ultra running mad or incredible?

thirstywork2

whats your views on this?
I know there are many on here who seek the challenge of a 100/200mile race or a 24hour race around a running track like the one in belfast recently but after looking at some of the competitors (most carried away or walking)it just looked plain crazy to me.
Anyone who runs these can they tell me why???

ManwitaPlan

Its certainly not incredible, running 1:41.01 for 800m or running a 5k in 12:37 is athletically and physiologically far more impressive in my view.

Ill prob get into trouble for saying this but I also believe 200 mile race is mentally no tougher than an 800m...just different.

I always find it funny when I hear friends talking about this "Dean Karnezes guy and his incredible running achievements....he must be the greatest runner of all time sure".


I dont mean to understate the achievements of ultra runners but to me there just different race distances along with a 1 mile, 10k, half or marathon....they require a different approach and different training but like I said achievement wise I wouldnt put them any higher than other events. Its all relative.

RayCun

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

Its certainly not incredible, running 1:41.01 for 800m or running a 5k in 12:37 is athletically and physiologically far more impressive in my view.

You're comparing two world records to people completing a distance. How impressed are you by someone running over 300km in 24 hours, compared to someone running a 15 minute 5k?

Oisin11178

Can of worms well and truly opened:-)
Each to his own. I wont say which i think is better. I find it gas though that people that say ultras are no harder than shorter races they are just different. Normally these people have never done any long distance races. My advise is, do both kinds then you will know the difference and have a balanced opinion.

TFBubendorfer

Until about 10 years ago they used to say that marathons are for the mentally unhinged only.

Now that the marathon has gone mainstream, you are using the same old argument against ultras. Why?

TheRoadRunner

When resting the parasympathetic nervous system kicks in so you can digest food, pee get sexually aroused.

When you are running your body thinks it is in fight or flight mode. The sympathetic nervous system kicks in turning off the parasympathetic nervous system so you can no longer digest food properly (why we take easily disolvable gels), can no longer "voluntary" pee or poop and can't get a hard on!

I hear a lot of ultrarunners eating pizza, McDonalds and other ****e when they compete. So my question is are the majority of them even running?

I'm not an ultra fan but have respect for some of the impressive totals people clock up.

ManwitaPlan

RayCun wrote: »

You're comparing two world records to people completing a distance. How impressed are you by someone running over 300km in 24 hours, compared to someone running a 15 minute 5k?

Nowhere in my post did I compare world records with people completing a distance. Its a very hard thing to compare two performances over such vastly different distances, the point I'm making is the 300km race is not more impressive simply because its longer yet this is the view that many hold.

If you want to bring in the "completion" argument then the feat is even less impressive.

Its a similar thing when comparing somebody completing a marathon in 4 hours to someone racing a 5k in 19:59...one sounds more impressive when in reality the other is more impressive (in my view).

Never done an ultra but I have done marathons and my view remains, its just another race distance...longer but run at a slower pace...same is true right down the line.....except for sprinters...we can all agree their pussys (;))

nerraw1111

I would love to run a trail ultra, its such a great and pure way to explore the great outdoors. Even a point to point race such as Connemara would appeal.

However, the idea of running laps of a small circuit hundreds of time baffles me. I struggle to understand why someone would want to test their mental and physical strength in this way. That's not to diminish the events in any way. Horses for courses etc.

couerdelion

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

... and can't get a hard on!

Thank god! It's embarrassing enough running past attractive females worrying about how much sweat is going to get sprayed in their direction with out having to concern myself with taking their eyes out too!

Oh and ultra runners are mad.

ecoli

There are two ways to get better:

1) Go Long
2) Go faster

Each to there own. If you are going to compare then compare elite to elite both have fairly astounding achievements ( from 60.5 laps in a WR 5 k or 3x 2.37 marathons back to back in a WR 100k)

Both sports are gonna have participants, average competitors, sub elite and elite and should be compared like for like

People view the ultra's as more of an achievement simply because average person makes associations based their lives. They cannot comprehend the speed but they can with the distance (from being used to cars travelling much faster (mpw compared to lap splits) but for as long probably).

menoscemo

In answer to the original question, I'd say more mad than incredible (madder the longer the time/distance having witnessed the 24hour race in Belfast first hand).

