Hacker News Reader

This is a gnarly run. Almost 7000 ft of climbing (he gives the value in m, but all my reference points are in feet). It appears he was not auto-pausing, but did stop quite a bit. The time spent moving was 5:49. His pace, excluding the time stopped, was 11:12 min/mi. With the elevation gain, this is most definitely running.

To a decent runner that is nearly walking though. A record road race marathon pace is ~4:45 min miles. A slightly above average runner can do say 8 min miles over 26.2 miles on flats, which is only a titch under the 50k of this race.

Trail races are slower, and 7000 feet is a decent amount of climbing.. but he was in no danger of setting any land speed record. 15 min miles is not that much faster than walking.

So this proves you can speed-walk an ultra in a fasted state. Which is cool and shows how strong our bodies are. scott jurek is amazing at ultras, and a vegan - but he definately eats and runs off sugar.

pneumatics corrects me and says his actual moving pace was 11:12 min/mi. This is a pretty good pace, given the terrain, and far beyond speed walking.

I've run everything from flat, paved marathons to alpine mountain ultras. The paces are totally different. I'm going to be running a technical ultra a good 3-4 minutes/min slower than I'd run a flat road marathon.

50k in 7:45 is 15 minute mile pace (14 min 58 second to be precise).

I don't know what this moving pace thing is, if you choose to take a 45 minute break that still counts on the clock.

So at best, his 15 minute technical ultra translates into a 11 min mile road race, which is below average.

> A slightly above average runner can do say 8 min miles over 26.2 miles on flats

I make that a 3:30 marathon which I would suggest is rather more than "slightly above average" - you'd be in the first 25% male finishers at London 2015, for example.

I consider 25th - 40th percentiles as slightly above average... as many many of those people in your race are running their first and only marathon. Of people who do at least 1 marathon a year, I don't think you will find a 3:30 marathon much past the middlepoint. Not even close to an open BQ time for example.

While your intuition here may well be valid, to an outside observer it looks like you're cherry picking numbers without justification. Why 25th-40th percentiles? Do we know the distribution of first-and-only marathon runners to repeat runners or is this a pure intuition? If the latter I would be concerned about the flaws that exist in human thinking when it comes to generalizing over groups.

> Why 25th-40th percentiles

Why not? Someone wanted to quantify "slightly faster than average", so I made up some percentiles. I don't think there is a scientific definition of "slightly faster than average" so I think I can do this. You could I suppose counter with you think it means "35th-49th percentiles" which is valid but doesn't really change the argument too much.

> Do we know the distribution of first-and-only marathon runners to repeat runners or is this a pure intuition?

Just intuition. It would be a tricky thing to survey, as you would need to wait for all current people who have ran exactly 1 marathon to die, to confirm they do not indeed run more .

> Do we know the distribution of first-and-only marathon runners to repeat runners

I did look for those stats for London but I couldn't find anything relevant - I'd assume they collect that information on the entry form but it's possible they don't or just don't care to publicise it later.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/201...

> The average finishing time globally for 26.2 miles in 2014 was 4hr 21min 21sec – about 40 seconds faster than the average for the period 2009-2013. Men’s average finishing time was 4hr 13min 23sec, while women’s was 4h 42min 33sec – 29min 10sec slower.

I'd suggest your 3:30 was still definitely more than "slightly above average".

If you want to quibble about the median instead of the mean,

e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html

> In 2008, the median finishing time [for men] was 4:16, a pace of 9:46.

Which still puts 3:30 way above, I think.

Just as a point of reference I ran this 30k [1] (18.6 miles) at 8:38 pace vs. a flat road half marathon (13.1 miles) at 6:41 pace about 5 months later.

As you can see in this [2] it climbs from a low of 2500 feet to 3700 feet. I'd estimate 1500 feet total so much less than in the article.

I usually place in the top 5% of men in most races.

[1] http://www.othtc.com/ultra/course/Course.htm [2] http://www.othtc.com/ultra/course/ultra%20maps/30kprofile.jp...

