[HN Gopher] Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with ...
___________________________________________________________________
Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run
Author : marban
Score : 359 points
Date : 2022-09-19 13:41 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.irunfar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.irunfar.com)
| eatwater123 wrote:
| Link doesn't work for me for some reason.
| sp332 wrote:
| It took a few seconds to load, but it worked for me.
| mdrzn wrote:
| > That's 7:15 per mile or 4:30 per kilometer for 24 straight
| hours.
|
| That's an insane pace to keep up! I couldn't manage an hour of
| that, it's a real wonder what the human body can achieve.
| liotier wrote:
| That is 50% of the world record on rollerskates, on Le Man's
| circuit and 75% of my own 24 hours records on the same... This is
| beyond my understanding.
| sxv wrote:
| And he's in his 40s!
| joelrunyon wrote:
| This type of distance / pace is hard for some people to even
| grasp. This line helps sum it up nicely:
|
| > That's 7:15 per mile or 4:30 per kilometer for 24 straight
| hours.
|
| Incredible
| pferdone wrote:
| So 13.32 km/h or 8.27 mp/h on average.
| speakfreely wrote:
| Anyone who can run 5 miles at 7:15 pace is a pretty well
| conditioned athlete. If you can keep that pace for an hour,
| that shows some determination. Multiple hours is an incredible
| feat. 24 hours is just suprahuman.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| The standard to pass the first phase of US Army Ranger School
| is 5 miles at 8:00 pace. Those aren't pro runners by any
| means, but shows a standard for a rather well conditioned
| group of people. They also need to do 49 push-ups and 59 sit-
| ups in 2 minutes each, plus 6 pull-ups.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I consider myself unfit and can do 10k at 7min/km ... not
| sure those numbers are right given 1km=.6mile
| travisjungroth wrote:
| Maybe there's a conversion issue here. The fit Soldiers
| are running a pace of 8:00 per mile at the slowest. You
| (self-proclaimed unfit) are running a pace of 11:16 per
| mile. This is _much_ slower. To change to speed and km,
| the slowest acceptable speed is 12 kmh. Yours is 8.5 kmh.
|
| Source for Ranger numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
| United_States_Army_Physical_Fi...
| cainxinth wrote:
| No one actually "unfit" can run (not walk) 10km
| jeltz wrote:
| You did some calculation error, the requirement for
| rangers is 5 min/km or a 50 minute 10k (compared to your
| 70 minute one). Not that hard to do but requires one to
| be in decent shape.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| My mental arithmetic is shocking. Maybe more shocking
| than my cardio.
|
| 5min/km is quick.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I could easily meet the push up/sit up/pull up bar but I
| can only run 12 min miles for 5 miles. Pretty interesting
| how uneven is my conditioning.
| lancesells wrote:
| I can do the running but not the pushups so maybe we can
| trade
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| You two should buy an extra long trenchcoat and see if
| you can make it work.
| jeltz wrote:
| My conditioning is also very uneven. Running would be
| trivial (I ran a half marathon at 7:55 min/mile a couple
| of days ago), I could also manage sit-ups just fine,
| would fail on push-ups (but not by much) but can't even
| do a single pull-up.
| Cd00d wrote:
| I'm the same - it's very easy for me to ramp up miles and
| pace in endurance sports, but I've never been able to do
| a pull up.
|
| I do notice I weigh 25-30 pounds less than my friends
| that are same height and waist size. I'm 6'3" and when
| fit hover a little under 170 lbs, while everyone else is
| 190-200. I think it's a distinct lack of muscle.
| cafard wrote:
| Back in the 1980s, a man under 40 had to run a 2:50 marathon
| to qualify for the Boston Marathon. That's right around
| 6:30/mile. Quite a few did.
| float4 wrote:
| Assume 5% can run a marathon (definitely less) and that
| 2:50 is 90th percentile (definitely higher) and you're
| still top 99.5%. How is that not an "incredible feat" as
| the GP called it?
| cafard wrote:
| Well, because it was me. I regarded myself as a fair
| recreational runner, but nothing more.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| But that wasn't a general fitness measure, that was a way
| to weed out weaker contestants by setting a very aggressive
| standard. That's aiming to get only elite runners.
| phphphphp wrote:
| I don't think the first part of that is true. That pace is a
| ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could
| build up to quite quickly; you certainly don't need to be a
| "well conditioned athlete" to do 5 miles at that pace.
| Anyway, doesn't change your point that maintaining the pace
| over 24 hours is super-human, very much agreed.
| notacoward wrote:
| > ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could
| build up to quite quickly
|
| For 5km, 25:00 would put you into the top 10% (median is
| 34:37).
|
| https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-
| perce...
|
| That's out of those who post times in measured/timed
| events, so it would be an even better result compared to
| all runners, and better still compared to fit people
| specializing in other sports such as cycling. It's also for
| all ages. For example, in my own 50-59 age group that would
| be top 6% (median 36:36).
|
| 25:00 might not be all that impressive when you're looking
| on Strava, but in a broader context it really is closer to
| "well conditioned athlete" than to "reasonably healthy
| adult". BTW, since I know somebody will _ad hominem_ at me
| if I don 't say anything, I'm on schedule for 1000 miles
| this year and to that end I run 5km continuously (even on
| hills) at least once or twice a week. It takes a certain
| level of dedication independent of how generally fit you
| are.
| phphphphp wrote:
| I'm not sure how much I trust those stats. If you look at
| parkrun results, 25 minutes is definitely not the top
| 10%. I imagine you're familiar with parkrun, but just in
| case: parkrun is a weekly, non-competitive, just for fun
| 5k -- with millions of participants, and all their stats
| are online.
|
| I picked a bunch of random events from last week's
| parkrun, and for most of them, ~>1/3rd finish in <=25
| mins and very few of those times are PBs. I'd be
| absolutely shocked if being able to do a 5k in 25 mins
| puts you in the top 10% of runners, in fact, I'd go as
| far as to say, I think the majority of runners could do a
| 25min 5k -- where "runner" means "someone who runs
| regularly" (once per week, which parkrun is
| representative of).
|
| Click a town name in the "event" column on this page to
| see various results (includes gender and age group) you
| can also click through to individual profiles:
| https://www.parkrun.org.uk/results
|
| If we expand the definition of "runner" to include anyone
| who runs at least once per year, I think maybe you'd get
| to the 10% figure you're quoting. The other possibility
| is that the page you've linked is using marathon times
| and extrapolating out from those to get 5k times, which
| is not going to produce accurate results.