I don't think anyone would argue that running longer distances is necessarily a bigger achievement than running a shorter distance very fast, but ultra distances also have their records and racking up a world class distance in a 24hr race is no less impressive than posting a world class 5k time.
LOL at the guy who said Dean Kanazares is the best runner ever- afaik he is not even competitive in top level ultra events. (he is more famous for his own marketing than any 'achievement')

Oh and in Answer to RR's questions- they generally do run consistently for the first half of the race (the leader in Belfast 24hr race went through marathon distance in about 3hr 20mins FWIW), just the bits you see on the TV are generally from the end of race when people are reduced to various slow walks and the track resembles a scene from a 1960's zombie movie.

ecoli

menoscemo wrote: »

In answer to the original question, I'd say more mad than incredible (madder the longer the time/distance having witnessed the 24hour race in Belfast first hand).

I don't think anyone would argue that running longer distances is necessarily a bigger achievement than running a shorter distance very fast, but ultra distances also have their records and racking up a world class distance in a 24hr race is no less impressive than posting a world class 5k time.
LOL at the guy who said Dean Kanazares is the best runner ever- afaik he is not even competitive in top level ultra events. (he is more famous for his own marketing than any 'achievement')

Oh and in Answer to RR's questions- they generally do run consistently for the first half of the race (the leader in Belfast 24hr race went through marathon distance in about 3hr 20mins FWIW), just the bits you see on the TV are generally from the end of race when people are reduced to various slow walks and the track resembles a scene from a 1960's zombie movie.

What ever about being mad doing them kinda races you would have to be insane to go as a spectator like some people here.

Maybe thread should be renamed : menoscemo; mad or incredible?:D

menoscemo

ecoli wrote: »

What ever about being mad doing them kinda races you would have to be insane to go as a spectator like some people here.

Maybe thread should be renamed : menoscemo; mad or incredible?:D

I didn't go as a Spectator though , If I did, I would certainly be questioning my own Sanity.

gerard65

We all want to test ourselves, its in our DNA. Some challange themselves by trying to run faster over shorter distance, others the challange is going longer. However, no one should have a closed mind to trying as many different events as possible. If you 'brand' yourself as a 'miler' or as a 'distance runner' and never give the other a go you lose out the total experience.
But I have to admit I think running around a track for 24hrs or on a treadmill for 48hrs is a bit mad, but whatever 'janks your chain' I suppose:pac:

ManwitaPlan

menoscemo wrote: »

In answer to the original question, I'd say more mad than incredible (madder the longer the time/distance having witnessed the 24hour race in Belfast first hand).

I don't think anyone would argue that running longer distances is necessarily a bigger achievement than running a shorter distance very fast, but ultra distances also have their records and racking up a world class distance in a 24hr race is no less impressive than posting a world class 5k time.

This is where I would have to disagree. Ultra's are relatively recent and are a minority area of a minority sport. Many many more people are running 5k's and records have been consistently coming down for years.

I would argue Bekeles 12:37 is far closer to the limits of human performance than any ultra WR.

Its the same reason why if Ireland won a medal in Archery at next years Olympics you probably could not class it at the same level of achievement as winning a medal in the 1500m.

ecoli

gerard65 wrote: »

But I have to admit I think running around a track for 24hrs or on a treadmill for 48hrs is a bit mad, but whatever 'janks your chain' I suppose:pac:

Exactly like I am a person who is all about improving my times at the shorter distance yet the 24 hour on track completely compels me and is something I will look to do down the line for sure.
Yet telling people its one I want to do get the usual your mad response

gerard65

There's no money to be made in ultra's, if there was you'd see records fall very quickly, the Africa's would be all over them.

menoscemo

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

Ultra's are relatively recent and are a minority area of a minority sport. Many many more people are running 5k's and records have been consistently coming down for years.

I would argue Bekeles 12:37 is far closer to the limits of human performance than any ultra WR.

Ultra's are not as recent as you think. there are articles from Irish Runner of loads of ultras happening in Ireland throughout the 70's and 80's. Condo131 Put a link up to loads of them in a thread not so long ago.....As someone else pointed out, Marathons are only a recently new distance. Isn't it true that up until the 70's, women were not allowed to compete in the marathon distance? I think that the women's marathon was only introduced into the Olympics in 1984, but would you call Radcliffes world record soft?

You may well be right about Bekelele's 5k record vs certain ultra records, but it is up to someone to come along and break the previous record.

ecoli

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

This is where I would have to disagree. Ultra's are relatively recent and are a minority area of a minority sport. Many many more people are running 5k's and records have been consistently coming down for years.

