I run ultras and mountain races. I ran one this Friday night into Saturday morning - a 12 hour overnight trail race where I managed 100K (62mi) in 11 hours and 23 minutes.
Anyway, let's throw out willpower and even genetics for a second so I can bring up something: In today's age, virtually no one is even remotely close to their physiological limits.
Literally, hundreds of people (elite marathoners, a few ultra marathoners, cross country skiiers) out of billions of people are bumping up against physiology. These people will do anything for the smallest performance gains (1%).
Really, if you have not achieved a level where you are ~5-8% body fat and run consistently at 100 miles (or more) a week, you are not anywhere that close. Trust me. This is kind of even standard for competitive college distance runners - and even they are likely making mistakes that hold back their development (diet, drinking, running too many miles at too fast of a pace, etc.)
Yet we can take someone who is 20% body fat, and runs 10 miles a week. You will find this person finishing an 100 mile ultramarathon. It's not that uncommon, if the time cutoffs are liberal. 18 minute miles is walking pace.
The author even mentions he didn't think he was obese. He just didn't know the reality of things, I'd argue. He had to have this concept of willpower (concentration) to learn. And to change his diet and training habits. And even his understanding of what is possible.
It's magical to chalk things up to grit - but there is so much process of knowing how the lows feel during a race, what to eat while training, how fast to do each run while training, how much to run while training, how to stay hydrated while racing, how to get nutrition while racing, etc.
"Tough" or "in control of self" to me is too emotionally loaded.
Edit: I almost feel bad writing this because it takes some of the magic that gets marketed about it. But this is a science-oriented crowd and should be exciting to know there is more of an opportunity for the objective than a lot of people believe.
I ran at an elite D1 collegiate program. The vast majority of runners will get injured at 100 miles per week, assuming a reasonable pace no slower than 7 min / mile. Slower than that is not useful training for Olympic events. Our top runner was a 13:30 5k and 29:20 10k at 70-80 miles per week.
Ultras are a different beast entirely, as its more of a "survival" test of muscles, ligaments, and bones than that of sustained running performance--even top ultramarathoners will walk during races. Ultras are about physiological limits of our bodies to handle stress; the 2-hour marathon is about the physiological limits of running.
Yeah, it's a little frustrating to have some person say to me "Oh yeah, I ran a marathon too!". Ok, yeah, you completed it... six hours slower than I did. You walked a marathon.
I'd disagree though that the grit/toughness thing to me is too emotional. My marathon time is 3:38 - reasonably fast for an amateur, but nothing blazing. ~8 minute pace. I know that getting that time faster is 100% about my commitment level. I know I could be faster, but I just don't want to invest the time and pain in it. I enjoy running, but I'm not trying to be super competitive.
So I think it is emotional for 99.9% of people. Only those .1% of people you mentioned are hitting the physical limits, as you said.
In other words, I agree with your facts, but I think the interpretation is wrong (or I'm misunderstanding). The key ingredient is the willpower, the consistency, and that comes from an emotional place.
>Literally, hundreds of people (elite marathoners, a few ultra marathoners, cross country skiiers) out of billions of people are bumping up against physiology
The human race didn't fight tooth and nail for 40,000 years to give everyone education, a code of laws and civilization, safe lives that include both work and leisure, so that I could bump into the limits of my physiology. How is that a normative goal?
There are no mountain lions chasing me whose escape pushes me to the limits of human physiology - and I for one prefer to keep it that way!
There's a significant distinction between racing at the limits of your physiology and the limits of your commitment to the sport and your training going into the race.
I think the latter may be more interesting and useful: not many can afford the time commitment to eating, sleeping, and training to the max. But when a high-school kid takes 30 seconds off his 1600m PR in the meet with the rival school? That's just because he didn't know he had more available.
Sure, experience is a factor (and GMA helps with this), but training when you're tired, but need to, when you don't want to, or when you're sore from the speedwork or doing a b2b run takes self control. Not putting the wrong things in your mouth, takes self control. In a race, it takes self control to not go out too fast, to eat when nothing looks appetizing, and to keep moving when aid stations look like bombs went off from all the people laying down.
Badwater is (more) brutal now that it has a night start, and experience only counts for so much...