| notacoward wrote:
| Yes, those numbers seem somewhat faster, but the medians
| I got for the four courses I looked at were still 27:27,
| 29:02, 27:13, and 28:19. 25:00 is still better than
| median even among runners who participate in official
| events, so it still seems true that 25:00 is closer to
| "well conditioned athlete" than to "reasonably healthy
| adult". Remember, "well conditioned" doesn't mean an
| elite marathoner, and "athlete" doesn't mean a
| professional. If you're running 5km in under 25:00 you're
| well ahead of the _vast_ majority of human beings.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| It's truly incredible. Even most pretty in shape people could
| not run a 7:15 pace for more than 2 or 3 miles.
| twawaaay wrote:
| I was 35 when I was able to run 10k in 47m on my first season
| after I lost 26 kg the previous year. This is about about
| 7:30 minutes per mile. I was also able to run 5k in 21:03
| (about 6:47) and at the end of the season a marathon in
| 4:12:00 (~9:35).
|
| I wouldn't consider myself athletic and definitely not
| "conditioned athlete". I had no prior history of running or
| taking up any sports of any kind. Actually, I would be
| spending very few days doing anything else than sitting
| straight by the computer, lying down to read a book or
| standing in the kitchen cooking something.
|
| But I quickly learned to like running and I would push myself
| to run faster, harder, longer and further and I ran about 900
| miles between March and October of my first running season
| with most of the volume in second half as I was ramping up on
| distance. At the peak I was doing say three 10k days in the
| middle of the week and then a 20-24k on the weekend every two
| weeks.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| You ran 900 miles in 6 months but don't consider yourself
| athletic? Um ok you might want to revise that evaluation.
| gnuj3 wrote:
| He just wants others to tell him that he is.
| notacoward wrote:
| The longer this thread continues, the more I think you're
| right.
| twawaaay wrote:
| No, I just want to say that probably most of healthy
| people (well, at the very least men) can, with a bit of
| preparation, achieve the above mentioned result with no
| prior history of doing any serious sports. It would
| require some effort but it is doable in 6 months.
|
| Why does everybody assume this is vanity?
| notacoward wrote:
| The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of
| repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this
| thread (including link to RunRepeat).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865
| jeltz wrote:
| That does not contradict with what he said. If you
| average 8 km per day I think most men and quite many
| women would be able to run a 45 minute 10k. You just need
| to be willing to put in that much hard work and not be
| obese.
| [deleted]
| notacoward wrote:
| Both I and the person I was responding to cited _numbers_
| and you come back with "I think"? Really? Here are the
| results from the Peachtree Road Race, which is the
| largest 10K in the US. Only 1036/34877 (3%) of
| participants finished in under 45:00.
|
| https://www.athlinks.com/event/115192/results/Event/10167
| 77/...
|
| Second largest is Dick's Sporting Goods Bolder Boulder:
| 1202/27997 (4%).
|
| https://www.athlinks.com/event/6172/results/Event/1020677
| /Co...
|
| Third largest is the Cooper River Bridge Run: 549/16053
| (3%).
|
| https://www.athlinks.com/event/9036/results/Event/1013345
| /Co...
|
| Clearly, getting under 45:00 takes a _lot_ more than just
| "hard work and not be obese" - some combination of youth,
| talent, and _years_ of grinding it out harder even than
| most other runners. No, not 8km every day; that 's a bit
| of a tell for lack of direct experience or expertise. I
| know only a handful of people - including myself but
| excluding many marathoners - who average even half that
| beyond a brief (month or two) pre-race training period,
| and all of us take days off. Any training guide will
| explain why. 45:00 for 10km is something that most people
| will never achieve, even with practice and even if they
| are considered very fit by any reasonable measure. FOr
| those who can do it, kudos, but let's not hold it up as a
| meaningful standard.
| jeltz wrote:
| But your numbers are largely irrelevant. Most people who
| sign up to races are not regular runners, and do not come
| close to averaging 8 km per day if you even run at all.
| If we instead look at a race for regular runners (but
| still amateurs) we will see vastly different numbers.
| Also not everyone in a race goes all out, some people run
| with a slower friend or just run to have fun.
|
| Premiarmilen 2022: 610/1455 (42%)
|
| https://registration.marathongruppen.se/ResultList.aspx?L
| ang...
|
| Hasselbyloppet 2021 441/1001 (44%)
|
| https://www.marathon.se/racetimer?v=/sv/race/show/4972%3F
| lay...
|
| Hostrusket 10k 2021: 220/621 (35%)
|
| https://www.marathon.se/racetimer?v=/sv/race/show/5011%3F
| lay...
|
| Sorry for only citing Swedish races, but from my
| experience running many races and being a member of
| running clubs I can say that your 4% is misleading since
| in many races there are a lot of people who never run. In
| races where most people run (and many of those still run
| less than 8 km per day) I expect ~40% of the men to run
| under 45 minutes.
|
| Edit: That said running 8 km per day is a lot and few
| people average that outside marathon training programs.
| Which is also why I doubt even most people running in the
| races above average close to that much.
| twawaaay wrote:
| And this matches my experience.
|
| I once joined a 10k without much research. It was on the
| weekend I wanted to run fast 10k (at the time that was 50
| minutes for me) and I decided I might want to run it with
| other people.
|
| The detail I missed was the race was organised by a local
| sports school to commemorate 50 years of the school and
| the participants were mostly alumni.
|
| I quickly found myself at the end of the pack and even
| though finished around 50 minute I was still mostly
| surrounded by 40 and 50 year olds, everybody younger or
| my age was far faster than I was.
| notacoward wrote:
| > Most people who sign up to races are not regular
| runners
|
| [citation sorely needed]
|
| Yes, some non-regular-runners sign up for a charity 5K,
| but _as I already said_ that 's much less true for a 10K.
| "Most" is a drastic overstatement.
|
| > In races where most people run
|
| i.e. where most people fit the definition of "well
| conditioned athlete"
|
| > I expect ~40% of the men to run under 45 minutes
|
| i.e. 45:00 is still below median. Even by your own shifty
| definitions, you're refuting your own point.
| twawaaay wrote:
| I think you might be looking wrong at how big an
| accomplishment it is to be in top 3 or 4% of random
| sample of people in a field where a lot of people do it
| recreationally.
