Funny you should post this. I’ve been watching a bunch of ultra documentaries and videos while on the trainer lately and thinking that would be a new kind of challenge. I was more thinking of starting out with a 50k. I have a few friends who have run some big ultras (Leadville, Western States, etc) and they’ve told me that focusing on ultra running is less time consuming than IM training. Yes - run mileage increases, but most is long and easy to build up the strength in the legs. I’m actually considering doing my own 50k to see how it goes based on current training. I’ve upped my biking to 11-12 hours a week and have been running around 5-5.5 hours a week. I imagine the biking could help out a bit - some of that lower cadence sweet spot stuff. Definitely interested to hear what others say.

So Nate, take this for that it is worth as one guys experience just so people can see what silly stuff we Ironman types "may" be capable of.

I did my first double marathon as part of Ultraman Canada in 1994 and I did it with only about five days notice.I was training for Ironman Canada at the end of that month and previously had an Ironman best of 10:40'ish with an Ironman marathon of around 3:30'ish.I had only done one pure marathon which was done as a bet and I finished in 3:50.

My run training for that Ironman consisted of:
One long run of about 90min at an easy pace.
One hill repeat session lasting about 60min with 40mins of multiple hills reps of various distances up to 800meters.
One 60 min negative spilt run
One brick run of about 30min
I rode about 500Kilometers a week.

I ended up finishing 3rd on the double marathon on day three in a pretty pedestrian 8:45'ish on a course that is a mix of road and gravel and is pretty bloody hard.The two guys who beat me were both on the Canadian 100k road running team and they finished an hour before me.I felt fine until the last 5k or so and just adopted the "feed the engine" strategy and just ran.No pacing plan,just survival.
That day and indeed that entire weekend done on such short notice made me realise how much we underestimate what we are capable of . In the years since then I have also realised how much overtraining average ultra runners do.

These guys still ran over a minute/mile faster than you. That is significantly quicker.

Without knowing for sure who the runners were to whom you refer on the national team, Canada weren't exactly strong on the international ultra scene at the time. Their men's times at 1994 Worlds in Japan were 7:31, 8:51 and 9:25 on a flat course in ideal conditions. Those aren't elite performances. The winning time was 6:22.

Yes, it's possible to finish ultras on relatively low mileage, though you're not going to race near your potential on low mileage training program.

Average ultrarunners may over-train in your opinion, but if they were running lower training mileages, I'm pretty sure many would be slower-than-average ultrarunners.

Steve King won the run that day and while niether he or Ean Jackson who came second did very well at the 100k I would put Steve's ultra running resume up against anyone on this forum. I would expect the entire field to run significantly faster than someone who didn't specifically train for the event at all.

You have totally missed my point and done what everyone here loves to do and that is try to convince themselves that every "average" person who trains for Ironman and Ultra's are actually better than average.The whole point is that people overthink how hard these Ultra events are if you are just wanting to finish.Yes if you want to win it is a different story but those people are few and far between,especially in Ultra-triathlon runs.

I see middle of the pack Ultraman athletes and Ultra runners doing incredibly stupid things in training that they just don't need to do.Stupid long runs and doing training more to impress people on Facebook than to do well in the race they are training for.

It depends what your looking for in a 50 miler. Trail (flat and non-technical trails vs mountainous and technical),or road or even track.

With your marathon speed, you're knocking on the door of running sub 6 on the right course. Speedwork and shorter/faster racing would still be beneficial in much the same way as it is for a marathon. Nutrition would be more similar to what works for you during a marathon or IM.

Trail ultras (particularly slower courses with big elevation changes or technical trails) may demand other training and racing considerations:

• efficiency with walking hills
• confidence and ability to run steep, rough descents smoothly and safely
• a broader scope of nutrition possibilities eg solid food, aid station supplies and/or self fuel
  
• hydration requirements eg handheld bottle vs hydration pack vs running pack, aid station vs self fuel)
  
• equipment selection (mandatory gear may include clothes, headlamp, compass, etc)
  
• navigation/map reading skills

Hit the road or trails with some more experienced ultra runners (when it becomes possible too do so). Ask them questions, listen to stories, be an info sponge.

