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.
Ultra runners are elitist?? Bruh, not trying to defend ultra runners hear, but top-end distance talent in the US comprises some of the most egotistical and self-absorbed mofos I have ever encountered this side of a post-Soviet dictatorship.
It's because the ultra scene is pretty much stunt running and not really racing. 26 miles is plenty far to find out who's good a distance running, start going over 2-3hr of running and who cares? It's just all a big "So what?"
Also the ultra crowd is all about doing a 50M race on a 2M loop, or running through Death Valley, and all kinds of other ridiculous stunts that really have nothing to do with racing. It's just pain for the sake of pain, difficulty for the sake of difficulty. You could save everyone a lot of time and have a contest to see who could stand having the most fingers smashed by a hammer.
Because they think longer means more difficult. They tend to be afraid of running any intensity.
The only thing worse is OCR “runners”.
Funny how the two running communities you mention usually are the most positive and inclusive.. Based on what you write I can only conclude you are a runner that only likes doing 5k parkruns and has no upper body strength.
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.
Would love to see an ultrarunner run for 8 hours after a deer, without food stops, without walking, without all the artificial gels. Hell, if you want to be pure, run an ultra without shoes
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?
Ultra running is ultra walking no if ands or butts
I have no beef with ultra running in and of itself. Running and racing is running and racing. But I do have beef with how people approach it, and this extends a lot to many marathoners too.
Here's how I think of it, say you want to get good at something. You practice and get better and better and hone your skills and fail and learn and repeat. Say you want to build a house from scratch. Well you need to study architecture, framing, plumbing, design, etc. In this metaphor, an ultra runner's house is a really big, but very poorly built house. It makes no sense, no flow or intentional design. But they'll look at it and say "It passes code so therefore I did it!" I'm 10x more impressed with someone who built 20 tiny cabins, each better than the previous. Someone who showed a progression of skills and an appreciation for mastery. I feel like many ultra runners don't have this mindset, it's just "finish." Some certainly do, obviously.
Would you listen to Wayne Shorter play the sax beautifully for 5 minutes and then some middle schooler play the sax like a middle schooler for 2 hours and say "Wow the middle schooler is better!"
It seems there's a lot of conflation with distance and achievement. I'm 10x more impressed with Joe Schmoe who decides to run the 100m and races through a season and goes from 15s to 13s and learns to train and race than Joe Schmoe who slogs it out for one 8 hour ultra.
This isn't all ultra runners, but it's a lot that I've met. Mastery is in the details.
UTMB course record is 19:37:43. That's almost 11 minutes per mile.
True runners run sub-5 minute miles.
Enough said. That is why.
Elevation.
Rough terrain.
Duh!
People have a lot of misconceptions about the UTMB course:
1. First of all it isn't really at that high of an elevation (Cham is like 4000' and the course tops out around 8500'). Most top mountain-trail runners aren't influenced by the elevation a ton as they are adapted pretty well to that range and aerobically fit.
2. It is not a "technical trail" as far as Euro standards go. Quite smooth dirt with a lot of double track, ski access roads, and even pavement through the towns.
3. However many of the trails are steep (i.e. over 15-20% grade uphill and downhill), and there is like 33,000' of vertical gain during the 106-mile race.
4. Another factor that slows the pace down is the amount of gear you have to carry. Lots of required gear that barely fits in a 10L-12L capacity pack (not to mention carrying gels/calories and 1L of fluid on you). The pack alone weighs a good 4-5lbs. So imagine running off the starting line in Cham at 6pm with thousands of other runners at sub 6-min mile pace with a big pack on and trying not to get stabbed by someone's trekking poles...
Anyway to me it's all just "distance running". Like xc, trails are awesome because of the hills, changing views, and the whole "running on natural surfaces". A mountain ultra can be like a big adventure and combines outdoor skills like hiking, mountaineering, and (sometimes) even climbing. Yeah, they aren't usually as deep and competitive as a major road marathon though.Duh.