In an ultramarathon, is it harder to run fast or slow?

[Steve P]

Recently I read Davy Crockett's race report on the Rocky Raccoon 100-mile race. http://www.crockettclan.org/blog/?p=169 He set a PR by almost 2 hours in that race. He said, "this was the best I had ever felt toward the end of a 100-mile race, yet this was the fastest I had ever run one. I was really convinced that running faster was a much easier and less painful experience than running much slower."

So I was wondering what you ultramarathoners think about his statement. Obviously, there's a point at which you run too fast and can't sustain the pace. But is it easier to run faster than to run slower? If you run faster, it's more taxing on you, but you also cover the distance more quickly and are on your feet a shorter time and have to face the weather a shorter time. So how do you find that sweet spot? Do you have to run 30 ultras like Davy to find it?

[Paul Petersen]

I haven't ran an ultra, been when I was out there watching the Rocky 100 I had a similar thought, that's it's probably easier to run fast. The people running faster are out there for a much shorter time (less exposure), take fewer strides, etc. They are also more fit, which means that running comes easier and more efficiently to them. Kind of circular in some regards.

[Jon Allen]

I've only finished one, but here are some of Davy's words from one of his slowest ultra finishes ever, the 2009 Bighorn 100.  http://www.crockettclan.org/blog/?p=155

"I finished in a terribly slow 33:21, I believe it was my slowest 100-mile finish ever!  I now have even more deep respect for back-of-the-pack runners.   I commented that 33 hours was just way too long to be running.  Finishing in 24-27 hours is much easier."

[Sasha Pachev]

My easiest marathon was the one that took the least time. My hardest was the one that took the most. Moral of the story I take from that - work on improving your race pace.

[Maurine Lee]

I have no input on what it would like to be a fast runner, but it gets awful tiring running for hours on end and you have to eat and hydrate more when you are a back of the packer.  It is also somewhat demoralizing when you realize you are only halfway and the leaders have already finished.

[dave rockness]

I wonder how long Ryan Hall can maintain marathon pace?  I'd be shocked if he could run his average pace for 3:10 (bq time).  My frustration in running my first marathon was that I could keep an 8:15-8:30 pace for three hours, but that would leave me with 40-45 minutes left to bonk miserably.  Could you imagine Hall having to run 5:40 pace for 3hrs 35min?  I know the ultra is a much different type of beast, but faster pace must help tremendously. 

[Sasha Pachev]

Josh Cox maintained 5:20 pace for 50 K last year (going through the finish line of the R&R marathon, and then going on to set the US 50 K record), and he is "only" a 2:13 guy. To Hall 5:40 is a jog. He probably could do it for three and a half hours without problems.

Speaking from personal experience. I've run extra distance after finishing a couple of all out marathons. In 2003 I went back to find my wife Sarah after finishing Top of Utah in 2:27. I did have a break to eat and for the media interviews, but around 3:10 from the race start I felt good, and started jogging back at around 7:30 - 8:00 pace without much difficulty. I found her at 22 (it took me 2 miles to get there via a shortcut, I also stood and waited there some time because I did not want to run too far), and finished the last 4 with her. By that time she was going 12:00, and it felt like 12:00 normally does to me.

In 2006 after finishing Ogden in 2:30 (totally all out, lost the first place and $550 by 33 seconds) I chatted for a few minutes (maybe 10) afterwards, then went back and found Cody about maybe 0.7 from the finish who was headed for 2:52. I was able to pace him through his kick at about 6:20 pace, and it felt hard. Then I went back again and met Dan. He was headed for 3:05. Since he had hit the wall pacing him was not too hard, he was going about 8:00. Then I went back and paced another friend (Eric) from 24 to the finish. He was headed for 3:47, and was going a bit slower than 9:00 by that point. I had the adrenaline going through me in his behalf and felt like I wanted to go much faster.

So at least for me running an all out marathon does not noticeably diminish my perception of effort and the capability to maintain the pace in the slower ranges for a few miles afterwards.

In 2007 Paul and Logan paced Jon in TOU to a 2:39. I asked Logan how he felt afterwards, he said his legs were not even sore.

So my conclusion is that somebody who runs 100+ miles a week consistently will not have a whole lot of issues up to 40 miles at a pace maybe 30 seconds slower than his all out marathon even though he may never go more than 20 in his long run. After that I do not know.

That said, the faster you are the closer you can push to your all out sprint pace in the marathon because you can rely on more powerful energy systems without the fear of them running out before you finish.

[dave rockness]

thanks Sasha...interesting insight.

[Davy Crockett]

Pretty funny, I'm getting quoted on this thread.  For me, a very slow 100 is much more painful mostly because of the time on the feet.  My feet can become so painful while out there for over 30 hours.  Other factors probably relate to stress on the body for all that time including all that time without sleep/rest.   All the walking.  The walking uses different muscles than running and I don't do a ton of walking training.   

With that said, I believe I usually recover much faster from a slower ultra (if it hasn't injured me).  Rocky Raccoon 100 this year was different.   I recovered very fast from that run even though I PR by two hours.  Go figure.  Factors that helped me recover fast:  Cool temperatures, no dehydration, good fueling, easy course.

[Steve P]

Davy, maybe if I ever run 100 miles in 21 hours, you'll quote my blog on here.