I would argue Bekeles 12:37 is far closer to the limits of human performance than any ultra WR.

Its the same reason why if Ireland won a medal in Archery at next years Olympics you probably could not class it at the same level of achievement as winning a medal in the 1500m.

It is recent here but there is a great tradition in other parts of the world such as South Africa and Japan and the US. The Comrades marathon was established in 1921 like wise the Two Oceans is 40 years old likewise to the Western States Endurance run
Also if you look to many of the records you see that they are recognised by the IAAF are in fact more than 10-15 years old so you could argue that the plateau in records could indicate otherwise. You have to remember that very few of the races here are on track also and you can rarely get a +30 mile course without the inclusion of some hills to take into account with the times
Again like i said you are comparing two different sports each have their own merit

gerard65

menoscemo wrote: »

Ultra's are not as recent as you think. there are articles from Irish Runner of loads of ultras happening in Ireland throughout the 70's and 80's. Condo131 Put a link up to loads of them in a thread not so long ago......

Even longer than that, people have been racing very long distance's since the 1800's.

robinph

Mad.

</thread>

RayCun

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

Nowhere in my post did I compare world records with people completing a distance.

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

running 1:41.01 for 800m or running a 5k in 12:37 is athletically and physiologically far more impressive in my view

are they not world records or were you not comparing them to people running 100/200mile/24 hour races?

chinguetti

Whether a medal is won in 1500 mts or in tennis, judo etc, competitors train for years for that week of effort in the Olympics so i wouldn't compare who has done more and who deserves it more.

If you want to run either a ultra or a 5k and complete it, fair play to you. Many people have personal battles to beat in whatever distance they take part in. A 5k for someone who has never run can be just as hard as doing an ultra.

I did the Conn Half a couple of years ago and saw the ultra lads passing me out in the last couple of miles. Have to say it would open your eyes and ultra guys have my respect ever since. But i still think that they're mad in teh nicest possible sense.

ultrapercy

refering to someone as mad or insane because they choose to run a race of a certain distance is intolerant. Intolerance of people is usualy the byproduct of fear or inferiority. There seems to be an obsession on these threads with achievement and whats considered achievement and a begrudging attitude of not letting people get carried away. As Ecoli said if you need to compare do it at the elite level because everything else is just passtime. Comparing a 16 minute 5k to a 10 hour 100k is daft neither are impressive, relatively speaking as the world records at both are so much better.To the people who run 16 mins and 10 hours tho they are impressive and rightly so imo.Live and let live, in my experience this type of rivalry only exists amoung the mid packers, top class sports people usualy show each other an amount of respect and everyone else is busy with survival.

TheRoadRunner

gerard65 wrote: »

There's no money to be made in ultra's, if there was you'd see records fall very quickly, the Africa's would be all over them.

That's a fair point. Seen as we are $hit stirring, the same could be said for triathlon, there is an economic bias on the origin of participants, i.e individuals from the western world who generally have disposable income!

Nermal

ultrapercy wrote: »

Comparing a 16 minute 5k to a 10 hour 100k is daft neither are impressive, relatively speaking as the world records at both are so much better.

Nope, but the 5K record is far more impressive than the 100K record, because far more people attempt the 5K, and so the record is closer to the limit of human potential.

ecoli

Nermal wrote: »

Nope, but the 5K record is far more impressive than the 100K record, because far more people attempt the 5K, and so the record is closer to the limit of human potential.

The womens Marathon was only introduced in the 70s yet if you look at the records it is one of the strongest records (according to the IAAF scoring charts even better than Bolts 9.58). Just because an event has been contested more doesnt automatically mean one is better than the other.


Again comparing apples to oranges here i think you need to look at them individually on their merits in terms of the records in comparison to each sport

ultrapercy

it is a fair comment that because more people attempt 5k than 100k 100 miles 24 hour etc that the record is closer to the limit of human scope and therefore more impressive. But there is a reason more people attempt 5k than attempt ultra distances and that is they take a lot more time and mental strength to prepare for (at sub elite level).

shels4ever

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, I think the training for an ultra and a 12:37 ultra are both mad to me. The only think is I know i can finish an ultra but would never run sub 16 never mind sub 13.
I've know ultra runners for years and think a guy I used to run with still holds the Dublin-Belfast record but that was in the early days of irish ultra running. It's something that I've never wanted But fairplay anyone that does once you enjoy it thats the main thing.

az2wp0sye65487

Like a lot of others have already said, it's tough to compare the 2 really. They're both impressive in my view but both very different.