|
| All running events I took part look more or less like
| this -- there is a line of a dozen or two dozen "serious"
| people and then there is hundreds or thousands of people
| that are just doing it for fun.
|
| If you put a random sample of drivers on a track, the
| person that is half percentile from the top result would
| still be an amateur with poor result by any possible
| standard.
|
| Or, think in terms of Settlers of Catan. If you've red
| any strategy tutorial on how you should properly play it
| to win the game you are probably in the top 0.1% of
| players. Does it make you special? Does it make you a
| professional player? Most certainly not...
|
| I think it is true for a lot of fields, including
| running, that if you are trying at all, putting any
| effort, you immediately jump to top percent or two of all
| participants.
| notacoward wrote:
| Why do you assume it's _me_ who 's looking at it wrong?
| Your own PR is "no big accomplishment" by your own
| standard, despite having worked hard to get it. Does that
| seem sensible to you? Would you not have taken offense if
| I had been the one to dismiss it with a hand-wave? You're
| not even being consistent here.
|
| A lot of people will run a 5K recreationally, but that's
| much less true of a 10K. Just _completing the distance_
| puts them in a pretty high percentile relative to the
| general population. I know a lot of dedicated runners,
| people who have been running three to six times a week
| for years, who nonetheless have never run a 10K in under
| 45:00 and never will. Many of them have never even
| submitted an official time. They 're not unfit. They're
| not obese. They're not doing it for fun, either. They're
| dedicated and often quite competitive; they're just not
| fast, and many of them couldn't be even with the utmost
| dedication.
|
| That's why age-grading exists, and it's based on more
| science than you seem to know. Even elites lose alveolar
| density and joint flexibility as they age. That's why
| _all_ of the world records are held by young people, who
| also dominate all of the top events. Believe it or not,
| being over 40 is a thing. It 's a significant percentage
| of the population right there, never mind the younger
| folks who also range from the disabled through the
| genuinely lazy to those who are actually super-fit but
| specialize in other activities or just aren't hyper-
| competitive enough to devote their time to HIIT and other
| speed-specific training methods.
|
| > the person that is half percentile from the top result
| would still be an amateur with poor result
|
| That is simply not true, and it's _strong_ evidence that
| it 's you who lack perspective. Being within half a
| percentile of the top is an excellent result practically
| by definition. "Hanging with the elites" is a ridiculous
| cutoff. Even the person in the middle of the pack for any
| of those races I cited is a "well conditioned athlete" by
| any sane set of definitions. In any room of a hundred
| random people, they'd stand a good chance of being the
| fittest one there. Moving goalposts to exclude them seems
| a bit disingenous.
| sn9 wrote:
| You're ignoring that he's talking about performance given
| a certain baseline training volume while you're talking
| about performance regardless of training history.
|
| It's two very different populations.
|
| This is like someone saying a reliable way of making six
| figures in the US is to study CS and become a developer
| and you're responding with the average income across the
| human population as evidence for why this isn't a good
| strategy.
| notacoward wrote:
| > performance given a certain baseline training volume
|
| That would make the argument pretty circular, because _of
| course_ those two tiny slivers of the population have
| high overlap. I was trying to assume good faith, despite
| the venue, and clearly that was a mistake.
| mdtusz wrote:
| The problem is that you said you're not athletic or not a
| conditioned athlete, then described exactly what it takes
| to become a conditioned athletic person - dedication to
| training and putting in the mileage.
|
| Anyone that can run a half marathon every weekend and
| 30km+ during the week is almost by definition athletic.
| Yes, nearly anyone can achieve this with the dedication
| it takes, but that doesn't change the fact you're being
| overly humble about your own athleticism.
|
| It's like someone saying "I'm not an engineer, and am not
| particularly good at math or physics, but I studied 3
| days a week and got an engineering degree and now I work
| at an engineering firm and can solve most math and
| physics problems."
| [deleted]
| bena wrote:
| Yeah, that's an average of about 5 miles a day.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| That doesn't seem too long of a run until you realize it
| would need to be every day without rest days.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| humans are remarkably good at running.
|
| Granted this was in high school, but I went from huffing
| and puffing a 3 mile jog to being able to go for
| leisurely 8 mile runs within a couple months.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| If you do 8 miles every day my hat is off to you, I find
| I'm happiest only running 4 days a week.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cafard wrote:
| Back in the 80s, Yannis Kouros seemed to be able to crank out
| 6:30 miles for many hours a day, for several days in a row. But
| I don't remember how many hours--eight or ten maybe.
| stevesimmons wrote:
| Yannis Kouros was a legend. When I was a teenage, he was a
| 5-time winner of the Sydney to Melbourne Ultramarathon, from
| 1985 to 1990. The distance was 800-1000km. It took 5-6 days,
| running non-stop.
|
| He was so much better than everyone else that "in 1988, the
| race organiser challenged him to start 12 hours behind the
| rest of the field. Kouros overtook his competitors and won
| the race with a one-hour lead over New Zealander Dick Tout."
| [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_to_Melbourne_Ultrama
| rat...
| cafard wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| Several years ago, I was running in Rock Creek Park when a
| couple of men in their twenties passed in the opposite
| direction, and were apparently discussing Yannis Kouros. He
| isn't or wasn't forgotten.
| darkwater wrote:
| Wow that's better than my personal record for a 10km run.
| Obviously you cannot compare yourself against the top1 guy in
| an endurance race, and not even against the top1000 but it's
| still mind-blowing how something that required a lot of effort
| (physical AND mental to be constant enough during training) for
| a normal human being can be literally nothing for another human
| being.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I can't even imagine. I'm gassed at that pace after a couple of
| KM.
| js2 wrote:
| I have a 1:28 half-marathon PR, a 3:07 marathon PR, I've
| twice run 100 miles in under 24 hours, and I can't imagine
| even more.
|
| That said, the marathon WR is 2:01:39 which is 4:38.39/mile
| (2:52.98/km). So Sorokin is running about 55% slower than
| that, or what would be considered an easy pace for an elite
| marathoner. AFAIK, we have yet to see an elite marathoner
| transition to ultras. However, there are quite a few elite
| ultra-marathoners who run marathons. The one I'm most
| familiar with is Michael Wardian:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wardian
|
| He's run both a 2:17:49 marathon and finished 15th as Western
| States (19:32:07).
