How long of a “long run” do ultra-runners do for a 100k race

Yep that's right.

I know that one world class 24 hour racers did one 45 mile run in preparation for a 24 hour race.

But I would think that anything longer than 3 hours or 20 miles won't give you much advantage anymore.

But what ultrarunners do, is that they use Marathons, 50k or 6 hour races as build up races for longer races. So in a sense these are training runs too.

That sounds about right. Also, over time your body will adapt and in a lot of ways those back to backs and super long runs are just confidence boosters more than they are actually increasing fitness. Theres guys like Karl Meltzer who runs pretty low mileage and tops out at around 20 miles even for 100 mile races and no one has won more 100 mile races than Karl.

Forest Gump here wrote:

I don't think I ever heard anybody doing 100k training runs, ever.

Your ultrarunning friends are telling you a lot of BS.

Note even Dean Karnazes? :) I would think you're not wrong, though, in the sense that a 100k training run sounds like actual insanity.

Raysharp001 wrote:

Forest Gump here wrote:

I don't think I ever heard anybody doing 100k training runs, ever.

Your ultrarunning friends are telling you a lot of BS.

...............

I think it's pretty clear he means that they run 30/20 in training for races of 100k, not 100k training runs. Don't turn an honest training thread into another argument.

Stupid typing on my phone. Yes, I meant that the back to back long days is what they do in training for races which are between 50 and 100k.

Thank you everyone for the very informative and thoughtful replies. It hasn’t changed my mind, however, the opposite. It has confirmed that running ultras means hours of discomfort/pain/suffering. I like a certain kind of suffering (doing hard workouts, races, more oxygen debt kind of pain) and the thought of just feeling like dirt for hours and hours, aching feet, legs... I don’t know, if just doesn’t appeal to me. I’m not knocking it or anything, I find it interesting, just don’t want to go through that kind of misery.

I'm no expert, having run only a 50-miler and a 100KM, but I was satisfied with my results after doing a 35-mile training run (for the 50-miler) and a 40-mile training run (for the 100KM). Those longest runs were in addition to a few back-to-back days of 20/20 milers. I guess it depends on how injury-prone you are and how well you can recover, but I don't think it's bad or wrong in principle to do more than 20-mile runs or >6-hour runs. I probably could have finished both the races without such long runs, but it's possible that I wouldn't have run as fast. In general, I'd risk overtraining rather than undertraining for the chance at the best possible result--though I wouldn't do this if I had a history of high mileage-related injuries.

I’m just a hobby jogger, but used to do some running with British 100K champ Greg Dell back in the ‘90s.

He’d generally go 32-33 miles as his longest run in a build up. Too much muscle damage from going longer, he noted

I once listened to a podcast where it was mentioned that for the Compares Marathon many runners do a 60K long run. Of course it cannot be done near the race but in my opinion compared to 50K races that have been mentioned in this thread a long run is easier because it is not run at full effort. You recover faster after a 60K long run than you do after a 50K race.

Everyday

won’t run an ultra wrote:

I just picked any distance for ultra’s - but doesn’t matter what distance. I was just wondering, in general, how long do people build up to for their long run in preparing for those really long races. I would think due to injury risk and recovery they can’t get anywhere near the actual distance, but it is even half? Do they go into a 100k race and their longest run is 50k (which is horrendous), so they have no idea what the next 50k will feel like? What is that like then? I’m thinking about with marathon programs and people “hit the wall”, where is “the wall” for an ultra and how long do you suffer? Is it like 4 hours of going easy then another 4 hours (or more) of suffering?

For my 50ks, I don't vary much from regular marathon training in terms of mileage (max out with three 22 milers leading to my taper). The only difference is that a majority of my training is done on the trails (80/20) whereas my marathon training is done 80/20 road/trail.

For my 50 miler, I did similar mileage to my marathon training, but did three 30 milers leading to my taper, all three followed by 10 milers the next day.

I was just winging it because I'm not a threat to podium and just wanted to tackle the distance. I'm sure there are better plans out there.

My cousin did Eastern States 100 this past summer. She was doing 40 mile Saturdays and 30 mile Sundays for a month straight leading to her taper. She's also one of those insane ultrarunners that enjoys the suffering.

DudeBroMan wrote:

My cousin did Eastern States 100 this past summer. She was doing 40 mile Saturdays and 30 mile Sundays for a month straight leading to her taper. She's also one of those insane ultrarunners that enjoys the suffering.

I would love to know how well she did there. 70 miles just on the weekends seems a little much.

A lot of ultra runners try to run high weekly mileage like a regular marathoner, except they'll do long runs on back to back days on the weekend.

70 in 2 days does seem too much. 70 in 3 days would probably be okay ( like 15, 35, 20) would be the most I'd do for 100 miles. For 100k something like 6 hours (call it half the race time) over same terrain as the race followed the next days by 3 hours easy over flatter terrain would be plenty. That would be roughly 30 and 18.

won’t run an ultra wrote:I just picked any distance for ultras - but doesn’t matter what distance. I was just wondering, in general, how long do people build up to for their long run in preparing for those really long races. I would think due to injury risk and recovery they can’t get anywhere near the actual distance, but it is even half? Do they go into a 100k race and their longest run is 50k (which is horrendous), so they have no idea what the next 50k will feel like? What is that like then? I’m thinking about with marathon programs and people “hit the wall”, where is “the wall” for an ultra and how long do you suffer? Is it like 4 hours of going easy then another 4 hours (or more) of suffering?

The "wall" is often a glycogen issue and for ultras, people train to consume calories while running.