Running a 5k under 15 mins is very impressive to me. But so is completing a 100K / 100mile / 24hr race etc.

The 5k shows a persons capability with regard to speed over a short distance. The ultra distance shows your endurance, and ability to maintain (an albeit slower) pace over a distance. Both are physically and mentally demanding - but both are impressive...

TFBubendorfer

nerraw1111 wrote: »

However, the idea of running laps of a small circuit hundreds of time baffles me. I struggle to understand why someone would want to test their mental and physical strength in this way.

Because they are keen to test their mental and physical limits. What's so hard to understand about that?

Gringo78

nerraw1111 wrote: »

However, the idea of running laps of a small circuit hundreds of time baffles me. I struggle to understand why someone would want to test their mental and physical strength in this way. That's not to diminish the events in any way. Horses for courses etc.

I think as regards 24hr events, the runners/organisers have very little choice but to go with a track setup because of the logistics of it, safety of participants. You can't get closed roads, a field would be strung out over 50 miles after about 12 hours - once nightfall hits you need lighting which you're only going to get at a track. So if people want to test themsevles over 24hrs then they're going to have the added mental test of the monotony of laps.

ThisRegard

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Because they are keen to test their mental and physical limits. What's so hard to understand about that?

Because as he says, it's not his course. Same way someone running around in circles for hours maybe wouldn't understand why someone will go off and run from A to B through a dirty wet bog.

These types of threads always brings the touchiness out in people.

nerraw1111

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Because they are keen to test their mental and physical limits. What's so hard to understand about that?

You cut out the key part of that sentence "in this way." It's not a criticism or comes with any negative connotation. I'm genuinely impressed by it.

But doing hundreds of laps as opposed to running 100 miles along a trail.

Gringo: yeah the logistics for 24 hours make circuits the best way.

As I said horses for courses.

TFBubendorfer

nerraw1111 wrote: »

You cut out the key part of that sentence "in this way."

Ok then, some reasons I can think of straight away for doing it "this way":

- easy logistics
- no fear of getting lost
- food stations every 400 meters
- continuous support from the other runners
- extra gear always within reach
- certified distance

nerraw1111

Those points have absolutely nothing to do what I said. You have now taken what I said out of context twice.

I'll go back to what I said: "I struggle to understand why someone would want to test their mental and physical strength in this way."

You have taken this to mean that I obviously mean logistics which is unexpected conclusion to reach.

What I actually meant and I thought it was fairly obvious is that A) I wasn't talking about logistics.

But that I was of course referring to what motivates a person to run hundreds of laps and rack up massive distances.

So, as someone who admires such feats, regardless of logistics, I cannot understand why someone would choose to run huge distances via hundreds of laps.

That is, in my mind, if I wanted to test how far I could run in 24 hours or run a hundred miles, I'd do it from A to B, regardless of logistics.

At the risk of repeating myself, horses for courses.

ultrapercy

But logistics is a huge aspect of ultra running esp access to nutrition.obviously the logistics are easier on a 400m lap so a big problem for the athlete is solved by its self. On a point to point course the planning for the athlete would need to be very persecis as resourses would not be available every 400m or even every mile and that can be a long time in along race.Also a point to point course could get very lonely on a long race and other competitors are great support and motivation even when lapping or being lapped. This is all speculation on my part tho as Ive never ran for 24 hours. About to do 30miles+ now tho.

menoscemo

ultrapercy wrote: »

But logistics is a huge aspect of ultra running esp access to nutrition.obviously the logistics are easier on a 400m lap so a big problem for the athlete is solved by its self. On a point to point course the planning for the athlete would need to be very persecis as resourses would not be available every 400m or even every mile and that can be a long time in along race.Also a point to point course could get very lonely on a long race and other competitors are great support and motivation even when lapping or being lapped. This is all speculation on my part tho as Ive never ran for 24 hours. About to do 30miles+ now tho.

Yeah, a lot of the lads doing the 24hr in belfast would have preferred to do the connemara 100 miler (a point to point course) but the logistics and expense (hiring a van, have someone follow you all the way etc) would have been too much so they opted for the track race.

