Why Run A Road Half In Training For A Trail Ultra?

Running hard in a half marathon in 2009

I got back from a trip to Eugene, Oregon this weekend for the half marathon there as part of my Western States build up. So, apart from the fact that I enjoy road racing and that Eugene is Track Town USA (with the US Olympic Trials occurring around WS time), why is that a good training run for a mountainous trail ultra?

One thing that I have found over time is that the more I just run trails, the more I tend to slow down. Yes, the ability to climb and descend gets better, but the pace on easier trails goes down. And WS, like most trail ultras, has a lot of faster running in there as well as some climbs to slow things down a bit.

Apart from downhill, most people are unlikely to hit their half marathon road speed in a trail ultra, but by working on the uncomfortable pace close to your lactate threshold (as a half marathon does), you force your body to adapt and be able to sustain a higher pace when on long runs. Your lactate threshold is basically the exercise intensity where lactic acid starts to accumulate in the blood, when lactate is produced faster than it can be removed. Effectively, this causes a runner to slow down so the higher this boundary can be pushed, the higher his or her sustainable pace becomes.

If you can make 6-minute/miles feel easier (or 7s, 9s, 11s etc) at the high end then it really helps to make cruising speed more efficient too in a really long run.

So why is a half marathon particularly good for this type of training? There are two main reasons I'd suggest for this:

1. Half marathon pace is fast enough to get close to your lactate threshold and push that boundary out so you can run faster, plus it is a long enough race that you have to push hard for a sustained period.

2. It's short enough that it doesn't take too long to recover from for a regular runner, certainly less time than a marathon.

Admittedly, guys with incredibly fast sub 2:20 marathon times haven't generally done as well in 100 milers as their speed would suggest. But it's the combination of the flat out speed and trail fitness that counts. Put a Kenyan Olympian on a mountainous 100-miler without specific training and they'd obviously not be bad, but they wouldn't automatically be the best unless they trained well for and adapted extremely well to the specifics of a mountain ultra (the same applies in the other direction but is more obvious to people and has been more tried and tested).

Speed training can be done on trails and hill work is similar in many ways, but if you like roads then they can really help as part of trail ultra training.

Kit Choices For 100 Milers

Which shoes to choose?

The one rule that every ultrarunner learns to stick to, often after a bad and long day on the trails, is to not try anything new on race day. So Western States is exactly two months away today and I realized I needed to make sure everything I want to use there gets well tested and worn in. It also brings home that I only have 61 days left to get in the best shape possible, which seems like hardly anything.

So it's time to try out all those flavors of Clif gels I haven't tried yet (just in case they work better or worse), to wear in the shiny new shoes that I've been saving for the race and to make sure I have everything I think I'll need (anyone got a spare pair of Kilian legs?). It may seem a long time in advance to do this, but this way it's possible to have complete confidence in all the gear I'll take with me.

Made me think there's probably a few other people (approximately 400) who are starting to realize that WS is just around the corner, especially after a scorching weekend all along the west coast. And all those who have other summer target races - they're all very close now so don't leave things to the last minute.

And the obvious way to prepare for those summer mountain races...to run the Eugene Half Marathon on Sunday. Because when Track Town USA is a short drive away it's a waste not to.

How Many Ultras Can You RACE Per Year?

It's over three months into the year and there have already been several very high quality competitions at races this year in the US, before the main season gets going. The Way Too Cool and Chuckanut 50ks had great fields, Lake Sonoma 50 miler is this weekend with a large contingent of top talent. And the coming months will have so many more races that just get more exciting (for me, anyway) every year as they get more and more competitive.

So this leads me to feeling like I'm missing out when I can't get to all the events I want to be at. I didn't get to any of the races mentioned above, although I have had some fun races in the past month and am not complaining about those. In the past I just entered races virtually every weekend, but the more I race ultras, the less feasible this becomes, especially having moved to 100ks and 100 milers. Mike Wardian seems to be the only person who doesn't get worn down if he does a huge number of marathons and ultras and I always used to run 30+ per year, but over the past year I felt like I was doing too much.

It's a tough decision to have to miss so many events and it's obviously not possible to run everything, even at an easier pace, especially given travel and timetable clashes. But if you're as addicted to racing and running as I am then missing out on some fun races just can't be helped. At least there's the option of volunteering or crewing to still be part of events without having to wear yourself down.

