Has anyone here run/walked 100 miles in 24 hours?...

If you legitimately walk (no running) 100 miles in 24 hours, you'll be eligible for membership in the Centurion Club.

-

It's not necessarily racewalking--you don't have to straighten the knee through the support phase--but it has to be walking: at least one foot on the ground at all times. So it has to be during an appropriately-judged race.

-

Half a lifetime ago this would have been something I could aspire to. Unfortunately, at that time I didn't know that continuous contact was the only rule; I thought the knees had to be straightened, which is difficult for me.

-

Nowadays I'm doing well to walk through 25 miles in 5 1/2 hours, so I think becoming a Centurion is out of the question. Plus I'd probably croak, so there's that.

BLtheKid wrote:

This is something I might try to do when I'm 60 (I'm almost 57 now).

Discus.

What does a field event have to do with your plan?

I'd say I was walking about 3 2/3 miles per hour back then - that would be good for 88 miles if I could keep up that pace and extend for the full 24 hours.

For me, I'd be happy doing it whether it is walking or running. At the least, I should be to beat the 59 miles I did when it was all walking.

Dis Cuss wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

This is something I might try to do when I'm 60 (I'm almost 57 now).

Discus.

What does a field event have to do with your plan?

I couldn't resist throwing the "Discus" meme in there :)

Sure, many times.

But it is not as easy as it sounds for somebody who has no ultrarunning experience. I would think you need a minimum of 5 years of ultrarunning experience with a couple of 50 milers.

Yes there are people who can walk the whole thing in 24 hours (Centurion walkers) again a lot more difficult than it looks.

You have to know what to eat and drink and you know how to treat your feet. Nothing you can just learn out of a book. You have to make your own experiences.

Looking at your plan, I think you will fail, because of the lack of experience.

BLtheKid wrote:

I have it in the back of my mind to see if I could run/walk 100 miles in 24 hours - I'd definitely start right at midnight if I tried to do this. That would be very tough to do but I think possible.

If starting at midnight would be "very tough," think how tough it will be 100 miles later, bro.

Welcome to lets run.

I finished a hundred mile race after I had done several 50 milers and many marathons. My time was 25 hours and 20 minutes. My goal was 25 hours so I was satisfied. There was a lot of pain. I don't plan on doing another one.

When it was dark was the worst because it was lonely and I just wanted to sleep. In fact I took several ten minute naps at some of the aid stations.

How are you going to stay energized and hydrated?

Flounder wrote:

I finished a hundred mile race after I had done several 50 milers and many marathons. My time was 25 hours and 20 minutes. My goal was 25 hours so I was satisfied. There was a lot of pain. I don't plan on doing another one.

When it was dark was the worst because it was lonely and I just wanted to sleep. In fact I took several ten minute naps at some of the aid stations.

How are you going to stay energized and hydrated?

This is somewhat of a hypothetical at this point - but wanted to throw it out there for discussion. To see if anyone had done it and what their thoughts were on strategy. How did you handle it as far as when did you run and when did you walk?

As far as energy and hydration, I barely had anything when I walked for 17+ hours in 2013. That said, I'd improve on that if I tried to go for 24 hours. And I would be walking in Tucson and be able to make quick stops in 7-11's or whatever, as far as that goes.

I didn't have that much pain but one of my ankles was starting to bother me for the last hour or so of that previous walk.

The last time around I wasn't in running shape at all but was in good walking shape (averaged something like 19 miles a day for the last four weeks of the competition with a number of 35-40 mile walks thrown in). If I do it again, it will be the opposite - I'd be in shape to run 20 miles at 9:00 pace but wouldn't be doing any specific training in regard to walking.

This is talk of somebody inexperienced.

"Quick stops at 7-11's" take up a lot of time. You also need continuous hydration and nutrition. That's what an aid station provides in a 24 hour loop race. So you can take something on the go while not loosing any time.

Not sure, if you know what a 9 min mile pace actually is. That's 3 hours for 20 miles. How often have you done that?

I would recommend that you sign up for some shorter ultraraces and give it a try with a run/walk approach. You can also sign up for one of the 24 hour races all across the country and try to do 12 hours to get an idea.

Inexperienced or not - I did 17.5 hours (walking only) within range of the pace I'd need for 24 hours. And it's not like I couldn't have kept going that day (who knows on 24 hours though).

Quick stops at 7-11's - why would this take more than 5 minutes or so? I take your point on the continuous hydration and nutrition (I'd definitely do more of this if I were to take on this challenge) - but last time I had virtually none of either. It was an August day with in the high 70's and I don't remember it being particularly humid.

Running 20 miles in 3 hours would not be a problem - maybe that would be the easiest part of the whole thing. Not sure if that's the best strategy though - maybe better to run four, then walk one (or something like that) and keep repeating to a certain point and then walk the rest.

I think a bigger concern is I'd only be in running shape and not walking shape as I wouldn't be out there walking for hours everyday like I was a few years ago.

