?
?
10.5 seconds
Running or walking for 18 hours is much harder, come on. A person's hardest sprint in 10.5 seconds is over in 10.5 seconds. What's so hard about that?
The most I've ever run is 4.5 hours in a training run non-stop, fairly easy, and it was a bigger mental challenge than sprinting for 10.5 seconds.
bobbybbbb wrote:
Running or walking for 18 hours is much harder, come on. A person's hardest sprint in 10.5 seconds is over in 10.5 seconds. What's so hard about that?
The most I've ever run is 4.5 hours in a training run non-stop, fairly easy, and it was a bigger mental challenge than sprinting for 10.5 seconds.
Just because it takes longer doesn't make it harder.
Anyone can run their hardest sprint for 10.5 seconds. They may cover 100 feet instead of 100 meters, but it is about effort.
Only a small percentage of people can actually run non-stop for 18 hours.
btdt wrote:
Anyone can run their hardest sprint for 10.5 seconds. They may cover 100 feet instead of 100 meters, but it is about effort.
Only a small percentage of people can actually run non-stop for 18 hours.
+1
999x wrote:
?
That's a trick question! The 10.5 is more difficult .....for the vast majority of humans (99%+)....cause hardly anyone can do the 10.5 no matter how hard they try!
walking for 18hours non stop would be difficult never mind running/jogging. You need to make a more realistic comparison like 5minute jog
Running hard 10.5 seconds after running easy for 18 hours
.subfive wrote:
999x wrote:?
That's a trick question! The 10.5 is more difficult .....for the vast majority of humans (99%+)....cause hardly anyone can do the 10.5 no matter how hard they try!
Oh, vastly more people could do the easy run for 18 hours....
Run hard? When I'm hard I never run for 10.5 seconds. I just work my biceps.
subfive wrote:
subfive wrote:.That's a trick question! The 10.5 is more difficult .....for the vast majority of humans (99%+)....cause hardly anyone can do the 10.5 no matter how hard they try!
Oh, vastly more people could do the easy run for 18 hours....
The OP never specified distance, just duration and intensity. Of course most people can't do 10.5 in the 100m.
If it comes down to just running as hard as you can for 10.5 versus running easy for 18 hours, the 18 hours is harder. Ever try running just 6 hours? Hard.
That is a difficult question. The training benefits of sprints are well documented. If you wanna get ripped, there is no way around sprints.
Now for the ultra long run, you have to eat absurd amounts of calories and especially fast acting sugars, that will train your body to demand even more sugar. And you end up....SKINNY FAT.
Now that we got that out of the way, I would argue that running for 18 h is just stupid. Why would anyone do that?
So the sprint would win, anyway.
subfive wrote:
999x wrote:?
That's a trick question! The 10.5 is more difficult .....for the vast majority of humans (99%+)....cause hardly anyone can do the 10.5 no matter how hard they try!
You are saying the vast majority of humans are incapable of running hard, even all out, for 10.5 seconds?
That isn't even long enough for pain to kick in and go full wuss. If you said 20-30s I would start to agree with you, and if you said 400m I definitely would. Not that many people have the mental discipline/desire to run hard for 400m once it starts to hurt.
It is harder to find the time to run for 18 hours.