The Other 10% Rule

Fast uphill running. Photo: Ian Sharman

Before I start, this isn't a post about how men or women are 'better' than each other. This is just a simple and high level look at stats and comparisons between the sexes. I've met women who are made of granite as well as men whose wills could slice through diamond. Pretty much anyone who undertakes an ultra is unusually strong-willed.

We already have age-grading that allows a degree of comparison between the sexes and ages. But it assumes that the records (especially age-group records) are equally as impressive for men and women, plus that the record is equivalent to the fastest non-masters runner. If either the men's or women's record is relatively more competitive then it skews the results of that sex. More on this in the conclusion.

What is the other 10% rule?

We've all heard about the 10% rule for increasing mileage week-on-week to avoid getting injured, but there's a more precise relationship I've noticed throughout watching the Olympics all my life. The two events that most captured my imagination, the 100m and the marathon, had a relationship between the best men's and best women's record times. Doing simple calcs in my head I could see it was about a 10% gap - women's times were around this much slower than men's times. It seemed to roughly apply across a lot of track and field events, so I thought I'd see how exact that figure is and what it says about ultras.

I've heard people state that at longer distances women have an advantage and I know that scientists predicted the female marathoners would catch the men's times within a short period of time. Unfortunately they based that off simple extrapolation from women's times improving faster than men's in the past when the women's field became more competitive, while the men's already were.

Is there an advantage for women in ultras? Are they more efficient and physically superior for these types of endurance events? Or perhaps they're mentally stronger, able to withstand more pain or are more determined? If so then we'd expect to see that showing through in results at the most competitive ultras and the fastest times by the best athletes.

The stats

Below are the world bests on any surface for various running distances and events for men and women. I've split these into four categories, with the first three being Olympic or at least fully professional and competitive distances - Sprints, Middle Distance and Long Distance. Then I've separated ultra distances below because these don't tend to have the same deep level of full-time pro athletes as the distances up to the marathon. The professional distances are where I'd expect to see enough competition to make the records be a good representation of the best athletes in the world ever at their respective events.

TABLE 1: Olympic/Professional Distances

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men	Women	Percentage Difference	Notes
100m	9.58	10.49	9.50%	Women's record by Florence Griffith Joyner (USA) record has some doping questions, never proved
200m	19.19	21.34	11.20%	Also a Flo Jo record yet relatively less impressive, doping or not
400m	43.18	47.6	10.24%	Women's record by Marita Koch (East Germany) during period of known doping by Eastern Bloc
Avg for sprints			10.31%
800m	01:40.910	01:53.280	9.50%	Women's record by Jarmila Kratochvílová (Czechoslovakia) during period of known doping by Eastern Bloc
1500m	03:26.000	03:50.460	11.87%
1 mile	03:43.130	04:12.560	13.19%
Avg for middle distance			11.52%
5000m	12:37.350	14:11.150	12.39%
10000m	26:17.530	29:31.780	12.31%
Half	0:58:23	1:05:40	12.48%
Marathon	2:03:23	2:15:25	9.75%	No woman other than Paula Radcliffe has broken 2:18, showing just how special her record is
Avg for long distance (pro)			11.73%

Source: IAAF 

What this shows is that it's rare for female world bests to be within 10% of the men's time. In fact, the two distances that made me think about this relationship are two of the toughest and most impressive female records. Both Flo Jo (100m) and Paula Radcliffe (marathon) have run records that have barely been approached - Paula's marathon time is a decade old and is so good it's almost a 3-minute gap to the next best female time, while the men's marathon record has numerous other runners within 1 minute, plus it's only 1 month old at the time of writing. Flo Jo's record is even older.

What seems most notable to me for these Olympic distances is that getting within 10% of the men's performance is the sign of a mind-blowing record. And that's for the most fiercely fought events in world running!

How does the 10% rule relate to ultras?

Already it can be seen that most women's professional distance records are more than 10% slower than men's records. So what about the increasingly competitive world of ultrarunning? I'd argue that the only ultra races that have a long history and truly deep fields on both the men's and women's sides are the South African road ultras - Comrades and Two Oceans.

TABLE 2: Ultra Distances

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men	Women	Percentage Difference	Notes
50k	2:43:38	3:08:39	15.29%
Two Oceans (34.8 miles)	3:03:44	3:30:36	14.62%	The 50k records were the same runs as these records, as a 50k split
Comrades Down Run (55.5 miles)	5:20:49	5:54:43	10.57%	Better representation of 50 mile comparisons as 50 mile distance wasn't raced at the top level by women outside of Comrades
100k (Ann Trason)	6:10:20	7:00:47	13.62%	Second best female 100k time by Ann Trason (USA) - see below for reason
100 miles	11:28:03	13:47:41	20.29%	Not raced by women at the same deeper competitive level as by men in 1980s-2000 when male record set
24 hrs (m)	303,506	254,425	19.29%
UTMB (trail)	20:34:57	22:37:56	9.96%	Records set same year so weather not a differential
WS100 (trail)	14:46:44	16:47:19	13.60%	Records set same year so weather not a differential
Avg for long distance (ultra/semi-pro) without Tomoe Abe			14.66%
Avg for long distance (ultra/semi-pro) with Tomoe Abe			13.72%	More info about the Tomoe Abe record here
Other Results of Note:
50 miles	4:50:51	5:40:18	17.00%	Top women ran much faster for 50 miles at Comrades, so that's a better comparison
100k	6:10:20	6:33:11	6.17%	Record by Tomoe Abe (JPN) who was a professional marathoner

Sources: IAU, race websites

The 10% rule almost applies to Comrades, the larger, older and more competitive of these two races with a longer history - a 10.57% difference. But not so much for Two Oceans, despite the record holder for women being the same person as at Comrades, Frith van der Merwe.

