What are some things you DON'T like about ultra racing?

I've never run one but I'm thinking it would the part between the start and the finish.

I did an ultra with spouse in CO. We do a lot of hiking and used an ultra as an opportunity to spend the day outside, and have convenient aid stations. We took pictures, ran, jogged or walked as needed. Really a memorable day. We don’t consider ourselves as having ran an ultra. That wasn’t the point. We had a blast and have great memories from the day.

well,, wrote: You can say the same thing about climbing Mount Everest, skiing to the south pole (a friend of mine, Ola Skinnarmo, did), rowing across the atlantic etc. It´s a completely different activity. You can´t judge that by the same standards as standard distances. I also wonder why the Letsrun crowd seems so threatened by such a niche sport as ultra running.

Yea I think those things are weird and overrated for the most part too. Especially Everest where it's like a caravan of people going up on the good weather days and you have to stand in line basically at bits.

Back in the days of exploration it would be a little different. Still a bit crazy but at least you are going into uncharted territory. I have nothing against long hikes or outdoors adventures. Something like say, hiking the AT, is longer than ultramarathon and can be difficult logistically but that makes sense to me. It's an adventure and an experience. I feel like ultra running I wouldn't enjoy the scenery because it's a race. You can't take time to appreciate it and stop, fishin in a stream, chill at a campfire etc because you're in a race so theoretically every second counts.

It's a walking event. Ultras, that is.

I was "into" ultracycling some time back. Riding my bike 300, 600, 1000 kilometers. Those aren't bike rides, those are eating contests. Eat enough, and manage to be "comfortable" on a bike, and you can ride forever.

The appeal of shorter, faster events becomes obvious when you're out there for 12, 24, 36, 48 and more hours.

tarckstar wrote:

It's a walking event. Ultras, that is.

No it isn't.

San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:

Do not like,because a fast runner can lose due to poor course marking.

LOL this just happened at the Boise Marathon

track chick wrote:

It used to appeal to me but I've since revised my view. For me, I feel it would be unhealthy. What you mention about feeling awful a week later.

These events are seriously long. They're unusual in terms of the demands they place and the strain on your body is immense. It might be OK if you're highly seasoned and have run for many years and run a lot of marathons.

I've run many road marathons and sure, I felt obliterated after the race, but about an hour or two later I'd always awesome. Sure, my legs were fried for a few days after but I'd usually be 80-90% recovered a week later. After my 100-mile race I felt AWFUL, just totally destroyed, mentally checked out, angry, dirty, dehydrated. My sleep was absolute shyte for 3-4 days. A week later, my whole body still feels like it went through a shredder. I feel 20x worse than when I ran my first marathon on Hal Higdon Novice 1 15 years ago and nearly collapsed at the finish line LOL. I'm sure if I ran another 100 miler I'd do much better, but eff that. Twin Cities 2022 Marathon here I come!

The beards.

And that's just the women, don't get me going on the fellas.

The worse thing about them to me is the eye candy.

I mean my god talk about some beastly looking women. No beauty pageants were ever won amongst the womens ultra community.

A few things...

There is no "needing a crew". You don't. There are races that allow crews, and that's fine, I guess. I've done a a couple of organized 100-milers where crews were prevalent (Western States, etc), but you weren't required to have one, and numerous people didn't. Granted, things might have changed in the years since I competed in any official races, but I assume it's still the case that you can run without a crew or pacer.

"The races also look incredibly expensive". You may be correct - I don't know. I just looked up Western States' entry fee: $410. That actually seems reasonable to me, given all the logistics. It's a damned sight cheaper than doing an Ironman. The NYC marathon has a $295 entry fee, which I'm assuming is typical for major marathons. Taking only those 2 data points, and adding in the fact that most people who travel to major events are probably spending more than the entry fee on a plane ticket, accomodations, etc., ultras don't seem wildly expensive to me in comparison to other big races. Personally, I competed in a few dozen organized ultras back in the '80s and '90s, 50k to 100miles, and never paid more than $150 (usually more like $30 to $50).

"There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. I do wonder why the races people are into tend to be so long though - marathon and so on. I'd have thought something like 5K should really be way more popular." No offense, but this statement shows that you totally "don't get it" when it comes to one of the most common reasons people get into long-distance running. If long races are more popular (I'll take your word for it that they are), it's because they're hard, not despite the fact that they're hard. Some people (quite a few in fact) relish the challenge, and don't mind making themselves uncomfortable.

I am sometimes amazed that this is not almost a default position, but when I got into running in high school, I quickly became enamored with 2 major goals. One was to see how fast I could run the various standard distances in comparison to others, and the other was to see how far I could run - how long could I keep going, how long could I resist the urge to stop? When I found out that people actually ran 100-mile races, I was amazed, and thought they must be the most amazing athletes (clearly, this was long before LetsRun.com messageboards and the associated antipathy towards all things ultra-related). I later found out that it truly doesn't take any rare ability to run 100 miles - and that made it even cooler in a way. It was an achievable goal for most sufficiently determined people. And I'll tell you, in my time as a runner, I've gotten a huge kick out of a number of things that would be considered relatively modest accomplishments for a male: breaking 5 in the mile, later breaking 10 for 2 miles, running a marathon in sub-6-minute mile pace, but truly, just finishing a 100-miler was right up there. Racing a 100-miler and doing fairly well might have been the pinnacle. All the ultra-haters on LRC have no clue.

why don't you wrote:

I know a guy who trained 8 months for a 100 mile race run only to DNF at mile 87 with cramps and violent diarrhea. My stomach was highly unstable miles 70-90.