100 miles a week will tax the bio-mechanics of most people in the first world. Granted doing those 100 miles at 10 min/mile is far, far easier than doing it at 6:00 to 7:00 pace. And doing lots of LSD (long slow distance) DOES have proven physiological effects.
But please don't treat 100 mile weeks as some trivial task. I have been running for > 25 years and have run from a 4:40 mile to a 2:44 marathon and 1:15 half and my max week was 84. I was doing consistent 70 mile weeks in college for a while and finally couldn't continue due to injury.
I do agree with your core point that most people have no idea what their true limits are. I have seen friends who hated to lose pass out at the finish line of a race. I find I don't even improve until I hit about 40 miles a week with at least one LT run of 4 to 6 miles and a >= 13 mile long run. That only takes about 4 to 5 hours a week (not including extra showers, drives to runs, necessary strength work, etc.) I guarantee most spend far more than that on Netflix et al.
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm so sick if people telling me they ran a marathon only to find out they walked. I'm totally fine with that being an accomplishment to finish, but it's entirely dissimilar to those who were racing.
Look at the consistently great 100 mile trail runners in the US - Ian Sharman, or Jeff Browning. Year after year. Look at how thorough they are. They are coaches because they know what to do and then they execute.
For one thing, running 100 mile races isn't a very good standard for willpower or self control.
There is virtually zero use for this capability, so whether you spend 5-10 hours a week to do so or not isn't really a question of self control.
It's a question of what activities/hobbies you want to pursue in your free time.
Staying fit is a good-for-you type of thing, but you don't have to do anything close to that level of training to stay fit.
My advice, whether you want to get/stay fit or achieve some athletic endurance goal is to make sure you find a way to enjoy the training.
It takes consistent long-term training and you wont't have to worry about your willpower Or self control if you enjoy doing it.
Along those lines: start slow - the hardest and most painful part is getting started. E.g., use a C25K program; find your own goals - whether that's completing 100 mile runs, or a 5K PR, or 1000 miles this year, or an 8:00 pace or a 365 day running streak or whatever.
I wonder how separate "willpower" is from the central governor theory [0]? Maybe they're completely unrelated and both tire fires.
But I remember reading Tim Noakes' whole ~1000 page tome "Lore of Running" 15 years ago (in high school) which discussed the idea at length and thinking "If only I could have some control over my central governor, I could run under 4 minutes." Is that the same as hoping to "will your way" to a sub 4:00 mile?
Easy, the tire fire is specifically in social psychology research. Other areas of psychology (e.g. cognitive, developmental, personality, etc) have their problems but in most cases no more so than other disciplines.
I'm a bit evangelical about low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diets nowadays, especially keto. Personally, I'm not at the fitness level where I could conceivably run a marathon. Maybe a 5K or a half. But the article mentions him hitting walls as he hit certain mile markers, and having his wife help him reach the finish.
This guy: https://youtu.be/96VZFklUM_Q runs ultra marathons, using fat for fuel. He leaves his fellow competitors in his dust because he doesn't have to carry glucose packets to keep his body fed. Instead, he finishes his race with an avocado and bison jerky.
>He leaves his fellow competitors in his dust because he doesn't have to carry glucose packets to keep his body fed.
How do you know that is why he leaves others in the dust, vs him just being more talented, or training more, or training smarter, or just setting higher goals than the last generation of endurance runners?
Also you should keep in mind that while there is at least a plausible story you can tell about > 5 hour endurance efforts benefiting from some kind of fat burning approach, from 5k to marathon, you absolutely want to be burning glucose if you want to go as fast as you can go. This is unambiguous.
Timmy Olsen has been hit or miss as far as leaving his competitors in the dust.
There are a LOT of other factors. Who's on top in the ultrarunning world is constantly changing, and, the ultra races are extremely vaired: 100 mile road races to the Barkley Marathons.
Just last year, Karl Meltzer broke vegan runner Scott Jurick's Appalachian Trail speed record. Obviously, they had very different diets.
I think the real requirement for ultrarunning (and other long-term thinking activities) is grit. Grit includes will power but also the ability to endure.
As someone currently training for the SF Marathon, here's my perspective on low carb and glucose packets.
Low-ish carb is great. It helps you endure long runs overall and it's a good habit in general. Especially for recovering after the race and getting all those calories back.