It certainly doesn't hold up for most of the events in the table, possibly due to lower female participation but also because Yiannis Kouros spear-headed huge improvements in men's ultra road and track running. In fact, his dominance is so great that his 24-hour record is a half marathon ahead of his next closest challenger!

Most trail ultras are either too new or have fields that are only a few elite runners deep. So I included the two that have the longest and deepest history of competitiveness, especially since their records for men and women were set in the same editions (2012 for Western States 100 and 2013 for UTMB), removing differences in trail conditions, distances or weather. What stands out is that Rory Bosio's record at UTMB is a truly competitive record relative to a very impressive men's record.

The 10% rule doesn't seem to apply to ultras as much, probably due to it being a male-dominated sport with deeper men's fields to push the men's limits closer to a theoretical maximum than for the women. But women like Frith and Rory show that women's records at the top level can hit around 10% off the men's bests.

Women's records at some ultra races are indeed within 10% and sometimes women win outright, but I'd argue that those results reflect more on the lead women being closer to the best of the best than the lead men in those cases. That's why I've only included the most competitive races that are directly comparable. A separate question is whether women below the very top level race better than equivalent men, since women's finish rates are often higher than those of the their male counterparts. However, that's a different angle and is where I'd expect to see sensible tactics and a lack of testosterone-fueled over-exuberance giving women a relative edge on average...but not enough to overcome the physical attributes that lead to the 10% advantage at the upper limit of what's possible.

The one clear outlier is Tomoe Abe's 100k world best for women, which is so fast it's 27 minutes better than the next result and this is the only ultra result I can find from her. She was a professional road marathoner with a 2:26 PR, roughly equivalent to many of the fastest male 100k runners. So I've excluded her because she was a pro marathon runner while the top men weren't (making her closer to the female 'potential' than the men may have been to the male 'potential'). Her 100k time is around what would be expected from a male runner with an equivalent marathon time and very good aptitude for road ultras.

Predictions

Although the 10% rule doesn't hold up perfectly throughout, it looks like it roughly applies when both the men's and women's records are equally close to the best possible results a human can achieve. This doesn't seem to be the case in most truly top level ultra events yet, but if we use it as a benchmark, what kind of times might we see at ultra events by women as the fields get deeper and more astounding women push each other to their limits?

Note that the predictions below have an obvious caveat - the weather and conditions need to be equivalent to compare results year-on-year. So Timmy Olson's Western States 100 record was run in near perfect conditions for the course and no man or woman is likely to get an equivalent performance without equally good weather. If they manage it it tougher conditions, it's not equivalent - it's better.

TABLE 3: Predictions For Women's Times For Selected Fast Men's Global Records

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men's Actual Record	Women's Predicted Record	Women's Actual Record	Notes
Two Oceans (34.8 miles)	3:03:44	3:22:06	3:30:36
Comrades Down Run (55.5 miles)	5:20:49	5:52:54	5:54:43
100 Miles	11:28:03	12:36:51	13:47:41
24 hrs (m)	303,506	275,915	254,425	That's 171.5 miles - 1 mile short of the US men's 24 hr record!
UTMB (trail)	20:34:57	22:38:27	22:37:56
WS100 (trail)	14:46:44	16:15:24	16:47:19
Rocky Raccoon 100 (trail)	12:44:33	14:01:00	14:57:18
Leadville 100 (trail)	15:42:59	17:17:17	18:06:24
Grand Slam (trail)	69:49:38	76:48:36	79:23:21
Hardrock 100 (trail)	23:23:30	25:43:51	27:18:24
Spartathlon 153 (road/trail)	20:25:00	22:27:30	27:02:17
Rim2Rim2Rim (Grand Canyon)	6:21:47	6:59:58	8:15:51
JFK50 (trail)	5:34:58	6:08:28	6:11:59
TNF100 Australia (trail)	9:16:12	10:11:49	11:01:08
Speedgoat 50k (trail)	5:08:07	5:38:56	6:17:02
Vertical K (trail)	0:30:26	0:33:29	0:36:48	Included this one for fun, despite not being an ultra as it's very competitive

Sources: IAU, race websites

Conclusion

I think the 10% rule stands up as a way of measuring potential. It only applies when the men's best times are truly at the top end of what's physically possible, but even allowing for that it can compare when women have out-done the men on a given course, allowing for differences in weather etc. Distance running women in that list include Paula Radcliffe, Frith van der Merwe, Tomoe Abe and Rory Bosio with several other women around that level.

So I'd argue that men have been 'virtually chicked' ('chicking' refers to a woman passing a man in a race) if a woman runs 10% slower than them...look out all those guys that thought they could beat Rory or Ellie Greenwood currently! This would also allow for a ranking at a race based on times adjusted for the sex of the runner.

Age gradings could also be altered to allow for when the record for one sex is relatively less impressive than that of the other sex by making the gap in theoretical fastest times be 10% (ie whichever record is relatively slower gets improved to retain the 10% gap). That is likely to apply when the female field is a lot smaller than the male field, but makes the amazing masters' records of people like Meghan Arbogast even more impressive.

Apologies if I offended anyone with this article, but I found it fascinating to look at the results and comparisons for all types of running. The data is as objective as I could make it, but I'm sure many would disagree with even the sentiment of what I was comparing.

Are We In A Trail Ultrarunning Golden Age?

