Highland Fling Race report

27 Apr 2008 17:22:59

Tim Downie

A rather twee name, redolent of tartan and shortbread but a great event.

This race runs from Milngavie to Tyndrum along the West Highland Way long
distance path for 52 miles. It's got a few hills (see
http://www.zen31010.zen.co.uk/highlandflingrace/images/routeandprofile.jpg)
and is on a variety of surfaces, from sucky cow dung saturated mud to tarmac
road. Most is rocky trail and is, for the most part runnable.

This race (for me at least) is a training run for the full WHW race in June.
Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient" manner, not
using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying a bit more gear &
food that I would have normally but it was useful experience for my longer
term plan of doing more long distance runs unsupported.

My build up for this race had been somewhat hampered by a back injury two
weeks beforehand which cost me a few days training, but although not
completely better, it didn't seem to be affecting my running.

The race started at 6am. This meant rising at 3:00 am, having a breakfast
or leftovers (beef casserole & potatos) and loading my bag up with
everything I though I might need. I ran with a rucksack that weighed about
7.5lbs and a bumbag/waterbelt weighing about 1.5lbs at the start.

The forecast had been for heavy rain in the morning and were weren't
disappointed. It started off dry though and the first 12 mile stretch up to
Drymen (which is possibly the most boring) went by indecently quickly. In
training I usually run this section in 2 - 2:05 but yesterday, knowing that
running many of the more northerly stretches would be technically difficult,
it seems reasonable to try and put a liitle money "in the bank". I didn't
expect to run it in 1:50 though and I was worried that my "money in the
bank" might well turn out to be fools gold.

The next section passes over the top of a small hill (rising to about
1000ft) before the first checkpoint in Balmaha. My legs had been feeling a
bit tired on the approach to the hill on forest roads, but the moment I got
off the roads, they felt fizzing with energy and I bounced up the hill. The
wind was fairly strong at the top and combined with the rain, it induced a
touch of painful "brain freeze". The descent has some nasty large steps
built into the hillside that are real quad cripplers but again, they didn't
present much of a problem.

At the first checkpoint I passed many runners who had stopped to eat and
drink. My strategy was to just run straight through them all as I was
carrying all I needed. On the whole, I think this saved me a lot of time,
not having to rummage through drop bags or "waste" time chatting to support
crews.

The stretch along Loch Lomond "looks" on a map like it ought to be flat but
it's anything but and feels like it goes on forever. By the time I got to
the checkpoint at Beinglas farm (a couple of miles north of the Loch & 40
miles from the start), I really felt like I'd had enough. If the race had
ended there I would have been a very happy man. The preceeding few miles
are over some of the worst terrain of the whole WHW, stretches of it are
completely unrunnable and they had taken a toll on my legs. Somehow,
knowing that it was *just* 12 miles to go wasn't much of a comfort.

Also gnawing at me was the knowledge that I'd passed that checkpoint at
8:02. My goal time was anything with a "10" in front of it but I was
feeling so tired I was doubting that I could run that last section in under
three hours. This was no doubt pessimism born out of exhaustion as I've run
it in two hours in training but thats when I've *started* at that checkpoint
without 40 miles under my belt.

Somehow though, the passing of a checkpoint and the stating of another
*section* put some life back into my legs. That and my urge to finish under
11 hours. I made a bit of a tactical blunder regarding my water supplies
though. I reached a section of open moorland (with sheep and cows grazing)
and realised that my water bottle was nearly empty. As part of my "self
sufficiency" drive, I'd been topping up from handy streams along the way
which had been fine whilst I was running through lush woodland with mossy
ground where there was no shortage of fast flowing small clear streams. Up
hear however the risk of contamination was somewhat higher.

I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland several miles
up the path but I was thirsty now and I decided that anything I caught was
unlikely to stop me finishing at this point. After searching out a stream
that didn't seem to have an livestock within a mile of it, I filled my
bottle only to discover another runner bearing down on me. I'd seen very
few runners for the last 20 miles and his appearance was probably the spur I
needed to keep me going over that last 8 miles or so.

He'd been within about 50 yards of me but I was very loath to lose a race
position that late in the day and without too much difficulty, I managed to
put some distance between us and soon lost sight of him. He never left my
mind though and as it turned out, I really wouldn't have wanted him to
finish ahead of me. About 2 miles before the finish, I passed a walking
runner, aparantly suffering with stomach problems who just couldn't keep
anything down and was running on empty. I wished him luck, apologised for
stealing his place so late in the day and with his blessing I ran on.

I crossed the finish line in 10:47:50, inside my 11 hour target. Part of me
was a bit disappointed not to get nearer 10:30 but I know that next time
I'll have a support crew which means that my load will be considerably
lighter.

In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink and ate 4
Mars Bars. Calorie intake was 1366 kcal in total and I didn't use any
electrolyte capsules or other salt sources. I was undoubtably helped by the
weather conditions that meant that my insensible losses were very low over
the early stages. After about 30 miles we did get some sunshine and I was
aware of sweating a bit more.

My calorie intake was a bit higher than I'd planned and I don't think I'll
ever be able to eat another Mars Bar in my life but it pretty much affirmed
my belief that one can get by on an intake vastly smaller than one's
expenditure. I had no real stomach problems and whilst I was certainly a
bit dehydrated at the end, I wasn't drastically so.

The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first male
supervet! (50-59). The runner who had almost caught me was also a supervet
and there was only a prize for the first in that category. I would have
been *so* upset if I'd lost out at that stage. ;-) My first silverware!

Full results on http://www.highlandflingrace.org/ and a couple of picture
of me on my blog at www.whw08.blogspot.com. Should be lots of race photos
on the Fling site in the next day or two when I get them

Tim

28 Apr 2008 01:16:02

steve common

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk > wrote:

Good race report.

>Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient" manner, not
>using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying a bit more gear &
>food that I would have normally but it was useful experience for my longer
>term plan of doing more long distance runs unsupported.

Excellent idea.

>I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland several miles
>up the path but I was thirsty now

Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been underperforming for
a while and risk blowing the whole thing. Maybe it was because of...

>In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink

I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training runs.
When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak on me.

And NEVER ON YOUR NELLY take any bloody caffeine while training. Are you
sure that the "energy" from your can of Red Buillshit is worth the
diuretic effect it has? Have a Lucozade or something if you want a fast
glucose shoot, no?

Seriously though - 10 hours and only 1800ml water?

28 Apr 2008 00:35:54

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

steve common wrote:
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Good race report.
>
> > Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient"
> > manner, not using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying
> > a bit more gear & food that I would have normally but it was useful
> > experience for my longer term plan of doing more long distance runs
> > unsupported.
>
> Excellent idea.
>
> > I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland
> > several miles up the path but I was thirsty now
>
> Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been
> underperforming for a while and risk blowing the whole thing.

Bollocks. Mostly based on cyclists on stationary bikes. Of no relevance to
runners.

> Maybe
> it was because of...
>
> > In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink
>
> I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training
> runs.

Way too much if it's cool. Nobody loses that much when it's cold and
pissing down with rain. You risk over hydration.

> When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak
> on me.

More fool you.

>
> And NEVER ON YOUR NELLY take any bloody caffeine while training.

Evidence please. It's fab stuff. Wouldn't be without it.

> Are
> you sure that the "energy" from your can of Red Buillshit is worth the
> diuretic effect it has?

The diuretic effect" you fear is literally, "pissing in the wind". I.e.,
minimal and of no concern.

> Have a Lucozade or something if you want a
> fast glucose shoot, no?

No. I've come round to the view that so called "isotonic" sports drinks, if
consumed in excess instead of water, are contributing to the incidence of
hyponatraemia.

> Seriously though - 10 hours and only 1800ml water?

Why drink more if you don't need it?

Tim
(After several glasses of wine and feeling stroppy - and thanking god that
at least one rec.runner is awake.) ;-)

28 Apr 2008 08:24:20

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim Downie wrote:
> A rather twee name, redolent of tartan and shortbread but a great event.
>
> This race runs from Milngavie to Tyndrum along the West Highland Way long
> distance path for 52 miles. It's got a few hills (see
> http://www.zen31010.zen.co.uk/highlandflingrace/images/routeandprofile.jpg)
> and is on a variety of surfaces, from sucky cow dung saturated mud to tarmac
> road. Most is rocky trail and is, for the most part runnable.

Geez, road runners just miss out on all the fun of describing race
surfaces.;)

>
> This race (for me at least) is a training run for the full WHW race in June.
> Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient" manner, not
> using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying a bit more gear &
> food that I would have normally but it was useful experience for my longer
> term plan of doing more long distance runs unsupported.
>
> My build up for this race had been somewhat hampered by a back injury two
> weeks beforehand which cost me a few days training, but although not
> completely better, it didn't seem to be affecting my running.
>
> The race started at 6am. This meant rising at 3:00 am, having a breakfast
> or leftovers (beef casserole & potatos) and loading my bag up with
> everything I though I might need. I ran with a rucksack that weighed about
> 7.5lbs and a bumbag/waterbelt weighing about 1.5lbs at the start.

For curiosity, is your rucksack fairly short so you have space to put a
waist belt underneath it? You're only using water from the waist belt?
i.e. your rucksack doesn't have hydration bladder in it? Just curious
since I've been toying with a couple ideas to improve my fluid access
this year, but haven't really come up with any other than attaching a
small bottle (6-10oz) of slimfast to shoulder strap rather than 2nd
bladder in pack.

....
>
> My calorie intake was a bit higher than I'd planned and I don't think I'll
> ever be able to eat another Mars Bar in my life but it pretty much affirmed
> my belief that one can get by on an intake vastly smaller than one's
> expenditure.

Only 4 Mars bars and you're OD'd for life? ;)

...

> The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first male
> supervet! (50-59). The runner who had almost caught me was also a supervet
> and there was only a prize for the first in that category. I would have
> been *so* upset if I'd lost out at that stage. ;-) My first silverware!

