Trailer Trash

12

Finding Your Distance (Read 64 times)


Occasional Runner

    I was evaluating historical running performances of a friend of mine, then I took the time to really reflect on my own. This got me to thinking about limits on versatility in running. All running, not just trail or ultra running.

     

    Evidence, suggests (yes...there are exceptions) that we are probably going to perform well at certain race distances, and not so well at others.

     

    A (nameless) friend of mine is a star at 50k and 50M races. On most 50 mile courses, he's good for a sub 6 hour time and he has a lot of trophies to back that up. But he really spends a lot of time training for his 100 mile races and he has a stack of DNF's to show for it. He also has a few good races, but even though he's a good friend, I would never bet on him finishing any given 100 miler.

     

    Conversely, I'm a terrible 50k and 50M runner. I have a handful of strong races at those distances but I'm a top 20 guy more often than a top 5 guy. I recognize this about myself and I put my efforts on longer races, which is where I think I have a better chance for success.

     

    In my opinion, the lure of being known as an accomplished 100 mile runner is pulling people toward that goal, and frankly, many of them may be missing the opportunity to shine. They may be forsaking genuine talent in favor of a sense of glory or accomplishment at a race distance that they may never excel at.

     

    What say you? Do you believe we are engineered (through training, diet, genetics, etc.) to perform at our best at a specific distance, or do you think it's possible to train in such a way as to be great at all distances?

     

    Also, is there too much emphasis on 100 mile finishes and not enough emphasis on quality performance?

     

    Just some random thoughts. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

    LB2


      I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that individuals excel at certain distances over others. I don't have a distance that I feel competitive at, but I sure do like the longer stuff, 100K to 100 mile. I feel comfortable after I get past 40 miles, usually. And that is really why I do the few races I do. I just like being out there for a long time, dealing with issues that I feel like have a solution. Sometimes, I find the solution to the issue, and sometimes, I don't. But I will keep on trying.

      LB2


      Occasional Runner

        I'm not exclusively talking about "competitive" distances, I guess. Just the physically ideal distance for the individual.

         

        To be honest, I'm probably most competitive at the distance between my couch and beer fridge.

        LB2


          I put "competitive" in there as an implied disclaimer to illustrate that I am aware that I am not competitive at races where real competitive runners are racing. But, when I think or talk about these things, I usually think about those competitive folks who win or place high at some distances regularly but much lower (although higher than I would) at other distances. For example, Hal Koerner is a very good 100 mile mountain runner, but I have looked at some other distances he has run that were less than that where his performance was less than dominating. I can't seem to search anything on ultrasignup right now for some reason, so I don't have the specific races to cite. Granted, sometimes people have bad days, but generally, his name is going to come up in any conversation about any race in which he is participating, especially at 100 miles. The 100 mile distance is what he is known for. However, someone like Ian Sharman (forget about the fact that we both handed him his ass at Rocky Raccoon in 2012...) seems to be pretty darned good at just about any distance he runs. In that respect, I think Sharman might be a rarity in that he seems to be able to just run fast at every distance.

           

          And, if anyone who reads the parenthesis up above and doesn't get it, I am joking about that part.

          LB2

          FreeSoul87


          Runs4Sanity

            I can't really speak from experience yet, as my longest run is 15 miles lol but my reason for desiring the 100 mile distance is the sense of adventure, challenge, the impossible, and testing my limits. Of course I have a gradual plan, going to marathon, then 50k and so on, not straight to the 100 miler. I am a competitive person, but when it comes to running I have to be honest........... I will never be as good or come close to the lead packers in races of any distance, for me it is mostly all about the adventure of it.

            *Do It For Yourself, Do It Because They Said It Was Impossible, Do It Because They Said You Were Incapable*

            PRs

            5k - 24:15 (7:49 min/mile pace) 

            10k - 51:47 (8:16 min/mile pace)

            15k -1:18:09 (8:24 min/mile pace)

            13.1 - 1:53:12 (8:39 min/mile pace)

             26:2 - 4:14:55 (9:44 min/mile)

            wcrunner2


            Are we there, yet?

              I don't think there's any doubt that each individual has a certain distance or small range of distances at which he or she would excel compared to other distances. The obvious and trivial example is a sprinter who will never excel at distance running to the same extent. I think there's ample evidence supporting that even when restricting the sample population to distance runners. This is one use of those race time calculators and the WMA age-grading tables. Excluding those who don't run enough to make valid comparisons between their 5K and marathon times, what I've observed is a consistent trend with any given individual's times to perform better at one end of the range. For some it's the longer distances, for others like me, it's the shorter distances. The AG ratings probably illustrate this best. In my case there's a steady decrease in the AG ratings of my PBs from the 800m to marathon, that despite having set most of those PBs when I was training 70 mpw.

               

              I can't say much about the emphasis on 100 mile finishes or quality performances, because I'm a newcomer to the ultra world. I've certainly had no pressure or push from the people I've met to run a 100-miler. I'm finding just finishing 12-hour races on my feet enough challenge at this point, though I would love to finally reach 50 miles in one of these races.