Krusty_Clown

Long distance running is one of those feats that originally distinguished us from the other animals and ensured our continued survival, so of course ultra distance running has its place in the world of athletics.

A 100 years ago, few people had the free-time available to train for and compete in long distance events (I'm referring to farmer Joe Soap, rather than Elite athletes of a century past, who would of course train just as long/hard as present day ultra runners) so training for and running shorter distance races required less time-commitment. Nowadays we have a lot more free-time, so the sport has become a lot more accessible to the general public (one of the reasons why mid-pack runners like me could have had the world record in the marathon, up until February 1909).

While running really long distances (100mile+) is obviously most practical on a track, like nerraw1111, it doesn't hold and great attraction for me. I have massive admiration for those who can compete and succeed in these challenges, but personally, were I to participate in these kind of distances, I would prefer if they were point to point and distance bounded (with a couple of mountains along the way!) rather than a circular track and time-bounded, because it has its roots in what we once were. But this just isn't practical in modern Ireland, where most of our very long distance races require some kind of loop. If I am ever to run a 100+ mile race, it'll like be in the US or somewhere that suits my particular set of needs, which are not necessarily the same as anyone elses.

RoyMcC

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

A 100 years ago, few people had the free-time available to train for and compete in long distance events (I'm referring to farmer Joe Soap, rather than Elite athletes of a century past, who would of course train just as long/hard as present day ultra runners) so training for and running shorter distance races required less time-commitment. Nowadays we have a lot more free-time, so the sport has become a lot more accessible to the general public (one of the reasons why mid-pack runners like me could have had the world record in the marathon, up until February 1909).

Deserves a thread of its own KC - nothing like a Friday for a wander OT. I'm not sure people had more free time way back when, more that the vast majority of the male adult population had long and hard manual jobs. These days most of us are sat behind a desk typing on forums/fora and are gagging to run or do some sort of sport afterwards.

I don't believe 'elite' athletes trained hard a century ago - wasn't it considered almost cheating to do so? Therefore certainly standards have shot up as people dedicate themselves to training.

TFBubendorfer

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Those points have absolutely nothing to do what I said. You have now taken what I said out of context twice.

I'll go back to what I said: "I struggle to understand why someone would want to test their mental and physical strength in this way."

You have taken this to mean that I obviously mean logistics which is unexpected conclusion to reach.

What I actually meant and I thought it was fairly obvious is that A) I wasn't talking about logistics.

But that I was of course referring to what motivates a person to run hundreds of laps and rack up massive distances.

So, as someone who admires such feats, regardless of logistics, I cannot understand why someone would choose to run huge distances via hundreds of laps.

That is, in my mind, if I wanted to test how far I could run in 24 hours or run a hundred miles, I'd do it from A to B, regardless of logistics.

At the risk of repeating myself, horses for courses.

No, I honestly don't think I have taken what you said out of context. I think you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Let's say I want to find out how hard I can push my body, and ultra running is my chosen way of doing so.

As has been mentioned, I might prefer to do it on a scenic course like the Connemara 100 or UTMB or an American trail race.

But then it very much comes down to practicalities, and you can't just push them aside and say "that's just logistics, I wasn't talking about that". Logistics are a huge part of it. Many runs have failed because they got some logistics wrong.

what motivates a person to run hundreds of laps and rack up massive distances.

Like I said, and which you dismissed the first time round, you want to test the limits of your endurance without being hostage to variables you cannot change, like getting lost or running out of water miles away from the next aid station or having to bail because your headlamp stopped working. When running round a track all you have to worry about is yourself.

Note: This is all theoretical. I haven't actually run round a track for 24 hours yet.

BobMac104

It would be nice to see it competed at the highest standard.

people talk about logistics for ultra running but if it was turned into an olympic/world championship event I am sure this could be resolved by just running the marathon circut 4 times or something. I know it would play havoc with the host city for a whole day but if it was started at the same time as the marathon and kept goin then it would be over in 12 hours.

It would be great to see what times could be achieved within a few years.

Krusty_Clown

RoyMcC wrote: »

I'm not sure people had more free time way back when, more that the vast majority of the male adult population had long and hard manual jobs.

That was the point I was trying to make (obviously poorly). Way back when, most people had little free time as manual labour and 12-15 hour days were the norm. These days, most people typically work 7-10 hour days, so ultra training is far more achievable.

