Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day)
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
I'm not sure what IC's average time was each day but I'm guessing it was less than 18 hours. So given the fact that a lot of his time was spent not running I think the running for 40 days gets my vote. Running is so much harder than cycling or swimming in my opinion.
Keep in mind I've never done an IM and I have never run for 18 hours straight so I'm totally guessing here.
The best pace is a suicide pace, and today is a good day to die. -Steve Prefontaine
Keep in mind I've never done an IM and I have never run for 18 hours straight so I'm totally guessing here.
The best pace is a suicide pace, and today is a good day to die. -Steve Prefontaine
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [triscottMS]
[ In reply to ]
triscottMS wrote:
I'm not sure what IC's average time was each day but I'm guessing it was less than 18 hours. So given the fact that a lot of his time was spent not running I think the running for 40 days gets my vote. Running is so much harder than cycling or swimming in my opinion. Keep in mind I've never done an IM and I have never run for 18 hours straight so I'm totally guessing here.
Haven't done a detailed calc of the IC's avg time each day but i'm pretty sure his avg was under 15 hr/day, so def this Finnish runner was running longer than the IC was SBR-ing, albeit for "only" 40 days and 9 hrs vs 50 days. And certainly i would say running 18 hr/day, or actually about 17 since he did take 3 x 15 min breaks plus prob a few other BR breaks, is def harder than SBR-ing for 15 hrs. The Sri Chinmoy folks aren't marketing any brand though, so most people will never hear about this:)
"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [ericmulk]
[ In reply to ]
I thought they were promoting a religion other than triathlon.
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
76 miles/17hours = less than 4.5mph.
The amount of time on his feet is impressive, but I'm curious how much of it wasn't really running.
The amount of time on his feet is impressive, but I'm curious how much of it wasn't really running.
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [Liaman]
[ In reply to ]
I'd have to give the nod to the 50/50/50 in this. The runner was in one location for the entire time, running laps around the same short course over and over. Logistics are simple for something like that and it removes a lot of the variables that they had to deal with moving all over the country. Both are impressive feats of endurance, but all together, I'd say the 50/50/50 is more impressive.
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
Which one is more dopey, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day)
FTFY
http://www.jt10000.com/
FTFY
http://www.jt10000.com/
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
Can't we be equally impressed by both, since they are different sports?
Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [Liaman]
[ In reply to ]
Liaman wrote:
76 miles/17hours = less than 4.5mph. The amount of time on his feet is impressive, but I'm curious how much of it wasn't really running.The 76 mi/17 hr = 4.47 mph or 13:25/mi or about 5:52 per 26.2 mi marathon, which is about same as the IC averaged. In the Running World article, the Finnish runner said he walked about 100 meters of each roughly 800 meter lap. If we assume 20:00/mi walking pace for 1/8 (0.125) of each lap, then
(0.125)(20.0) + 0.875x = 13.42 ==> 0.875 x = 13.42 - (0.125)(20) or 0.875x = 10.92 ==> x = 12.48 or about 12:29/mi when running.
"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [jt10000]
[ In reply to ]
jt10000 wrote:
Which one is more dopey, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) FTFY
FTFY
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
What about this guy? Only 40 or 50 days? That is for softcocks.
http://espn.go.com/...ore-75000-miles-year
http://espn.go.com/...ore-75000-miles-year
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [Arch Stanton]
[ In reply to ]
Arch Stanton wrote:
What about this guy? Only 40 or 50 days? That is for soft cocks. http://espn.go.com/...ore-75000-miles-year
Actually you raise a great point as riding 205 mi/day for 365 straight days would be extremely impressive. I mean that is 13-14 hr/day for a full year, and the guy will have to eating somewhere around 10,000 cal/day, every day, for that full year. This feat will take all the athlete's time and energy for one full year. THAT is just phenomenal, and is over 7 times longer than the 50 day IM streak. Also, from reading that article, it sounds like he is not doing any trainer miles, at least so far, but rather only road miles:)
"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [Arch Stanton]
[ In reply to ]
I agree 200%
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
As impressive as it was, I would have to say that a course with varied terrain and a wider range of weather conditions would be more impressive. There was the Bunion Derby back in 1928 that covered 3500 miles - if you didn't cover all mileage form the previous day, you were driven back to your stopping point and had to start there plus run the current day's route.
Re: Which one is more impressive, 50*/50/50 or slow running for 40 days straight, 17+ hours/day for 40 days? (76 miles/day) [arkmann]
[ In reply to ]
76 miles of running is far harder on the body than an IM. Anyone with even a scant competitive familiarity with both IM and ultra running knows that.
Knocking out that kind of mileage for 40 days is way more difficult than doing an IM a day for a similar duration.
It is easy for the uninitiated to dismiss it as "slow" running, but it's not. This is fast for this kind of event. Punishingly fast, competitive running.
There's little respite for the body in races like this. It's physically repetitive in a way that triathlon is not. You can't run, you're out. You can't coddle a running injury in the swim or on the bike, then just run for but a relative few hours a day.
Yuri Trostenyuk beat Wolfgang Schwerk's record. That was not a soft record by any means.
Wolfgang is a brilliant runner, one of the best multiday runners of all time. Only Yiannis Kouros has run further than Wolfgang in 24 Hours.
Trostenyuk's 40 day performance is unprecedented because no one else has been able to achieve it, including some extremely gifted athletes, many having had repeated attempts at this race.
IC's 50*/50/50 is unprecedented because no one else has ever tried. Previous performance by Didier at 30/30/30 indicates that it can be done considerably faster.
These achievements are worlds apart.
Knocking out that kind of mileage for 40 days is way more difficult than doing an IM a day for a similar duration.
It is easy for the uninitiated to dismiss it as "slow" running, but it's not. This is fast for this kind of event. Punishingly fast, competitive running.
There's little respite for the body in races like this. It's physically repetitive in a way that triathlon is not. You can't run, you're out. You can't coddle a running injury in the swim or on the bike, then just run for but a relative few hours a day.
Yuri Trostenyuk beat Wolfgang Schwerk's record. That was not a soft record by any means.
Wolfgang is a brilliant runner, one of the best multiday runners of all time. Only Yiannis Kouros has run further than Wolfgang in 24 Hours.
Trostenyuk's 40 day performance is unprecedented because no one else has been able to achieve it, including some extremely gifted athletes, many having had repeated attempts at this race.
IC's 50*/50/50 is unprecedented because no one else has ever tried. Previous performance by Didier at 30/30/30 indicates that it can be done considerably faster.
These achievements are worlds apart.