During the long run itself however, glucose packets are absolutely necessary. You run out of glycogen stores every 45 minutes or so. That's when you start cramping up and having trouble. A glucose packet gives you some caffeine (helps with stamina and pain tolerance), and some electrolytes (helps with cramping and hydration), and some 100 calories of sugar (helps with glycogen levels and mental fortitude).
Crucially, you aren't replacing all the calories you burn. That's impossible. In a 4 hour marathon I burn between 2500 and 3000 calories. The packets replace only 500 calories.
The difference between packets and no packets is that with packets, I am able to be a human person after a marathon. Far less cranky, far less tired, generally feeling okay. Without the packets, I'm basically a walking zombie.
That said, it took a lot of practice to figure out the right timing for those packets, to train my body to absorb them and so on. It's definitely not something you want to start experimenting with on race day. That's a recipe for puking.
This is dangerous nonsense. Is it possible to run ultra marathons on fat? Of course, you have enough fat stored for many many of those. Is it in any way amenable to a good performance? Not at all, and you don't need a biology PhD to realize that. The limiting factor in endurance sports is rate of oxygen uptake, fat metabolism takes more oxygen per energy yielded and is therefore strictly less efficient than deriving energy from glycogen.
Not to mention the majority of people will feel absolutely terrible trying to run in a depleted state. And there is no good reason to inflict that extra hardship on yourself when you can eat a large carb dinner and have enough glycogen to carry yourself through a half marathon
(Why can this guy still get good results? Ultra marathon is not at all a highly competitive sport. Someone to the far right of the genetic bell curve can handicap themselves with pure fat metabolism and still perform good. They would be absolutely killed in say the marathon distance where there is much higher selection pressure, if you want to call it that. Also, you don't run ultra distance at a high effort level, say 50-60% of VO2max - so here fat metabolism is naturally more pronounced anyway)
> Maybe a 5K or a half ... the article mentions him hitting walls as he hit certain mile markers,
Knowing where your walls are ... that's been one of the self-reflection exercises for me. Because it is an extremely personal limit & moves about with weight, food intake, sleep debt, hydration and local weather.
The physical sensation of hitting the wall is somewhat orthogonal to all the other health benefits - it is an extremely accurate read of your physical condition on that day & tells you how you're doing.
And yet Rob Krar isn't into low-carb, is pushing 40 and runs the same distances faster... For that matter, the Bison Bar mentioned in the video you linked to contains roughly equal amounts of protein and sugar! Not that it matters much. Frankly, ultra runners can get away with more mistakes since there's so much less competition at their distances.
The top competitive distance runners (a group dominated by Kenyans and Ethiopians) generally eat over 70% of their calories from carbohydrates. Naoko Takahashi said she loved Korean barbecue. Bill Rodgers, the dominant marathoner of the previous genration, seemed to live off of pizza slathered in mayonnaise. Paula Radcliffe talked about eating a lot of fruits, yogurt and granola. While many, many runners have sworn by various odd diets, it doesn't look like anyone has been able to get a sizable edge from theirs.
I only raced 5-10k ranges, but I used to run greater than marathon distances once or twice per month in the mountains for fun so I can have some personal experience with "walls". Even a skinny person has enough fat on them to run for far longer distances than any race I've heard of. The "walls" are more about glycogen limits in your muscles. Extending the wall is mostly an issue of how high your aerobic threshold is, how well you can spare glycogen at the beginning (though this probably matters less for ultras) and your running efficiency.
All three of these factors are influenced by diet to some degree but training is by far the more important factor. Strangely, caffeine has a bigger effect than macro-nutrient composition.
I've observed that the only apparent constant among all finishers is above average fitness, a reasonable approach to food and drink while racing, and a total commitment to finishing.
Every race has some bare foot runners and some Hoka devotees. You see fat people and thin people. Old and young.
Every finisher suffered tremendously, yet he or she refused to quit.
Willpower or not, I feel like running is really a great thing to do. Will Smith once said (or quoted, don't remember) that one should two things - run and read books. I definitely agree with that. I used to practice sports a lot, football and basketball and that had a positive effect on my teamwork ability.
However, only when I started running I noticed how much this sport can influence one's life. There are no shortcuts, talent has almost zero influence, and it depends only on you how well you perform. I started about a year ago, more seriously about 3 months ago, and I already see how much I'm improving in other areas of life.
Nonsense. Unless you have some kind of disability anyone can run a 100 miler. That is completely true.