RoyMcC

Probably a bit too late to start training, and you'll struggle to get a hotel room now, but worth thinking about for next year. Jersey's first ultra, a flippin' tough 48-ish miles. http://www.runjersey.co.uk/#/round-the-rock-ultra/4550317144

nerraw1111

A very entertaining account of an ultra marathon from an unlikely source. The guy behind the very funny oatmeal web comic ran the 50 mile White Water Ultra.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/ultramarathon

Read through some of the reader's comments, some of the medals they desigend are fantastic.

Enduro

Jeeze... I leave the internet for a few days and a thread like this develops! I'm glad it got popped onto the front page with that last post.

There's an awful lot of good answers posted in here, and an awful lot of pure BS assertions that show up a high degree of ignorance on some poster's behalf.

I'm going to post some responses in here on the basis of my own background as someone who (1) runs ultras (2) runs them quite fast, up to international level (3) has run multiple different types of ultras, including 24 hours and mountainous trail and NON-trail ultras (4) can be pretty competitive at the shorter stuff too and (5) does other sports which make all of the above relatively easy, if we were to do the longer = harder comparisons

so anyway, starting with the OP...

Anyone who runs these can they tell me why???

Why not? Why run any distance? stupid question IMHO. You see runners puking after making a huge effort in sprint distance races. Do you ask the same question of them?

I always find it funny when I hear friends talking about this "Dean Karnezes guy and his incredible running achievements....he must be the greatest runner of all time sure".

That is funny, but not for the reasons you think, but rather as menoscemo points out for the simple reason that he's not a particularly good runner. There are several posters in this forum who I reckon would be well able to beat him.

I hear a lot of ultrarunners eating pizza, McDonalds and other ****e when they compete. So my question is are the majority of them even running?

When I run 24 hour races well I get pretty close to 10km/h pace over the entire distance. So you tell me, is that a running pace or not?

There are two ways to get better:

1) Go Long
2) Go faster

And there is a 3rd way... do both!

This is where I would have to disagree. Ultra's are relatively recent and are a minority area of a minority sport. Many many more people are running 5k's and records have been consistently coming down for years.

I would argue Bekeles 12:37 is far closer to the limits of human performance than any ultra WR.

Its the same reason why if Ireland won a medal in Archery at next years Olympics you probably could not class it at the same level of achievement as winning a medal in the 1500m.

Hardly a word of that that isn't pure rubbish. If ignorance is bliss you must be in Nirvana. Plenty of reponses have already pointed out the flaws in your statements, but really, would you not at least do some research before posting up the first bit of nonsense that comes into your head?

There's no money to be made in ultra's, if there was you'd see records fall very quickly, the Africa's would be all over them.

While I agree that if there was money in it the standards overall would shoot up, I'm not so sure that records would fall as easily as you think. Take a look at the 24 hour record and see how far out it is from what anyone else has acheived. It will not be easy for anyone to break that record. Especially since good marathon running doesn't necessarily translate to good ultra running beyond the "speedster" events like 100k to the more "endurance" events like 24 hours and beyond. (Kouros has argued that 100km isn't really an ultra because its a speed event that doesn't really require endurace).

It would be nice to see it competed at the highest standard.

It is. A quick google would have told you that. There are world championships in 50km, 100km, 24hours, and in ultra trail (which was in Connemara last month, as it happens). I've competed twice in the ultra trail and 4 times in the 24 hour world champs.

The logistics for these events vary somewhat, but the field for these is too large for a track so they are generally done on larger street circuits (bar the trail, obviously!), which in my experience have ranged from about 1km to 3.5km in length. I know that for 100km a 10km ciruit in the Netherlands gets used quite a lot.


On the why run laps of a 400m track for 24 hours as opposed to point to point...

logistics do indeed play a large practical role, for all of the reasons well guessed above.

There is also the same reason why 10km runners would run on a track rather than a road... its purer, its more condusive to getting good times/distances etc.

A subtler one, but a huge one from my experience, is that it far more competitive. If you enjoy the racing and competitive aspect of running then the track is the best arena for 24 hour running. You can see everyone all the time, and tactical games play out much more directly. It's much easier to work out pacing and strategy, both on a pre-planned and ad-hoc basis. I have a big preference for running 24 hours on the track to over longer road circuits. Really, you have to experience both to truely form a good opinion, as none of this was clear to me before I experienced it all. It isn't actually an ordeal to run on the track as opposed to a larger circuit. Quite the reverse in my experience.