|
| And to be clear: I'm not diminishing Sorokin's amazing
| accomplishment here. I've run a 24 hour race. I got to 105
| miles. I'm just noting what the best in the world are capable
| of at different distances.
|
| Humans are amazingly adaptable. I'm reminded of Howard
| Schatz's Athlete series of photographs:
|
| https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-
| how...
|
| https://howardschatz.com/human-body/athletes/
| troon-lover wrote:
| hammock wrote:
| Eight gallons of gasoline
| ar_lan wrote:
| This is a frighteningly-cool insight. If I think about a
| single marathon, that's roughly 1 gallon of gas for my own
| car. I don't know how to translate that to human fuel, but it
| is crazy to me to think that that is not an insignificant
| amount of fuel the human body needs to burn to do the
| equivalent of a car.
| elil17 wrote:
| Humans are much more energy efficient than cars, so it was
| less than 3/4 of a gallon (100 kcal/mile * 200 miles = 20,000
| calories = 0.7 gallons of gas or about 6 pounds of body fat).
| He's probably much more efficient than 100 kcal/mile though.
| fpoling wrote:
| Energy efficiency per distance of running improves very
| little with training. According to the book "Burn" by
| Herman Pontzer we are talking about few percents, not even
| 10%.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| That is presumably talking about differences in metabolic
| and mechanical efficiency, but assuming those are held
| equal, energy output still scales linearly with work
| performed, which is directly proportional to body mass,
| and energy loss from atmospheric and wind drag is going
| to operate similarly. Simply being smaller and having a
| slimmer profile will result in less energy needed per
| unit of distance compared to an average person.
|
| That said, Aleksandr is smaller than an average 40 year-
| old man, but actually pretty large for a distance runner,
| 20 kg heavier than the current world record holder in the
| marathon.
| elil17 wrote:
| Just being skinny probably makes him more efficient than
| average.
| ars wrote:
| That's not true, Humans are not more energy efficient than
| cars. Rather Humans are lighter than cars.
|
| A car as light as a human would get something like 1,000mpg
| (probably a fuel cell with an electric motor).
|
| https://sites.google.com/view/ebikestudy
| elil17 wrote:
| That's a bit like saying a Honda Civic aren't more
| efficient than an Abrams tank because the Civic weighs
| less. They don't have the same capabilities, but one is
| gonna win on MPG for sure.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Doesn't this ignore the energy loss from eating and growing
| the food?
| elil17 wrote:
| Yes, it does
| ReptileMan wrote:
| When I was cycling I was joking that the bike is not much
| greener than the car, because it burns 4 ribeyes/100km or
| 17 miles/ribeye.
| elil17 wrote:
| I read somewhere that if you're not at least mostly
| vegan, e-bikes actually have lower lifecycle carbon
| emissions than bikes because you end up burning fewer
| calories and eating less (assuming you don't substitute
| in more exercise).
| jvm___ wrote:
| So. Lithium battery powered humans would emit less carbon
| than regular humans?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| They would since we could charge them using PV instead of
| wasteful bovines.
| snewman wrote:
| That makes a lot of sense. Intuitively (I haven't tried
| to run numbers on this), the big efficiency problem with
| a car - gas or EV - is not that it's using "unnatural"
| forms of power, it's that you're hauling a 3000 pound
| vehicle around with your 160 pound human. It's easy to
| believe that photovoltaic power -> modern battery ->
| electric motor is far more efficient than photosynthesis
| -> animal digestion -> human digestion -> human muscle. I
| wouldn't be shocked if that held up even on a vegan diet,
| though the difference would be a rounding error compared
| to the emissions from other aspects of our lives.
| hammock wrote:
| Yes, sedentary lifestyles require less overall energy
| input vs. active ones
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's plausible especially if you use PVs to charge. But
| what about the costs in producing and disposing of the
| batteries?
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Side note - comments like this are why I come to HN.
| Thank you.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| If we consider the average diet bikes are still around
| 1/3 the emissions of cars per mile. Obviously if you eat
| only meat that gets worse but I doubt it's possible to
| exceed car emissions this way.
| ars wrote:
| This has some data:
| https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-
| biking-v...
|
| According to Table 1, a meat eating biker emits more CO2,
| than a double-occupancy Prius.
|
| I suspect an EV would completely tip the table in favor
| of driving.
| hammock wrote:
| It's 8 gallons if he were to drive. Cars weigh more, but
| the human body doesn't have an internal combustion engine
| built into it.
| dmos62 wrote:
| I've started running and an unexpected challenge is boredom. The
| running is challenging as is, but doing it for ~1h30m has been,
| for me, well, tedious. I guess that's a byproduct of always being
| within arm's reach of a phone.
| sz4kerto wrote:
| This is one of the major benefits of LSD (long, slow, distance)
| running, especially for people who have (a slight) ADHD (like
| me).
|
| It allows you to have solitude. I can't sit down and think
| quietly for an hour, because I .. just can't cope with the lack
| of stimuli. Running provides some baseline stimulus at least
| (plus I always set a specific goal, either a distance or a time
| goal so that I don't give it up), so I just need to survive the
| first 30 mins and then I get in the flow to some extent. Most
| of the good work I've done was actually done during long
| weekend runs -- then I have the week to actually do what I
| figured out during the run.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I've never done super long runs (anything over 20 miles) but
| I just find it too boring. I can listen to a podcast or
| something but unless I'm running in a new area its just
| moving kinda slowly through spaces I've already seen.
|
| I've switched to biking now which tends to help my restless
| mind much more. I'm moving faster, I have to lock in more
| because when I'm going 15 mph or higher I cant zone out like
| I do when I'm running, and I can see more/new places if I
| want to.
| sz4kerto wrote:
| Huberman talks about this in his podcast - he says that
| "don't stack dopamine". In this context - try to run
| without podcasts, then you'll enjoy more running and
| podcasts too.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Huberman must be one of those guys who experience the
| runner's high - I can't say I ever have, so podcasts and
| running is about getting back to normal rather than
| multiplying the happy.
| alar44 wrote:
| Yeah that's why I MDMA (mid distance medium acceleration) I
| get the same benefits.
| jjslocum3 wrote:
| You might instead try THC (technical, high-cardio) running;
| it takes up less of your weekend.
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| Crack is also good for weight loss. The crystallized form
| of cocaine.
| x-n2o wrote:
| There are of course, other METHods to go about it.
| agumonkey wrote:
| The trend these days is Cardiac Basal Distance. Works
| best on low altitude.