Up your weekly mileage if you can. Always helpful, but not necessarily essential. You have enough base to finish a 50 mile tomorrow.

Experiment, have fun.

Try one or two 50 km races to get the feel for it. Or just suck it and see. What's the worst that can happen?

You think I've missed the point about just finishing?

I replied to the OP is my first post "You have enough base to finish a 50 mile tomorrow."

I have enough experience with both IM and ultras to know what constitutes "average". Despite what you say, I'm not trying to convince myself of anything.

I couldn't give a shit if some ultra runners want to do stuff to impress people. Though it's a good thing triathletes aren't that vain or shallow.

Nor can speak for the motivation some people have for doing long runs or posting their training sessions on Facebook.I don't even look at Facebook. I'd rather assess athletes by their actual performances. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

As regards to actual performances, none of those times I quoted by Canadian runners from the 100km Worlds that year belonged to either King or Jackson.

I don't know either man and maybe I'm missing the point of relevance about their being on the national team. I can only assume you meant it as some sort of measure of training and performance on the day. If so, my point holds true, it's not a great measure (possibly a misleading one) unless one can judge the quality of those athletes.

I'm not sure if King ever ran on Canadian 100km team, or if did, he most probably DNFed. His times Western States (23:36), Comrades (7:11) and Badwater (23:36), all of which he each appeared to run on a single occasion, could be described as solid or respectable. If he's run any other notable performances, please feel free to fill me in.

Jackson has been a prolific ultra runner on the domestic scene in Canada with handy results, ran at the Worlds on four occasions, finishing in 7:35, 7:54, 7:58 and an anomalous 9:30. He ran Western States once in 22:09. More solid results than King, but unless I'm really mistaken about the strength of the local ultra scene in Canada at the time and his string high 7's plus WS fail to reflect a more remarkable ability, it would be generous to describe him world class.

Congrats, you did pretty well on your UltraMan run for someone with limited run training, though you were still more than a minute/mile behind two better-than-average, but not elite, ultra runners. Not a great metric, but at least you say the only guys who ran faster than you on that day were both national 100 km reps, even if that's probably only half correct.

Are you happy with that?

:-)

I did my first 50 miler a few weeks back and I picked one for the location and not the distance, as I was not interested running 50 miles just anywhere - so I can say I ran 50. Mine was a technical and scenic trail race in Arizona called Antelope Canyon 50 and I managed 8:48:48 and 10th place overall. What I have learned is to be patient and I caught places 15, 14, 13, 12, 11 and 10 very late in the race.

I tried to not run any faster than 9:30 pace the first 35 miles and then see what I had left, and that was advice I was given based on my race results. I am 54 and recently finished 2nd overall in a steep and technical 20k. 20 to 30k is in my view my sweet spot.

Would love to run the Old Cascadia 50 or even 20 but since that race is in June I guess I will have to wait until 2021.

I've run the JFK 50 3 or 4 times,

Most people went by some form of run/walk - my plan was run 15 minutes, walk 3 until mile 30, then 12/3. Some people did 30/5 or what ever. I say be conservative on your first one, if you like it then you have a nice 'soft' time to crush with a more aggressive plan next time.

lots of good info in here already. I would just add if you want to do really well you need to up your mileage. For me full training requires a minimum 100 mile week. If you did this you could probably knock 15 minutes off your marathon PR too. Anyway it depends on your goals. If you want to just finish, yeah just focus on overall strength and nutrition etc. If you want to throw down a solid time don´t abandon speed work.

Also if you work somewhere that you stand/walk all day you have a huge advantage on people who spend 40-50 hours a week at a desk

Good luck!