Congratulations, Tim!! Nicely done. Good training run for WHW.:) Thanks
for the report.

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

28 Apr 2008 08:51:44

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim Downie wrote:

> steve common wrote:
>
>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Good race report.
>>
>>
>>>Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient"
>>>manner, not using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying
>>>a bit more gear & food that I would have normally but it was useful
>>>experience for my longer term plan of doing more long distance runs
>>>unsupported.
>>
>>Excellent idea.
>>
>>
>>>I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland
>>>several miles up the path but I was thirsty now
>>
>>Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been
>>underperforming for a while and risk blowing the whole thing.
>
>
> Bollocks. Mostly based on cyclists on stationary bikes. Of no relevance to
> runners.
>
>
>>Maybe
>>it was because of...
>>
>>
>>>In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink
>>
>>I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training
>>runs.
>
>
> Way too much if it's cool. Nobody loses that much when it's cold and
> pissing down with rain. You risk over hydration.
>
>
>>When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak
>>on me.
>
>
> More fool you.

FWIW, I've been using 2-liters or less on 6-7.5-hr runs in cool weather
(50 oz/1.5 l on 7.5-hr run in cool-cold weather; 55 oz / 1.7 l on 6.8-hr
run in warmer (to me) weather) - about 200-250 ml/hr. Peeing clear /
maybe pale golden about every 2 hr (convenient outhouse, rest of route
is road with traffic). This will probably increase when / if we get
warmer weather, but I doubt it would get much over 450 ml/hr, probably
closer to 300-350ml/hr range. BUT we seldom get temps much above 70F in
a normal summer to even know what I might need then. (Alaskans melt near
70F.)

If hot and doing more intense runs, I may use a little over 20 oz / hr
(650 ml). But no way can I absorb that much in long runs in cool
temperatures.

My fluid needs would never be confused with those of Dan.

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

28 Apr 2008 10:22:10

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Dot wrote:
>
> For curiosity, is your rucksack fairly short so you have space to put
> a waist belt underneath it? You're only using water from the waist
> belt? i.e. your rucksack doesn't have hydration bladder in it? Just
> curious
> since I've been toying with a couple ideas to improve my fluid access
> this year, but haven't really come up with any other than attaching a
> small bottle (6-10oz) of slimfast to shoulder strap rather than 2nd
> bladder in pack.
>

My rucksac is fairly small but large enough for a 2L camelbak bladder. I
started the race with about 800ml in it. By shortening the shoulder straps,
I was able to wear a bottlebelt that has a fairly squat 400 ml bottle. I
started with this one empty.

Once I'd emptied my camelbak I used the small bottle as it's much easier to
top up and perhaps more importantly, it's easier to assess how much you've
got in it.

> ....
> >
> > My calorie intake was a bit higher than I'd planned and I don't
> > think I'll ever be able to eat another Mars Bar in my life but it
> > pretty much affirmed my belief that one can get by on an intake
> > vastly smaller than one's expenditure.
>
> Only 4 Mars bars and you're OD'd for life? ;)

Well, maybe not. ;-) I would like to find something different for future
races though.

>
> > The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first
> > male supervet! (50-59). The runner who had almost caught me was
> > also a supervet and there was only a prize for the first in that
> > category. I would have been *so* upset if I'd lost out at that
> > stage. ;-) My first silverware!
>
> Congratulations, Tim!! Nicely done. Good training run for WHW.:)
> Thanks for the report.

Thanks Dot. I'm not sure I can call it a "training run" though, not when it
feels like I've been trained all over with a baseball bat. ;-)

Tim

28 Apr 2008 06:37:11

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote in message
news:q71a14h9kg702j7icmn665kdfhrs6rq2vd@4ax.com...
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Good race report.

Yes!

Twee? You drove me to the dictionary for that one. I find the odd
distance a hoot. This side of the pond it's alost always ends in a
number divisable by two to the point some will lie to keep numbers in
line. A 53 mile race would be labeled a "fifty" and a 95 a "hundred." ;)

>>I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland several
>>miles
>>up the path but I was thirsty now
>
> Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been underperforming
> for
> a while and risk blowing the whole thing. Maybe it was because of...
>
>>In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink

I agree it seems light but it's your dance and you know best. If you
were peeing dark yellow you may want to revisit. It's hard to notice a
slow down with low or minimal dehydration but your legs do. You also
seem to be a minimalist with salt but again you may not have big needs.

I my last 50 two weeks ago I was thrust into high 70'sF temps after
training in 10-40 and found I needed a s!cap every 45 minutes to stay
ahead of the fluid curve. There was a high dropout rate and mostly
hyponatremic - pounding down gallons of fluid sans any salt.

>
> I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training
> runs.
> When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak on me.
>
> And NEVER ON YOUR NELLY take any bloody caffeine while training. Are
> you
> sure that the "energy" from your can of Red Buillshit is worth the
> diuretic effect it has? Have a Lucozade or something if you want a
> fast
> glucose shoot, no?

Please Steve you need to revisit the latest studies on caffeine and
distance running. I'm not saying you should live on RedBull, coke or
Mountain Dew but a cup or two at an aid station to go with the gallons
of water and sport drink is not in any way going to be a diuretic. The
right mix of caffeine keeps you burning fat and less glycogen
comfortably and efficiently.

Every supported ultra race that I have run offers Coke and.or Mountain
Dew in addition the water and sports drink. I can assure you they don't
do that if they thought it would be detrimental to runners. I'm not a GU
fan but many of them offer caffeine.

-Doug

28 Apr 2008 06:43:47

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:67ljb4F2pbi9nU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Only 4 Mars bars and you're OD'd for life? ;)
>
> Well, maybe not. ;-) I would like to find something different for
> future races though.

Especially for WHW. You don't want to put all you eggs in the Mars
basket and have your stomach refuse them. To this day I will come close
to blowing chunks with so much as a mouthful of Gatorade. Variety is
good especially later in a race.

> Thanks Dot. I'm not sure I can call it a "training run" though, not
> when it feels like I've been trained all over with a baseball bat. ;-)

:) Yo comprende!

-Doug

28 Apr 2008 04:25:04

Re: Highland Fling Race report

On Apr 27, 12:22=A0pm, "Tim Downie" <timdownie2...@obviousyahoo.co.uk >
wrote:

snip

First ... this was an excellent race report. Thanks for your time in
putting it out here.

Second ... you people doing these ultra's/etc are seriously scary.
Coming from someone that does enjoy putting in a couple of weekend 2
and 3 hour runs ... it is hard for me to understand how and why one
wants to push yourself so far.

Maybe I am just too young at 52 to understand?

But thanks again for the report!

28 Apr 2008 14:25:28

Anthony

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Well flung Tim!

Looks like it was a good workout for the WHW.

And congrats on the trophy!

Anthony.

28 Apr 2008 14:29:03

Anthony

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote in message
news:q71a14h9kg702j7icmn665kdfhrs6rq2vd@4ax.com...
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Good race report.
>
>>Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient" manner, not
>>using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying a bit more gear &
>>food that I would have normally but it was useful experience for my longer
>>term plan of doing more long distance runs unsupported.
>
> Excellent idea.
>
>>I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland several miles
>>up the path but I was thirsty now
>
> Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been underperforming for
> a while and risk blowing the whole thing. Maybe it was because of...
>
>>In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink
>
> I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training runs.
> When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak on me.

Yeah - I wouldn't do it - but it seems that Tim has done a lot of
"self-analysis"...

During my ultra I drank more than 1 litre/hour - but it was hot...
(only needed 1 toilet pitstop)

Anthony.

28 Apr 2008 14:06:25

Tony S.

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:67jnj2F2pb4lmU2@mid.individual.net...
>A rather twee name, redolent of tartan and shortbread but a great event.

Nice job Tim! I like living vicariously through race reports. I'd say you're
pretty daring drinking from open streams, even fast flowing ones. When I do
long-trail backcountry runs that have water sources I carry a filter bottle,
though it takes time to squeeze the water through it into another bottle and
thus wouldn't be great for races. I wonder what all did you carry in your 7
pound rucksack? Inclement weather gear? Am I to understand you drank only
2.3 liters the whole way? I'd think just the cleansing effect of drinking
more would be helpful in an ultra. What I mean is helping to flush the
system of metabolic and catabolic waste products. You don't want to end up
dehydrated with thick blood and toxic byproducts from muscle breakdown
floating around in your system for very long after an ultra.

-Tony

28 Apr 2008 07:12:17

Charlie Pendejo

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim:
> The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first
> male supervet! (50-59).

Congrats, Tim!

Sounds like a terrific showing, and like you're on track for your
primary goal this year. Excellent.

Do any of these races pass through - or finish! - here:
http://www.whisky-distilleries.info/Clynelish_EN.shtml

The standard 14 year stuff has made me a fan of Brora.

28 Apr 2008 17:21:37

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Doug Freese wrote:
> "steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:q71a14h9kg702j7icmn665kdfhrs6rq2vd@4ax.com...
> > "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Good race report.
>
> Yes!

Thanks. A bit more on my blog now. www.whw08.blogspot.com

>
> Twee? You drove me to the dictionary for that one.

And I thought you were a man of learning. ;-)

> I find the odd
> distance a hoot. This side of the pond it's alost always ends in a
> number divisable by two to the point some will lie to keep numbers in
> line. A 53 mile race would be labeled a "fifty" and a 95 a "hundred."
> ;)

I think it probably true to say that we're less obsessed about making them
"fit" a round number. It's the course that matters first and foremost. The
distance is just an arbitrary property of the course.

Tim

28 Apr 2008 17:27:01

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:22 pm, "Tim Downie" <timdownie2...@obviousyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> First ... this was an excellent race report. Thanks for your time in
> putting it out here.

Thanks

>
> Second ... you people doing these ultra's/etc are seriously scary.
> Coming from someone that does enjoy putting in a couple of weekend 2
> and 3 hour runs ... it is hard for me to understand how and why one
> wants to push yourself so far.