You need to get in shape first, obviously, but unless you have a condition that prevents you from doing that, you can do it.
I get the impression you haven't done much distance running, because the article is spot on when he says it's almost exclusively about determination.
#2 just seems like you're being a dick. #3 is unprovable, and #4 is something I rarely hear any serious runner talk about, and it certainly isn't the reason I run at all.
This article is less about specifically running 100 mile-races and more about doing something that requires self-control; and the claim is that doing so will make anyone a more successful person.
i agree. i had will power to run a marathon just by myself - no event. I now have cervical herniated disc. No amount of my will power is useful. I just wish i had exercised common sense when my neck used to hurt after every long run.
> And so I set about fortifying my sense of self-control, based on the following factors: [Standards, Monitoring, and Strength]
> Strength: ... I built my mental strength by running even when I didn’t want to—when I was sore, stressed, or sleepy.
He built his will power by doing things he didn't have the will to do? One of the pillars of his self-control is that he has self-control? Maybe I'm missing something or jumping on the easy mockery, but this seems circular or common-sense.
”Bill Gates spent thousands of hours learning to program”
Sure, and so did thousands of others. Bill Gates clearly didn’t become a modern Croesus because he was a better programmer, this is just trying to shoehorn Microsoft into the at once self-evident and ludicrous 10000 hour idea.
> ”Bill Gates spent thousands of hours learning to program”
Here's the full quote: "Bill Gates spent thousands of hours learning how to program computers—but he only had that opportunity because he had the good fortune of having parents who supported his education."
I think you're in violent agreement that 10,000 hours isn't sufficient.
a book that states what is otherwise obvious: a person with innate biological talent will get more 'mileage' from their 10000 hours won't sell as many copies as one that promotes the lie that 10000 hours will turn anyone into an expert at anything
The fact that so many of the comments here are focused on running and its pros/cons and not on the actual point of the article (self control) ... its kinda strange for HN to completely miss the point by such a big margin...
Research suggests a genetic preponderance towards physical fitness. With self control, you can make it to what your body can maximally achieve. But no amount of self control can guarantee the finish of an ultra-marathon if you're genetically not designed for it. PBS/Nova [1] took a shot at the question - "Can anyone run a marathon?", and found a certain lot more likely due to their genetics.
It seems to me that the piece of data always missing in these kinds of challenges is time. I think anyone probably can run a marathon given enough time to change their lifestyle and build the appropriate strength and endurance. If that time is 10 years, then so be it for that person. The human body is designed to adapt to stressors and environmental conditions. The time it takes to adapt is where this genetic predisposition seems to come in to play.
I think 12 of 13 participants started and finished the marathon. One washed out during training due to persistent injuries.
So, almost anyone can finish a marathon, with motivation and preparation. I can't remember for sure, but I think the participants had about a year and were given some excellent coaches whom they met with regularly.
Ultras require substantially the same kind of training as marathons, though you'll certainly have a different fueling and pacing strategy.
I think what's good about fitness goals, is that they're all very achievable. If you are motivated, you're chances of success are almost 100%. There's not a lot of factors out of your control apart from the limits of your own body. In that sense, they're good for moral and confidence. If you struggled at other things, taking a goal whose success is in your hand, and for which failure has no consequence is a good way to test if you're the problem or not.
Doing sport as a hobby is pleasant. If you want test willpower, try sitting totally bored on playground every day because it is good for kids, try to come home sooner despite peer pressure and career hit because you matter for kids.
Alternatively, try doing boring work you hate for hours because bills needs to be paid. It is less pleasant then doing sport you like.
Can someone explain the point of all this? Is this to challenge your own ability to stick to a plan? Is it to impress others? The motivation alludes me entirely.
[+] [-] ErikAugust|8 years ago|reply
Anyway, let's throw out willpower and even genetics for a second so I can bring up something: In today's age, virtually no one is even remotely close to their physiological limits.
Literally, hundreds of people (elite marathoners, a few ultra marathoners, cross country skiiers) out of billions of people are bumping up against physiology. These people will do anything for the smallest performance gains (1%).
Really, if you have not achieved a level where you are ~5-8% body fat and run consistently at 100 miles (or more) a week, you are not anywhere that close. Trust me. This is kind of even standard for competitive college distance runners - and even they are likely making mistakes that hold back their development (diet, drinking, running too many miles at too fast of a pace, etc.)