               2024 Races:

                    03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles

                    05/11 - D3 50K
                    05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour

                    06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.

               

               

                   

              TrailProf


              Le professeur de trail

                I don't think I have found my "ideal" distance yet.  I think I enjoy the 50k the most because it is a long enough run to enjoy it and short enough to be home at a decent time.  I want to someday achieve a 100 mile finish - probably more so to say I did it.  I don't see myself as an avid 100 miler.  At the rate things are going, who knows when I will be able to.

                 

                Having said all that, I am pretty sure I could beat most of you in a 100 yard or meter run.  After that, I am toast.

                 

                A few years ago I dialed in on half marathons and improved considerably over a two year stretch.  Who knows where that could have gone if I had not been ruined by trail running.  I don't necessarily miss it but at that time, it was the ideal distance for me.  The full marathon--not so much.

                 

                But like I said, the 50k distance (on trails)--or maybe clarify a run that is in the 4-8 hour range--is my favorite.

                My favorite day of the week is RUNday

                 

                 

                ilanarama


                Pace Prophet

                  I think it's going to be a combination of innate talent (genetics, fast vs slow twitch, build) and inclination.  If you don't really enjoy running long, you're not going to run long; if you don't like doing intervals you're probably not going to be a 5K specialist.  (But I expect both sides of the equation affect each other, that is, if you're more slow twitch you're going to avoid intervals, self-fulfilling prophecy etc.)

                  Gumby66


                    I agree, especially after my lousy 50k time in my last race. As said above there are two factors, what people's bodies are best designed for and what they like more (and are inclined to train properly for). Hard if not impossible to separate the two, though. There will be the exceptions, generalist who do well/enjoy multiple distances.

                     

                    Yes, I think the high DNF rate in 100's is largely a result of people who want to finish a 100 more than they want to properly train for it.


                    Occasional Runner

                      Yeah, for sure. And this is why the "easy" 100's have the same DNF rate as the "hard" 100's.

                       

                       

                       

                      Yes, I think the high DNF rate in 100's is largely a result of people who want to finish a 100 more than they want to properly train for it.

                      LB2


                         

                        Yes, I think the high DNF rate in 100's is largely a result of people who want to finish a 100 more than they want to properly train for it.

                         

                        I think you definitely touched on something right there. And I also think that what you and others said about training for what you like to do is also true. And I think it is combo of nature and nurture.

                        LB2

                        jamezilla


                        flashlight and sidewalk

                          Looking at field placement, I have had by best successes running shorter trail races (5k,10 mi, 1/2 marathon).  This is probably the distance that my training has allowed me to succeed in.  I don't feel that I've ever really been in 50k shape and I certainly wasn't in 50 mi shape when I ran Stone Mill.  I don't think the average runner really puts in the work to find out if their best distance is something longer than a marathon...it takes a pretty big resume to really know what your optimum distance is.

                           

                          **Ask me about streaking**

                           

                          wcrunner2


                          Are we there, yet?

                            I don't think the average runner really puts in the work to find out if their best distance is something longer than a marathon...it takes a pretty big resume to really know what your optimum distance is.

                            With the fascination and glamorization of the marathon and the fear or avoidance of high quality speed work, most long distance runners never train sufficiently well to even determine if the better distance for them is the 5K or the marathon. For those who do, there's usually a trend towards better performance at one end of the spectrum. The trend would or should indicate whether they are better suited for ultras than for marathon and below. Getting back to AG ratings, the AG ratings for my PBs drop from 81.9 for 800m to 75.2 for the HM before a significant drop to 71.4 for the marathon. There is one anomaly for 30K at 76.2 which indicates that I may never have run close to my real fitness level for the marathon.  The trend, though, shows a clear indication that I'm more a middle distance runner by nature than a long distance or ultra runner. My shift to ultra running has more to do with my changing goals, the appeal of a race where age isn't as much of a factor, and the friendliness of ultra community itself.

                             2024 Races:

                                  03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles

                                  05/11 - D3 50K
                                  05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour

                                  06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.

                             

                             

                                 


                            Uh oh... now what?

                              I was never, and will never be, great at any distance. The mental distractions probably prevented me from getting into what might, on a kind and generous day, be called a maximum effort.

                               

                              Genetics probably would say I should not run long distances, but I found that I loved them. Laziness and fear kept me from running fast, but the love of being out there let me run comfortably at a variety of distances.

                               

                              As the "just finish, don't care about time" mantra kicked in, I think the commitment to the training needed to run (terrain being given due respect) went away. I think quality training (whatever is needed to run any ultramarathon) has been almost abandoned----crews and pacers are now common at the 50k distance; run/walk ratios are analyzed for flat courses when training to run should be the goal.

                              Good topic, Kelly -- would be a great conversation on a long run or, even better, around a campfire.


                              Occasional Runner

                                I was never, and will never be, great at any distance.

                                 

                                John- You once ran a 6:31 at La Grizz 50M and came in 2nd place. Whatever happened before, or since isn't important. On that day, you were a great runner at the 50 mile distance.

                                12