For fun? Seriously, long training runs on trails (30+ miles) can be very
pleasurable, particularly if you have good company. Sure, racing long
distances are hard but all racing hurts, it's just a question of pacing.
For me, the satisfaction also increases with distance.

>
> Maybe I am just too young at 52 to understand?

Nah. Perfect age for it. You just haven't found your inner ultra-runner
yet. ;-)

Tim

28 Apr 2008 17:28:35

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Anthony wrote:
> Well flung Tim!

Thanks Anthony.
>
> Looks like it was a good workout for the WHW.
>
> And congrats on the trophy!

That was an unexpected bonus. Not likely to happen next year though, there
are some seriously fast 49 year olds around who were running this year!

Tim

28 Apr 2008 17:35:44

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tony S. wrote:
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:67jnj2F2pb4lmU2@mid.individual.net...
> > A rather twee name, redolent of tartan and shortbread but a great
> > event.
>
> Nice job Tim! I like living vicariously through race reports. I'd say
> you're pretty daring drinking from open streams, even fast flowing
> ones.

I've done it most of my life here in Scotland and never suffered because of
it.

> When I do long-trail backcountry runs that have water sources I
> carry a filter bottle, though it takes time to squeeze the water
> through it into another bottle and thus wouldn't be great for races.
> I wonder what all did you carry in your 7 pound rucksack? Inclement
> weather gear?

Um, let me think.

Lightweight overtrousers
Lightweight windproof jacket
heavier weight gortex jacket
baseball cap
2 spare mars bars (carried 8 in total)
2 x 250ml cans of energy drink
gloves
space blanket
camelbak bladder with about 800ml water

>Am I to understand you drank only 2.3 liters the whole way?

Yep

> I'd think just the cleansing effect of
> drinking more would be helpful in an ultra. What I mean is helping to
> flush the system of metabolic and catabolic waste products. You don't
> want to end up dehydrated with thick blood and toxic byproducts from
> muscle breakdown floating around in your system for very long after
> an ultra.

I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but there
have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in Scotland that
dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We evolved to cope with
dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is probably unnatural and
unphysiological.

Tim

28 Apr 2008 17:41:38

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Tim:
> > The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first
> > male supervet! (50-59).
>
> Congrats, Tim!

Thanks Charlie

>
> Sounds like a terrific showing, and like you're on track for your
> primary goal this year. Excellent.
>
> Do any of these races pass through - or finish! - here:
> http://www.whisky-distilleries.info/Clynelish_EN.shtml

God what a horrible site! In answer to your question, no races that I know
of pass there. Doesn't mean that there isn't one but it's far from my neck
of the woods.

> The standard 14 year stuff has made me a fan of Brora.

The WHW does pass the Glengoyne distillery though. Not a bad drop of whisky
I'm led to believe but I don't really drink the stuff myself (apart from
when I enjoying sheep's stomach stuffed with its heart, liver & lungs along
with oatmeal and onion). ;-)

Tim

28 Apr 2008 19:21:58

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim Downie wrote:
>
> I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but there
> have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in Scotland that
> dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We evolved to cope with
> dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is probably unnatural and
> unphysiological.

Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online communities
(think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the total population of
runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile do I take a gel" or "at
what mile do I drink". (no wonder people need mile / km markers) It
seems like people have gone from being dehydrated to being hyponatremic
to popping electrolyte tablets like they're candy - and there's still
the diehard "I don't need no stinkin' water so you shouldn't either"
(failing to mention their longest race is 1.5 hr).

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

28 Apr 2008 13:09:03

Charlie Pendejo

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim:
> God what a horrible site!

What? You don't like the info, or you're one of these "only pretty,
sensibly organized sites for me please" people? You know the type:
they insist on a nice even distance for their races too, course be
damned. ;-)

> I don't really drink the stuff myself (apart from when I enjoying sheep's
> stomach stuffed with its heart, liver & lungs along with oatmeal and
> onion). ;-)

Now yer talkin'.

How come the ubiquitous Scottish chain over here doesn't serve that?

28 Apr 2008 20:23:18

Tony S.

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:qtpRj.264353$cQ1.252645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>> I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but there
>> have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in Scotland
>> that dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We evolved to
>> cope with dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is probably
>> unnatural and unphysiological.
>
> Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online communities
> (think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the total population of
> runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile do I take a gel" or "at
> what mile do I drink". (no wonder people need mile / km markers) It seems
> like people have gone from being dehydrated to being hyponatremic to
> popping electrolyte tablets like they're candy - and there's still the
> diehard "I don't need no stinkin' water so you shouldn't either" (failing
> to mention their longest race is 1.5 hr).
>
> Dot

It's very difficult to find the right balance for your own body in different
conditions. I'm for more or less trying to stay close to normal body weight,
less some of the water weight of carbo-loading. For example, if I weigh 165
carbo-loaded before a race, then I'd want to try to keep my weight up to
about 163 during the race. Though I can't think of a good source for it
right now, I think it's been established that there can be a toxic buildup
of metabolic waste during an ultra, and I would think that staying
well-hydrated would help alleviate any problems associated with such. Some
people adapt and handle ultras better than others, but every time I've done
a 50 miler it's taken my system many months to fully recover, and there's
always a serious amount of muscle damage the byproducts of which my kidney's
are no doubt working overtime to clear.

-Tony

> --
> "Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
> afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
>

28 Apr 2008 21:11:39

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:qtpRj.264353$cQ1.252645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>>>I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but there
>>>have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in Scotland
>>>that dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We evolved to
>>>cope with dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is probably
>>>unnatural and unphysiological.
>>
>>Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online communities
>>(think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the total population of
>>runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile do I take a gel" or "at
>>what mile do I drink". (no wonder people need mile / km markers) It seems
>>like people have gone from being dehydrated to being hyponatremic to
>>popping electrolyte tablets like they're candy - and there's still the
>>diehard "I don't need no stinkin' water so you shouldn't either" (failing
>>to mention their longest race is 1.5 hr).
>>
>>Dot
>
>
> It's very difficult to find the right balance for your own body in different
> conditions. I'm for more or less trying to stay close to normal body weight,
> less some of the water weight of carbo-loading. For example, if I weigh 165
> carbo-loaded before a race, then I'd want to try to keep my weight up to
> about 163 during the race. Though I can't think of a good source for it
> right now, I think it's been established that there can be a toxic buildup
> of metabolic waste during an ultra, and I would think that staying
> well-hydrated would help alleviate any problems associated with such.

Some
> people adapt and handle ultras better than others, but every time I've done
> a 50 miler it's taken my system many months to fully recover, and there's
> always a serious amount of muscle damage the byproducts of which my kidney's
> are no doubt working overtime to clear.

I'd be curious. Take a look at the people who have trained for and run
ultras for a few years (a range - like less than 5 yrs to a couple
decades). Then compare someone new to running those distances or time on
legs or whatever. Use various parameters whether it's objective like
blood draws at end of race and every few days after (there's a protocol,
I'm sure, I'm just winging it here for discussion purposes) or
subjective like degree of pain during / immediately after race or how
soon they can walk normally afterwards. I'm willing to bet that the
folks that are consistent across a few years will likely show fewer
signs of damage. IOW, it's a buildup of years of running, not a one-shot
buildup. And frequency of racing within a year probably has a role also.

Look at the intensities in the training and racing of the more
experienced ones. Granted, there's probably a confounding. Some people
may have problems their first time or two and decide to focus their
running efforts elsewhere, so we may not have any long term data on
adaptations in those people over years (not the one shot or couple
months of controlled studies). And to be sure, there's gonna be
exceptions, but I'm thinking there's some generalized trends. But might
be confounded by self-selection.

But I am a believer that most things (not all) can be trained for. The
body adapts.

We just have to listen to it and respond appropriately. Unfortunately
our bodies don't come with guidebooks. The point in my post is that many
runners (at least online RW, etc types) aren't willing to take the time
to learn and have to be told what pace to run, at milepost to drink, at
what mile to eat, etc. And responders may actually give them a specific
mileage. My favorite is what / when to eat/drink in a HM - duh, are you
expecting this to take 1 hr (ah, probably not from a RW poster) or 4+
hrs. Some of these "guidelines" like from ACSM or whatever can be a real
issue - when they may advocate drinking far more than an individual
needs. That's part of why hyponatremia became such an issue.

The reason I don't have a good perspective on general running is that
the local runners I may see on a daily basis (trail groups, whatever)
are typically 4-hr and shorter races and aren't online at all. The ultra
runners that I'm around less frequently all do it by feel. The couple
times I've run with them (hmm, started with them) on evening runs, I'm
not sure I've seen them even hit a start button on a watch. (To be sure,
there are other nights when they do keep track of time and may do track
workouts.) Some of them are on the ultra list. But I don't know any
local real life runners that are in online groups.

I do know as I'm getting more experience at longer training runs, I'm
getting a better feeling for my normal fluid and fuel needs - a lot less
than what I thought in the past. I just didn't have enough data points
to separate short-term higher intensity needs from longer, lower
intensity needs. IOW, separating worst case scenario from what's more
likely to occur. But none of my long runs have been above +50F yet this
year.

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

29 Apr 2008 00:04:41

steve common

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk > wrote:

>(After several glasses of wine and feeling stroppy - and thanking god that
>at least one rec.runner is awake.) ;-)
>

Mine was after "several" beers, so I got what I deserved ;-)

29 Apr 2008 00:13:13

steve common

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote:

>Please Steve you need to revisit the latest studies on caffeine and
>distance running. I'm not saying you should live on RedBull, coke or
>Mountain Dew but a cup or two at an aid station to go with the gallons
>of water and sport drink is not in any way going to be a diuretic. The
>right mix of caffeine keeps you burning fat and less glycogen
>comfortably and efficiently.