I agree, it seems dangerous. To each his own, but it seems to me that you’re risking your long-term health for that one race. I mean, I have read some ultramarathoners emerge from that training permanently damaged and unable to exercise for any length of time.

*Some* of the people who participate. Hefty people who jog and walk in the woods all day as an excuse to eat and drink the entire time--and then call themselves athletes--are not my favorites.

I'm not particularly proud of having that attitude. It's honest, though.

7ieie5 wrote:

*Some* of the people who participate. Hefty people who jog and walk in the woods all day as an excuse to eat and drink the entire time--and then call themselves athletes--are not my favorites.

I'm not particularly proud of having that attitude. It's honest, though.

OK, I'm not saying this never happens (I'm familiar with "Fat Girl Running" for example, although I'd be reluctant to criticize harshly), but I can honestly say that in the few dozen organized ultras I ran, I didn't see a single person I would characterize as hefty. I mean, come one, it's got to be pretty rare. There are plenty of ultra participants who are not particularly fast or athletic, maybe even not particularly fit sometimes, but saying that hefty ultrarunners who call themselves athletes are what annoys you is sort of like saying what bugs you about surfers is the pale, morbidly obese, racist ones - a few may well exist, but they are a distinct minority from a statistical standpoint.

Besides, is what you spoke of any different than regular running, where half the field of a 5k road race may take over 35 minutes to finish, and then dive headfirst into the refreshments afterwards?

Agree that ultrarunning beyond 50 miles is a very different game than marathon running, or even non-extreme 50 mile races where the winners can finish under 8 hours.

I do not like it that stomach/GI issues frequently play a big part in results. I guess it may be possible to train and experiment with different nutrition and hydration strategies to avoid stomach/GI issues (its another variable factor in the game), but it still can be a crap shoot. How do you train to perform better while nauseous and/or vomiting?

The time investment to train properly is a negative. Hard to justify. Its very selfish especially if other people depend on you for other things.

I question the long term healthiness and sustainability of doing many long ultras for years and years. You can wear out knee cartilage and its hard to repair or replace. There may be irreversible systemic changes due to repeated stress of this nature. No animal would willingly run for 50 miles or more (although few animals continuously run for one mile...).

It is environmentally responsible to run so much that you consume three or more times the amount of food the average person does each day? Wear out a dozen (or more) pairs of non-recyclable petrochemical based shoes each year? Regularly drive significant distances alone in a car to train or race on trails, in the mountains, in the hills?

There are many ultrarunners who do not know how to (or will take the time to) responsibly poop in the woods.

So what you're saying, basically, is that people should train like you do, because what you do is smart, reasonable, healthy, and good for the environment, but anything beyond that is dangerous? Well, way to keep an open mind.

- why does it bother you if fueling plays a part in the results? For one thing, it plays an important part in elite marathon results too. Also, in a typical standard-distance race such as a 10k, a really good performance requires putting up with a great deal of discomfort. So, "regular" discomfort is good, but discomfort that stems from fueling issues is bad?

- so ultra runners are "selfish" because their running takes up so much time? What about a track or cross-country team that travels all over the region competing at meets and is frequently gone for a couple of days? What about random citizens who travel to Boston or NY or Chicago just to run a marathon - aren't they being just as selfish?

- are ultrarunners that much more injury-prone than "regular" runners? And as far as "no animal would willingly run 50 miles", well...a) so what?, b) that's not true; c) if it was true, that would just make people want to do it more; d) other things non-human animals don't do include, among many things: the Tour de France, climb Mt Everest, go scuba-diving, go hot-air ballooning, design and build rockets to fly to the moon and back, play baseball, basketball, football, golf, tennis....

- so ultrarunners are environmentally irresponsible because they may eat a lot to fuel their runs, and wear out a lot of shoes? Are you also mad at all the elite runners who train 100mpw for much of the year (i.e. more than the great majority of ultrarunners), unnecessarily increasingly their caloric needs while burning through shoes? What about non-runners who, for example, take a vacation flight from the US to Paris or Australia or whatever? Their environmental footprint must dwarf that of a typical ultrarunner.

- "There are many ultrarunners who do not know how to (or will take the time to) responsibly poop in the woods." Seriously? Yeah, I guess you're right. That's a massive problem that actually exists. Just today, when walking down the sidewalk, I stepped in ultrarunner poop, slipped, and cracked my skull.

I don't 'not get it' just because I have a different opinion to you. I don't think it's logical that the marathon is pretty much the most popular distance, the race people aim for and so on. That's just my opinion, you have yours, but it's nothing to do with lack of understanding or experience. I raced at a relatively high level for years (top 10, UK).

I'd have thought the 5k would be a more popular aim than a marathon because looking at the population, especially charity runners (the majority of racers now) they end up injured and discouraged. If you take someone who has been sedentary til 40, office job, doesn't walk anywhere, then their first race is a marathon (which is something I've increasingly seen) you're asking for problems. Also, a 5K can be equally hard when it's raced correctly. I don't like the viewpoint that the marathon is the ultimate goal, some kind of pinnacle of achievement, when tbh the 5K is most likely more healthy for the majority of new runners and also is seen as a lesser accomplishment by a lot of people, which is unfair.

What is it about ultra runners being so butthurt so easily. I run marathons and if someone said something like "running marathons sucks" i wouldn't give two fonks. But anytime you mention that ultrarunning sucks you gett a bunch of butthurt snowflakes

Yeah, it's wild that people get irritated when you say their hobby sucks, isn't it.