Note to Reader: This is the fourth article in a series that challenges various assumptions in ultrarunning. In some cases, we may find that certain assumptions are correct; while in others we may find a new and better viewpoint. Please contribute your insights in the comments section. Enjoy!
Runner #1 and Runner #2 are both training for a fast time at the Leadville Trail 100 but take different approaches in their preparation--mostly because of varying interests, time availability, and strengths.
Both runners live in the Denver area. Both are the same age and gender (male). And both are about equally experienced.
Runner #1 runs 100 miles a week in 13 hours, averaging about 7.5 miles/hour. He runs most of his miles on roads and smooth trails and gets to the mountains once a week for some quality climbing. Runner #1 also does very solid quality at the track and in his tempo runs and has excellent efficiency and leg turnover. He rarely does training runs over 3 hours (except in races) but has excellent daily consistency. He trains on parts of the Leadville course a few times during the summer.
Runner #2 also runs 100 miles a week, taking him usually 18 hours, for an average pace of about 5.5 miles/hour. He trains mostly on mountain trails, never goes to the track, and rarely does a tempo run except for some fast descents. Runner #2 isn't that fast but he's strong on the big climbs, pretty formidable on the downs, and an excellent hiker. He often does training runs of 4-6 hours on mountain trails and runs on the Leadville course a few times during the summer.
For Leadville, who's doing better training and has the better shot at a top finish...Runner #1 (the fast guy) or Runner #2 (the mountain guy)? And why?
18 comments:
#2
I assume you mean #2 is averaging approximately 5.5 miles/hour?
Whoever can comfortably consume the most calories/hour during the race wins!
(A tongue-in-cheek answer, to be sure, but in my experience proper nutrition/hydration management is right up there with average training speed. So, whoever has run the most 6+ hour runs has probably had to do more nutrition problem solving and has the edge in that department...)
Andy: Thanks for bringing that error to my attention. I just fixed it. Yes, nutrition makes a huge difference! Yiannis Kouros' ability to process calories in races is legendary.
Wyatt
I would say both training methods would work fine.
Paul Dewitt won Leadville ('03,'04) I believe on relatively low mileage and quality.
Krupicka won Leadville ('06, '07) on ridiculously high mileage.
Over-all their winning time were relatively close.
Who do you think trained better between the two?
If I had to put money down on a finisher I'd say runner number two. Runner number one might beat him back to TL or Fish even, but runner number two would have my vote to actually get the job done.
Gangels: I think both runners have valid approaches to 100s, particularly a runnable course like Leadville. If we were talking about Hardrock, then I'd go with Runner #2hands-down. But, with Leadville, I think both approaches have merit. I personally identify with Runner #1 more than Runner #2, but I have some of both in me.
Wyatt
I lean towards Runner #1. Honestly I think it comes down to who trains the hardest without getting injured. In this example "mountain trails" is pretty defuse, so it's hard to judge who is putting in most effort. If Runner #2 has alot of altitude in his training runs then I would bet on him, if not then Runner #1 should be the faster runner due to that he trains with more intensity.
Looking at your descriptions, runner #2 may not be "slower", he may just be traveling over more vert. Being "strong" on climbs is fast, at least in the mountains. Runner #2 may also subscribe to a Maffetone training regimen wherein he attempts to never exceed a certain HR range but is increasing his efficiency as he trains. Tempo runs and track workouts are not a part of his plan at the moment (although they may come later).
The primary thing here however is the vert (and specifically the vert on (and off) trail). In a challenging mountain trail ultra (HR, UTMB, SG, ZG, etc.) runner #2 will likely prevail, all other things being equal. There is no substitute for the vert, and is why nearly all of the top trail ultra runners live in or very near to mountains and train on them regularly.
I suggest the demonic off spring of runner 1 and 2.
I would like to say runner #2, as it sounds alot like my training and this will be my 1st attempt. I am using the Maffetone Method for training. Although at times its humbling to go so slow, I've learned its helped me from overtraining, injury and keeps my energy sustained over long periods of time.
Wyatt -
You have already received a fair amount of comments that highlight some quality answers.
I don't think there is any one right way to train for a 100. You have to make the most of the environment around you and you have to make the most of your abilities and your mental make up. For example, I don't live near trails with vertical that I can hit every day. So I have to find fitness gains using speed work instead of vertical work. And, quite frankly, I enjoy the competitive, watch-oriented nature of road running.
I think the factors that ultimately determine success lie outside of training: natural ability (V02 max), experience, nutrition and hydration, a plan to "run within yourself", etc...
I would say runner #2 is spending twice the amount of time on his feet, and so would *tend* to be the stronger runner.
But often times people can be lazy with their training and just do a bunch of long slow hikes and runs to gloss over the laziness.
So I think really it depends more on how they each maximize their time. TimW got 6th (I think?) a couple years ago at LT100 on 60 mpw. I believe PaulD was around the same mileage...he would spend lots of time actually practicing walking if I remember right.
PaulD had both 14:xx 5k speed and 14h 100 mile speed.
I'm still a noob at this sport, so don't have much experience to base this on, but I agree with AJ. In fact, I declare him the unofficial winner of the debate. And am writing his name in for President come November. And I don't even know him.
At Leadville- #1 wins. On a tougher "mountain" 100 without all those road miles, I'll take #2.
Question is? Who is drinking the finest brew when the shoes are off and the keg is tapped??
Answer: ME... You boys do the running and leave the drinking and Monday morning arm chair critic to yours truly!
#1 For reasons already stated...
Mark: I forgot to mention:
Runner #1 drinks Fat Tire.
Runner #2 drinks Dale's Pale Ale.
Both drink about one beer a day except on Sunday, when they usually have two.
:-)
Wyatt
In that case, the runner that prefers "DP" wins.
For Leadville, Runner No. 1 has a better shot at a big buckle (and is at a bigger risk for a DNF), and Runner No. 2 has a better shot at a little buckle.
Post a Comment