I know I'm having to revisit lots of my old beliefs lately, but I had
understood that caffeine was taken off the banned substances list in
athletics because it is actually no use whatever as a perfomance enhancer
(fat burning notably) except in such quantities that you get the negative
side-effects too (increased heart rate, diuretic).

If anyone has a handly link on recent caffeine studies before I fire up my
Googlie thingy...

28 Apr 2008 18:20:51

Parker Race

Re: Highland Fling Race report

28 Apr 2008 23:57:03

Ken

Re: Highland Fling Race report

In article <q71a14h9kg702j7icmn665kdfhrs6rq2vd@4ax.com >, steve common
<steven.common@wanadoo.fr > writes
>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Good race report.
>
>>Additionally, I was keen to try running in a "self sufficient" manner, not
>>using drop bags or a support crew. This meant carrying a bit more gear &
>>food that I would have normally but it was useful experience for my longer
>>term plan of doing more long distance runs unsupported.
>
>Excellent idea.
>
>>I debated leaving my top-up until I reach some more woodland several miles
>>up the path but I was thirsty now
>
>Very bad! If you feel thirsty then you've already been underperforming for
>a while and risk blowing the whole thing. Maybe it was because of...
>
>>In all, I drank 1800ml water, 500 ml caffeine/taurine energy drink
>
>I drink 700-1000ml of water per hour, even on bog-standrard training runs.
>When I do those 2:40 longest runs, I have a 2.5 litre camelbak on me.

Have you considered that your -er - slightly voluptuous build causes you
to sweat more than some people.

--
Ken

29 Apr 2008 00:05:10

Ken

Re: Highland Fling Race report

In article <4815a8cf$0$20201$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Doug Freese
<dfreese@hvc.rr.com > writes
>
>"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:q71a14h9kg702j7icmn665kdfhrs6rq2vd@4ax.com...
>> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Good race report.
>
>Yes!
>
>Twee? You drove me to the dictionary for that one.

On the other hand "Gay Gordons" has an unfortunately effeminate feel
to it, whilst "Foursome Reel" is surely too adventurous in tone for
those not running the full 95.

>
>I agree it seems light but it's your dance

very apt.

--
Ken

28 Apr 2008 23:16:39

Tony S.

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:f4rRj.264766$cQ1.52301@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tony S. wrote:
>> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
>> news:qtpRj.264353$cQ1.252645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>Tim Downie wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but
>>>>there have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in
>>>>Scotland that dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We
>>>>evolved to cope with dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is
>>>>probably unnatural and unphysiological.
>>>
>>>Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online communities
>>>(think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the total population of
>>>runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile do I take a gel" or "at
>>>what mile do I drink". (no wonder people need mile / km markers) It seems
>>>like people have gone from being dehydrated to being hyponatremic to
>>>popping electrolyte tablets like they're candy - and there's still the
>>>diehard "I don't need no stinkin' water so you shouldn't either" (failing
>>>to mention their longest race is 1.5 hr).
>>>
>>>Dot
>>
>>
>> It's very difficult to find the right balance for your own body in
>> different conditions. I'm for more or less trying to stay close to normal
>> body weight, less some of the water weight of carbo-loading. For example,
>> if I weigh 165 carbo-loaded before a race, then I'd want to try to keep
>> my weight up to about 163 during the race. Though I can't think of a good
>> source for it right now, I think it's been established that there can be
>> a toxic buildup of metabolic waste during an ultra, and I would think
>> that staying well-hydrated would help alleviate any problems associated
>> with such.
>
>
> Some
>> people adapt and handle ultras better than others, but every time I've
>> done a 50 miler it's taken my system many months to fully recover, and
>> there's always a serious amount of muscle damage the byproducts of which
>> my kidney's are no doubt working overtime to clear.
>
> I'd be curious. Take a look at the people who have trained for and run
> ultras for a few years (a range - like less than 5 yrs to a couple
> decades). Then compare someone new to running those distances or time on
> legs or whatever. Use various parameters whether it's objective like blood
> draws at end of race and every few days after (there's a protocol, I'm
> sure, I'm just winging it here for discussion purposes) or subjective like
> degree of pain during / immediately after race or how soon they can walk
> normally afterwards. I'm willing to bet that the folks that are consistent
> across a few years will likely show fewer signs of damage. IOW, it's a
> buildup of years of running, not a one-shot buildup. And frequency of
> racing within a year probably has a role also.
>
> Look at the intensities in the training and racing of the more experienced
> ones. Granted, there's probably a confounding. Some people may have
> problems their first time or two and decide to focus their running efforts
> elsewhere, so we may not have any long term data on adaptations in those
> people over years (not the one shot or couple months of controlled
> studies). And to be sure, there's gonna be exceptions, but I'm thinking
> there's some generalized trends. But might be confounded by
> self-selection.
>
> But I am a believer that most things (not all) can be trained for. The
> body adapts.

I don't agree; I think it's very highly genetic. In some people the training
effect doesn't even register. And while we know some fast twitch muscle
seems to adapt somewhat into more medium twitch like fibers, it never
becomes slow twitch. I speculate that those who can run high training miles
consistently and/or run ultras frequently suffer less muscle damage because
they have a predominately slow twitch physiology. In contrast, my body works
pretty well up to 4-5 hours, but beyond that it starts to seriously break
down, and I think this is because medium twitch muscles can last pretty well
for a while but then start to suffer serious damage.

I'm kind of with Noakes, who gives cautious advice for those considering
running ultras. He appears to think that for the average runner there's
severe and lasting damage with doing frequent ultras. My guess is that those
who can tolerate them well end up doing them, and those who don't tolerate
them well don't. Body types and muscle fiber makeups among people *are*
different.

-Tony, who loves to run long in the mountains, but who hits a different kind
of wall at about 5 hours...

> We just have to listen to it and respond appropriately. Unfortunately our
> bodies don't come with guidebooks. The point in my post is that many
> runners (at least online RW, etc types) aren't willing to take the time to
> learn and have to be told what pace to run, at milepost to drink, at what
> mile to eat, etc. And responders may actually give them a specific
> mileage. My favorite is what / when to eat/drink in a HM - duh, are you
> expecting this to take 1 hr (ah, probably not from a RW poster) or 4+ hrs.
> Some of these "guidelines" like from ACSM or whatever can be a real
> issue - when they may advocate drinking far more than an individual needs.
> That's part of why hyponatremia became such an issue.
>
>
> The reason I don't have a good perspective on general running is that the
> local runners I may see on a daily basis (trail groups, whatever) are
> typically 4-hr and shorter races and aren't online at all. The ultra
> runners that I'm around less frequently all do it by feel. The couple
> times I've run with them (hmm, started with them) on evening runs, I'm not
> sure I've seen them even hit a start button on a watch. (To be sure, there
> are other nights when they do keep track of time and may do track
> workouts.) Some of them are on the ultra list. But I don't know any local
> real life runners that are in online groups.
>
> I do know as I'm getting more experience at longer training runs, I'm
> getting a better feeling for my normal fluid and fuel needs - a lot less
> than what I thought in the past. I just didn't have enough data points to
> separate short-term higher intensity needs from longer, lower intensity
> needs. IOW, separating worst case scenario from what's more likely to
> occur. But none of my long runs have been above +50F yet this year.
>
> Dot
>
> --
> "Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
> afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
>

28 Apr 2008 20:04:17

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:rVsRj.1468$uS1.1360@trndny05...
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:f4rRj.264766$cQ1.52301@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Tony S. wrote:
>>> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qtpRj.264353$cQ1.252645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>>Tim Downie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but
>>>>>there have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here
>>>>>in Scotland that dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink
>>>>>more. We evolved to cope with dehydration. To drink in excess of
>>>>>thirst is probably unnatural and unphysiological.
>>>>
>>>>Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online
>>>>communities (think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the
>>>>total population of runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile
>>>>do I take a gel" or "at what mile do I drink". (no wonder people
>>>>need mile / km markers) It seems like people have gone from being
>>>>dehydrated to being hyponatremic to popping electrolyte tablets like
>>>>they're candy - and there's still the diehard "I don't need no
>>>>stinkin' water so you shouldn't either" (failing to mention their
>>>>longest race is 1.5 hr).
>>>>
>>>>Dot
>>>
>>>
>>> It's very difficult to find the right balance for your own body in
>>> different conditions. I'm for more or less trying to stay close to
>>> normal body weight, less some of the water weight of carbo-loading.
>>> For example, if I weigh 165 carbo-loaded before a race, then I'd
>>> want to try to keep my weight up to about 163 during the race.
>>> Though I can't think of a good source for it right now, I think it's
>>> been established that there can be a toxic buildup of metabolic
>>> waste during an ultra, and I would think that staying well-hydrated
>>> would help alleviate any problems associated with such.
>>
>>
>> Some
>>> people adapt and handle ultras better than others, but every time
>>> I've done a 50 miler it's taken my system many months to fully
>>> recover, and there's always a serious amount of muscle damage the
>>> byproducts of which my kidney's are no doubt working overtime to
>>> clear.
>>
>> I'd be curious. Take a look at the people who have trained for and
>> run ultras for a few years (a range - like less than 5 yrs to a
>> couple decades). Then compare someone new to running those distances
>> or time on legs or whatever. Use various parameters whether it's
>> objective like blood draws at end of race and every few days after
>> (there's a protocol, I'm sure, I'm just winging it here for
>> discussion purposes) or subjective like degree of pain during /
>> immediately after race or how soon they can walk normally afterwards.
>> I'm willing to bet that the folks that are consistent across a few
>> years will likely show fewer signs of damage. IOW, it's a buildup of
>> years of running, not a one-shot buildup. And frequency of racing
>> within a year probably has a role also.
>>
>> Look at the intensities in the training and racing of the more
>> experienced ones. Granted, there's probably a confounding. Some
>> people may have problems their first time or two and decide to focus
>> their running efforts elsewhere, so we may not have any long term
>> data on adaptations in those people over years (not the one shot or
>> couple months of controlled studies). And to be sure, there's gonna
>> be exceptions, but I'm thinking there's some generalized trends. But
>> might be confounded by self-selection.
>>
>> But I am a believer that most things (not all) can be trained for.
>> The body adapts.
>
> I don't agree; I think it's very highly genetic. In some people the
> training effect doesn't even register. And while we know some fast
> twitch muscle seems to adapt somewhat into more medium twitch like
> fibers, it never becomes slow twitch. I speculate that those who can
> run high training miles consistently and/or run ultras frequently
> suffer less muscle damage because they have a predominately slow
> twitch physiology. In contrast, my body works pretty well up to 4-5
> hours, but beyond that it starts to seriously break down, and I think
> this is because medium twitch muscles can last pretty well for a while
> but then start to suffer serious damage.