Timmy Olson's 2012 Western States Record. Photo: irunfar

Selected World Records/Bests (All Surfaces)

50k:
Men - Thomson Magawana (RSA) 2h43m38s (1988)
Women - Frith Van Der Merwe (RSA) 3h08m39s (1989)

100k:
Men - Don Ritchie (GBR) 6h10m20s (1978)
Women - Tomoe Abe (JPN) 6h33m11s (2000) [I believe there were issues with a lack of drug testing making this potentially unofficial]

100 miles:
Men - Oleg Kharitonov (RUS) 11h28m03s (2002)
Women - Ann Trason (USA) 13h47m41s (1991)

24 Hours:
Men - Yiannis Kouros (GRE) 188.63 miles (1997)
Women - Mami Kudo (JPN) 158.11 miles (2009)

Arguably the end of the last century was the golden age for road ultras since most of the current road and track world records were set then (see above for a selection, sourced from the IAU here) but in recent years the focus has switched to trails.

As trail and mountain running has increased in popularity thanks to stars like Kilian Jornet, deeper fields of faster runners have been taking down records on a weekly basis. Some of these are mind-blowing and the old records were described by some as untouchable, like Ann Trason's Western States 100 record that Ellie Greenwood destroyed in 2012 by 50 minutes.

However, I'm not sure why the quality of runners in the flatter ultras plateaued in general, especially in the US and UK. Yes, road races at marathon distances have got bigger prize money now but it's not generally Americans (and certainly not Brits) that are at the front of these African-dominated races. There are less road runners around the top level (like sub 2:20 male marathoners) than there used to be in western countries, something I'd ascribe partly to increased wages with longer work hours making a tough life of training more difficult and less appealing, relatively.

Anyway, back to my original point that trail running talent is on the rise. Course records and Fastest Known Times ("FKTs") keep falling to give a good indication of what some runners are capable of, but the more impressive thing is how deep fields are becoming, especially on the men's side. Several times a year a race gets described as 'the most competitive ultra of the year' and I personally love the fact there are so many events where runners can race against a good selection of the best runners around. Times that would have been guaranteed to win races in the past now end up off the podium so everyone has to raise their game and it makes us all better runners. Ann Trason dominated women's fields for years and basically raced the men rather than other women, but who wouldn't have wanted to see her in her prime against the likes of Ellie Greenwood and others?

I wonder how much better runners can get. Cam Clayton suggested he could run a 14hr Western States and it'll be fantastic to see continuing mind-blowing performances. The addition of fast road runners who also specialize in mountains has made a difference. However, many of the top runners have never and will never race on roads - think of Kilian's disdain for the 12 miles of roads at UROC100k!

Some marks I hope can be reached over the next few years in a few of the classic trail ultras are below. I think they're possible with the help of perfect running weather and several fast runners pushing each other.

UTMB: sub 20hrs for men, sub 22hrs for women
Western States 100: sub 14h30m for men, sub 16h15m for women
Leadville 100: sub 15h40m for men, sub 17h30m for women
Any trail 100: sub 12h30m for men, sub 14hrs for women
Grand Slam: sub 68hrs for men, sub 75hrs for women
JFK 50: sub 5h20m for men, sub 6hrs for women

Some of these are likely to be more feasible than others and I think the UTMB and WS records are most likely to fall due to the higher level of competition at those races year in, year out.

Pricing Popular Races

Yesterday I was looking up a few races I thought I could maybe fit into my calendar this year and was looking at the New York City Marathon, which is a great excuse to go back to NYC and re-run that event. I checked on their website to see if entries were still available and was gobsmacked to see the entry price (entries are still available, btw). A non-refundable $11 to enter the lottery (all other race lotteries I'm aware of are free if you lose out) plus the entry cost of $216 (NYRR members), $255 (other US residents) and a whopping $347 for non-residents. That means entry for a 26.2 mile race for someone outside the country is $358!

In comparison, the London Marathon, which is the nearest comparator in terms of size and scale, costs just a fraction (the last time I entered in 2009, I think I paid the equivalent of under $50 as a resident and I understand this hasn't changed significantly). Admittedly, the London marathon charges more for foreigners with the ballot for them costing the equivalent of about $158, but that's still a big difference of $200 with NYC.

In single-stage ultras (multi-days are a different breed with accommodation and other costs coming into the entry fee) there's less discrepancy between race costs bewteen the US and Europe, but the most popular still cost a lot in the US, with Western States 100 costing $370. UTMB is biggest 100-miler in Europe and costs the equivalent of about $203. Both have lotteries that cost you nothing if you lose out.

Every race has specific costs, but I'm an economist and I wondered how much of the price differences were based on cost differences and how much was supply and demand. All of these races mentioned above are hugely oversubscribed and could charge a lot more and still fill their entry spots due to high demand, so I'd argue that the price must come down to costs and potentially milking people for a profit.

Yet the organizers of NYC (NYRR) are a charity, London's profits all go to charity, WS does the same (including towards trail work and maintenance) and I can't find information on whether UTMB is run for private profit or not (anybody know?).

So does this mean that the only difference is costs if they aren't making money for shareholders? Well, even within the scope of a charity, the costs can be subjective (such as wages for the staff) and the profit that goes to charity can still be maximized (especially if the charity is the race itself). For the ultras, most people who know about WS are aware that a significant portion of the costs is for the belt buckles, especially the silver ones. The organizers of virtually every ultra I know aren't grabbing every penny they can and do it largely for the love of the sport, wanting to cover their costs and make a living providing a great product to people.