Yet we can take someone who is 20% body fat, and runs 10 miles a week. You will find this person finishing an 100 mile ultramarathon. It's not that uncommon, if the time cutoffs are liberal. 18 minute miles is walking pace.
The author even mentions he didn't think he was obese. He just didn't know the reality of things, I'd argue. He had to have this concept of willpower (concentration) to learn. And to change his diet and training habits. And even his understanding of what is possible.
It's magical to chalk things up to grit - but there is so much process of knowing how the lows feel during a race, what to eat while training, how fast to do each run while training, how much to run while training, how to stay hydrated while racing, how to get nutrition while racing, etc.
"Tough" or "in control of self" to me is too emotionally loaded.
Edit: I almost feel bad writing this because it takes some of the magic that gets marketed about it. But this is a science-oriented crowd and should be exciting to know there is more of an opportunity for the objective than a lot of people believe.
[+] [-] tbenst|8 years ago|reply
Ultras are a different beast entirely, as its more of a "survival" test of muscles, ligaments, and bones than that of sustained running performance--even top ultramarathoners will walk during races. Ultras are about physiological limits of our bodies to handle stress; the 2-hour marathon is about the physiological limits of running.
[+] [-] sushisource|8 years ago|reply
I'd disagree though that the grit/toughness thing to me is too emotional. My marathon time is 3:38 - reasonably fast for an amateur, but nothing blazing. ~8 minute pace. I know that getting that time faster is 100% about my commitment level. I know I could be faster, but I just don't want to invest the time and pain in it. I enjoy running, but I'm not trying to be super competitive.
So I think it is emotional for 99.9% of people. Only those .1% of people you mentioned are hitting the physical limits, as you said.
In other words, I agree with your facts, but I think the interpretation is wrong (or I'm misunderstanding). The key ingredient is the willpower, the consistency, and that comes from an emotional place.
[+] [-] logicallee|8 years ago|reply
The human race didn't fight tooth and nail for 40,000 years to give everyone education, a code of laws and civilization, safe lives that include both work and leisure, so that I could bump into the limits of my physiology. How is that a normative goal?
There are no mountain lions chasing me whose escape pushes me to the limits of human physiology - and I for one prefer to keep it that way!
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|8 years ago|reply
I think the latter may be more interesting and useful: not many can afford the time commitment to eating, sleeping, and training to the max. But when a high-school kid takes 30 seconds off his 1600m PR in the meet with the rival school? That's just because he didn't know he had more available.
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
I'd add elite soldiers to that list, which would take it up to tens of thousands maybe.
[+] [-] tedmc|8 years ago|reply
Badwater is (more) brutal now that it has a night start, and experience only counts for so much...
[+] [-] runamok|8 years ago|reply
But please don't treat 100 mile weeks as some trivial task. I have been running for > 25 years and have run from a 4:40 mile to a 2:44 marathon and 1:15 half and my max week was 84. I was doing consistent 70 mile weeks in college for a while and finally couldn't continue due to injury.
I do agree with your core point that most people have no idea what their true limits are. I have seen friends who hated to lose pass out at the finish line of a race. I find I don't even improve until I hit about 40 miles a week with at least one LT run of 4 to 6 miles and a >= 13 mile long run. That only takes about 4 to 5 hours a week (not including extra showers, drives to runs, necessary strength work, etc.) I guarantee most spend far more than that on Netflix et al.
P.S. Congrats on your race!
[+] [-] kentt|8 years ago|reply
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm so sick if people telling me they ran a marathon only to find out they walked. I'm totally fine with that being an accomplishment to finish, but it's entirely dissimilar to those who were racing.
[+] [-] ErikAugust|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|8 years ago|reply
Nice ad for "sword" sportfood products, though.
For one thing, running 100 mile races isn't a very good standard for willpower or self control.
There is virtually zero use for this capability, so whether you spend 5-10 hours a week to do so or not isn't really a question of self control.
It's a question of what activities/hobbies you want to pursue in your free time.
Staying fit is a good-for-you type of thing, but you don't have to do anything close to that level of training to stay fit.
My advice, whether you want to get/stay fit or achieve some athletic endurance goal is to make sure you find a way to enjoy the training.