I will side with Dot on this one. You're the only one that I know that
has this gentic 4-5 hour built-in hard stop. I contend you can go a lot
further but need to adjust how you go about it. You may need to go
slower or do long runs less frequently and thus more recover. I'm not
buying the fast vs. medium vs. slow twitch has anything to do with the
time on your feet but other then the pace that you can run long.

> I'm kind of with Noakes, who gives cautious advice for those
> considering running ultras. He appears to think that for the average
> runner there's severe and lasting damage with doing frequent ultras.

Frequent is a different issue but still correlates to recovery

> My guess is that those who can tolerate them well end up doing them,
> and those who don't tolerate them well don't. Body types and muscle
> fiber makeups among people *are* different.

So is height, weight and eye color. Ok eye color is a stretch.

> -Tony, who loves to run long in the mountains, but who hits a
> different kind of wall at about 5 hours...

I'm betting if you made changes to how you appraoch the miles/time you
could run all you want. I don't believe you have any built in
limitations but don't want to spend the time to grow your long run.

-Doug

28 Apr 2008 20:19:17

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote in message
news:vkic149bc8hkjralomqieidemkktefo5b6@4ax.com...
> "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Please Steve you need to revisit the latest studies on caffeine and
>>distance running. I'm not saying you should live on RedBull, coke or
>>Mountain Dew but a cup or two at an aid station to go with the gallons
>>of water and sport drink is not in any way going to be a diuretic. The
>>right mix of caffeine keeps you burning fat and less glycogen
>>comfortably and efficiently.
>
> I know I'm having to revisit lots of my old beliefs lately, but I had
> understood that caffeine was taken off the banned substances list in
> athletics because it is actually no use whatever as a perfomance
> enhancer
> (fat burning notably) except in such quantities that you get the
> negative
> side-effects too (increased heart rate, diuretic).

It was thought to boost sprinters. Since that has been shown not to be
true they don't care. OTOH it has for some been shown to be helpful in
endurance efforts by helping you utilize more fat which we have vast
amounts of during a race.

>
> If anyone has a handly link on recent caffeine studies before I fire
> up my
> Googlie thingy...
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/caffeine.html
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/caffeine-effects.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2146254/Caffeine-can-increase-endurance-SPORTS.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Caffeine-Increases-Endurance-in-Long-Races&id=288611

There are hundreds.....

-Doug Of course there are purests that feel it is cheating. They also
feel that eating and sport drinks(non_caffeine) are also cheating and
aid stations.

-Doug

28 Apr 2008 19:59:44

D Stumpus

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote

> The standard 14 year stuff has made me a fan of Brora.

I'm a 15 yo Laphroaig man, myself...

28 Apr 2008 20:37:59

Charlie Pendejo

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Doug:
> I'm betting if you made changes to how you appraoch the miles/time you
> could run all you want. I don't believe you have any built in
> limitations but don't want to spend the time to grow your long run.

And I think most folks running better than 9 minute miles and without
other serious physical issues (or, say, extreme climate and terrain)
could work their way up to 100 mile training weeks if they wanted. I
don't believe 40, 50, 60 MPW is a built in limitation for most, but
people don't want to spend the time growing their weekly volume. :-)

> You're the only one that I know that has this gentic 4-5 hour
> built-in hard stop.

I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
damage or whatever hits a distinct knee. This 2, 2.5 hours comes up
plenty often in other runners' lore too, it ain't just me.

So at half the time span Tony's talking about, it's probably a
different mechanism from whatever he's experiencing. What do you
think's going on at those time spans? What makes a 2:25 run so much
more punishing than 1:55? Or do you think there's nothing special
about ~2 hours either?

28 Apr 2008 20:48:49

Charlie Pendejo

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Pendejo:
>> The standard 14 year stuff has made me a fan of Brora.

Dan:
> I'm a 15 yo Laphroaig man, myself...

Yeah, I've been known to drink a few of those. The redhead and her
family were pretty loyal to the Macallan. Pretty good stuff, not as
complex as some but by that same token easier to drink more of. The
scotch to have, when you're having more than one. ;-)

Sadly my gluten feelers seems to be sensitive to the stuff these days,
so my scotch for the foreseeable future will speak with a Mexican
accent, like Don Julio anejo.

29 Apr 2008 08:35:36

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee. This 2, 2.5 hours comes up
> plenty often in other runners' lore too, it ain't just me.

I think Charlie that the biggest "barrier" to running ultra distance lies
between the ears. You don't believe you can do it, so you can't. Simple
as that. IMO there is no mystical physical barrier that kicks in after X
hours, it's just a matter of pacing.

During the hunter-gatherer stage of our evolution I believe we all inherited
the ability to be ultra runners. Finding your inner ultra runner just takes
a bit of time (and self belief).

Tim

29 Apr 2008 09:28:43

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:f4rRj.264766$cQ1.52301@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Tony S. wrote:
>>
>>>"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qtpRj.264353$cQ1.252645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Downie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I just drank when I was thirsty. An anathema to some folk here but
>>>>>there have been more folk hospitalised through overhydration here in
>>>>>Scotland that dehydration. In hotter weather I would drink more. We
>>>>>evolved to cope with dehydration. To drink in excess of thirst is
>>>>>probably unnatural and unphysiological.
>>>>
>>>>Just a general comment. Not sure how representative online communities
>>>>(think RW, RA, RT, LR, whatever) are relative to the total population of
>>>>runners, but I'm seeing a lot of "at what mile do I take a gel" or "at
>>>>what mile do I drink". (no wonder people need mile / km markers) It seems
>>>>like people have gone from being dehydrated to being hyponatremic to
>>>>popping electrolyte tablets like they're candy - and there's still the
>>>>diehard "I don't need no stinkin' water so you shouldn't either" (failing
>>>>to mention their longest race is 1.5 hr).
>>>>
>>>>Dot
>>>
>>>
>>>It's very difficult to find the right balance for your own body in
>>>different conditions. I'm for more or less trying to stay close to normal
>>>body weight, less some of the water weight of carbo-loading. For example,
>>>if I weigh 165 carbo-loaded before a race, then I'd want to try to keep
>>>my weight up to about 163 during the race. Though I can't think of a good
>>>source for it right now, I think it's been established that there can be
>>>a toxic buildup of metabolic waste during an ultra, and I would think
>>>that staying well-hydrated would help alleviate any problems associated
>>>with such.
>>
>>
>>Some
>>
>>>people adapt and handle ultras better than others, but every time I've
>>>done a 50 miler it's taken my system many months to fully recover, and
>>>there's always a serious amount of muscle damage the byproducts of which
>>>my kidney's are no doubt working overtime to clear.
>>
>>I'd be curious. Take a look at the people who have trained for and run
>>ultras for a few years (a range - like less than 5 yrs to a couple
>>decades). Then compare someone new to running those distances or time on
>>legs or whatever. Use various parameters whether it's objective like blood
>>draws at end of race and every few days after (there's a protocol, I'm
>>sure, I'm just winging it here for discussion purposes) or subjective like
>>degree of pain during / immediately after race or how soon they can walk
>>normally afterwards. I'm willing to bet that the folks that are consistent
>>across a few years will likely show fewer signs of damage. IOW, it's a
>>buildup of years of running, not a one-shot buildup. And frequency of
>>racing within a year probably has a role also.
>>
>>Look at the intensities in the training and racing of the more experienced
>>ones. Granted, there's probably a confounding. Some people may have
>>problems their first time or two and decide to focus their running efforts
>>elsewhere, so we may not have any long term data on adaptations in those
>>people over years (not the one shot or couple months of controlled
>>studies). And to be sure, there's gonna be exceptions, but I'm thinking
>>there's some generalized trends. But might be confounded by
>>self-selection.
>>
>>But I am a believer that most things (not all) can be trained for. The
>>body adapts.
>
>
> I don't agree; I think it's very highly genetic.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Genetics may play a part, but as Tim
mentions later, I do think some of our limitations are mental. But the
folks that think they can't, won't, and become self-fulfilling
prophecies so there's no way to obtain data. I respect people's wishes
to do what they're interested in.

I'll also agree with Charlie to some extent. What goals we choose and
the way we train is at least partly a function of what we're willing to
do as recreational runners and what we have time for. Many people are
happy running 1 hr/day. Others may be able to find the time to run more.

I don't follow the training threads that closely (my own data confuses
me enough), but take a serious look at some of your training and your
weekly comments and what you chose to do over the last few years. Think
like the little engine that could - "I think I can, I think I can,
..." What do I have to change to be successful in that goal.

My recollection is that one year you beat yourself up with a bunch of
long runs too close together. I think the other year, it sounded like
you trained too hard and your feet were always hurting or something.
I've forgotten the details, but two things stick in my mind: (1) you
always seemed to be in pain and (2)it seemed like you bracketed a
potentially good training approach, but decided 50-mile races weren't
for you rather than trying a different approach. The other part of
listening to one's body, is to do something positive about it - not
aggravate it more.

I know you like orienteering and like running rough stuff off trail, and
I respect your desires to return to that since you seem to enjoy that
more than longer trail races. But, please, say that's where your
interests are, not that you're limited by your fast-twitch fibers
without trying some more variations. Also remember that your body today
isn't what it was when you were doing orienteering.

