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

Felix Unger wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

When I did this, I was in the middle of a stretch where I averaged walking (no running) 130 miles a week for four weeks. I'd never do that again (I only did that because it was part of the daily competition).

You spent 40 hours per week walking?

That's pretty odd.

I did that in conjunction with this (it's 100 days now, it was 112 days when I did it).

Oscar Madison wrote:

Banana Bread wrote:

Tell me about your Olympic and WC medals and how many World XC titles you have won and how many times have you run sub 12:37, 26:17 and 2:03:03?

previously: "Ok I'll be the first to admit I'm not Bekele "

Now you're saying you are Bekele. I'm confused.

Can someone tell me what is happening here? I'm new to the Banana Bread experience. He's claiming to be Bekele but also said he's not.

I never claimed to be Bekele. I'm just highlighting that you are crap in comparison to him as a response to you saying you are better than me at all events(which I doubt is true).

BLtheKid wrote:

If I do it again, I'll likely be running 45-50 miles per week and be capable of running 20 miles in 3 hours or so.

So... I'm about to run in a 24 hour race. I'm around or below this proposed training level. And it's nowhere near good enough to approach a distance like 100 miles.

I just think some folks here are underestimating how hard the last 12 hours, 8 hours, 6 hours will be. I've read enough firsthand accounts to know that I'll basically be struggling to keep moving, and that if 1) I remain uninjured and 2) I'm lucky enough that my body still lets me take in calories past 12 hours, then I might be able to keep moving over the last third of the race.

All those Disney World marathoners were on sub 24 hour pace for 100 miles and they were riding roller coasters, drinking margaritas, eating churros, and taking selfies with Mickey during the race.

I firmly believe those who say 100 miles in 24 hours is hard have very little athletic prowess. 14:24 per mile pace is pretty much a jogwalk.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

All those Disney World marathoners were on sub 24 hour pace for 100 miles and they were riding roller coasters, drinking margaritas, eating churros, and taking selfies with Mickey during the race.

I firmly believe those who say 100 miles in 24 hours is hard have very little athletic prowess. 14:24 per mile pace is pretty much a jogwalk.

Good to see someone with a brain(and humor) reply to the thread.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

All those Disney World marathoners were on sub 24 hour pace for 100 miles and they were riding roller coasters, drinking margaritas, eating churros, and taking selfies with Mickey during the race.

I firmly believe those who say 100 miles in 24 hours is hard have very little athletic prowess. 14:24 per mile pace is pretty much a jogwalk.

Then do it. You might be able to. But comparing hour six of a Mickey Marathon to hour 16 of a round-the-clock race is a poor analogy. I think a 60 mile 12-hour time is much more doable for the good marathoner than a 100 mile 24 hour. And yes, I can divide 12 hours by 40 miles.

24 hour racer wrote:

Loopss wrote:

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.

Asphalt is not better than a well-packed smooth trail. Are you new here?

Asphalt wrote:

Asphalt is not better than a well-packed smooth trail. Are you new here?

No, I am not new here.

I am well aware of this track kids who think all these ultra performances are slow and it would just need a 2:10 runner to crush them all.

Asphalt or dirt, it wouldn't matter, I would get the 100 miles in 24 hours and Banana Bread would not.

BLtheKid wrote:

Felix Unger wrote:

You spent 40 hours per week walking?

That's pretty odd.

I did that in conjunction with this (it's 100 days now, it was 112 days when I did it).

Are you retired? Who has 8 hours per day to walk?

There was a 100 mile walk/run held at a small lake where I work out sometimes. I was going in the opposite direction of what they were going at the time and so saw pretty everyone who was participating. There were probably a few hundred.

My primary inner thought that I wanted to shout, but never did, was, “Why!?!???’

I arrived after they had been going for about ten hours already. Some were obviously hurting badly but soldiering on. Good for them, but I was going to go home after a few laps and enjoy the rest of the evening. I truly do not understand what drives a person to actually want to stay up and run/walk for 24 hours..... or 100 miles.