So have fun at Sonoma 50 this weekend, you lucky bastards! But I'll be sweeping the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 mile course down the road in Sisters, OR. So life could definitely be worse.

Drug Testing for Ultrarunners (or Any Athlete) - Some Thoughts

In the latest episode of Talk Ultra we interviewed Ellie Greenwood and one of the things we mention is her recent random drugs' test (she also wrote about it here). Instead of clogging up that interview with my own thoughts on this, I thought I'd put them out briefly in my blog. These are likely to be very controversial and I don't in any way advocate cheating of any sort. The rules currently state what substances are banned so that's what we should stick to - I would never dream of going against the rules and never have.

The current anti-doping rules

In general, professional athletes who are subject to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules need to provide a one hour slot every day where they tell the anti-doping authorities where they can be found. Every single day of their competitive lives! And if you refuse or miss several tests you end up with severe penalties.

Yet for ultrarunners hardly anyone is subject to this very intrusive testing - basically just the podiums of the road ultra World Championships and those who are at the front of a handful of other ultras (as far as I'm aware it doesn't extend much past the top 12 men and women at Two Oceans and Comrades, both of which have significant prize money). I was tested a couple of years ago at Comrades, despite being outside the top 12 and was very nervous for a couple of weeks in case there was some banned substance I'd accidentally eaten in some restaurant food (not because I cheat!).

Isn't that ok if it works?

I personally have a few serious reservations about the system even if it worked perfectly and was guaranteed to make a sport 100% clean. However, I certainly agree that we all want to have a sport without cheating, but I'm not sure this is the way to achieve it, even if the testing did extend to all athletes at the front of all ultra races.

Outside Magazine had a good article from years ago about why negative drugs' tests don't really prove that an athlete is clean and why there are no easy answers for stopping drugs' cheats.

Here are my objections to the system as it is

1. Only parolees are subject to the loss of freedom that the tested athletes are forced to accept - this is a significant impingement on personal freedom. I like not knowing exactly where I may be in a couple of weeks (or months) and would hate to be subject to a dawn raid out of the blue, as most people would agree.

2. The testing currently covers very few ultrarunners so doesn't cover the sport effectively (not that I agree this is the way to stop people cheating anyway). Over time it'll cover more, I'm sure, but even then, see point.

3. Cheats will continue to cheat and find ways around it - does anyone believe it's made professional cycling completely clean? There's still the doubt in people's minds that maybe the only way to get ahead is to find a way around the doping rules rather than to not dope and train the harder than anyone else.

4. This is the most controversial one - the list of banned substances is extensive and is over the top in my opinion. Many of the substances could be ingested by accident within meals (athletes have to be extremely careful they find out ingredients of all the food and medicines they use in case they accidentally take a minor amount of something that could get them banned). I also believe that the term 'performance enhancing' is misleading to some degree. The things that will most enhance your performance in an ultra are perfectly allowable - training and nutrition/hydration during the race. Why are gels not banned, or electrolyte drinks? These enhance performance greatly. The line seems to be arbitrary to me. To take it to an absurd degree, the only true test of our natural abilities is to force us to be sendentary in exactly the same way as each other then race from the couch - anything else is not a truly level playing field.

5. What else is performance enhancing? Over time, surgeries will surely make it possible to improve on the human body. Without opening a related, but totally different can of worms, a couple of South African athletes have caused controversy about whether they have unfair performance enhancing benefits - Oscar Pistorius, the 400m runner, with no legs and 800m champion, Caster Semenya, who was accused of 'cheating' with some kind of hermaphrodite benefit. I'm not delving into those arguments, just showing the complexity of what counts as 'natural' and what's 'unnatural'.


Does that mean I'm advocating every athlete be allowed to do whatever drugs they want?

No. However, athletes will continue to cheat so the drug testing doesn't stop it, just make it harder for them. I have no personal desire to use performance enhancing drugs even if they were allowed, but I look at it as one other training option  that just happens to not be allowed (but still happens). I also can't get in altitude training, underwater treadmills and a whole host of other things that may enhance my performance. I even have several aspects of my training that diminish performance, like drinking alcohol or eating unheathly foods

So if I'm complaining, what's the answer?

I don't have an alternative answer to how to police drugs' cheats because prohibition of items that (some) people will always want to do will always fail. I don't think it's possible, just increasingly expensive in monetary and personal freedom terms. It didn't work with booze and it doesn't work with illegal drugs. It only causes more harm than allowing these practices by criminalizing something that can't be stopped, meaning it can't be regulated and not collecting tax revenues from the industry.

