Speed -V- Endurance

ocnoc

Whats the difference between finishing an ultra and running a fast 5,000m?

Stark

About 7 hours.

ocnoc

hmmm

More what I meant was why do people tend to think they are awesome when they struggle to finish an ultra or marathon or whatever, yet no one, or very few of the general population think about running fast.
They go long instead of building speed.

Desire.

I think it could be because it is easier to improve your endurance than it is to improve your speed. Everyone can get fitter and run for longer, but it's not always possible to greatly improve your speed. Yes, it can be improved but not massively.

Just my two cents.

ocnoc

So people do as little as possible to get maximum praise from their peers...?

shels4ever

ocnoc wrote: »

So people do as little as possible to get maximum praise from their peers...?

Be careful this place is full or ultra runners they might not like that

RacoonQueen

Define a fast 5k?

They both take different kinds of mental strength. Any stubborn fecker with decent can run/walk around an ultra and keep going when it hurts, takes a different kind of mental strength to run a fast 5k and be able to push through that sort of pain.

ocnoc

I'm not going to lie. I posted this to get a reaction to see why everyone is completely obbessed with going long over going fast

ocnoc

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Define a fast 5k?

sub 16... sub 15... sub 14.
A respectable club time?! (I realise this is another kettle of fish)

shels4ever

ocnoc wrote: »

I'm not going to lie. I posted this to get a reaction to see why everyone is completely obbessed with going long over going fast

I think alot of people also came to running late, and as you get older you can do fairly well over longer distances.

RacoonQueen

ocnoc wrote: »

I'm not going to lie. I posted this to get a reaction to see why everyone is completely obbessed with going long over going fast

Different strokes for different folks. Some people don't enjoy short and fast but enjoy long and slow. Personally, I enjoy both and it can be hard to make a distinction between the two. I'd be prouder of running a sub 20 5k than I am of 'running' 50 miles. My ultras mean little to me, faster shorter distance times would be a lot more satisfactory, maybe because I find them much tougher mentally...

RayCun

ocnoc wrote: »

I posted this to get a reaction to see why everyone is completely obbessed with going long over going fast

Who is obsessed - the people who enjoy running marathons or the people who think everyone should be running track instead? :rolleyes::D

ocnoc

RayCun wrote: »

everyone should be running

track

instead? :rolleyes::D

Ewwwwwwwwwwwww duirty!!!!
What a blatant comment!

I never once mentioned

track

!

The thought process came about after a weekends mountain racing!
Everyone is enjoying going long instead of going completely mental on a short, steep, technical descent.

TFBubendorfer

ocnoc wrote: »

I'm not going to lie. I posted this to get a reaction to see why everyone is completely obbessed with going long over going fast

But are they really?

Non-runners are bound to be much more impressed by an ultra. They think "I could run a 5k, but never 50/100/1000 miles".

But runners who have experienced both would know much better what's involved. I do consider myself an ultra runner but it does not stop me from hoping I will still better my 5k PB. I also remember crossing the finish line at my best 5k and my 50 miler and I know that I was much more wiped out after 5k (Mind, after 10 minutes I felt reasonably recovered which could not be said after an ultra.)

RayCun

No, but your OP was about running a fast 5k, not about running hills...
You never see the ultra/marathon runners on here complaining that not enough people are running the Connemara ultra.

But a serious answer - there is a generally accepted pattern in athletics that people start running shorter distances and move up to longer distances as they get older. Exhibit A: Gebrselassie running 3k, 5k, 10k, and then moving to marathon distance as he got older.

Well, most people running in Ireland, and most people posting on Boards (from what I can see) are already older. So a focus on longer distances is completely natural.

Raighne

ocnoc wrote: »

So people do as little as possible to get maximum praise from their peers...?

A fastidious point, but why do I feel like you just described human nature

ultraman1

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Some people don't enjoy short and fast but enjoy long and slow. Personally, I enjoy both ...

:eek:...lucky im goin to mass now

iamjenko

ultraman1 wrote: »

:eek:...lucky im goin to mass now

Haha!

I havent run an ultra yet but i am training for one. I have found that i prefer short, sharp, intense races and training to the long run slog of ultra training but there is just something about being able to say i have run an ultra that keeps me motivated! Like most people there is just something about the fact you have raced that far, distance is an achievement that people can readily identify with where as time in a certain race is a more personal thing. I think.