But marathons are certainly much more corporate, even if they're a charity. Competitor Group organizes the Rock 'n' Roll series of marathons for profit and charges fees that seem excessive to many I've spoken to (including myself) but if you enter for really early bird discounts they are often not much more than $100 - well shy of the NYC costs. The major city marathons have huge prize purses and much of the entry fee goes on that, but sponsors also contribute heavily and TV coverage provides more revenue.

So it comes down to one question that's still not answered for me. Why does NYC cost so much more than London? They both offer a lot of prize money and try to attract the best marathon field in the world, which London arguably manages to do better, possibly due to the course being faster. NYC also had an increase in policing costs for 2012 which resulted in them charging $60 more than the previous year for an entry. But London and NYC should surely be at least a similar price unless there's some bad management of the budgets or a lot more money going to the NYRR charity. Does anyone know if this is their cash cow that then subsidizes their other races and events? I'm not suggesting there's anything sinister, just that there's a significant price differential between US and European marathons which is highlighted most between London and NYC.

I'd appreciate any more information that people can provide as this has caught my interest. Are insurance costs for races a lot higher in the US? Is there something significant I missed? I'm not a race director but I am a certified accountant as well as an economist so I'd like to find out more about the numbers. I couldn't find any financials for any of these races online - let me know if you have any links. [update - here are some numbers on the NYRR. In 2010 they made $8.5m in profit (tax exempt); revenues and costs aren't all split out for just the marathon but it looks like most of the revenue of $50.1m was NYC marathon related but only $22.2m was for marathon costs].

Also, for clarification, I don't mean to imply that organizing races for profit is wrong in any way - people deserve to get a return for creating something others want. It's just the discrepancy in pricing that I'm wondering about. If people want to pay huge entry fees then they can and there are races at all ends of the pricing spectrum. Also, the entry fee is often only a small part of the cost of doing a race, especially if it's far from home.

Rocky Raccoon preparation and all things UTMB

Today the lottery for the 103-mile Ultra Trail du Mont Blanc and the other related races posted results and there's less of the top male North American talent going over (only just), probably due to so many running Hardrock 100 and Run Rabbit Run 100, although the women seem to be crossing the pond with a strong group to go for that podium. Will be interesting to see how all these runners do against the locals and Brits (the ones who still live in Europe).

Here's a list of notable North American residents running UTMB and I apologize for missing names - this is from a quick scan on the UTMB website based on my own ability to recognize names.

Women:
Meghan Arboghast
Rory Bosio
Helen Cospolich
Krissy Moehl
Amy Sproston
Tracy Garneau
Ellie Greenwood

Men:
Scott Dunlap
Mike Foote
Topher Gaylord
Neal Gorman
Dave Mackey
Mike Wardian
Adam Campbell
Gary Robbins

I'll be running the shorter Courmayeur-Champex-Chamonix (CCC) 61-miler to not overload my season and to still enjoy the fun of the whole set of events. Plenty of friends will be out there from England so I'm looking forward to it and just hope there's a bit more sun than last year.

In the build up to UTMB, I'm lucky enough to have persuaded Krissy Moehl (the female course record holder, amongst other accolades) to join the All-Star Running team and we'll be hosting a UTMB training camp around the entire UTMB route from 26th May to 2nd June. Should be a great experience for everyone involved as we cover the 103 miles over five days and get to hang out in Chamonix too. More details here.

But right now my focus is on Rocky Raccoon 100 and seeing if that 12:44 course record is breakable. I've had some time off over Christmas and since then have been working on my speed, since that's the thing that's dropped off over the past year. Plenty of half marathons on the treadmill including a few under my best road time, so these should pay off as I look forward to the final two weeks of tapering. I chat about it more in the Ultrarunner Podcast show that is out today on itunes and here.

This is about the point last year when the Rocky Raccoon entrants list exploded with fast 100-mile racers, but it doesn't look like it'll happen again. At the least I know Karl Meltzer and Oswaldo Lopez (Badwater winner last year) will be really pushing the pace and running amazing times and Liza Howard will beat any of the men who can't run sub-15 hours.

Waldo 100k

Being back in Oregon means all the races I meant to fit in last time I was here are now back on my to-do list. That meant I was able to squeeze in Waldo 100k through the Cascades in Central Oregon and see some of the lakes from the Cascade Lakes Relay from high up. Supposedly 11,000ft of climbing in 100k, but several people claim it's more like 13,000ft and, given Miwok 100k is around 10,000ft, this one feels way steeper. Mind you, still a lot less than the UTMB races in a week - the CCC 100k there is over 20,000ft of ascent.

A lack of air-con at home has meant that getting to sleep at a reasonable hour is very difficult right now so I wasn't able to pre-adjust myself for the 5am start but drove down to Willamette Ski Pass the night before to sleep in the car then wake up in a complete daze about five hours too early for my body.

Being the first race of the 2011/12 Montrail Ultracup (which finishes with Western States), it meant runners were attracted by being part of the cup, by the decent prize money to the top finishers overall and by the lure of qualification spots for WS100 for the top two men and women (dropping down to third if any of the top two had already qualified). Given Dave Mackey was the clear favorite (CR holder at Bandera and Miwok 100ks as well as winning both of those this year) and had a WS100 entry already, plus I already had my WS100 place too, that meant it would be very likely that top three in the men would be enough to get that coveted spot. Ditto for the women since Aliza Lapierre was running as the favorite and already had her spot too.

Many of the guys I'd met at Mt Hood 50 and the run around Mt Hood shortly afterwards were there, plus a whole host of other Oregonian and Californian ultrarunners whose names many would recognize. Yassine Diboun in particular was gunning for a WS100 qualifier and looked like he had a great chance to get it...I knew I'd be looking out for him along the whole way and hoping to stay ahead.