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| I experience this same benefit from a walking desk. I thought
| it would be distracting but somehow that 10% of my brain
| being occupied by walking actually makes it way easier for me
| to focus otherwise.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I think I'm biologically [0] wired like this. I feel good
| when I'm deeply active. Running makes my mind wander, my body
| better (deeper breathing, more cardiac activity). Bonus point
| when I get runners high.
|
| [0] I've heard my grand parents were also never ending
| workers.
| roddux wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32897812
| collegeburner wrote:
| this is assuming you can manage the long part... my trash
| cardio got me wheezing after 15 minutes jog and walk
| alternating.
| Dangeranger wrote:
| My ADHD symptoms have been drastically reduced after running
| daily for the past couple of months.
|
| Even while using medication, running improves results on top
| of what I had been seeing. It also helps to have a physical
| challenge to complete every day in order to maintain a
| routine.
|
| For my body, I need about 90 minutes of challenging physical
| exercise every day, or I start to seek stimulation in any
| form I can find, which is usually distracting from my primary
| goals.
| ativzzz wrote:
| One of the top recommendations that pretty much every ADHD
| resource mentions is regular exercise. To be fair, running
| (exercising) daily will help pretty much everyone's mental
| health significantly.
| fritzo wrote:
| Gosh I find it takes a lot of mental effort to monitor the body
| while running. I spend a lot of mental effort balancing
| exertion among muscles (left-right, calf-quad-glut, legs-arms),
| tuning pace, "shifting gears" in terms of breaths per stride
| when terrain slope varies.
| dahart wrote:
| FWIW, two things that help for me: 1- trail running, especially
| longer distances. Spending 4 hours and going 20 miles one way
| through the woods gives me a sense of travel and distance and
| freedom I can't get in the city. 2- listening to something
| while I run, podcasts or music or language lessons like
| Pimsleur. For a short 30 min run, sometimes even pace music
| works for me, even though it seemed like it could be more
| boring, running to a good 170 BPM playlist is kinda fun. For
| both of these, mixing things up a lot is helpful for me too,
| always finding new routes and new audio to go with.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I listen to techno/EDM-- which in any other context I can't
| stand context-- and that was the discovery which helped a lot
| with the boredom issue. I've tried listening to
| podcasts/audiobooks, but I either lose focus on running or the
| words.
| kendallpark wrote:
| Try a run that is much longer (eg, 3 hours), then see how your
| 1.5 hour run feels. Usually you need a larger-than-normal
| stimulus to elicit adaptation. In my experience, the mind
| adapts to these things and will essentially learn to shut off.
| jinto36 wrote:
| I treat it as meditative, "connect with nature" time.
| Treadmills, however, are indeed terrible, but then it's easy to
| watch things. I was never a fan of listening to things while
| running, some combination of having to have volume high enough
| to cover the wind noise, and wanting to maintain situational
| awareness.
| Accacin wrote:
| That's one of the things I love about running, after about 12
| hours I even stop having things to think about :D
| ordu wrote:
| You need to repeat it many times. Then your mind will grasp the
| idea: you run marathon, you get endorphins, you feel good. When
| conditioning kicked in, it wouldn't be such a boring
| experience.
| airstrike wrote:
| I have a terrible solution for this, which is to run indoors on
| a treadmill (or do any similar form of cardio) and watch
| Netflix while on it
| chipgap98 wrote:
| I think that's also an upside of running. It's a forcing
| function to be away from screens and occupy your own mind.
|
| Though music or podcasts can be a nice way to break up the
| monotony if you are struggling
| fallat wrote:
| This. It forces you to start actually using your imagination
| again, and your current working memory to work on problems
| being away from things.
| foobarian wrote:
| My problem with running was knee malfunction. I don't know how
| people do it short of just accepting the damage and/or getting
| mechanical replacements.
| Dangeranger wrote:
| Try going for shorter distances, at slower speeds, with less
| hills, more often.
|
| Make sure that you have 2-3 rest days per week for the first
| 60-90 days, then it's okay to start ramping up by adding 10%
| more miles per week.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| I had some knee pain issues (likely caused by ITBS) last year
| when I increased my running frequency. Not wanting to rest
| for more than a few days, I'd still go running and then just
| reduce to a walk when the pain became unbearable.
|
| I researched and found a few helpful tips that helped
| eliminate the problem. One was to correct my running form.
| Overstriding will kill your knees; don't let your upper body
| lean back from your lower body. Your body should be
| vertically aligned, head to foot, with each landing (though a
| slight forward tilt of your torso is fine). Another tip is to
| incorporate lower body strength exercises. Lastly, be sure to
| do stretches after (at least half of) your runs.
|
| These days I run almost daily and experience no knee pain. At
| my current rate I'm on track to finish 2000 miles for the
| year.
| sritchie wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's a given that running torches your knees -
| mechanics, flexibility and musculature make a big difference.
| andscoop wrote:
| Damage from running, while not unusual, is not the default.
| Running does not wear out the knees long term.
| voisin wrote:
| Go slower, allow your musculature to adapt. The aerobic
| system adapts quickly and then beginners go farther or faster
| to "feel" the same challenge but the musculature adapts more
| slowly and then injuries occur.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Fix your form and/or weight. Unless you're doing technical
| trails or sprinting knees should never have any issues
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Everyone has had good points about conditioning, but I'm
| surprised no one has said it yet - fresh running shoes. I go
| through a pair each year. Until your body has adapted it's
| very important to have a good pair of supportive but
| cushioning shoes.
| Aromasin wrote:
| I have the strictly opposite advice to recommend. Ditch the
| cushioning completely. I had stress injuries every year
| until swapping to barefoot shoes, and have experienced none
| since. It changed my gait and allowed my stabiliser muscles
| to actually function. Could not recommend it enough.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Were you experiencing knee pain? It could be possible you
| were at a level were your tissues were adapted enough to
| able to accept that additional straing. And I would
| stress that works for you probably won't for others - as
| a few counter examples, Mr Sorokin was wearing shoes with
| cushions during his run, and other elite runners who grew
| up running shoe-less, such as Haile Gebreselassie, run
| with shoes.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I queue up podcasts or audio-books and use it as uninterrupted
| me time, though I do find audio-books harder to listen to on 2+
| hour runs just because my mind tends to wander by that point. I
| find that podcasts are easier to mentally tune in and out of.