The more items that are on the banned list, the harder it is to patrol. Some will always cheat and be a step ahead of the authorities within professional sports - the enhancing drug comes first then they find a way to screen for it (admittedly having samples of athletes from the past helps to mitigate this, but how do you rationally punish someone for using a substance that hadn't been banned at the time of use?).

Conclusion

Allowing the use of drugs in professional sports wouldn't be a perfect solution by any means but the line of what is and isn't performance enhancing is blurry (going back to my point about gels and electrolyte drinks being allowed). I'm not writing a thesis here and these arguments all deserve much more in-depth discussion than the cursory overview I'm laying out here.

The main point I'm trying to convey is that personal freedoms are not something to be given away cheaply. There's no doubt that prohibition of anything for which there's a strong demand leads to illegal black markets. Whether performance enhancing drugs are banned or not, their use is still a choice some athletes will make and get away with.

I hope you can read this posting in the spirit it's intended - to provoke thought rather than to suggest we should all become drug addicts. But prohibition never works and the current system seems unfair and no testing system could ever give 100% confidence that a sport is completely drug-free.

Elvis Costume For Sale on eBay (Used)

Photo used with permission. Copyright Glenn Tachiyama.

As mentioned yesterday, my Elvis-themed 50k at the Badger Mountain Challenge 50k in the Tri Cities, WA, was dedicated to charity. As an animal lover I've opted to support the Humane Society of Central Oregon, so you can either donate at http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/comradesTNF/2012?mid=zEcAAA2 if you feel inclined or you can buy the actual costume which I'm auctioning to raise funds.


I've run four Guinness World Records in this costume for the Fastest Marathon Dressed as Elvis and this costume currently holds the record:

- London Marathon 2007 (2:57)
- Rome Marathon 2008 (2:52)
- Seattle Marathon 2009 (2:42)
- Napa Valley Marathon 2012 (2:40)

I've also run two ultras in it, the 2011 Miwok 100k and yesterday's 2012 Badger Mountain Challenge 50k.


If you'd like to own this piece of errr...history...then please bid at eBay. You have until the end of Sunday the 8th of April.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190662109354#ht_500wt_1156

Badger Mt 50k and Some More Charitable Fundraising

Top: Photo used with permission. Copyright Glenn Tachiyama.
Bottom: From Miwok 100k last year.

Badger Mt 50k in the Tri Cities, WA, has an exposed course with around 6,000ft of climb. It was only six days after I trashed my legs at the Gorge Waterfalls 50k and I thought it'd be a good idea at the last moment to try to take it easier  and switch my mind-set by making it a charity run for my local Humane Society of Central Oregon and run it as Elvis (donate here if you think my silliness is worth a few dollars).

The Elvis costume, especially the wig, is now is pretty bad shape after four marathons, one 100k and a half marathon. This 50k pretty much finished it off and I was not Elvis at his perfectly coiffeured best. I was kind of like Elvis in his final days but much skinnier.

The plan made sense and I tried to take it a little easier than last weekend, but Justin Yates from Missoula, MT, zoomed up the climbs and I decided to try to keep him in sight. Last year's winner set the CR in 4:51 so I thought something around 4:20 would be around the front. Justin had other ideas and I chased him all day, losing ground on each climb and gaining some back downhill.

It's basically an out and back with three big(ish) climbs each way:

But it wasn't well marked and we both went off course multiple times. The 100 milers who started 24 hours previously must have struggled to navigate, especially in the dark.

I had a fun day and couldn't keep Justin in sight for the final climb but felt much better than last weekend. However, I didn't really take it easy at all and ended up finishing in 3:56. Justin was a few minutes ahead, smashing the CR with 3:53 and both of us were a lot quicker than I expected anyone to be running. These past couple of weeks are starting to show a benefit in my training so summer should be fun. Results will be here when they're posted. Bend had another good day after last week's Gorge Waterfalls 50k as Darla Askew set a new CR in 4:46 (she qualified for WS100 at Waldo last year so will be running there too).

One consolation I had every time I struggled up a climb or got almost blown over (the wig mainly stayed on by itself) in the high gales around the turnaround, was that I was doing something much more fun than the Barkley 100, which started about the same time. Those poor b@stards going through misery and getting their legs torn to shreds by the bracken as they do somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000ft of climb for every 20 mile loop. I feel very smug right now, but good luck to everyone out there. They have a couple of days left at most so could maybe catch this blog while they're stumbling along (I'm talking to you, James Adams, who will undoubtedly be playing with your phone if it has any reception).