The course went up the ski run from the lodge, climbing steeply enough to make me walk before the top of the approx 1,200ft climb. It was pitch black and my headlamp was dying so I had to focus very hard through the trees (no moonlight to help out) to not fall and to spot the lights ahead of me so I wouldn't miss a turn on the single-track.

By the first aid station at 7.4 miles, Dave had zoomed off but the next six or so guys were all together and we could finally turn off the lights. Time to make the ascent from under 5,000ft (lowest point on the course) to around 7,200ft on top of Mt Fuji. Hopefully I'll see its namesake next year in Japan for TNF Ultra-Trail Mt Fuji but this one was mainly runnable and in the last few steps we were given a sudden and spectacular view out over Waldo Lake and a large chunk of the Cascades.

Waldo, photo courtesy of Craig Thornley.

Fuji view from a random Flickr account online.

Unfortunately we then headed straight back the way we came so the view was only for a few seconds. I'd have loved to stay longer but the heat was on and I was only in about fifth with Dave already about 10 minutes ahead, judging by the out-and-back to the summit. I at least wanted a chance of winning.

Lots of fast downhill followed and I moved past Yassine into fourth, trying to conserve energy and reduce pounding on the thighs given I was only about 15 miles into the race. Nick put some distance on me but I felt I was going fast enough and looked at the splits I'd written on my arm for the CR and saw I ran that section below CR pace, albeit still five minutes too slow overall.

Annoyingly, I still haven't felt fresh and good in a race since about March, just before I ran way too many races and overtrained. I'd hoped to be back to normal by now but the legs still had that heavy feeling and, relatively, a distinct lack of pace compared to five months ago. I've accepted that I need to do a hell of a lot more proper hill training to improve running in races like Waldo, but Bend is the perfect place to do that. I've already started, with runs around Mt Hood and up to the top of Mt Bachelor a week ago (can hardly call it a run, but 'crawl' would be fairer). It's funny that I went an entire winter with no snow in Cali but now it's summer in Oregon I'm getting in a couple of snow runs every week by going up high.

The day heated up on the way through to the third climb up to the Twins and I kept discipline to run where possible, even if just for 50 yards, and power-walk any harder gradients. I could see how Dave was going so fast since the course was almost all runnable, but not yet for me. I went over the top of the first Twin and reached the 32 mile aid station on the way down, still in fourth and having run solo for quite a while.

I eventually caught up to third after the bottom of the descent and managed to overtake since he had stomach problems and later dropped. Then the climb up started again, but it was fairly easy at first and a slow jog was possible. It did gradually get steeper, but I jogged maybe half the time and on every section that I could.

By about 40 miles the power-hike/jog combo put me in sight of Nick Triolo in second, who was having a great race in his first 100k. I met Nick at Mt Hood 50, where he was third, then again running round that mountain where he carried one of my water bottles after my big fall left too much blood on my right hand to carry anything with it. We pushed up and up, maybe jogging half the time as we hit the snow. It's very rare for this course to have snow as it's in late August, but luckily the last few weeks of melting after a monster winter had meant we never had more than about 200 yards of snow and trail-finding was very easy with the pink surveyor's markers.

At 42 miles I felt slightly fresher after not having run much in the last few miles so I started running more than Nick and soon left him behind near the top of the climb. Just two more downhills left and one evil bitch of an ascent in-between.

I kept stuffing food and gels into me whenever possible but I was knackered and had lost my uphill legs, or whatever I had of them in the first place. Luckily I still felt fine on downhills and was cruising those through the single-track (almost the entire race is single-track and, if not tired, really enjoyable running).

The final climb started and was gentle at first so I hit the 49.9 mile aid station looking hot and bothered and really not looking forward to the steepest and greatest climb of the day up to Maiden Peak at over 7,800ft. However, I'd been told by Jeff Browning (who at that exact point was en route to a solid fifth at Leadville Trail 100 - nice work, mate!) that the gradient changes a lot so there are plenty of short runnable bits. Maybe for him, but after a third of the climb I was stuck in a power-walk. Well, not even that - more of a determined tip-toeing gradually uphill. I was working so hard, even at a very slow pace that I couldn't take on any food - I literally didn't have enough breath or saliva to swallow and didn't want to stop to eat. That's a new sensation, but reflects that I'd hammered through the day on legs that hadn't had any taper whatsoever (not smart, but I need the hill training and miles to get ready for UROC 100k and TNFEC Championship Final).

When I finally got to the top, the view was just amazing, but I was paranoid about losing my position and was sure that at least one of the guys behind me wouldn't have been so slow on that climb. I did stop for a few seconds to take it in, but then headed straight back downhill and didn't see anyone on the out-and-back final section to the peak so knew I had at least six minutes on third.

Maiden Peak summit view, courtesy of a random Flickr account.

Down, down, down and very steeply at first. Now I could feel it a bit in the legs but knowing it was only 7.5 miles to go from the next and final aid station, I didn't mind. I ate, drank and was generally incoherent while the aid station volunteers were very helpful. Now I just wanted it over and it felt more like closing out a 100-miler than a 100k.

Theoretically it was great running to the end, with three miles of gentle rolling trails then a gentle downhill for the final 750ft descent. Normally this would have been the type of trail to make me smile like a lunatic, especially with the few sections along the edges of the turquoise mountain lakes. But I was running with the fear of being caught by third, who I assumed would be able to chase me down after such a slow section previously.