There is a huge range and no standard protocol for training. Two top finishers at world 24 hour champs raced the 153 mile Spartathlon just a few weeks prior. Joe Fejes had one of his more successful 6 day performances just a few weeks after a hard effort 24 hour.

Sticking to your example, runners will run as far as 40 miles (eg, Steve Way leading up to his sub 6:20 100 km / UK record a few years ago), sometimes doubles that will be 30-40 miles over the course of a day, and some no more than 20 miles in a day. But often, people will still have tune-up races, like a 50 miler a month or two before a 100.

Worth noting, a 30+ mile day for marathon training at the elite level is probably more common than you think. Nate Jenkins describes an even longer day that involved some hard intervals and was done either fasted and or as a depletion run.

ultrarunning is not about suffering for competitive athletes. sure, on social media people like to play up their grittiness and toughness...but to race a good 50k-100k...there shouldn't be too much suffering going on. Just like for your PB 10k and halfs, it usually feels like you could keep on going at that pace...I get the same feeling at the end of a good ultra. It's not suffering unless you feel like you're going slower than planned. When you're gaining on the people ahead of you who are cramping or walking, and you're still going strong, it's very empowering, much like the end of a marathon. In my best ultras, I had little no bodyaches, no foot pain, little to no cramping, etc.

The reason people suffer so much is the same reason people think marathons are hard. Most people start too fast and are undertrained. Add in the aspect of fueling which becomes way more important...and it's a mess.

I'm not the most experienced ultrarunner in the world but I've had a few races I'm pretty proud of. If there are people reading this who are 2:25-2:45 marathoners who generally run 70 to 90 miles per week, then here's what my advice would be:

Think of your upcoming race as a time, not a distance. "50k" pace is not a real think unless you only do flat paved ultras or track meets. When I'm training for a 50k race that will take me 4 hours, you can't just add ten seconds a mile to your marathon pace and hope it will work out. I did a 50 miler last year that I figured would take between 6:10 and 6:30, and it was a generally flat ultra though on trails. I looked at some charts like the mcmillan calculator and used my recent performances of a 71min half to figure out how far of a race would take me about 6:20. I don't recall the result but I ended up figuring out that I should be able to sustain about 6:30/mi to 6:40/mi for a 6:15 duration. That gave me the info I needed, and during my 50 miler when it would be flat terrain, I'd aim for run about that pace. It ended up working out perfectly for me, and in the final 3mi of the race, though it was a paved uphill section, my grade-adjusted pace on strava ended up being close to that 6:30-6:40 target effort.

if you wanna see my one example of suffering in all its glory, check out the strava flybys of my 50 miler

https://www.strava.com/activities/2270112729

. I didn't see it as suffering as it was very fun, but photos of my face afterwards suggest otherwise

This is great! Thanks. I'm doing a 50k trail run race in May that's quite hilly and I'm just wondering how you gauge your pace when you're not running on flat sections. Do you just go by feel or do you go by heart rate or do you look at the profile of the course and work out what your pace should be for different parts of the course or none of the above?

richiecjp wrote:

This is great! Thanks. I'm doing a 50k trail run race in May that's quite hilly and I'm just wondering how you gauge your pace when you're not running on flat sections. Do you just go by feel or do you go by heart rate or do you look at the profile of the course and work out what your pace should be for different parts of the course or none of the above?

no matter what, you always end up going by feel to a degree.

heartrate is absolute garbage unless you have the most accurate HR strap in the world. forget it if it's an optical sensor on your watch.

you in theory can predetermine paces based on the profile, but that really only works if the terrain is consistent. if you can't practice on the race course, and it's a trail race, this is impossible*. (you actually could look at other people's strava to see how fast they ran certain sections if they ran a time you think you could hit...but you never know if their effort was optimal).

general advice would be to run any hill slower than you think you should. learn when powerhiking is appropriate if the hills ever get steep enough.

in my best 50k, the way too cool 50k in california, the route wasn't super hilly but has about 4000' of elevation gain. it took me 3:33 so it was a pretty runnable course. I would be running about 6:10 pace on the flat sections and when I would reach a hill I would never increase the effort on purpose. I would basically maintain that 6:10 effort regardless of how long the hill was going to be, because in theory I'd be running at an effort that I could sustain about about 3.5hrs no matter if it was uphill or flat. of course, towards the end of the race you can increase the effort if you have any gas left. you never want to be wiped out when you get to the top of the hill because you want to be able to get right back to your flat pace.

SteelTownRunner wrote:

Sticking to your example, runners will run as far as 40 miles (eg, Steve Way leading up to his sub 6:20 100 km / UK record a few years ago), sometimes doubles that will be 30-40 miles over the course of a day, and some no more than 20 miles in a day. But often, people will still have tune-up races, like a 50 miler a month or two before a 100.

Worth noting, a 30+ mile day for marathon training at the elite level is probably more common than you think. Nate Jenkins describes an even longer day that involved some hard intervals and was done either fasted and or as a depletion run.

Top 100k athletes might do up to 30-40 miles as their last peak training but it is not recommended for the average Joe how tries to run 10-12 hours in a 100k road race. Maybe once a 5 hour effort but longer is probably not very beneficial.

To the extent possible , some longer training runs in an ultra buildup would mimic race conditions if possible. Some variables might be base altitude, time of day ( some races start at night and go all night) technical / rocky trail, steep hills, temperature. There is far more variability in ultra race conditions than you would experience in a road marathon. Running over boulders up or down forces you to pay attention and pick your footing carefully. If I were to sign up for a 100 mile or longer race that began at 10 pm, I would attach my Petzl Nao + and complete a 3 to 5 hour training run at some point.

This has been one of the better, more useful Letsrun threads