| yreg wrote:
| For me it's the only time (perhaps other than driving) I can
| truly focus on an audiobook. Ideally a nonfiction one, so it
| can be paused until the next workout at any time without
| creating a cliffhanger.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| When I find a particularly engaging audiobook, I reserve it
| only for running. Works really well. I've done extra laps
| just to hear more of the book.
| jononomo wrote:
| You get more benefit from just walking, I believe.
| Dangeranger wrote:
| For the past year I've been running a lot, and I've found that
| listening to podcasts and/or audio books is a great way to stay
| cognitively engaged with something other than the physical
| sensations of running, as a bonus you get to learn and
| experience cool stuff.
|
| There is also a benefit to running without audio, in that you
| have a chance to let your imagination go wild, or try to focus
| hard on your breathing, cadence, and form, but I can understand
| that being challenging for many people to do for an hour or
| more at a time.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I also second running without audio stimulus. Your brain can
| do some wonderful things when left to its own devices.
| tibbon wrote:
| I joined a Hash House Harriers group, which helps a lot with
| boredom. It's running somewhat chaotically in the woods, and
| you're constantly needing to find the trail. Its quite social.
| There are some cultural aspects around drinking and such that I
| don't love, but overall it is a net positive and far more
| engaging than other types of running for me.
| CitrusFruits wrote:
| I've been a runner for a long time and this is absolutely a
| thing, it's not just you. Running do over an hour gets boring
| unless you're trail running and have different scenery to look
| forward to. That being said, a lot of people get bored (or
| worse, are actively displeased) much quicker and can't even run
| without music to entertain them.
| phasersout wrote:
| I run without any noise and sometimes I do when the track
| goes through a nice forest or so. But for anything longer
| than 3 - 5 km there is gladly no shortage of music-playlists,
| podcasts or audio books to choose from.
| peter422 wrote:
| FWIW I can run without music and find it pleasurable, but I
| get much, much more joy out of running with music.
|
| I don't think there needs to be any judgement for somebody
| who "needs" music to run. Music is great!
| jan_Inkepa wrote:
| For me I've always found running outdoors engaging, but
| swimming laps becomes quickly tedious. I once as an experiment
| did a half marathon on a circular sports centre track to see
| how it compared and it was awful.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| I started with this problem when I first started running. Once
| I was conditioned, the boredom went away. I was only doing 45
| min. I was on an outdoor trail with different paths through
| different environments I could choose from.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| That's why I can't do running.
|
| I can't get over the fact that it's a painful way to get from A
| to A. Some optimizing party of me is always screaming WE COULD
| JUST HAVE STAYED AT A!
|
| Now, if they're is a ball to chase and a game to win, I can run
| until I fall over...
| zecaurubu wrote:
| I'm the same, but I found out I really like rucking (weighted
| marches). Grab a backpack, put some weight on it, and take a
| walk around your neighborhood while listening to a good
| podcast. Currently I walk 4-5km with a 14kg backpack, 3-4x a
| week. Some more details here:
| https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/fitness/the-
| be...
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Exactly the same, plus the weird effect that when I finish a
| run I spend the rest of the day feeling like I'm coming down
| with the flu, while if I play a ball-chasing game so
| intensely that I puke, I feel invincible the rest of the day
| (win or lose). All in my head, I guess, but I can't shake the
| feeling that one leaves me _unhealthy_ while the other leaves
| me _healthy_. Really strange--and that, on top of one being
| the most boring thing I 've ever done on purpose and the
| other being really fun.
|
| So yeah, running... not for me.
| ryeights wrote:
| You might be overtraining! While a more intense run can
| certainly have that effect, especially to a new or
| infrequent runner, a light effort jog (zone 1 heart rate or
| below) usually leaves you feeling better than you started.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| This. When I over train my body just rattles with
| impending doom anxiety for days while I feel like I have
| a bad cold.
| onychomys wrote:
| I love long bike rides, I do 40 miles most weekends. Then
| when I occasionally try running, all I can think is how
| incredibly slow it is. It's all the pain of exercising
| without the fun of actually going anywhere!
| bumby wrote:
| I was the same way, but it helped that I've more recently
| made a conscious effort to be process focused instead of
| outcome focus. Oliver Burkeman's book _Four Thousand Weeks_
| was good at reframing for me.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| > I can't get over the fact that it's a painful way to get
| from A to A. Some optimizing party of me is always screaming
| WE COULD JUST HAVE STAYED AT A!
|
| I feel absolutely the same... about taking a walk. That seems
| incredibly pointless, as you say.
|
| However, if I jog the same route, I burn X kcal, and after
| dieting for a while, I know how much X is, weighed in food.
| Very tasty food, this long into a diet. That makes it
| incredibly easy to instead go for that jog.
|
| It's incredibly weird. I can also take a 1h walk no problem
| to go buy milk at a shop 30min away. That ticks a box, so
| it's a Job Well Done for my brain.
| kiba wrote:
| You're running way too hard. Focus on zone 2, and it ain't so
| hard. Of course, you do want to go faster, but these training
| should be the minority of your run.
| oliwary wrote:
| Have you tried something like Zombies, Run?
|
| It is kind of a gamified running game, with audio clips and
| interactive elements. For example, at certain times zombies
| appear and you have to increase your pace for a bit. In the
| meantime you follow a story about a post-apocalyptic world,
| with characters etc. I tried it for a while, worked pretty
| well!
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/zombies-run/id503519713
| capableweb wrote:
| > Now, if they're is a ball to chase and a game to win, I can
| run until I fall over...
|
| Well, there's the solution :) Make a game out of it. Some
| find it helpful to reward themselves if they can reach some
| sort of goal (under X minutes per km) and not otherwise, then
| you have something of a game.
|
| Otherwise, if you're a bit competitive, find another
| competitive friend and compete who can run for longest
| without giving up. Loser buys the other one beers for
| evening.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I run Bay To Breakers done years, and it's _vastly_ easier
| surrounded by people who also run.
|
| Even though they're complete strangers, there is some
| social pressure to keep going.
|
| I'm sure a running group could also work for me.
| cainxinth wrote:
| Music, podcasts, audiobooks, calling a friend... there are
| plenty of activities that can keep you entertained while
| running. I like to download comedy specials and rip the audio
| for my runs.
| neilv wrote:
| When I ran (casually), there seemed to be three non-boring
| factors:
|
| * Running through the city, there's the changing scenery, and
| also being very careful about constant tripping hazards, cars,
| pedestrians.