It takes consistent long-term training and you wont't have to worry about your willpower Or self control if you enjoy doing it.
Along those lines: start slow - the hardest and most painful part is getting started. E.g., use a C25K program; find your own goals - whether that's completing 100 mile runs, or a 5K PR, or 1000 miles this year, or an 8:00 pace or a 365 day running streak or whatever.
[+] [-] pkghost|8 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/search?q=willpower+reproducibility
[+] [-] sndean|8 years ago|reply
But I remember reading Tim Noakes' whole ~1000 page tome "Lore of Running" 15 years ago (in high school) which discussed the idea at length and thinking "If only I could have some control over my central governor, I could run under 4 minutes." Is that the same as hoping to "will your way" to a sub 4:00 mile?
Not sure where the research stands now.
[0] http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/18/3225.short
[+] [-] anbende|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ttyl0125|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HorizonXP|8 years ago|reply
This guy: https://youtu.be/96VZFklUM_Q runs ultra marathons, using fat for fuel. He leaves his fellow competitors in his dust because he doesn't have to carry glucose packets to keep his body fed. Instead, he finishes his race with an avocado and bison jerky.
[+] [-] jackmott|8 years ago|reply
How do you know that is why he leaves others in the dust, vs him just being more talented, or training more, or training smarter, or just setting higher goals than the last generation of endurance runners?
Also you should keep in mind that while there is at least a plausible story you can tell about > 5 hour endurance efforts benefiting from some kind of fat burning approach, from 5k to marathon, you absolutely want to be burning glucose if you want to go as fast as you can go. This is unambiguous.
[+] [-] ultra-jeremyx|8 years ago|reply
There are a LOT of other factors. Who's on top in the ultrarunning world is constantly changing, and, the ultra races are extremely vaired: 100 mile road races to the Barkley Marathons.
Just last year, Karl Meltzer broke vegan runner Scott Jurick's Appalachian Trail speed record. Obviously, they had very different diets.
I think the real requirement for ultrarunning (and other long-term thinking activities) is grit. Grit includes will power but also the ability to endure.
[+] [-] Swizec|8 years ago|reply
Low-ish carb is great. It helps you endure long runs overall and it's a good habit in general. Especially for recovering after the race and getting all those calories back.
During the long run itself however, glucose packets are absolutely necessary. You run out of glycogen stores every 45 minutes or so. That's when you start cramping up and having trouble. A glucose packet gives you some caffeine (helps with stamina and pain tolerance), and some electrolytes (helps with cramping and hydration), and some 100 calories of sugar (helps with glycogen levels and mental fortitude).
Crucially, you aren't replacing all the calories you burn. That's impossible. In a 4 hour marathon I burn between 2500 and 3000 calories. The packets replace only 500 calories.
The difference between packets and no packets is that with packets, I am able to be a human person after a marathon. Far less cranky, far less tired, generally feeling okay. Without the packets, I'm basically a walking zombie.
That said, it took a lot of practice to figure out the right timing for those packets, to train my body to absorb them and so on. It's definitely not something you want to start experimenting with on race day. That's a recipe for puking.
[+] [-] revelation|8 years ago|reply
Not to mention the majority of people will feel absolutely terrible trying to run in a depleted state. And there is no good reason to inflict that extra hardship on yourself when you can eat a large carb dinner and have enough glycogen to carry yourself through a half marathon
(Why can this guy still get good results? Ultra marathon is not at all a highly competitive sport. Someone to the far right of the genetic bell curve can handicap themselves with pure fat metabolism and still perform good. They would be absolutely killed in say the marathon distance where there is much higher selection pressure, if you want to call it that. Also, you don't run ultra distance at a high effort level, say 50-60% of VO2max - so here fat metabolism is naturally more pronounced anyway)
[+] [-] gopalv|8 years ago|reply
Knowing where your walls are ... that's been one of the self-reflection exercises for me. Because it is an extremely personal limit & moves about with weight, food intake, sleep debt, hydration and local weather.
The physical sensation of hitting the wall is somewhat orthogonal to all the other health benefits - it is an extremely accurate read of your physical condition on that day & tells you how you're doing.