Comparing off-road point to point races to 24 hour track races is apples and oranges really. Like comparing a 10km track race to an IMRA run. Each have their merits, and each are thoroughly enjoyable for different reasons (And each also has their own inherent difficulties as well, of course). I wouldn't choose one over the other, when there is nothing to stop you doing both!

RoyMcC

Enduro wrote: »

There's an awful lot of good answers posted in here, and an awful lot of pure BS assertions that show up a high degree of ignorance on some poster's behalf.

Good post Mr Enduro. However the above is a bit harsh. People are allowed to venture their thoughts and a point of view from their own perspective. The role of respected and more experienced people like yourself is to point out the flaws in those thoughts and assertions. That way we all learn. No one would post here if they thought that they would be attacked for saying something that others might consider wrong.

Enduro

I see what you're saying. That was a bit strong alright. At the very least I should have said "one or two posts show up a high degree of ignorance", and those are the ones I quoted in my reply. And by that I'm reffering to straightforward factual incacuracies that could be avoided by doing a tiny bit of research before posting. I agree entirely with you on differences of opinions... that's what makes for debate here. I wasn't trying to assert to anyone who holds a different opinion to me is ignorant, and if it came accross that way then I apologise!

And on one of those factual points, the point of ultra running being a recent phenomenon... it's about as recent as the marathon. I.e. it goes back into ancient greek history. The sparthatalon is a recreation of an ancient greek run, in eaxtly the same way that the marathon is. Doesn't take long to find this kind of info (including here on boards, where there is an account of Wondedknee's run last year).

Nermal

Enduro wrote: »

Hardly a word of that that isn't pure rubbish. If ignorance is bliss you must be in Nirvana. Plenty of reponses have already pointed out the flaws in your statements, but really, would you not at least do some research before posting up the first bit of nonsense that comes into your head?

The only thing in his post that was in any way arguable was the contention that ultra-running is relatively recent. Records in ultra events would tumble if they were competed at near the level of established distances.

That's not saying that it's not hard, or that the current records are totally unimpressive. But they're not in the same league as records in events that literally millions of people compete in.

kev.f

ok. this could be getting way to techicnal but here it goes (robing most of this and condencing it ALOT)

which did we evolve to do. run short distances fast(sprint) or run long distances slow(endurance)? to answer that question we have to ask why did we come up off all fours and onto 2 legs? by all rights we shoudn't have. we lost trust, stabality and aerognamincs. just look at practly every other animal ,tigers, hourses, cheeats ect... all on 4 legs and all have tails. we simply cant compete in a race...

so does this mean that we were ment to walk? looking at 'walking' animals like pigs and chimps we see that that they dont have anachilles tendon. we do. they have flat feet with toes that are long and splayed (good for walking) whereas we have arched feet with short straight toes (good for running). (there is more examples but cant be bothered go into them partly becouse i dont really understand them) so this means that we were ment to run. which is seemingly at odds. we are slower than everyother 'runner' and whimper than most of the walkers.

so why did we evolve in a seemingly weaker creature? how did our hunter garther ansesters get there food? this is before any type of weapons... how could we catch an antholope that could just sprint away?

bear with em. this is getting me where.
the answer: human running is about going far. not fast.

prove it:

we are the only mamals that cool ourselfs down by sweating. just look at your dog after running. it will pant. it can not pant while it is running however so by extension it will keep getting hotter till it stops to pant. once an animal reaches a certain tempture it will colapase from exutation. humans however can cool down while running by sweating. so as long as we keep on sweating we can keep on going.

so how did we catch that antholope?
they are faster at a gallopeing/sprinting but, here is the kicker, we are faster at jogging/trotting. so we simply ran the antholope to death
scare the antholope and he will sprint away but if we just keep jogging at it is will keep on sprinting and after bout 20kilometer it will collapse. easy meat then

so we were designed to run marthons... happy days

robbed all this off a book called 'born to run' and would love to hear all of yer opinions on its theory.


oooooooppppppppppssssssss. didn't realise i wrote that much and didn't think it would get that off topic. sorry for the rant

TheRoadRunner

@ enduro. Reread my post. 10k per hour is running. I was talking in general terms. Would you normally consume fast food during one of your events. I'm guessing not as you are running.

@ kev.f. The evolution of running/walking is poorly represented in born to run.

A bit off topic but is there world record for 24 hr walking? Not race walking just up tempo walking.