tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post5090489381298656572..comments2024-03-01T06:33:20.145-07:00Comments on The Running Man: So, Who Wins...the Fast Guy or the Mountain Guy?Wyatt Hornsbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14224514798393011001noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-85404840340287144132012-05-22T17:57:57.256-06:002012-05-22T17:57:57.256-06:00Steven: Good point. When I said "winning,&quo...Steven: Good point. When I said "winning," what I meant was winning between the two runners--not winning the race outright.<br /><br />WyattWyatt Hornsbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14224514798393011001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-6160558626795140492012-05-22T16:56:54.521-06:002012-05-22T16:56:54.521-06:00I hate to be pedantic but you answered a different...I hate to be pedantic but you answered a different question than you asked: "Who has the better shot at a top finish?" <br /><br />Speed guy will definitely edge mountain guy if he has a good day. But regarding the question you actually asked - Mountain guy may not win, but he'll still be up on the podium even if he has a bad day. Speed guy? Not so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-88044595671079024382012-05-21T16:05:06.103-06:002012-05-21T16:05:06.103-06:00Guy: Yes, I've read Carpenter's account (m...Guy: Yes, I've read Carpenter's account (many times). Living in Manitou Springs, he most likely logged a lot of miles on Pikes Peak, which had to help tremendously on Hope Pass and in other sections of Leadville.<br /><br />WyattWyatt Hornsbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14224514798393011001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-12809825313351911642012-05-21T12:36:38.208-06:002012-05-21T12:36:38.208-06:00Here's one answer to this question: An excerpt...Here's one answer to this question: An excerpt from an article describing Matt Carpenter's record smashing run at Leadville: "Most ultramarathon runners focus on endurance by running as much as 50 miles on weekends. Carpenter chose to focus on speed. He never ran farther than 25 miles a day but did plenty of short, fast workouts. The training paid off." Here's a link to the full article: http://www.skyrunner.com/story/2005l3.htmGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11336991906556722393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-19525741071206467662012-05-21T10:42:18.556-06:002012-05-21T10:42:18.556-06:00Interesting discussion, Wyatt.
I'm surprised ...Interesting discussion, Wyatt.<br /><br />I'm surprised you don't really discuss nutrition. I would guess that the runner who perfects race-like nutrition is going to have the better outcome. <br /><br />For example, the "fast guy" can probably do a 20 miler in ~3 hours or less, and maybe he routinely only eats a couple of gels and gets by on 20-30 oz of water. If he never trains himself to eat and drink more, he's likely to have major problems in a 100. On the other hand, if he's making an effort to consume a lot of calories and fluids on these 3 hour runs, he's likely to be more successful.<br /><br />The same goes for the mountain guy. Because he's doing longer (4-6 hours) runs, he probably gets more practice with nutrition. But it's still something to focus on. When I first started doing 4-5 hour runs, I found myself not really eating anything after about 3 hours or so. I could make it through the end of a run, but I was likely in such a depleted state that I wouldn't be able to continue for much longer. Now I try to focus on eating as if I'm going to be running for much longer. Even on a 2 hour run I think "how much would I eat in the first two hours of a 6 hour run?".<br /><br />just my $.02.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00657860857955654036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-56750196248139426082012-05-20T09:31:35.311-06:002012-05-20T09:31:35.311-06:00Wyatt,
Although either of your hypothetical well-...Wyatt,<br /><br />Although either of your hypothetical well-trained "runners" may perform better than the other on a given day, the one who lives and trains in the mountains will likely achieve a greater fraction of his/her potential in mountain races. This is both a cardiovasular and a skeletomuscular issue, not a desire or drive issue. Intensity training sessions are fundamental to attaining peak performance and thus can be considered separately. The "mountain dude", although going slower on average may, in fact, experience higher average intensity training. Structuring the intensity correctly is the important thing, whether they be track sessions, hill repeats, or whatever.<br /><br />Reflecting on my personal experience from years of competition in endurance sport that involves mountains, a once a week excursion will not allow for optimal preparation for races in the mountains. There may be some exceptional examples but I would argue that regular (meaning many times per week) training sessions in the mountains are the basis for excellence on race day in the mountains. <br /><br />It is a tough situation for those who want to race in the mountains but who live in relatively flat areas and/or are location-constrained by career and family choices. I lived that for a long time. When I first moved to the mountains the reality of the training impact was visceral.3viumhttp://itsallaboutthevertical.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-22392289576704496132012-05-20T06:41:05.677-06:002012-05-20T06:41:05.677-06:003vium: All great points. In the original post, how...3vium: All great points. In the original post, however, I mentioned that the fast guy does do a mountain run about once a week. The big difference is that he doesn't do mountain runs everyday like the mountain guy does. I absolutely agree that, if you don't do any mountains, then you're at a huge disadvantage in a mountain race. That said, I also think that just trail running makes a difference, even if it's in a hilly area. But, yes, you have to have experience on big climbs to excel in mountain races.<br /><br />WyattWyatt Hornsbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14224514798393011001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-25194310254462132562012-05-19T21:16:20.861-06:002012-05-19T21:16:20.861-06:00I will contend that you have to do the vertical. T...I will contend that you have to do the vertical. There is no substitute. It will prepare you and make you stronger for a true mountain ultra. See the following interview with Max King and at about 3:45 he speaks to how doing the vertical has made a big difference in his strength as a runner... this from one of the fastest guys out there:<br /><br />http://www.irunfar.com/2012/05/max-king-pre-2012-zegama-marathon-interview.html<br /><br />Also just look to the best in the sport- where do they live and train: in the mountains, not on the flats or at a track. This is not to say that flat tempo runs are of no value or that regular track sessions will yield no positive effects, just that there really is no substitute for the training effect yielded by a regular 4 mile climb from say 7000 ft to 9000 ft. <br /><br />As was clearly demonstrated last weekend at Transvulcania, "the race was made on the ups and won on the downs". Training without significant vertical will help with neither and lead to non-optimal performance.3viumhttp://itsallaboutthevertical.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-20037397758895833932012-05-19T14:58:01.551-06:002012-05-19T14:58:01.551-06:00I wish I could make my way to Leadville to check i...I wish I could make my way to Leadville to check it out for myself.<br /><br />One of these days......Cory Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04211348156621152998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-41527443867694203072012-05-18T17:20:42.528-06:002012-05-18T17:20:42.528-06:00My limited experience has demonstrated it's ea...My limited experience has demonstrated it's easier to get used to altitude than it is to get fast. I agree.Trent (Scott) Lorcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16838546029305513134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-60583093262285597552012-05-18T15:18:19.383-06:002012-05-18T15:18:19.383-06:00I would be interested in Lucho's take.I would be interested in Lucho's take.Shad Mikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849189624822351849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4979545333979747089.post-48073363483746089232012-05-18T14:03:24.561-06:002012-05-18T14:03:24.561-06:00ha, tough to be wrong when you support both traini...ha, tough to be wrong when you support both training approaches and ultimately decide the best answer is to marry the two approaches. <br /><br />but you did say the faster approach is slightly better for leadville. who knows. i think the base (both genetic and years of training) play heavily into this. i also think age plays a big part. if you're older, speedwork coupled with the mileage you need to log won't allow you to recover properly to gain the benefit from such a combo. if you've pushed your endurance for years, but haven't worked on your pace, throwing speedwork in will show big rewards at first. but over time, improvements even out.<br /><br />i think if you think about this approach over a multitude of years, the guy who spends more time on his feet ends up being better trained. in a shorter timeframe, with the prior elements controlled (age, base), the speed work pays bigger dividends.erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02002087469616786196noreply@blogger.com