One thing I'm sometimes thankful for is that being pre-title IX, I don't
have a past that I'm trying to relive. It's all new going forward. I'll
admit that being retired makes it a lot easier to be flexible about what
kind of running I'm doing and adjusting recoveries. Yes, I misjudge a
lot and say, oops, better allow more recovery time after that for now or
back off on intensity or duration of something.

> In some people the training
> effect doesn't even register.

Across that particular training regime. But what about the gajillion
other training approaches out there. I've forgotten the study but they
basically took the non-responders (bottom quarter) and put them in a
different training pgm and most of them (probably not all) responded
positively. IIRC, the first approach was traditional base and the other
approach was more strength based for starters.

>And while we know some fast twitch muscle
> seems to adapt somewhat into more medium twitch like fibers, it never
> becomes slow twitch. I speculate that those who can run high training miles
> consistently and/or run ultras frequently suffer less muscle damage because
> they have a predominately slow twitch physiology.

Well how come some of these people can run so dang fast if they're
predominantly slow twitch? Yea, not sprinter speeds, but running 50-100
miles at faster pace than most US runners can run a marathon or even
some shorter races.

> In contrast, my body works
> pretty well up to 4-5 hours, but beyond that it starts to seriously break
> down, and I think this is because medium twitch muscles can last pretty well
> for a while but then start to suffer serious damage.

How long are your shorter runs typically - before your injuries? My
hypothesis is that the ease / difficulty of longer runs is related to
how different they are from your normal runs. IOW, someone running 1.5-2
hr normal runs may have less difficulty with 4-5 hr runs than someone
running mostly 45 min runs.

>
> I'm kind of with Noakes, who gives cautious advice for those considering
> running ultras. He appears to think that for the average runner there's
> severe and lasting damage with doing frequent ultras. My guess is that those
> who can tolerate them well end up doing them, and those who don't tolerate
> them well don't. Body types and muscle fiber makeups among people *are*
> different.

How close to reality is Noakes' "appears to think"? Or is he talking
about competitive pavement-pounding ultras rather than US trail ultras.
I think the two main SA ultras are on roads, iirc. I respect him as a
researcher, and I'd give more credibility to his thoughts about some
things than I would to an untrained person, but until he has data -
either experimental or more likely epidemiological in this case, they're
just hypotheses. (I say this from my experience as a researcher, which
was frequently finding that lower-48 models don't work in Alaska.)

At the bottom of this page are some refereed articles on runner
responses at WS100.
http://www.ws100.com/researchproposal.htm
It's interesting following some of those links to assorted articles. I
couldn't find what I was looking for, and it might be in more recent
studies hence not in print (but maybe forum discussion by some
participants who might have received results). Somewhere I've read that
blood draws soon after a race will show "damage" - or at least
parameters that are consistent with damage. But they disappear in a few
days. People that are racing more frequently may show less damage than
in years when they race less frequently. No descriptions as to
"frequently", damage, etc.

I do agree with you that people that enjoy running far will run far.
Those that don't won't - or are truly in it for the pain. ;) So we'll
never have any data to know if there's more damage in people with
different body types.

While body types and muscle fiber makeups may be different among people,
it's not clear how much they physically affect running longer - in the
long term, not just a lab study.

Dot
had a feeling there'd be some responses by the time I finished my run
and 3 meetings.

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

29 Apr 2008 10:06:51

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Doug:
>
>>I'm betting if you made changes to how you appraoch the miles/time you
>>could run all you want. I don't believe you have any built in
>>limitations but don't want to spend the time to grow your long run.
>
>
> And I think most folks running better than 9 minute miles and without
> other serious physical issues (or, say, extreme climate and terrain)
> could work their way up to 100 mile training weeks if they wanted. I
> don't believe 40, 50, 60 MPW is a built in limitation for most, but
> people don't want to spend the time growing their weekly volume. :-)
>
>
>
>>You're the only one that I know that has this gentic 4-5 hour
>>built-in hard stop.
>
>
> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee. This 2, 2.5 hours comes up
> plenty often in other runners' lore too, it ain't just me.

Hmmm, this is the first time I've heard this one (other than glycogen
depletion). Usually, it's running over 3 hrs will cause injury.

On some of the general forums (basic, beginners) where I am, the faster
runners tend to discourage all runners from running more than 3-hr long
runs since they'll get hurt. For people that have built too rapidly, not
adapted to the volume, and are likely on asphalt, I'd probably agree.
Oh, and gotta have that "no walking" aspect in there.;) But in at least
one case, one runner said he didn't want to be out there that long
running, so one shouldn't run that long. Duh, since when does one
person's interests dictate a "law" that others should follow.

In some respects, I consider the mainstream running forums like boxes
where everyone keeps within certain approaches. No one explores outside
the box (longest run of 3 hrs, don't run hard downhill, etc), so no one
learns any differently. Maybe this is why they give the trail and ultra
folks separate forums so we don't contaminate the "conventional wisdom".;)

But for folks that take their time building, run within their training,
are on more variable surfaces like trails, and are willing to take walk
breaks to stay out longer, just look at the length of runs being done
routinely in the trail and ultra forums - by common runners. It's like
there's too different worlds of training principles. Depending upon the
runner and terrain, I suspect 4-8-hr long runs contain 50-100% running.

I'll have to admit I probably can't handle 2 hr on my old bike path
(1:45 ok, but that's where it becomes flat). But go to some interesting
terrain, and long runs aren't all that bad - AFTER you've adjusted to
it. BUT for most people, the increase to a certain distance / time -
whether it was 1 hr or 5 hr - always seemed to have some, ah, discomfort
associated with it.

>
> So at half the time span Tony's talking about, it's probably a
> different mechanism from whatever he's experiencing. What do you
> think's going on at those time spans? What makes a 2:25 run so much
> more punishing than 1:55? Or do you think there's nothing special
> about ~2 hours either?

How often do you run that long? How much longer is that relative to your
average (normal, most frequent, whatever) run?

For me, a 2.5 hr run is more like a 2-hr run that took a little longer,
BUT I'm willing to take some walk breaks here and there as needed for
terrain. I'm willing to accept anything that lets me spend more time
running. My normal runs are in the 1-2 hr range, depending on terrain,
intensity, snow, what legs feel like, available time, whatever. This
year, the bulk of that time was running - maybe some walking in deep
snow, ice, around downed trees and some total stops (30 sec to 2 min)
rather than jog recoveries in higher effort stuff on snowshoes.

Just my hypothesis, but I think that people that run shorter more
frequently (every day and/or doubles) probably train their bodies to run
shorter. I know if I run very many days of < 1 hr, my body gets lazy and
doesn't want to go longer. This is one of the reasons I train as I do,
not to mention it's more fun to get farther away from the trail head and
better running conditions.

And in your case, Charlie, I'm sure the mold may be hindering things. ;)
(Seriously, I hope you've got that problem under control. That must be
miserable.)

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

29 Apr 2008 10:18:10

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Dot wrote:

> I don't follow the training threads that closely (my own data confuses
> me enough), but take a serious look at some of your training and your
> weekly comments and what you chose to do over the last few years.

The reason I suggested this is that a month or so ago I pulled out my
data from last year's RP38 after not having looked at it since last
fall. I looked at it with fresh eyes as well as maybe another 6 months
of training including several more long runs and their accompanying
data. A couple things (maybe started a little fast, maybe drank too much
early on) that I wondered about last summer, but couldn't convince
myself of at the time, I'm now thinking that maybe I did - once again
making Doug (too fast) and Karl King (too much fluid even though I was
hardly drinking anything - but I wasn't sweating either) correct. But
those are certainly fixable items. And having a better idea of course
profile and footing, I've got a better idea of how to train this year.
Doesn't mean I'll do any better - but it's another approach to try to
fix my weaknesses, which change each year.

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

29 Apr 2008 10:42:43

Dot

Re: Highland Fling Race report

(Short-term memory tonight. )

For mind training, spend some time reading ultra-runners blogs -
frequently. Get so you think that 8 hr long runs are normal - if you
want to run longer. I recognize that may not be your goal and that's fine.

Just a couple that I visit regularly. There's other links on some of those.
Anton Krupicka consistently posts his training so it's useful to follow,
but not necessarily emulate:
http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/

Kinda interesting thoughts randomly.
http://ajwsblog.blogspot.com/
http://dewittwoodworking.blogspot.com/
(Doug will love the 4/25 entry on the latter one.)

Dot

--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter

29 Apr 2008 07:38:00

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5ba91972-a1ba-467e-b900-735b057973fc@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Doug:
>> I'm betting if you made changes to how you appraoch the miles/time
>> you
>> could run all you want. I don't believe you have any built in
>> limitations but don't want to spend the time to grow your long run.
>
> And I think most folks running better than 9 minute miles and without
> other serious physical issues (or, say, extreme climate and terrain)
> could work their way up to 100 mile training weeks if they wanted. I
> don't believe 40, 50, 60 MPW is a built in limitation for most, but
> people don't want to spend the time growing their weekly volume. :-)

You are correct to a point. Growing one's long run to N hours is not as
dangerous as growing overall miles. To do 100 miles a week, most people
are running every day and often twice a day. That does not allow for
much recovery sand always oiussing off tempting the injury gods. One
can run for 6-8 hours on Saturday and do nothing or cross train for a
few days to recover.
>
>
>> You're the only one that I know that has this gentic 4-5 hour
>> built-in hard stop.
>
> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee. This 2, 2.5 hours comes up
> plenty often in other runners' lore too, it ain't just me.

First off you'd have to want to do it. If an ultra is not on your
horizon or in your comfort zone mentally then stretching your long runs
will never light your board. I'm sure you know but those long runs are
not solid running but some hiking and just like in a race, we pause on
the trail or by the car to eat and drink. The breaks are short but it's
all about time on your feet. BTW, when I talk about walks/hikes and I
tend to use them interchangeable, I mean while humping up a 300-600 ft
per mile rise, not on level ground. Lots of quality effort.