RacoonQueen

ultraman1 wrote: »

:eek:...lucky im goin to mass now

You'd think I'd have learnt by now to be more careful about my wording. :rolleyes:

ecoli

Desire. wrote: »

I think it could be because it is easier to improve your endurance than it is to improve your speed. Everyone can get fitter and run for longer, but it's not always possible to greatly improve your speed. Yes, it can be improved but not massively.

Just my two cents.

I think the only problem with this is that people mistake pure speed for speed endurance. There are many people who could run maybe 70 all out for a 400m so feel they dont have the speed to do shorter distances from say 800-10k. Yet with proper training they could easily run sub 17-18 for 5k. If a person is trained properly and specifically there is no reason why the drop off moving up the distances has to be dramatic

Krusty_Clown

Why do people tend to think they are awesome when they finish a slow 5,000m when they could run a much faster 100m? They go long instead of building speed.

Seriously, let people run whatever they want. Life is too short for 'my event is better than yours'.

Oisin11178

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Why do people tend to think they are awesome when they finish a slow 5,000m when they could run a much faster 100m? They go long instead of building speed.

Seriously, let people run whatever they want. Life is too short for 'my event is better than yours'.

Finally someone talking sence. Carpe diem:D

Raighne

I do not think you can answer the original question because it is not comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between athletic achievement and personal achievement, it is important to take joy from the one without mistaking it for the other.

Running a 4 hour marathon is obviously not as great an athletic achievement as running a sub-16 minute 5k. We know that because we can compare all sorts of evidence to confirm it (the VO2 max needed for one versus the other, the physical ability needed, the training that must be invested, the marathon speeds that an average sub-16 minute 5k runner would be able to run versus what an average 4-hour marathoner could run on the 5k).

This has nothing to do with whether it is a great personal achievement. Running a sub-4 hour marathon may rightly be viewed as a great personal achievement depending on your background.

The masses who do not have a deep technical insight into athletics may not see the distinction and perhaps therefore achievements on shorter distances are somewhat underrated by the wider public compared to longer distance challenges. This may be a pity and personally I would like to see shorter events engender more popularity as I think it would improve the average running performances across Western countries but that's a personal opinion.

So personal achievements will always be rated by the person alone for their importance to them. Athletic achievement just requires you to look up your results in VDOT table and you can see where you stand.

In terms of hardness, you would need to define "hard" first and then agree on a set of criteria that could be objectively measured in a set of tests. My personal first-hand opinion is that shorter is more painful but this is based on the anecdotal evidence from my own experience that all my short races have been very painful while only some of my long ones have (and then not for as long). But other athletes report different experiences.

As the last poster points out, this discussion is probably irrelevant but nevertheless it would be fascinating to understand all variables that contribute to why people rate one as harder than another on the one hand (genetics, preparation, preference etc.) and what discipline (if any) is most difficult to prepare for in terms of training (again this may depend on your starting point but the law of averages can generally work this out). Imagine an experiment taking 100 people of similar ability in a double-blind study and asking them to train fora 5k or a marathon of equal athletic performance and attempt to find out which poses the greater challenge.

thirtyfoot

Speed and Endurance will always be trumped by Speed Endurance which is why the 400m is the greatest event. For the people really in the speed business (100-400m), a 5000m or a 100km will be pretty much the same thing, both a million miles away in some endurance galaxy populated by people who froth at the mouth while running and who are too banjaxed to wipe it away.

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Why do people tend to think they are awesome when they finish a slow 5,000m when they could run a much faster 100m? They go long instead of building speed.

Seriously, let people run whatever they want. Life is too short for 'my event is better than yours'.

Excactly. Ultra runers can be competative too.You might think that Most just want to complete but in fact, most have a time goal. :pac:
Surely a 4hr 50k is better that a 1hr 10k?

ocnoc

menoscemo wrote: »

Surely a 4hr 50k is better that a 1hr 10k?

Well, you would be going through 10k in ~48mins... So yes.. it would be better

I don't mean this tread to be little anyone does. More mainly interested to see what the attraction to going long was over going fast on Boards.

Hardess race... 800m? Never run one myself but the idea of flat out for ~2mins, I can feel the burn already.

Then I remember hour 23 of the rogaine and the urge to die...

dna_leri

ocnoc wrote: »

Then I remember hour 23 of the rogaine and the urge to die...

But will it put hair on your head, powerful stuff.