|
| * Running on a treadmill or in an empty university track lane,
| you can hit a sustainable pace in which you can just zone out
| and think.
|
| * The exertion, and trying to manage that and not be injured,
| while keeping going, wasn't pleasant, but it wasn't boring.
|
| When a combination of fatigue and boredom did strike, on a
| track, I'd stretch the slow jog to the nearest lap mark, then
| suddenly sprint another half lap just by telling myself I could
| and this was the time for it, and then be glad everything
| worked and didn't explode. (I'm not sure this was a good idea,
| physically, but it was emotionally reassuring and symbolic.)
| psychomugs wrote:
| I run enough for others to classify me as a runner, and they
| are always surprised when I say that I almost never listen to
| music or bring anything more than a watch.
|
| For me, having to deal with The Suck and be alone with yourself
| and your feelings is part of the challenge.
| ericmay wrote:
| I don't run as much as I used to but empathize with this.
| It's fine to mix it up too. When I was doing longer runs I'd
| listen to a long podcast.
|
| With weight lifting and higher intensity exercise I make a
| point to _not_ listen to music to build up a tiny bit of
| mental toughness and be stuck with The Suck and also myself.
| Music is a crutch.
| psychomugs wrote:
| I do listen to music cached on my Apple Watch every now and
| then, but I got it primarily for quick voice note taking.
| Many an idea - most bad, some great - were birthed from The
| Suck.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| I don't run but I do a lot of walking. My mind wanders a huge
| amount during my walks, which I find nice. I am usually so
| focused on preventing my mind from wandering, even in leisure
| activities, for example by focusing on a movie or book.
| Sometimes I stay up later because it means I'll fall asleep
| quicker and not be alone with my thoughts waiting for sleep
| for as long. But I think there's a definite need in the human
| mind for time to sort things out internally, even if (and
| maybe especially if) there's thoughts you're trying to escape
| from.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Same. I do not now what the definition of meditate is, but I
| imagine I come close to it while running.
| brink wrote:
| He's also 40 years old, impressive for that age!
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I would say it's impressive at any age.
| jeltz wrote:
| Not really, actually. Most ultra runners are over 40 so he is
| pretty young and hopefully has a long career in front of him.
| Still extremely impressive of course.
| xhrpost wrote:
| About to turn 41. Amazing how old you can be as a runner and
| still be world class in some metric.
| inerte wrote:
| I didn't know who he was and after reading about the pace in
| the article I decided to search YouTube for a video of him
| running, just to see how fast he's going, and instead found
| this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSLyzAH9Y0A
|
| Apparently he weighted 100kg, was a smoker and a drinker,
| quit both and started running in 2012, only 10 years ago in
| his 30s. Amazing.
| bergenty wrote:
| This has to be with substances
| drumttocs8 wrote:
| Yep, if anything I'm fascinated by the advance in science in
| this area. It's amazing how much work is being done in human
| longevity and healthspan that isn't "publicly" funded.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| yeah I'm sure he used chemicals to get him to the finish line.
| I mean everyone does, it's how human bodies work.
| manholio wrote:
| One could safely assume he drank and ate some substances during
| this event.
| lake_vincent wrote:
| The guy was _clearly_ juiced up on dihydrogen monoxide.
| toss1 wrote:
| Could be, but I think he was using hydrogen hydroxide
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| I can't believe the run ogranizers allowed him to use DHMO
| (dihydrogen monoxide), it's a very deadly substance if one
| isn't careful.
|
| There's even a website dedicated to how devistating it is:
|
| https://www.dhmo.org
| lake_vincent wrote:
| The performance advantage is ridiculous too. You see a
| guy on DHMO next to a regular guy without it, and the
| results are very predictable. Totally unfair.
| [deleted]
| Victerius wrote:
| Even if it is, it's still his leg muscles, his cardiovascular
| endurance, his ability to remain awake for 24 hours doing an
| intense exercise without collapsing of fatigue. Substances
| don't confer superpowers.
| bergenty wrote:
| Yes they do, amphetamines would accomplish everything you
| wrote above. With enough hydration and amphetamines I'm
| certain even I could accomplish this and my general time for
| a mile over 20 miles is currently 8.5 minutes.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| go do it then
| bergenty wrote:
| Yeah not trying to get addicted to highly addictive
| substances.
| ck2 wrote:
| I'm sure he's clean for classical PED, I mean they must test for
| that.
|
| But how about things like ADHD drugs?
|
| When I see someone do a "low boil" endurance event that is beyond
| all others for all of history like a 24 hour record or triple-
| Ironman, etc. I have to ask why is their brain so different than
| competitors?
|
| I guess the benchmark is how many other people are even close to
| his accomplishments?
| thro388 wrote:
| Good for him he got Lithuanian citizenship. Many "Russians" born
| in Lithuania never got that privilege!
|
| Edit: not true, see comments bellow
| baybal2 wrote:
| I know what you are implying here...
|
| All Russians born in Lithuania been offered Lithuanian
| citizenship, repeatedly, many times over.
|
| Some Russians on the far right of the political spectrum
| repeatedly imply the contrary. This is not even a conspiracy
| theory, but a "being debunked in 5 minutes Googling theory."
| wazoox wrote:
| Being a multiple records holder undoubtedly helps a lot.
| rossvor wrote:
| I think the GP is a bit confused and mixed Lithuania up with
| its neighbors. Lithuania, unlike its neighbors Estonia and
| Latvia, gave citizenship automatically to everyone residing
| in Lithuania right before the independence. While Estonia and
| Latvia chose to create a naturalization process aimed at
| excluding ethnic Russians.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness#Estonia_and_Latv.
| ..
| thro388 wrote:
| Fair enough, I mixed up with Latvia, sorry
| throwthere wrote:
| Amazing feat. Also makes you wonder what he was thinking for 24
| hours through the solitude-- the mental toughness and... the
| boringness.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I don't how it is for you but the longest I have ever run is
| three hours and I don't remember feeling bored nor thinking
| about anything apart from the running. If your effort is
| intense you don't really have space to think.
| dmurray wrote:
| Plenty of people have run for 24 hours, or spent far longer in
| far more solitary conditions. You could ask any of them.
| Sorokin "just" ran 5% faster.