Eventually I saw Lake Odell and the Ski Lodge and ran in for second in 9:42:51, exactly 36 minutes behind Dave. He crushed the CR by over four minutes and was on a massage table looking much better than when I last saw him post-race at WS100 where it looked like he was on a drip. He'd led from start to finish and run a very solid race, but I still posted the sixth fastest time in the race's history and only Dave has run the final section faster (so I probably wasn't in danger of being caught, in hindsight). A tough day which didn't go to plan and felt pretty awful 90% of the time, but it should make future races feel better and this was one I'm glad I got the chance to do.

It's a fantastic race course and was a chance to catch up with many of the non-Ashland-based Oregonian speedsters who either ran, paced or just showed up to chill out with a beer. Nick held on for third in 10:08 so has his spot at WS100 booked, which is great for him, but unfortunate for Yassine who really had his heart set on it (he ended up fifth after a hard day with a very respectable 10:28). Aliza won but just missed the women's CR by 10 minutes and finished in sixth overall in 10:33. Full results here.

Going to the Bend Brewfest afterwards was also a slight endurance feat, but in a town with so many breweries, this is something I couldn't miss.

Next up is a trip to the Alps to crew for a TNF athlete at UTMB, probably Hal from how things seem to be headed. I fly in two days and once I feel less exhausted I'll have enough adrenaline to get really pumped up about this instead. But I'm very glad I didn't enter it this year since I'm clearly not ready for it yet. One year of training should be enough so I can at least get through it ok without completely breaking myself.

What a busy weekend of races it's been and congratulations to all the finishers at all of them, especially the friends I've got running these: Pike's Peak Ascent/Marathon, Leadville Trail 100, Trans Rockies.

Reflection - one week after Western States

Just a quickie now. It's been just over a week since WS and so it's sunk in and I'm running again after forcing myself not to for five days (was meant to be a week but I felt fine).

When I finished I was generally exhausted and not too keen on doing that to myself again. It felt so slow to run all day long and even have walking breaks, but I learned some valuable lessons for future 100s. Yes, there will definitely be plenty more since I didn't screw it up and it is satisfying to complete longer distances.

It wasn't as fun as running shorter ultras and I'm pretty sure that the 56 miles of Comrades is about the optimum distance for me, as well as the most enjoyable. Although 100k (62.2 miles) would also fit in with that, which is lucky since I was honoured to be offered a place in the GB 100k team a few days ago. I can't make it this year due to work and next year the World Championships are at Winschoten in the Netherlands, but are two weeks after UTMB. So maybe not even next year for my debut representing my country, but I'm only 29 so have plenty of time to fit it in (not normally the way I think about races I have to admit and I'd rather fit in every race going this year if I could).

Ultrarunning is a funny world. The World/European etc Championships are very low key and attract a decent, but not always outstanding field. Comrades has a much higher standard and the male and female winner would only have to jog (almost walk) the remaining 10k or so to get a time which would win the World Championships.

And for trail running, there's high quality shorter races organised as Sky Races and World Cups but beyond the marathon there're no meaningful Championship races. Instead, races like WS, UTMB or Davos become the equivalent of the Marathon Majors to the marathon world - the best come to race even though there's no title (or much money for the ultras). That's why this year's WS did shine in one definite respect - it attracted a large number of, arguably, the world's best ultra trail runners. It felt like a championship, and not just a North American one thanks to Killian Journet. Being part of that was something special and something I want to repeat, plus the silver buckle was nice.

I've said it before, but I'd rather race against the best and see where I stand than win a race with no competition. There's something very appealing about testing yourself against not only a course or time, but against other people. That's why I think I'll have to run Comrades forever and will turn up to WS frequently too. UTMB should be a good option next year and one other race I haven't mentioned - the North Face Challenge 50-mile Championship Final in San Fran in December. The latter has the biggest ultra prize purse outside of Comrades and, maybe, Two Oceans - $10k for 1st. So it attracts hot competition and is conveniently local for me now. Definitely worth focusing on over winter. Hopefully I'll see plenty of familiar faces there.

Western States Endurance Run - The last 38 miles (the hard bit)

Downhill all the way...kind of (right to left).

Green Gate aid station at 79.8 miles when I'd just started to feel ok again.

Highway 49 aid station at 93.5 miles, just after darkness.

Do I look fresh with 6.7 miles to go?

Thank f*&@ that's over!

This very accurately reflects how I felt at the end.

So I got through to 62 miles and the Foresthill aid station ok. Everything was going well and I felt fine, plus I thought the hardest section was done after the famously hot canyons had been traversed. But accidentally leaving my timing chip at Foresthill was nothing compared to how much I didn't enjoy the last 38.2 miles.

I never expected the race to be easy but as I headed downhill towards Dardanelles at 65.7 miles I started to feel odd in my stomach. Then dizziness also hit me and all I could do was jog the easy downhills instead of running them. At the aid station I told them about my lack of timing chip and tried to eat and drink as much as I could, making sure to not just drink pure water but have electrolyte tablets too. I think I'd skipped putting the tablets in my water the previous time so maybe that was the cause, but I can't be sure of the timings as the time from Foresthill down to the Rucky Chucky crossing of the American River at 78 miles is a bit blurry.

I know I kept leap-frogging Dan Barger over this sun-soaked trail (I didn't know his name until I saw the results) as we both went through better and worse patches. It was the sun which really hit me since the previous hot canyons had been generally shaded by trees, but this easy trail was exposed. I've no idea how hot it was but the results show that I ran those 16 miles between 3:21pm and 6:10pm so if it had cooled down, it wasn't by much. This is where I was meant to really eat away at the miles but instead I was going slower than before.