[+] [-] xiaoma|8 years ago|reply
The top competitive distance runners (a group dominated by Kenyans and Ethiopians) generally eat over 70% of their calories from carbohydrates. Naoko Takahashi said she loved Korean barbecue. Bill Rodgers, the dominant marathoner of the previous genration, seemed to live off of pizza slathered in mayonnaise. Paula Radcliffe talked about eating a lot of fruits, yogurt and granola. While many, many runners have sworn by various odd diets, it doesn't look like anyone has been able to get a sizable edge from theirs.
I only raced 5-10k ranges, but I used to run greater than marathon distances once or twice per month in the mountains for fun so I can have some personal experience with "walls". Even a skinny person has enough fat on them to run for far longer distances than any race I've heard of. The "walls" are more about glycogen limits in your muscles. Extending the wall is mostly an issue of how high your aerobic threshold is, how well you can spare glycogen at the beginning (though this probably matters less for ultras) and your running efficiency.
All three of these factors are influenced by diet to some degree but training is by far the more important factor. Strangely, caffeine has a bigger effect than macro-nutrient composition.
[+] [-] ramblerman|8 years ago|reply
Here he is making a banana smoothie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96VZFklUM_Q&feature=youtu.be...
[+] [-] gmuller|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogruck|8 years ago|reply
I've observed that the only apparent constant among all finishers is above average fitness, a reasonable approach to food and drink while racing, and a total commitment to finishing.
Every race has some bare foot runners and some Hoka devotees. You see fat people and thin people. Old and young.
Every finisher suffered tremendously, yet he or she refused to quit.
[+] [-] pcunite|8 years ago|reply
I'm touching these words on my monitor. I can feel the pain. Ugh ...
[+] [-] TheAlchemist|8 years ago|reply
However, only when I started running I noticed how much this sport can influence one's life. There are no shortcuts, talent has almost zero influence, and it depends only on you how well you perform. I started about a year ago, more seriously about 3 months ago, and I already see how much I'm improving in other areas of life.
[+] [-] d--b|8 years ago|reply
1. the guy is only an example. Willpower alone will not make you run 100 mile-race. You need the right body as well.
2. most people don't try and run 100 mile-races because they have better things to do
3. willpower and success: seriously this is really self congratulatory. running 100 miles does not make anyone a more succesful person.
4. no mention of endorphines and running addiction?
[+] [-] sushisource|8 years ago|reply
You need to get in shape first, obviously, but unless you have a condition that prevents you from doing that, you can do it.
I get the impression you haven't done much distance running, because the article is spot on when he says it's almost exclusively about determination.
#2 just seems like you're being a dick. #3 is unprovable, and #4 is something I rarely hear any serious runner talk about, and it certainly isn't the reason I run at all.
[+] [-] majelix|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kvhdude|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbarn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scintill76|8 years ago|reply
> Strength: ... I built my mental strength by running even when I didn’t want to—when I was sore, stressed, or sleepy.
He built his will power by doing things he didn't have the will to do? One of the pillars of his self-control is that he has self-control? Maybe I'm missing something or jumping on the easy mockery, but this seems circular or common-sense.
[+] [-] Grustaf|8 years ago|reply
Sure, and so did thousands of others. Bill Gates clearly didn’t become a modern Croesus because he was a better programmer, this is just trying to shoehorn Microsoft into the at once self-evident and ludicrous 10000 hour idea.
[+] [-] majelix|8 years ago|reply
Here's the full quote: "Bill Gates spent thousands of hours learning how to program computers—but he only had that opportunity because he had the good fortune of having parents who supported his education."
I think you're in violent agreement that 10,000 hours isn't sufficient.
[+] [-] paulpauper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmcdiesel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mankash666|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/marathon-challenge.html
[+] [-] aezell|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackmott|8 years ago|reply
As well, probably anyone healthy can slowly jog a marathon with enough time to prepare.
But not everyone can qualify for boston, or make the olympics.
[+] [-] jmull|8 years ago|reply
So, almost anyone can finish a marathon, with motivation and preparation. I can't remember for sure, but I think the participants had about a year and were given some excellent coaches whom they met with regularly.
Ultras require substantially the same kind of training as marathons, though you'll certainly have a different fueling and pacing strategy.
[+] [-] didibus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] water42|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codingdave|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watwut|8 years ago|reply
Alternatively, try doing boring work you hate for hours because bills needs to be paid. It is less pleasant then doing sport you like.
[+] [-] Gargoyle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samnwa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didibus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dowwie|8 years ago|reply