Why do people on here hate ultra runners?

Bad analogy btw.

College is running, undergrad is road running and grad school is ultra trail running. Who care what you do in undergrad it matters about pushing yourself in gradschool, and in grad school there is not a mentality of getting an A in a 100 level class, you work hard and smarter to get a innovative thesis published. Grad school, I mean ultra running, all the way, bud. I remember when I had my first beer.

Janice Lean wrote:

LRC stupidity at its finest wrote:

Knocking ultrarunning because of those who walk most of the way is the same as knocking marathoning because of everyone who takes 3+ hours to cover 26.2 miles. You guys lack arguments.

Last time I checked you do in fact need to run most of the way in order to complete a 3 hour 'thon. Your critique of our argument does not, as they say, hold water.

Do people really say THON?

You’re full of it Janice. Typical feminist spouting off nonsense. Ultra trail running is not really running? Have you ever been to a trail run? Youre claim that 95 percent walk more than they run is BS, Janice. When I finish 50miles in 7 hours how the hell am I walking at ALL????????? I’m running nearly 7 minutes the entire time, you add in the insane hills, and im running faster. Youre stu pid and dumb d .

Weird how every year we see another article about the "2:10 'Thoner" hitting up one of the big 50ks. But they bonk or get dropped halfway on an uphill.

Not saying Ultras are harder or cooler but come on, most big ultra podiums are filled with guys who can AND have ran 2:10-2:20 for the Thon,

weird huh? wrote:

Weird how every year we see another article about the "2:10 'Thoner" hitting up one of the big 50ks. But they bonk or get dropped halfway on an uphill.

Not saying Ultras are harder or cooler but come on, most big ultra podiums are filled with guys who can AND have ran 2:10-2:20 for the Thon,

Have you heard about Yuki Kawuachi?

Three main reasons that are related:

1. Competition. While I believe most LRers respect significant ultra achievements, let’s face it - a whole lot less competition even at the major ultras.

2. Marketing and self-promotion. People get annoyed with people with non competitive marathon times taking photos endlessly in the woods bagging sponsorships.

3. Opinions of the masses. This relates to the above. Some shirtless 4 hour marathon guy runs 100 miles (!)- well to the unknowing public that guy might seem more impressive than Galen Rupp. This pisses everyone off.

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.

I don’t have anything against ultra runners, but I was just a 17 minute 5K during my road racing days, and I could have slow jogged 9:30-10:00 miles all day long if I had wanted to. Cant prove it, but I know I could have.

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?

Insecurity/ low self-esteem is the only answer.

Lucas Tanner wrote:

I don’t have anything against ultra runners, but I was just a 17 minute 5K during my road racing days, and I could have slow jogged 9:30-10:00 miles all day long if I had wanted to. Cant prove it, but I know I could have.

Yeah right. I like to see that before I believe you. Talk is cheap.

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.

How many deer have you run down at 9:20/mile pace, exactly?

UltraDad wrote:

Three main reasons that are related:

1. Competition. While I believe most LRers respect significant ultra achievements, let’s face it - a whole lot less competition even at the major ultras.

2. Marketing and self-promotion. People get annoyed with people with non competitive marathon times taking photos endlessly in the woods bagging sponsorships.

3. Opinions of the masses. This relates to the above. Some shirtless 4 hour marathon guy runs 100 miles (!)- well to the unknowing public that guy might seem more impressive than Galen Rupp. This pisses everyone off.

3 . But it is more impressive to run 100 miles....yes run it. You mo ron

You could probably do that on a flat road/track based on that 5km time. Flat running correlates well to "extension in distance"..but only for other flat running distances. Bonus would be if you have trained at "higher mileage" (i.e. over 50-60-miles per week) and actually did some 20-25+ mile long runs). The thing is, the vast majority of ultras are not on flat/roads tracks. Most 100-milers are on trails that aren't very flat and some are even in pretty big mountains. Pace can very at a race like UTMB with sub 6-min miles to 20-25/min miles.... and that is for the lead pack. Longer distance races aren't harder...every distance race is hard if you try 100%...but there are more variables that can go exponentially wrong. Finally, to the guy saying there are new 2:10 marathoners in ultras every year? No. Maybe at Comrades there are a couple guys that have run 2:08-2:10 on any given year, but how many US guys are doing trail-ultras that have run sub 2:12?! I can't think of one. Max King is still one of the fastest "more known" ultra guys with a 2:14 marathon PR but he will still rarely do the 100-milers and certainly not a race like UTMB anytime soon. He is smashing it at mountain races up to 50km though and can for sure run a flat/fast 100km on a road.

Lucas Tanner wrote:

I don’t have anything against ultra runners, but I was just a 17 minute 5K during my road racing days, and I could have slow jogged 9:30-10:00 miles all day long if I had wanted to. Cant prove it, but I know I could have.

Lucas Tanner wrote:

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.

I don’t have anything against ultra runners, but I was just a 17 minute 5K during my road racing days, and I could have slow jogged 9:30-10:00 miles all day long if I had wanted to. Cant prove it, but I know I could have.