It felt like I was crawling along even though I think I managed under 11 minute miles. I even had to walk frequently on flat sections, never mind anything uphill. This was the least enjoyable running experience I've ever had, tied with the sand dunes on the long day of the Marathon des Sables. At least it wasn't as hot as the Sahara but it felt like I was being cooked inside my head.

It's at these times that you really question why you're doing a race and how important a finish or a good time is to you. I needed motivators to force me forward and at first I struggled to find them. Usually it's that I really want a good time to prove something to myself or to justify the training and hard work. But I was having so little fun that I couldn't even slightly appreciate the great views along the river valley, never mind focus on driving myself forward. But I did come up with a few reasons to keep pushing and these are what stopped me walking to the finish line:

1. Amy would be waiting at Green Gate at 79.8 miles and had to hike there in the blazing sun, so I didn't want to keep her waiting or force her to walk back uphill for a mile and a half in the dark.

2. If I walked it would take forever and I'd be forced to endure the fatigue and hell for many extra hours.

3. I'd already put in over 11 hours of running so I'd better not waste that by a really weak finish.

I have to admit I was also motivated by the thought that if I had a slow race I'd have to come back again so by making this one respectable I could avoid the hell again next year. At this point I swore to myself that I would never do Badwater. Never. It would just be like this the whole time and I'd rather have some fun in my races (even WS had been fun for the first 62 miles). I also questioned whether I want to do many other 100 milers or whether it'd be better to stick to slightly shorter races which I can enjoy the whole way through. Besides, I can do as many marathons and doubles as I like but a 100 miler requires a chunk of time before and after where I can't do as much running or racing, so that's a big sacrifice.

Almost disappointingly I didn't have any hallucinations (still never managed that), just lots of negative thoughts. It was also harder to judge distances as I felt I was going faster than I was.

But I eventually got to Rucky Chucky and looked forward to an easy dingy ride across since the snow meant more melt water and no foot crossing of the river. I stuffed my face with food and drink at the near side of the crossing, then enjoyed the 30 seconds of sitting down in the dingy while thanking the volunteers profusely for their help - I was so genuinely grateful that they were taking me 200ft closer to the finish without me having to do anything.

I'd had my race number on an elastic belt, which had snapped many miles before so was carrying the number in my hand instead. Therefore I almost went through the far side aid station unnoticed. I think almost everyone has a pacer by this point so when they saw me on my own they must have assumed I was someone else's pacer, just waiting around. I told them my race number so they could check me in and out and I had to repeat it several times since my neutral English accent seems to be impenetrable to most Americans. This became very wearing when I had to do it at the start and end of every single aid station. I spoke as clearly as possible and enunciated very clearly but only about once did people understand me on the first time that I said my number was 'four-zero-seven' (that number is firmly etched on my memory now). Obviously I'm thankful for the volunteers giving up their time but the officiousness of many of them plus the need to constantly repeat my number is not ideal when I was very tired and feeling like death.

I was out the aid station as quickly as possible and hiking up the trail towards Green Gate and Amy. Almost immediately I passed Hal Koerner, the winner of the previous two races, who was walking uphill slowly with a slight limp. He said he'd had some injuries coming into the race but it was a shame to see him drop.

Over the 1.7 mile climb to where I'd see Amy again (I really needed a familiar face), I somehow gained five positions to get into 9th. I didn't know that at the time and this was partly because a couple of those positions were due to people dropping. I think the food and drink from the last few aid stations was paying off, plus there was more shade. I came back into the more conscious world and was through the worst of the day, although I couldn't be certain at that point. Amy perked me up although she'd left the timing chip in the car as she didn't realise I'd take it off when changing my socks and shoes. At least my mind was put at rest because she said she'd give it back at the Highway 49 Crossing aid station at 93.5 miles, the last time I'd see her before the finish.

I'd planned to pick up my headlamp here but forgot. That meant I had to get to Highway 49 by 9pm when the twilight would have turned to pitch black. 2h30m for 13.7 miles, which looked like being tight, especially with at least one nasty climb left before 93.5 miles.

The next aid station was 5.4 miles away but I had a second wind and was able to run well over the undulating forest trails. The shade really helped and made me feel almost fine again. Either I was more screwed up than I realised or that 5.4 miles is actually a lot longer because I was running really smoothly yet supposedly averaged over 11 minute miles. I'm pretty sure I was only going that slow on the uphills and that I was going much quicker most of the time. Anyway, this section was enjoyable again and I had the new motivator that if I didn't get to Amy before dark then I'd be forced to walk slowly until I got my lights and that could force me to be out a lot longer.

Then there was a real gem of a boost for me at Auburn Lake Trails aid station at 85.2 miles. As I came into the station a volunteer jogged with me and acted just like I needed. He said all the right things and was really focused on getting me through the station fast (more so than I was). Also, he had a disposable hand flashlight which I could take. This was such a surprise that I was taken aback and it gave me piece of mind to know that I'd be ok even if it got dark before I reached Amy...not that it'd allow me to slow down.

All of the miles from 80-90 went by fast with one more position gained and there was still light as I started the climb up to the Highway 49 Crossing. I ran when I could, which was a big improvement on earlier climbs and I got there at 9:02, just a few minutes after darkness and 16 hours into the race.