For those looking to run in the top 10 like Dan, they will likely run
more walk less. You set your training according to your goals.

> So at half the time span Tony's talking about, it's probably a
> different mechanism from whatever he's experiencing. What do you
> think's going on at those time spans? What makes a 2:25 run so much
> more punishing than 1:55? Or do you think there's nothing special
> about ~2 hours either?

It's not about clock but about the pace, the terrain and one's abilities
to include 'knowing thy recovery." If your running 2:25 at a 1:55 pace,
it's going to be shitty experience. As for 2 hours - since keep a
solid base all year, each year, a 2 hour long run is not long. I did
three hours last Sun with about 4,500 of up and down two weeks after a
50. BTW a small group of us hiked for two hours on Sat to Poet's Ledge
to work the kinks out.

-Doug

29 Apr 2008 07:38:48

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obviousyahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:67o1egF2pf9ntU1@mid.individual.net...
> Charlie Pendejo wrote:
>
>> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
>> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
>> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery
>> or
>> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee. This 2, 2.5 hours comes up
>> plenty often in other runners' lore too, it ain't just me.
>
> I think Charlie that the biggest "barrier" to running ultra distance
> lies between the ears. You don't believe you can do it, so you
> can't. Simple as that. IMO there is no mystical physical barrier
> that kicks in after X hours, it's just a matter of pacing.
>
> During the hunter-gatherer stage of our evolution I believe we all
> inherited the ability to be ultra runners. Finding your inner ultra
> runner just takes a bit of time (and self belief).

Well said!!!!!

-D

29 Apr 2008 07:47:31

Doug Freese

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:DYCRj.138273$D_3.1954@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Kinda interesting thoughts randomly.
> http://ajwsblog.blogspot.com/
> http://dewittwoodworking.blogspot.com/
> (Doug will love the 4/25 entry on the latter one.)

If he lived on the east coast or was thinking about the Vermont 100 he
would add it to his pissed off pile. If it wasn't for my spending 10
hours or more at the Escarpment race finish line each year(as a love not
duty), I would not do the VT100 race.

-Doug

29 Apr 2008 15:41:14

Ken

Re: Highland Fling Race report

In article <DYCRj.138273$D_3.1954@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > writes
>(Short-term memory tonight. )
>
>For mind training, spend some time reading ultra-runners blogs -
>frequently. Get so you think that 8 hr long runs are normal - if you
>want to run longer. I recognize that may not be your goal and that's
>fine.
>
>Just a couple that I visit regularly. There's other links on some of those.
>Anton Krupicka consistently posts his training so it's useful to
>follow, but not necessarily emulate:
>http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/
>
>Kinda interesting thoughts randomly.
>http://ajwsblog.blogspot.com/
>http://dewittwoodworking.blogspot.com/
>(Doug will love the 4/25 entry on the latter one.)
>
>Dot
>
It's interesting to learn that WSER is a for profit company. Are the
shares quoted on a stock exchange? I was thinking of buying into it.

The one observation I would make about service requirements is that all
the directors want to use their own form. I wonder why they can't get to
together and agree a standardised form;

To whom it may concern.

This is to certify that........etc.

This would make it easier for runners to hold the necessary
documentation in readiness. It would make it easier too if the person's
time was split between 6 hrs at this race and 6 hrs at that race. One
can't use people. If the RD wants a volunteer to do 4 hrs at this place
one can't insist on doing 6 hrs at that place. No one ever wants to man
the first aid station because the runners go straight through without
stopping (short but intense work).

On the continent of Europe, specifically France, there is a similar
issue with medical certificates. which are not covered by our wonderful
national health system, so I have to pay the doctor a back-hander of 20
pounds a go. Each RD wants his own certificate and the doctor is
laughing all the way to the bank.

The issue also gets complicated with trail maintenance. I can volunteer
to be a countryside ranger (unpaid labourer) with my local authority.
But I would have to accept whatever work they gave me, which could be
trail maintenance, or it could be dredging ponds, erecting bird nesting
boxes, or whatever.
--
Ken

29 Apr 2008 08:49:27

Charlie Pendejo

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Pendejo:
>> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
>> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
>> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
>> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee.

Tim:
> I think Charlie that the biggest "barrier" to running ultra distance lies
> between the ears. You don't believe you can do it, so you can't. Simple
> as that. IMO there is no mystical physical barrier that kicks in after X
> hours, it's just a matter of pacing.

[a] I've little doubt the "between the ears" part has a lot of merit.

[b] In my specific case, I do believe I *can* run more than 2.5 hours
and *could* almost surely train for and complete ultra races if I
were interested. I'm not protesting that I cannot. I'm just probing
for opinions on whether there may be something(s) analogous to
"lactate threshold" but in the time domain instead of pace - parts of
the graph which aren't hard physical barriers, mystical or otherwise,
but where the slope changes, where there's a qualitative change in in-
the-moment experience, subsequent recovery, ... whatever.

It's way too few data points, but those of you ultra types who've
chimed in here seem to agree the answer is pretty much no (though
presumably that changes when you bump up against sleep cycle, if not
sooner). I haven't taken a formal survey but in my reading and
communing with runners who compete at distances of 42 km and less,
there seems to be more perception of, if not hard limits, at least
transition areas. This 2 hours is one I'm curious about. Also in the
realm of time/distance: glycogen capacity roughly corresponding to
something like 20-26 miles - again, not a hard limit, but a
recognition that there are physical factors which can translate to
thresholds of some sort. In the realm of pace we could talk about LT
and also VOmax, for instance. Even if there's no single well defined
"LT" per se, there's real physical differences in what's going on well
below and well above it.

Makes me wonder if the difference is mostly about pace and training -
run slow enough to truly minimize the glycogen you're burning (or
whatever the physiology really is), and build up your training over
the years to withstand the sheer time-on-legs, and you don't in fact
experience thresholds which others do. And/or whether there's some
self-selection going on here: those of you who have whatever it is
going for you, whether that's muscle fiber type or skeletal alignment
or biochemistry or, yes, mindset... you find you're able to go for
more than 2, 3, 5 hours without feeling much worse, and are therefore
far more likely drawn to ultra distances.

> During the hunter-gatherer stage of our evolution I believe we all inherited
> the ability to be ultra runners.

Certainly I like the same evolution story (as told by Bernd Heinrich
and others), and I do find that line of argument somewhat compelling.

OTOH, I'm a little hesitant to totally buy the leap from "we acquired
that skill via evolution" to "therefore *everyone* shares in that
talent." By that token haven't we all inherited the ability to be
mathematicians and artists and tribal leaders and shamans and
everything else under the sun? If the answer is "yes" it's a weak
affirmative: we're certainly not all clones with the same levels of
gifts across the board. Maybe you got the ultra genes while I got the
smarts, the good looks, the strong but sensitive, the humor, the
keeping all my hair, the never needed dental work not even a cavity,
the savoir-faire, the butterfly flotation and the bee sting genes.

> Finding your inner ultra runner just takes a bit of time (and self belief).

Surely true of just about any non-trivial pursuit.

And a friendly reminder, once again, that not everyone *wants* to
pursue all-day jogging and hiking, any more than everyone wants to
pursue legitimate T&F events like hundred meter sprints or hammer
throwing. If I say "a three hour run on pavement beats up my legs
quite a bit more than two hours" that is assuredly not just a more
dignified version of wailing "curse it all - I'll *never* be an ultra-
runner!! What possible meaning remains for me in this bitter and
pathetic life?!"

29 Apr 2008 09:13:15

Teresa Bippert-Plymate

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Tim Downie wrote:
> A rather twee name, redolent of tartan and shortbread but a great event.

I had to get the dictionary, too. Never heard that one this side of the
pond!

> This race runs from Milngavie to Tyndrum along the West Highland Way long
> distance path for 52 miles. It's got a few hills (see
> http://www.zen31010.zen.co.uk/highlandflingrace/images/routeandprofile.jpg)
> and is on a variety of surfaces, from sucky cow dung saturated mud to tarmac
> road. Most is rocky trail and is, for the most part runnable.
>
> I crossed the finish line in 10:47:50, inside my 11 hour target. Part of me
> was a bit disappointed not to get nearer 10:30 but I know that next time
> I'll have a support crew which means that my load will be considerably
> lighter.

Great going, Tim! And I'm also amazed at how little water you can run
on, though I do realize it's quite a bit cooler and damper than here.
And as also mentioned, I was shocked about drinking the pasture water,
here you're bound to get giardia if you try it. But I suppose if you've
been doing it all your life, you've cultivated the necessary bugs to
do it!

> The icing on the cake though was finding out that I was the first male
> supervet! (50-59). The runner who had almost caught me was also a supervet
> and there was only a prize for the first in that category. I would have
> been *so* upset if I'd lost out at that stage. ;-) My first silverware!
>
> Full results on http://www.highlandflingrace.org/ and a couple of picture
> of me on my blog at www.whw08.blogspot.com. Should be lots of race photos
> on the Fling site in the next day or two when I get them
>
> Tim

All Right! Hardware too! Cool that you kept ahead of the one person who
might have also taken it. Great report, and I look forward to seeing
your pics! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Teresa in AZ

29 Apr 2008 17:48:56

Tim Downie

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> I'm just probing
> for opinions on whether there may be something(s) analogous to
> "lactate threshold" but in the time domain instead of pace - parts of
> the graph which aren't hard physical barriers, mystical or otherwise,
> but where the slope changes, where there's a qualitative change in in-
> the-moment experience, subsequent recovery, ... whatever.

I think it would be true to say that all ultra runners hit walls sometimes
during their running. We're not superhuman and just like marathon runners,
if we expend energy too quickly & glycogen levels fall too far, we struggle.
I think the difference for us is that we know from experience that you can
come back from this position and carry on. So it's not so much that we're
immune to the barrier, it's just that by a combination of training, careful
energy expenditure and nutrition, we dodge the barrier. By keeping enough
glucose coming in we can (indeed probably have to) rely on more fat
metabolism to supply our needs.

