Is it harder to run far or fast?

--amadeus--

One of teh things that attracts me to an ultra is that - at first at least - there is no real time pressure. And knowing that I can rattle off 26 miles @ 7:30 fairly easily kind of lulls me into this false sense of security that running 50 miles at 9 m/miles mustn't be *that* hard. And by extension 100 at 10 min/miles with regular walk breaks; it's at such a low intensity that it seems like as long as you get the fuelling right and avoid strains you're pretty much home free.

But running a fraction below your threshold for a marathon or right on the redline for a 5k is hard to judge and (for me anyway) very, very hard.

Now obviously there comes a point where you want to improve your Ultra performances and so you start for push for far and fast. But in teh same way that any moderately fit person could complete a marathon could your average marathon runner do an ultra pretty easily?

hunnymonster

It may depend on your personal physiology and where you are willing to hurt more, but for me faster is harder than longer. Last weeks 5 miler was a miserable experience for me, February's 40 miler was a great night out in the pub. I know I've told the story before about how the county guys made me run a 400m in the 4x400 intercounties once. They heard flowerful language that day, never again.

silverside

different strokes for different folks - i love running fast (intervals / races) but i get bored on long runs (anything over 40 mins being a long run for me) - if i just ran at 10 minute mile pace i could probably do 20/30 miles before getting injured but couldnt be bothered (unless it was a mountain marathon or something interesting)

Odysseus

Well personally I find my times depend on my training for an event amongst other things. I generally don't have a "pace" as such. I just run, the further and longer I go the slow I become. If things are going well I find for each 20k I run the next 20k is on average 10-15 minutes slower.

Time wise it really depends on the day. My fastest 100k was 11.45 my slowest was 15:38. On my first one an older chap over took me at the 98k mark, he later told me he was trying to catch me for 5k previous to that. I became mates with him, on my slowest I was a tad deflated as I picfked up an injury that day and had to limp the last 40k home. Anyway I was talking to the same chap that night and he had done that race ten times, he told me was fastest was 10hrs and longest was 18hrs. It was only then I realised why unltrs runners generally ask "did you have a good race". There are so many things that can happen over longer distances.

Sometimes you can recover over the distance somethings not. On my fastest time it was about 2am when I reached marathon stage, I felt like I was going to vomit, I was shivering so much I was given a blanket and placed by a fire. However, I pulled it back together and got my PB. So you never know.

At the end of the day ultras are for me inanyway about crossing the finish line, but times are important too you still want to do the best you can. And to answer your question yes. I believe that if you can do a maraton you can do an ultra. You have to be fit, but the real battle is in the mind, and your used to that if you can do a marathon.

Enduro

But in teh same way that any moderately fit person could complete a marathon could your average marathon runner do an ultra pretty easily?

Whatever about easily (I think I've had a grand total of one easy ultra), your average marathon runner could finish an ultra provided they adjust their pacing and strategy appropriately, IMHO.

It may depend on your personal physiology and where you are willing to hurt more, but for me faster is harder than longer.

+1. I don't think I was ever in a race at school where I didn't come last. These were all sprints.

RacoonQueen

Enduro wrote: »

+1. I don't think I was ever in a race at school where I didn't come last. These were all sprints.

Another +1 from me. I'd much rather go for a 22 mile run and be hurting from that than do sprints/intervals/a fast 5k/something fast as a training session. The latter would hurt mea lot more and put me off going out the next day too whereas I'd happily go out running again the day after a 22 miler.

RoyMcC

I believe a Frenchman once won both the 100m and the marathon at one of the early Olympics. He was asked how on earth he trained for these very different events. He said

'Is easy - one day I run a long way vairry slowly. The next day I run a little way vairry quickly.'

A good story if true

shels4ever

Just my view but I've always though about going faster how far was never really a question, no matter how far I've run I can always manage one more step, but I'd like to know just how fast I can go over a distance as there will be a point that I just can't get faster...

Once you know

Gringo78

shels4ever wrote: »

no matter how far I've run I can always manage one more step

Theres a good video somewhere on you tube showing 2 women contesting 3rd & 4th place (i think) in Hawaii Ironman a few years back. I think it shows there is a point where you can't go one step further....they crawl across the line as I remember.

hunnymonster

Gringo78 wrote: »

Theres a good video somewhere on you tube showing 2 women contesting 3rd & 4th place (i think) in Hawaii Ironman a few years back. I think it shows there is a point where you can't go one step further....they crawl across the line as I remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTn1v5TGK_w

shels4ever

Gringo78 wrote: »

Theres a good video somewhere on you tube showing 2 women contesting 3rd & 4th place (i think) in Hawaii Ironman a few years back. I think it shows there is a point where you can't go one step further....they crawl across the line as I remember.

If the line had been moved back 1 more step they would have still made it