I still didn't know what position I was in but hoped it was at least top 10, so I asked and was happy to find out it was 8th. Amy gave me the chip but I didn't even take any food or drink from her, just from the aid station. I'd not eaten much in the past couple of hours because the sugary gels and treats were just becoming sickly. That wasn't due to stomach issues, just the fact that I'd eaten about half my weight in sugar so far that day and probably wouldn't have any teeth left by the end. They weighed me at around 150 pounds, so I'd maintained around my starting weight of 149. I think the highest was around 151 at Foresthill, so I probably had taken on the water previously to that and not absorbed it, leading to my horrible 16 miles.

I didn't even take the headlamp from Amy but just kept the hand-held one I'd been given. Only 6.7 miles to go but I was going to make sure I'd jog and get through it. I don't like night running much, usually because it only happens when I've been running all day and am too tired to focus well. But the circle of light in front of me was mesmerising and I kept putting one foot in front of the other. Time lost any meaning and I'd sometimes look at my watch to find 20 minutes had flown by and sometimes that two minutes had crawled by. It was also difficult to know if I was going up or down unless it was steep, which was a weird experience.

Would I get to the finish and break down with emotion? Would I collapse from exhaustion? I really didn't know, but just kept staring hard at the track and looking for every piece of yellow surveyor's tape and the infrequent glow-sticks. I rarely got lost during the whole day but have to admit that the course markings weren't always frequent enough. I liked the Eco Trail de Paris 80km race where you could always see a piece of surveyor's tape. At WS, I'd sometimes go minutes worrying that I'd missed a turn or a fork, especially at night. Even in the light much earlier on there were at least a couple of turns that weren't marked and where I stopped, looked around with another runner and found no markings within sight. At these points I chose the likeliest looking turn but often didn't see tape again for a couple of minutes. It's only a small issue and most of the trail was well marked, but I expected more from this race, especially for a $300 entry fee.

The last aid stations at No Hands Bridge and Robie Point were in a party mood and seemed surprised to see me with no pacer (well, I've never needed one before). I didn't spend much time at them as I wanted to finish and get the ordeal over with, although I was feeling generally ok.

Even over those last 6.7 miles there's plenty of up and down and the last 3.4 miles from No Hands Bridge (which was beautifully lit up with outdoor Christmas-style lights) is virtually all uphill. All I could see outside of my circle of light was the full moon, which provided no helpful light on the tree-covered paths. At any other time it would have been a stunning stroll, but I still couldn't fully appreciate the scenery. Then I saw two lights in the distance behind me, probably five minutes back. I certainly wasn't going to let anyone catch me now so I sped up and powered on to the road into Auburn, wanting to avoid a sprinting race for position. People were sat outside their houses cheering, although many only cheered after I passed and they realised I was in the race and not just some strange guy jogging on his own at 10:20pm (the lack of pacer again made me look like I wasn't in the race).

Finally I entered the track at Placer High School and ran a solid victory lap into the finish for 17h26m19s. It was great to finish, really relieving. There wasn't euphoria, just exhaustion, but I shook the race director's hand and refused the chair as I wanted to walk around to keep the blood moving and avoid stiffening up immediately. Well, I avoided the stiffening for a few minutes anyway.

What was my impression from my first 100 miler? Well, I have more respect for those who are out for longer than me. No matter how slow you go, it's a hard, hard slog. And the slower you go, the longer you have to suck it up.

WS was great but also disappointing in some ways. The course is spectacular and a real challenge, plus it's generally organised very well. And if you want a race against the best trail ultra runners in the world, it's the place to go. But running 100 miles is a lot less fun than running 50 for me. Plus I can actually run 50 rather than walking or shuffling and I prefer running.

At 63 miles in and for the remainder of the day, I was convinced I'd never return and that I wouldn't use the automatic entry from getting top 10. I've never finished a race and sworn to never do it again, but I did say that immediately after the finish...before changing my mind 30 minutes later. I know for certain that I don't want to do Badwater or any longer races, but I've already entered Rocky Raccoon 100 in February and would like to have a shot at the course record of 13h16m (at least that's all running). UTMB in 2011 is not a certainty, but I'm coming round to it now. And although I didn't enjoy much of the day, it is VERY satisfying to finish and good to know that I didn't cave in when it got tough, even when I stopped caring about the race.

I think I learned a few things out there on the trails and I definitely pushed myself in a new and interesting way. 8th wasn't bad for a first attempt, although the time and place were worse than I'd hoped for. One thing I'll definitely not do wrong again is getting lazy with taking my hydropack off and not putting Nuun tablets in. I'd also want to do more mountain training and heat training for WS for next year. UTMB would probably be more fun since the only issue I had was heat/hydration related and it's definitely not as hot there. But I couldn't get away with the lack of uphill training that I had this year.

WS won't overtake Comrades as my focus and 2011 will definitely be all about nailing Comrades with a gold. But a month later I'll be lining up in Squaw Valley like a drug addict waiting for his fix. Besides, I have to check out the normal course after doing a snow year.

Ultras have inspired me and driven me for the past five years and now I can branch out into 100s as well. Not exclusively, but I'm definitely up for throwing in a couple of them each year.

Congratulations to all the finishers and especially to Geoff Roes for smashing the course record by 29 minutes, finishing in a mighty 15h07m. Anton Krupicka led most of the way with Kilian Journet but they finished in 15:13 and 16:04, respectively, after Killian dropped off the pace with 20 miles to go. Mind you, if he'd not run 1,000km across the Pyrenees three weeks earlier then he would have been a bit fresher and maybe the heat got him too. Those three ran really impressively, but there was plenty of hot competition behind them too. And fellow Brit (now Colorado-based), Nick Clark, almost pipped Kilian for 3rd with a sprint over the last couple of miles and a time of 16:05. Not bad to have five of the top 10 (those four plus me) doing their first WS.