Ineveitably we end up running slower although there are some truely
remarkable folk about. The winner of the race I ran finished in 7:24, an
average of 8:23 mpm over some very tricky terrain.

>
> It's way too few data points, but those of you ultra types who've
> chimed in here seem to agree the answer is pretty much no (though
> presumably that changes when you bump up against sleep cycle, if not
> sooner). I haven't taken a formal survey but in my reading and
> communing with runners who compete at distances of 42 km and less,
> there seems to be more perception of, if not hard limits, at least
> transition areas. This 2 hours is one I'm curious about. Also in the
> realm of time/distance: glycogen capacity roughly corresponding to
> something like 20-26 miles - again, not a hard limit, but a
> recognition that there are physical factors which can translate to
> thresholds of some sort.

I'm not sure how much we really know about all this. I recall reading
somewhere that muscle biopsies done post marathon showed plenty of glycogen
still in the muscles. I think there's a lot we don't know about "available"
stores. Nor do I think there is anything magical about 20 miles or 2 hours.
It's just that if you run at your goal marathon pace, your readily available
supplies of stored energy will be seriously depleted by that stage. Run
slower than your normal marathon pace and they'll last longer. Take a bit
of regular sugar to help keep your fat metabolism ticking over and you'll
push the wall even further back.

> In the realm of pace we could talk about LT
> and also VOmax, for instance. Even if there's no single well defined
> "LT" per se, there's real physical differences in what's going on well
> below and well above it.
>
> Makes me wonder if the difference is mostly about pace and training -
> run slow enough to truly minimize the glycogen you're burning (or
> whatever the physiology really is), and build up your training over
> the years to withstand the sheer time-on-legs, and you don't in fact
> experience thresholds which others do.

I think that's the key. It's certainly what I try to do but as I said, we
do hit thresholds during long races sometimes but because of their length,
we have time to eat, recover and carry on again.

> And/or whether there's some
> self-selection going on here: those of you who have whatever it is
> going for you, whether that's muscle fiber type or skeletal alignment
> or biochemistry or, yes, mindset... you find you're able to go for
> more than 2, 3, 5 hours without feeling much worse, and are therefore
> far more likely drawn to ultra distances.

Perhaps. None of us feel in any way "special". I'm sure I'm no different
from most other runners in physiology (but I don't actually *know* this).
What I do know is that I don't ask myself "Could I run this distance?",
instead my mindset has changed to "Why couldn't I run that far?". I.e., my
default belief is that I *can* do it.
>
>
> > During the hunter-gatherer stage of our evolution I believe we all
> > inherited the ability to be ultra runners.
>
> Certainly I like the same evolution story (as told by Bernd Heinrich
> and others), and I do find that line of argument somewhat compelling.
>
> OTOH, I'm a little hesitant to totally buy the leap from "we acquired
> that skill via evolution" to "therefore *everyone* shares in that
> talent."

True. There's been plenty of diversity within social groups and not all
members of a group would need to have all the same skills and undoubtably
diversity is good for survival. That said, I think there has probably been
enough mixing of genes to give us all the basic framework of ultrarunners.
I don't feel that I've *become* an ultra runner. Instead, I feel that I've
simply found out that I/we have the capacity to do this from birth, it's
just not an aptitude that we've had much use for since we ceased being
hunter-gatherers.

> By that token haven't we all inherited the ability to be
> mathematicians and artists and tribal leaders and shamans and
> everything else under the sun? If the answer is "yes" it's a weak
> affirmative: we're certainly not all clones with the same levels of
> gifts across the board. Maybe you got the ultra genes while I got the
> smarts, the good looks, the strong but sensitive, the humor, the
> keeping all my hair, the never needed dental work not even a cavity,
> the savoir-faire, the butterfly flotation and the bee sting genes.

I see you missed out on the modesty gene though. ;-)

>
>
> > Finding your inner ultra runner just takes a bit of time (and self
> > belief).
>
> Surely true of just about any non-trivial pursuit.
>
> And a friendly reminder, once again, that not everyone *wants* to
> pursue all-day jogging and hiking, any more than everyone wants to
> pursue legitimate T&F events like hundred meter sprints or hammer
> throwing.

I don't think I said anywhere that everyone *should* be an ultra runner. I
was just saying that I think most of us have to capacity to be one if we
want to be one.

> If I say "a three hour run on pavement beats up my legs
> quite a bit more than two hours" that is assuredly not just a more
> dignified version of wailing "curse it all - I'll *never* be an ultra-
> runner!! What possible meaning remains for me in this bitter and
> pathetic life?!"

I suppose in some respects ultra-runners are a quasi-religious lot, we do
tend to try and *turn* folk to our belief system. That of course is because
we're *right* you see and it's our duty to save all you wretched sprinters
who won't venture beyond 26 miles. ;-)

Tim

29 Apr 2008 19:15:38

steve common

Re: Highland Fling Race report

Ken <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>Have you considered that your -er - slightly voluptuous build causes you
>to sweat more than some people.

teehee. I do rather.

But the data I gave was from when I weighed 15kilos less. I can barely run
an hour at the moment without frying.

29 Apr 2008 17:52:35

Tony S.

Re: Highland Fling Race report

"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:d8b1ff47-f4d6-418e-847d-450e15f57f2b@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Pendejo:
>>> I'm not loony enough to even try running 4-5 hours or more, but I
>>> certainly seem to have a 2-2.5 hour limit where *something* happens,
>>> some threshold is exceeded, where the graph of benefit vs. recovery or
>>> damage or whatever hits a distinct knee.
>
> Tim:
>> I think Charlie that the biggest "barrier" to running ultra distance lies
>> between the ears. You don't believe you can do it, so you can't.
>> Simple
>> as that. IMO there is no mystical physical barrier that kicks in after X
>> hours, it's just a matter of pacing.
>
> [a] I've little doubt the "between the ears" part has a lot of merit.
>
> [b] In my specific case, I do believe I *can* run more than 2.5 hours
> and *could* almost surely train for and complete ultra races if I
> were interested. I'm not protesting that I cannot. I'm just probing
> for opinions on whether there may be something(s) analogous to
> "lactate threshold" but in the time domain instead of pace - parts of
> the graph which aren't hard physical barriers, mystical or otherwise,
> but where the slope changes, where there's a qualitative change in in-
> the-moment experience, subsequent recovery, ... whatever.
>
> It's way too few data points, but those of you ultra types who've
> chimed in here seem to agree the answer is pretty much no (though
> presumably that changes when you bump up against sleep cycle, if not
> sooner). I haven't taken a formal survey but in my reading and
> communing with runners who compete at distances of 42 km and less,
> there seems to be more perception of, if not hard limits, at least
> transition areas. This 2 hours is one I'm curious about. Also in the
> realm of time/distance: glycogen capacity roughly corresponding to
> something like 20-26 miles - again, not a hard limit, but a
> recognition that there are physical factors which can translate to
> thresholds of some sort. In the realm of pace we could talk about LT
> and also VOmax, for instance. Even if there's no single well defined
> "LT" per se, there's real physical differences in what's going on well
> below and well above it.
>
> Makes me wonder if the difference is mostly about pace and training -
> run slow enough to truly minimize the glycogen you're burning (or
> whatever the physiology really is), and build up your training over
> the years to withstand the sheer time-on-legs, and you don't in fact
> experience thresholds which others do. And/or whether there's some
> self-selection going on here: those of you who have whatever it is
> going for you, whether that's muscle fiber type or skeletal alignment
> or biochemistry or, yes, mindset... you find you're able to go for
> more than 2, 3, 5 hours without feeling much worse, and are therefore
> far more likely drawn to ultra distances.

This is the main point I was trying to make. It's one thing to say it's
mostly in the head, which I think is true when you're running all day. But
for others physical limitations probably come into play more.

>> During the hunter-gatherer stage of our evolution I believe we all
>> inherited
>> the ability to be ultra runners.
>
> Certainly I like the same evolution story (as told by Bernd Heinrich
> and others), and I do find that line of argument somewhat compelling.
>
> OTOH, I'm a little hesitant to totally buy the leap from "we acquired
> that skill via evolution" to "therefore *everyone* shares in that
> talent." By that token haven't we all inherited the ability to be
> mathematicians and artists and tribal leaders and shamans and
> everything else under the sun? If the answer is "yes" it's a weak
> affirmative: we're certainly not all clones with the same levels of
> gifts across the board. Maybe you got the ultra genes while I got the
> smarts, the good looks, the strong but sensitive, the humor, the
> keeping all my hair, the never needed dental work not even a cavity,
> the savoir-faire, the butterfly flotation and the bee sting genes.
>
>> Finding your inner ultra runner just takes a bit of time (and self
>> belief).
>
> Surely true of just about any non-trivial pursuit.
>
> And a friendly reminder, once again, that not everyone *wants* to
> pursue all-day jogging and hiking, any more than everyone wants to
> pursue legitimate T&F events like hundred meter sprints or hammer
> throwing. If I say "a three hour run on pavement beats up my legs
> quite a bit more than two hours" that is assuredly not just a more
> dignified version of wailing "curse it all - I'll *never* be an ultra-
> runner!! What possible meaning remains for me in this bitter and
> pathetic life?!"

I didn't ever say I'd never be an ultra runner. I've pushed myself pretty
hard and pretty far out a number of times and even ran for 6 hours in a
mini-rogaine before I ever did an ultra. Having done 3 50 milers and having
run over 5 hours more than 15 times, I can say there's a distinctive
progressive tightening of the leg muscles that has begun by that point and
the longer I go the worse it gets, to the point where it's hard to bend my
knees. This is running slow. Whereas I've run escarpment trail (4 hours) at
88% HR, its more like 75% in a 50 miler. Now Doug and Dot's contention is