I'd probably just being doing this on my own but the thought of doing it in an actual race is interesting - who knows? This is all still hypothetical as something to possibly do after I turn 60.

With respect to your question about when to walk versus run. Just do what your body feels like doing. You may want to dial back your pace significantly compared to a marathon especially during the first ten miles or so.

5 minutes or so add up real quick.

Not sure what the difference is between running shape and walking shape. At the end it's all in your head.

If this is a real goal of you, I would start working on it right now and not wait until you are 60.

The fb group Running against time has the best updated calendar of all 12/24 and longer races in the US.

Pick a race for fall in your area and a small goal and get some experience in. You won't gain experience writing hypothetical stuff here while comparing your future performances with stuff you did years ago.

Hind, you are not getting younger and if you don't train your performance plummet as you get older. Runners who perform well over 60 are doing that for a lifetime.

Dis Cuss wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

This is something I might try to do when I'm 60 (I'm almost 57 now).

Discus.

What does a field event have to do with your plan?

Maybe hang out a bit here before you post.

BLtheKid wrote:

Anyway, the most number of steps I did was 112,213 (got up at 5:30 AM, walked from just south of Central Park, generally down Broadway, over the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, spent the next 12 hours walking all over Brooklyn and then back over the Brooklyn Bridge toward home). That was equivalent to about 59 miles (I got home at 11:35 PM).

And you didn't walk 59 miles in 12 hours.

How did you come up with that 59 mile number?

Unless you come from another endurance sport there is no way that you can run/walk 100 miles in 24 hours for your first time in your late 50ies.

Again, sign up for a real race on a loop course with support, set a goal for yourself and try to reach it.

After that adjust, and keep working on it.

Flounder wrote:

How are you going to stay energized and hydrated?

The best way to do that is to do a loop course, and have a vehicle stashed with food, water, medical stuff, etc. The vehicle serves as a nap point; and if parked near a porto-potty you can be self-supported. It is a good idea to have someone in the know who can check up on you and provide encouragement.

Oh, and make sure to pick as flat and smooth a path as possible. Dirt trail is better than asphalt; stay off the 'crete.

Loopss wrote:

Flounder wrote:

How are you going to stay energized and hydrated?

The best way to do that is to do a loop course, and have a vehicle stashed with food, water, medical stuff, etc. The vehicle serves as a nap point; and if parked near a porto-potty you can be self-supported. It is a good idea to have someone in the know who can check up on you and provide encouragement.

Oh, and make sure to pick as flat and smooth a path as possible. Dirt trail is better than asphalt; stay off the 'crete.

You can't nap in a 24 hour race. Especially not, if you are walking and want to reach 100 miles.

And to get to the mileage a asphalt loop is way better than a dirt loop. But I wouldn't want to run of concrete either.

Running 20 miles straight is just a dumb idea. You would be much, much better off alternating 1 mile running (or 2 or 3) with walking.

As far as shape, it isn't going to be conditioning as much as what happens to you feet after 12 hours. Get some blisters and you will find walking is impossible.

And as people have pointed out 5 min stops add up. Do it every hour and we are talking about 2 hours where you are aren't moving (8+ miles). Some of that is probably unavoidable (i.e. bathroom breaks) but having someone hand you a drink lets you keep walking.

And finally, how are you measuring distance? I sure hope you aren't using a pedometer that counts steps for distance. You would be more accurate just making up a number. Get a GPS and you might be surprised. 60 miles in 12 hours is a really brisk pace. Through in some breaks and you begin to push beleivablility. Seriously go down to a track and walk for 30 mins at 12 min pace and let us know if that is really what it felt like you did for 12 hours.

Forest Gump here wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

Anyway, the most number of steps I did was 112,213 (got up at 5:30 AM, walked from just south of Central Park, generally down Broadway, over the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, spent the next 12 hours walking all over Brooklyn and then back over the Brooklyn Bridge toward home). That was equivalent to about 59 miles (I got home at 11:35 PM).

And you didn't walk 59 miles in 12 hours.

How did you come up with that 59 mile number?

Unless you come from another endurance sport there is no way that you can run/walk 100 miles in 24 hours for your first time in your late 50ies.

Again, sign up for a real race on a loop course with support, set a goal for yourself and try to reach it.

After that adjust, and keep working on it.

Never said 59 in 12 hours, it was over 17.5 hours. I had a pedometer that counted my steps and it was roughly 1900 steps per mile for me. If I make a 24 hour effort down the road, I'll have a GPS next time - out of necessity since I would be walking and running instead of walking only.

Doing an actual race is something that wasn't on my radar but that's something I might consider - the nice thing about doing it on my own is I can walk wherever I want and see a lot of different things that I would never see normally. If I do it in Tucson where I live, there is a 55 mile bike loop that I would make part of my course.

This is secondary to certain running goals that I have - am most just curious to see others thoughts on this because I've never seen it discussed on LR before.