Hoka Carbon X project 100k WR Attempt Official Thread (Sponsored by HOKA ONE ONE)

I'm pretty sure most of the top ultrarunners ARE doing speed work consistently along with their long runs, doubles, etc. To think they aren't and just slogging along for hours on end is a little naive.

I think this is the main point and the best argument against the marathoners. Nobody will deny that the sub-2:10 guys are fast. But to say they can just go out and kill a 100k is ridiculous. With more training, maybe. You take Usain Bolt and drop him in even a 10k he's going to die. But he's the 100m WR holder, that should translate to longer distances right? If Kipchoge took a year or two and trained for the 100k, I'd be surprised if he didn't take the record. But to say any sub-2:10 marathoner can just go out a run 100k with no problem is just crazy.

Is it just me or is Jim Walmsley's voice just a little annoying and effeminate?

T.M.A.D/H.A.S.F.N.E.

ultras have this going for them wrote:

Phantasy Star wrote:

Literally 5 or 6 people on Earth have ever been "contenders" for the "best 100k runner". It's meaningless.

At least the top contenders are clean

how do we know the top contenders are clean ?

100k Training Run Master wrote:

sqandrews wrote:

couldn't Hoka find one or two of these marathon guys to run a flat course as a hard training run.

I think it is highly likely that one of those almost sub 2:10 guys can or could have gone sub 6 in a 100km.

When is 100k a "hard training run" for a marathoner? Or anybody for that matter?

And how do you think a 2:10 marathoner can just run more than double the distance at the same pace? Are we still on earth? What planet are you living on?

They aren't running 2x the distance at the same pace. They are running 2x the distance at 40s or so slower pace. If you look at sub marathon distances you tend to run 10-20s/mile slower when you double the distance.

I don't know how many of the hundreds of guys running sub 210 could run a good 100k but I bets if there was enough money, the current records would get destroyed.

That being said a 210 guy trying this is likely to get to like 70k and die. Give them time to train and a bit of experience and it would be interesting.

Females 100k world record is exceptionally good, don't see it falling in the near future. In fact, it would not be surprising if most of the male participants run slower than 6:33.

Yea, I'd love to see a sub-2:10 train and run a good 100k. I just don't think you can take a sub-2:10 and throw them in this weekend and expect them to do well, which is what his point was. Maybe Nike should throw some more money at Kipchoge and have him do a 100k, that would be pretty cool. But there's no way he could just go run 100k as a training run and expect to beat the WR.

I think the 50 mile record will go down, and not by Walmsley. I'm not sure about the 100k, but good luck.

IMHO between the marathon and the ultramarathon there is a similar correlation than between a mile time and the marathon. A fast marathoner is also a fast miler, but not necessarily the fastest miler is the best marathoner. The marathon is run at the limit of the effort that can be sustained using the glycogen reserves, so it requires minimal fueling. In a 100K, how efficiently your body can refuel while running becomes of paramount importance. Also, ultra marathoners tend to be bulkier because the body has to sustain a much larger amount of abuse. Take hundreds of sub-2:10 guys and chances are that some of them will be great ultra marathoner, but not necessarily the fastest one.

One a 100K race, I would currently put my money on Kawauchi rather than Kipchoge.

stater of the obvious wrote:

If your benchmark is sub 2:10 it is slim pickings unless you want a doped up East African.

Sub 2:10s run last year:

North/South America: 2

Europe: 4

Asia: 20

Yes, that is how ridiculous the doping epidemic has gotten.

Because all sub 2:10 East Africans are doped up, right?

*eyeroll*

Tyler Andrews doesn't seem very good. He ran the Miami Marathon in January in 2:32, and the DC Rock 'n Roll in March in 2:24. I would imagine Wams leaves this guy in the dust after that 64min half in Houston

good luck... wrote:

Tyler Andrews doesn't seem very good. He ran the Miami Marathon in January in 2:32, and the DC Rock 'n Roll in March in 2:24. I would imagine Wams leaves this guy in the dust after that 64min half in Houston

Tyler Andrews has run 2:15 and broke the 50k world record. Although on a track, still pretty impressive. He was injured in his build up for Miami and was in a bit of a recovery slump heading into DC. Can't win em all, but the dude plain and simple loves to run. Same with Walms. Both very nice dudes who just love what they do. Good luck to them, hopefully they can take down some records.