> A slightly above average runner can do say 8 min miles over 26.2 miles on flats

What is it about the running community that makes them say ridiculous things like this?

The fastest average marathon pace I could find anywhere was 9m 6s for 20-year old men.[0] To say that it takes only someone "slightly" above average to maintain a pace 12% faster than that for an entire marathon is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people do it every year doesn't mean that it's a great accomplishment. For context, that means someone finished nearly half an hour sooner.

[0] http://www.pace-calculator.com/average-marathon-pace-by-age-...

That site seems pretty bogus.

Lets pick a real race. Say the 2015 Chicago Marathon.

Let's look at men 30-34

http://results.chicagomarathon.com/2015/?pid=list

3200 people there finished. So let's take middle, #1600: 4:11, which is 9:34 pace.

8 min pace is 3:29, which is something like finish 700 / 3200 in that age group.

So to me, finishing in 700th place out of 3400 people in a race is "slightly above average". But who cares, even the 9:30 pace is far above the 16 minute pace of OP.

Realize too, that many people running a marathon are running their 1 lifetime marathon - they never ever plan to run another. Drop all those out, and you will find 3:30 may be about average or even a tad worse among people who are serious runners.

> That site seems pretty bogus.

I agree, my point was that the fastest "average" time I could find (regardless of quality of the source) was still sufficiently slow enough compared to the 8:00 pace figure that 8:00 is in fact not slightly above average.

I'm not a huge runner, but an 11 minute mile over that distance is great. An 8 min/mile marathon run is a highly experienced runner and not just someone slightly above average.

Good, thanks for the clarifications. Pretty admirable performance.

For reference on how to normalize the elevation gain, I like to add 1.5 miles for every 1000 feet of elevation gain/loss (combo). So, in the way I plan, I'd look at that 50k like a 41 mile run on flat ground.

I can't comment for running, but for backpacking we would add a mile for every 1000 feet of gain, ignoring loss. So 500 up, 400 down, 500 up feels like an extra mile. You have to look at elevation maps to get the nitty-gritty, but I've found it to be pretty fair.

I did ran all the way. Surely it wasn't fast, but take in account that there was 2000+ meters of elevation gain.

I found your Strava data and updated my comment.

And pfft 2000m+ elevation gain over 50km. Those are gently rolling hills ;-)

15/min miles make that more of an 8 hour 'walk'

See the clarifications from pneumatics. It looks like he ran it, just stopped a lot.

Running means you are jumping through the air, so that at most one foot is in contact with the ground at any time. This can be done without moving forward, so there is no lower bound which separates running from walking. Walking means that at least one foot is in contact with the ground at all times, and there are at least brief periods of double support (two feet down).

I can walk up to an 8:30 mile pace. Elite race walkers can outwalk recreational runners; the paces are around 6:00 at that level, which is astonishing (though not in comparison with elite running of course).

If someone covered some distance at 11:00 to the mile, we have no idea whether they ran or walked without eye witness or video evidence of what it is their legs were doing.

I definitely ran my first marathon in 2003, in some 5:05:12. That's like 11:44 to the mile or thereabouts. I definitely made a point of not taking any walking steps in this thing. It happened by accident several times, but I immediately went back and re-ran those small stretches of the course where I had strayed from the pure running discipline. On subsequent ones, I didn't make a point of that at all, just the first one. I've never taken planned walking breaks or walked extensively, but I never re-ran any walked steps. The clock is ticking; no time for foolery! :)

Strava shows the spent moving time by default. If you want the overall time to be shown you have to tag it as a "Race". https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/22428904-Using-Strava-Run...

I also want to point out that when running barefoot/minimal you reduce the stride and increase the cadence. In my experience the result of it is that speed its generally reduced, specially downhill and flat surface.

And by going completely barefoot the surface of the terrain it really defines the speed you can go. When going fast the pressure on the sole its greater and if the terrain its harsh you are forced to slow down. A lot of time until the point of walking, or even slower. In complicated terrains the potential outcome for stepping over the wrong stone it really makes you to be conscious about every movement, slowing down as well.

50K isn't easy for even people in good physical shape, especially if there are hills!