My 5k PR was a 14:50 and I have never been able to run a 9:30 all day even after 10 years of running ultras. Props to you for thinking that

Ultra Trail Guy wrote:

Lucas Tanner wrote:

I don’t have anything against ultra runners, but I was just a 17 minute 5K during my road racing days, and I could have slow jogged 9:30-10:00 miles all day long if I had wanted to. Cant prove it, but I know I could have.

My 5k PR was a 14:50 and I have never been able to run a 9:30 all day even after 10 years of running ultras. Props to you for thinking that

I think it’s a matter of fitness vs speed, which in distance running discussions tend to get mixed up. I was not fast at all, but, for what it’s worth, I was extremely fit due to a few years worth of injury-free high mileage. Now no matter how fit you are, unless you’re able to run fast times, you’re still just an ordinary runner. So if people want to give me credit for being an amazing runner due to my (former) very high level of fitness, I’ll take it. But realistically I think most healthy and reasonably athletic people could do the same thing

The fact of the matter Sage is that ultras are harder to run faster than road races. If one is running a sub 7min mile for 50 miles on trail it is much more difficult than a Boston for 26.2 miles at 5:20 min a mile on road. Trail ultra running requires more skill and athleticism.

You know I honestly can't tell when people on here are trolling or if they are trying to be serious....it is scary sometimes. I'm going to assume this is a total troll post (like much of this thread). Anyway, I'll still comment: Now I admit I haven't run a 50-miler on the trails at sub 7-min pace quite yet....but I got pretty close when I won The North Face 50-miler in San Fran on a muddy year (10,000' of climbing too!) in 6:07. On a flat trail we could look at mid 6-min pace easy. I honestly think a guy like Max King can go sub 4:50 for 50-miles on a track as well. Most trail ultra runners are impressed with "road speed" pace because they don't usually run/race on flat roads or buffed out trails with no hills! Now I have gone sub 7:00 pace for 50-miles on a road though...even with a horrible race at the net-uphill Comrades....which has about 5,000' of climbing. If you want a really competitive ultra, then you must try Comrades. Finally, I've also run 2:19 at Boston (5:19/mile pace). So I've experienced times and performances very similar to these benchmarks you speak of. I'll admit there are more variables that can go wrong in "longer races" (more variables at play like nutrition and gear and managing the weather etc.), but to me it is all just the same sport of distance running. I can tell you this: It is all hard! The pain and effort are constant. #AnySurfaceAnyDistance

Jwalmsey wrote:

The fact of the matter Sage is that ultras are harder to run faster than road races. If one is running a sub 7min mile for 50 miles on trail it is much more difficult than a Boston for 26.2 miles at 5:20 min a mile on road. Trail ultra running requires more skill and athleticism.

You're a nobody in the ultra world.

None of the people who don't train for ultras could win ultras, and there's a huge barrier to entry. There are no Andy Wheatings in ultrarunning (not hating, just saying he was fast from the start). You will break your feet in the first race if you don't make significant lifestyle changes and put them under stress.

You need to move to a place with better opportunities for hilly terrain.

You need to clear out your schedule for 150+ mile weeks.

You need to accept that your old running buddies' bones won't be able to handle the stress. Good luck convincing them to start training for ultras.

You need to gain knowledge of injuries that aren't as commonplace for normal distances. In my opinion for mileage that high and on such challenging terrain if you don't have a poor man's orthopedic surgeon's knowledge of foot and ankle anatomy you're an idiot. Sure, sure, we didn't have that knowledge in Paleolithic times, but we do now. I consider myself lucky that I got away with 70 mile weeks in high school without it. Ultrarunning is like the circus. You think anyone does aerial hoops without knowing what a rotator cuff is? You could tear one in a second if you're not careful, just like you could feel something 15 miles in that will ruin your career in another 15 if you have no idea what it is.

I don't know whether it's true or not, but I think there's an assumption that people get into ultrarunning from a completely uneducated perspective. Part of this is probably because there are no real ultra coaches. You figure things out yourself. This is the coolest thing to me, and I hope I get to do it one day.

It's not that the haters couldn't do it -- it's that they simply don't want to. They don't see the value in it, or they think it's too weird. These are fine things to think, and they're probably true to a degree. They say, "Damn, I'd like to run trails, and I think I'd even be good at it, but I'd have to recede from society, move to a new city, learn all this stuff that normal people don't care about, and give up all of my old running buddies". They don't want to try to figure out how they can make it work.

S. Canaday wrote:

Finally, to the guy saying there are new 2:10 marathoners in ultras every year? No. Maybe at Comrades there are a couple guys that have run 2:08-2:10 on any given year, but how many US guys are doing trail-ultras that have run sub 2:12?! I can't think of one. Max King is still one of the fastest "more known" ultra guys with a 2:14 marathon PR but he will still rarely do the 100-milers and certainly not a race like UTMB anytime soon. He is smashing it at mountain races up to 50km though and can for sure run a flat/fast 100km on a road.

I'd even say that once you jump to 100mi+ it matters much less. Scott Jurek ran a 2:39 once, I think. Most WSER top tens are probably 2:20 - 2:40. I wonder what Olson would have pulled in a marathon in his prime - 2:40 maybe?

Conversely, once you get to the physiology and a gait for a 2:10-2:15 on the roads, is that going to hurt you perhaps?