The men's record is much "softer" than the women's. Tomoe Abe's 6:33 is a whole 27 min. under Ann Trason's 2nd best female time ever (7:00). If you applied typical M/F WR ratios, the women's 100k WR would correspond to about 5:55 for men (vs only 6:09 current WR).

The best 100k specialists (such as Abe or Trason) can run the 100k in 2.7 x marathon PR, so you would expect some 2:12 male marathon runner with the right profile, well trained and motivated, to achieve 5:55 in a 100k - on a flat course in favorable weather...and regardless of shoe brand.

Yes and I think Tyler has the mindset to give this a real shot. He ran 64 KM in the midst of training and it wasn't bad despite overheating and not fueling ideally(4:11). I'm not sure he holds up the full 100K but I think he gets a really good time for 50 miles.

hoka backed wrote:

good luck... wrote:

Tyler Andrews doesn't seem very good. He ran the Miami Marathon in January in 2:32, and the DC Rock 'n Roll in March in 2:24. I would imagine Wams leaves this guy in the dust after that 64min half in Houston

Tyler Andrews has run 2:15 and broke the 50k world record. Although on a track, still pretty impressive. He was injured in his build up for Miami and was in a bit of a recovery slump heading into DC. Can't win em all, but the dude plain and simple loves to run. Same with Walms. Both very nice dudes who just love what they do. Good luck to them, hopefully they can take down some records.

Ok. Steeltownrunner sent me Don Ritchie's splits when he set the 100k WR.

10k split and pace per mile for that split

1 34:06 5:29.2

2 35:15 5:40.3

3 37:34 6:02.7

4 36:17 5:50.3

5 36:47 5:55.2 (2:59:59 total time)

6 36:30 5:52.4

7 37:30 6:02.1

8 37:49 6:05.2

9 38:57 6:16.1

10 39:35 6:22.2

80k is very close to 50 miles so I guess he came through the 50 miles at 4:52:54 (world record is now 4:50:51).

splits here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4ImzRCoPNcEb2UwNTFuSE1kc0U

Considering he split 2:59:59 (And then slowed down, otherwise he would have been under 50 mile record) I think if you're goal is to break 6 hours then you try and get the 50 mile record as well. Does anyone give a s*** about the 50 mile record? I think that one is the most doable.

But if you really want the 100k record, my concern is your risk getting it by going out at 6 hour pace.

Or is it totally common to fade in these things?

Look at Ritchie's splits above. Something happened in the 3rd 10k. Did he stop and have to use the restroom? It it common for people to stop and use the restroom and have splits like that?

The 3rd 10k is a very weird split. But besides that he faded in every 10k except for a slight increase in pace from 50k to 60k.

And this was on a track so we can't say he was slowing because of terrain.

Is it common for people to bank time like he did or were these guys neophytes in terms of pacing? Ritchie was only in 3rd place at halfway, yet his 1st 10k split of 34:06 was on pace for 5:41:00 for 100k. That seems idiotic to me, but I don't know how to pace an ultra. Maybe you have to bank time.

There's no way this can be ideal pacing. Just looking at Tyler's training and prep, I think he will try to get out there and run 10Ks in 35 + : https://strivetrips.org/blog/tys-training-week-of-april-8-2019/ . I do not see any intent to run faster than that early on to bank crazily like Ritchie did with the 34:06.

LawrenceCH wrote:

The men's record is much "softer" than the women's. Tomoe Abe's 6:33 is a whole 27 min. under Ann Trason's 2nd best female time ever (7:00). If you applied typical M/F WR ratios, the women's 100k WR would correspond to about 5:55 for men (vs only 6:09 current WR).

The best 100k specialists (such as Abe or Trason) can run the 100k in 2.7 x marathon PR, so you would expect some 2:12 male marathon runner with the right profile, well trained and motivated, to achieve 5:55 in a 100k - on a flat course in favorable weather...and regardless of shoe brand.

I'm on board with this assessment.

What is the course like ? I wonder if HOKA has any techie things planned . Nike’s sub 2 had pacers running in V formation and a pace vehicle designed to reduce wind drag . This seems more like an idea they threw together at the last minute, announcing on Wednesday it was being run on Saturday

So is there any more detailed info about the course, so that if someone were of a mind to watch paint dry, that they go go to this and do so??