Gorge Waterfalls 50k

Photo from the Gorge Waterfalls Facebook page

Yesterday I went up to northern Oregon for what I though would be a beautifully scenic warm-up race to kick-start my season after a bit of downtime to recover from Rocky Raccoon then a road marathon three weeks ago for a bit of speed and fun.

Then I saw the entrants' list included a lot of the fastest runners in Oregon so it looked like being even more enjoyable, both for socializing and running hard. Fast men and women like Max King, Eric Skaggs, Jenn Shelton and my North Face team-mate from Bend, Stephanie Howe.

I mainly entered because the RD, James Varner, has a great reputation for tough courses with great views and this one promised 24 waterfalls along the Columbia River valley. Snow higher up meant course changes and the final course had a few less waterfalls and less climbing, but still was scenic and tough - 5,800ft of ascent and around 29 miles...so a little short, but that couldn't be helped.

James had car issues on the morning (a flat tire, I heard) so we ended up starting half an hour late but nobody cared and the course didn't disappoint. It's one of the more technical races I've run in recent years and I found myself feeling tired way too early, after just the first climb at about six miles. Definitely time to start racking up the climbing miles as I only really got into hill work two weeks ago and the course beat me down - this was a tough one.

The revised course was an out-and-back so I could see the leaders as I headed to the turn around - Max was leading as expected, getting redemption for his lost lead the previous week at Chuckanut 50k when he went off course and added 4 miles. I was about a mile back at this point and feeling sluggish.

I had Jace Ives (who won the race the previous year) and Nick Triolo ahead so spent the return trip trying to chase them down, getting ahead, going the wrong way for a minute at the Lord of the Rings-style Multnomah Falls (see photo below) then having to chase Nick and Jace again. I just about managed to stay ahead of them until the finish but was running scared for the last two miles.

Multnomah Falls, Oregon

A great event and one that shows off how beautiful Oregon is. Max won in a blistering 3:19 and Stephanie won the ladies' race in 4:07 (watch out for her this year as she moves up from 50ks to longer ultras!). Multiple Garmins told us it was around 26 miles, but they lost signal for a lot of the course so I'm willing to go with the official measurement of 29 miles. Full results here and I was a fair bit back from Max in 3:46...only the 3rd Bend runner to finish, but Bend had a good day with the mens' and womens' wins plus four of the top ten overall.

Also, a whole load of photos of the course are here if you're thinking of running this. But if you are, it'll sell out in hours so make sure you find out the day entries go on sale for 2013.

What's the Ultimate Distance for an Ultra?

With this month having a lot of high profile 50ks like Way Too Cool and Chuckanut (both with around 700 runners and high quality fields), I wondered what people think the true test of ultrarunning is, in terms of distance. Obviously it's harder to finish a 100 miler than to finish a 50k, but running a 50k really fast seems to get punished in the general consensus of what's the most 'impressive'. Leor Pantilat is a good example as he is almost unbeatable at 50k and showed last year he can run a 50 miler with a 6:00 CR at Quicksilver 50 with something like 7,000ft of climb (probably the most impressive ultra performance of the year but sadly overlooked in general).

So I've added a poll to my site - what's the true test of an ultrarunner? Running any ultra distance hard and fast is tough but I personally think the shorter distances deserve more respect. There's no time to walk or go easy for a few miles in races under 100 miles for the fastest guys and girls, but in a 100-miler you can slow down for a bit and recover with it barely affecting your result.

UPDATE: Here are the results of the poll:

What's the true test of an ultrarunner (not just finishing, but finishing well)?

131 votes

- Over 100 miles 9%
- 100 miles 38%
- 100k 17%
- 50 miles/double marathon 32%
- 50k 1%
(percentages don't add up to 100% due to rounding)

I expected 100 miles to win it by more. But I think it shows that any distance for ultras can be considered the ultimate test if you give it your all.

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.

Public speaking and talks

Given a talk in Austin, TX, with Liza Howard. Photo: Drymax Socks

Talking at a running store in Oregon. Photo: Amy Sharman

I've been doing talks for a while now and so thought I should formalize it more. I've given talks to running stores, running clubs and the next talk I'm giving is to the Canadian Military. I can cover a variety of motivational, running and ultra related topics, so if you want to find out more, click here.