Nothing against the thought, but it is completely alien to me.

I walked 30 miles once when I locked my keys in my car. It was terrible. It hurt much worse than any of the marathons I've run.

ymi17 wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

If I do it again, I'll likely be running 45-50 miles per week and be capable of running 20 miles in 3 hours or so.

So... I'm about to run in a 24 hour race. I'm around or below this proposed training level. And it's nowhere near good enough to approach a distance like 100 miles.

I just think some folks here are underestimating how hard the last 12 hours, 8 hours, 6 hours will be. I've read enough firsthand accounts to know that I'll basically be struggling to keep moving, and that if 1) I remain uninjured and 2) I'm lucky enough that my body still lets me take in calories past 12 hours, then I might be able to keep moving over the last third of the race.

Absolutely. I was at about 70-75miles/wk for 6 months before my first marathon and then did a Last One Standing about 6 weeks after that. At the 100km mark I'm assuming my hip flexor was shot and caused my ITB to get nasty - it came on hard and fast. It's a slow race format too and there were some people trying to walk the loops - they didn't hang around long. Aerobic fitness isn't the issue.

Next time I'll be making sure to add in some consecutive long days to try and build up the endurance in those muscles. Maybe if you've been doing decent mileage for a few years you'd be fine but if you're green like I am then expect things to give up as the time goes on. It's the time-on-feet as much as distance or pace.

It has been kind of humorous reading this thread. FWIW, I ran/walked my first 100 miler in 1979 in 18 hours. I was a 2:39 marathoner at the time. The marathon time eventually went down to 2:27 but I never ran/walked another flat 100 miler until 2015 although I did over 100 ultras between 1979 and 2015 and was on the U.S. national ultra team. At age 60 it is going to be a challenge for someone who has not been doing ultras regularly to break 24 hours. I think that the game plan of running 20 miles in three hours and then alternating running and walking on a 4/1 ratio is a good one. That is basically what I did back in 1979 except that I ran the first 40 miles, not the first 20.

oakland runner wrote:

It has been kind of humorous reading this thread. FWIW, I ran/walked my first 100 miler in 1979 in 18 hours. I was a 2:39 marathoner at the time. The marathon time eventually went down to 2:27 but I never ran/walked another flat 100 miler until 2015 although I did over 100 ultras between 1979 and 2015 and was on the U.S. national ultra team. At age 60 it is going to be a challenge for someone who has not been doing ultras regularly to break 24 hours. I think that the game plan of running 20 miles in three hours and then alternating running and walking on a 4/1 ratio is a good one. That is basically what I did back in 1979 except that I ran the first 40 miles, not the first 20.

But you were a 2:39 Marathoner to begin with.

I did a sub 17 hour 100 mile split in a 24 hour race when my Marathon time was around 3:10.

In order to run 100 miles in 24 hours you have to be an experienced runner.

Just falling out of bed with a run/walk plan from the internet won't work.

Many good Marathoners have not succeeded in ultrarunning. It's quite a different game.

Obviously Oakland runner was successful in ultrarunning.

I am sure many sub 30 10k guys think they could run 2:30 right now or 2:15 with no training.

150 miles in 24 hours would be reasonable based on your mention half pr with training...maybe.

joecrunner wrote:

I am sure many sub 30 10k guys think they could run 2:30 right now or 2:15 with no training.

150 miles in 24 hours would be reasonable based on your mention half pr with training...maybe.

A HM time is absolutely irrelevant to a 24 hour race performance.

ran 16:40 for the distance...on a junior college track...in the pouring rain...in 1992...reference it as 400 x 400 with 0 recovery

Your knew hear wrote:

Dis Cuss wrote:

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

Maybe hang out a bit here before you post.

Maybe get a sense of humor before you post.

It’s sad when one references humor that they don’t understand.

Hahahahaha