrote:
Ultra running is the most pure form of running for us humans. Go try to run down a deer with your 16 minute 5k. It won't happen. You need to be able to run for 8 hours to fully exhaust a deer, hold it in your arms and carry it back to your village. Running fast is for kids.
Humans never did this. It’s a myth to make ultras runners look ridiculous when they say this idiocy at parties. Be better.
Anton Krupicka is sexy.
Because LRC is full of insecure a-holes who dream of breaking 3 hours in the marathon but don't have the balls to train for it. So because every now and then they run some 6-minute miles and call it 'speedwork' they feel entitled to look down on people who can run 7-minute miles for 12 hours straight. This same people call 12 miles a 'long run.'
Personaly I think there are two reasons.
1. It's not really running. 95% of ultra runners walk more than they run durring a race. Most runners have a problem with that.
2. The amount of quality competitors is very, very low because no one has time to spend an entire weekend running two long runs and then an entire weekend for races. This lack of competition creates the false sense of excellence among competitors near the top of races. Many of these guys think they have accomplished something great when in reality they just did something others (who are more talented and would beat them at pretty much every distance) can't do due to time or financial reasons. Honestly, it's been my experience that many ultra people actually move up to that distance because they have no talent and they know how watered down the competition is. They can walk most of the race, finish in third, and tell their friends they are a great runner.
Now don't get me wrong: there are guys doing ultras that are very, very talented. They actually do run the majority of races. They were successful at marathons and just like ultras better. We have no problem with those studs.
Well, as Zatopek said, " If you want to win something, run the 100m, but if you want experience something, run the marathon".
And, of course, we can add to that with something like " If you really, really want to experience something run the Badwater ( Death Valley ) Ultramarathon.
It is easy to be extreme. It is hard to be excellent. I have to wonder if these folks can run 100 miles in a single day, why can't they run 100 miles a week for a couple of years and put up some good times in races?
LRC stupidity at its finest wrote:
Because LRC is full of insecure a-holes who dream of breaking 3 hours in the marathon but don't have the balls to train for it. So because every now and then they run some 6-minute miles and call it 'speedwork' they feel entitled to look down on people who can run 7-minute miles for 12 hours straight. This same people call 12 miles a 'long run.'
Seven minutes per mile for 100 miles. 99% of you ultra-walkers are plodding along at eleven to thirteen minutes per mile. You do know individuals in US military go on thirty mile forced marches with forty to one-hundred pounds of gear on their back at sixteen to eighteen minutes per mile.
LRC stupidity at its finest wrote:
Because LRC is full of insecure a-holes who dream of breaking 3 hours in the marathon but don't have the balls to train for it. So because every now and then they run some 6-minute miles and call it 'speedwork' they feel entitled to look down on people who can walk 15-minute miles for 12 hours straight. This same people call 12 miles a 'long run.'
Fixed it for you. And I know hundreds of sub 3 'thoners who could be on the podium of most ultra races without any additional training. That should tell you how pathetic the competition is in the ultra world.