| speedgoose wrote:
| In terms of logistics, can you drink just enough water to be
| healthy and fast without having to pee yourself to evacuate the
| excess?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| You need to pee to eliminate some waste products
| nopinsight wrote:
| For many people, the risk to long-term health (and in some cases
| even sudden cardiac death) due to extreme running might not be
| worth it.
|
| Ultramarathon running: how safe is the sport?
|
| https://theconversation.com/ultramarathon-running-how-safe-i...
|
| Potential Long-Term Health Problems Associated with Ultra-
| Endurance Running: A Narrative Review
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01561-3
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| Seems like this sport got him out of the drinking, eating,
| depressed type of lifestyle.
| sendomatic wrote:
| Interesting link. But the way you introduce it overstates the
| statements made by the research.
| nopinsight wrote:
| I have just a couple of friends who run _full_ marathons on a
| regular basis. One of them just died this year, probably due
| to heart condition, one day after a marathon. He has no other
| ailments we knew of.
|
| It's anecdotal, yes, but coupled with some research and other
| medical advice I've read, running marathons or longer
| distance too often and aiming for a competitive time likely
| has long-term negative effects on your health.
|
| (Note: The etymology of 'marathon' also gives a small hint of
| this, though obviously Pheidippides ran in a very different
| condition from modern marathons.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheidippides )
| _the_inflator wrote:
| I agree. Most people could not get into the area of "death
| risk".
|
| I am more interested in injuries.
| runnr_az wrote:
| I know the US 24h record holder, Nick Coury from around the PHX
| trailrunning scene. He ran 173 miles in 24h on a track last year.
| Talking to him, it's all about meticulous training -- he's an
| engineer by background, so he basically measured and tweaked
| every variable, one at a time, until he found things that worked.
| Still, these runs are won and lost on efficiency -- to stay that
| focused for so long seems... uhhh... difficult.
|
| https://www.irunfar.com/nick-coury-24-hour-american-record
| typon wrote:
| How much weight did he lose? It's quite amazing how calorie dense
| our energy storage mechanisms are.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| So a probably safe comparison is Ironmans or Ultramarathons
| (100 milers go for 17-18 hours for the top finishers). Usually
| you have to put in a huge amount of carbs per hour (50-80g/hr)
| and a high amount of calories (250-400 cal/hr). Hydration is
| obviously also very important and getting sodium will be key
| (1000mg/hr). Outside of that you can generally limit your
| body's usage of fat stores though at this length and time it is
| probably inevitable.
|
| I would suspect that if properly hydrated and consuming
| calories (no easy feat after 12 hours because the stomach does
| really go to shit) maybe 600 net calories an hour (-1000/hr +
| 400/hr from nutrition) = 4-10 lbs (@3000 cal/lb).
|
| Range provided because I suspect my calculations are a little
| off and I'm underestimating the calories burned and probably
| overestimating the ability to consume that many calories/hour.
|
| TLDR: Probably 10 lbs if they are properly hydrated and fed
| (which this appears to be a VERY well supported achievement)
| typon wrote:
| I wonder if losing weight over the course of the run itself
| means that it got easier for him to move near the end (of
| course offset by the tiredness/fatigue) - I wonder if the
| effect did slightly cancel out?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I wouldn't think it would be helpful to lose weight, the
| issue really is that turning fat stores into calories is
| quite slow (for how many calories he is consuming) and it
| can't be relied on as a source of energy so you just end up
| more tired I think.
|
| You need some amount of weight for muscle to push your body
| forward and I don't know that there is a big aerodynamic or
| energy advantage to sacrificing weight for that.
| Accacin wrote:
| It's very hard to comsume 600 calories an hour whilst long
| distance running. A good thing to aim for is 200 calories as
| that's probably about the max your body can digest whilst
| running.
|
| However, this guy is clearly superhuman so who knows :D
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I had the estimate at 400 calories in my post (which is on
| the high end for sure), which is what I know some Ultraman
| and ultramarathoners aim for in at least the first half or
| bike legs of their race. I believe 200 is enough for
| amateur runners, but I know professionals really load up
| since the calories from carbs are definitely more
| efficiently utilized than fat stores.
| jordanmoconnor wrote:
| Someone on Twitter calculated about 55,000 calories burned. Not
| sure if he had things to consume while running - but 8 - 10 lbs
| of fat burned in one day is wild to think about.
| mikestew wrote:
| _Not sure if he had things to consume while running_
|
| Oh, he had things to consume. I ran 16 miles on hilly terrain
| on Saturday, and just for that I brought about 500 calories
| with me (not all consumed, some was "just in case").
|
| It has been said that your liver stores about 2000 calories
| of glycogen. Divide by ~100 calories/mile, and now you know
| why marathoners hit "the wall" at about 20 miles if they
| don't chomp on some calories along the way.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Definitely had things to consume. I don't think you could go
| through this kind of effort on your energy storage only. I
| don't think it can be mobilised that fast. Hydratation
| probably is a major concern too.
| xhrpost wrote:
| IIRC, a gallon of gasoline is about 37,000 calories. So
| that's a lot of energy he utilized, all through his body
| burning fat and carbs!
| cfj wrote:
| That seems way too high. A rough ballpark of energy
| expenditure while running is 1000 kcal per hour. Strava has
| the activity at 16,751 kcal.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Dang, that would be SO impressive... <1000 calories an hour
| would mean he is running SUPER efficiently from a body
| perspective, but of course, with the right hydration,
| nutrition, and temperature it is all possible to burn less
| calories.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| I don't know about that, it's probably not super precise
| but an hour running is 600-700 kcal burned, reported by
| Garmin Connect
| mikestew wrote:
| Whether you walk it or run it, a mile is about 100
| calories. So, give or take, ~20,000 calories. Divide by
| 3500 calories/lb. and he burned five pounds of fat he
| probably didn't have to spare. But not so fast, he was
| also consuming calories along the way, and consuming a
| _lot_.
|
| So calculating the net burn would be quite difficult. But
| the gross burn was probably about five pounds/2.25Kg.
| [deleted]
| yubiox wrote:
| I want to run but I cough for hours after running. Doc gave me an
| inhaler but it doesn't do anything. Any ideas? Help!
| abakker wrote:
| Ever tried running while on vacation? I grew up in new england
| and always found that I had a lot of exercise intolerance.
| However, I could always do better when I was on vacation out
| west. Now that I live in CO, I find my exercise tolerance to be
| way better. Anecdotally, I find that humidity is a real
| performance suck for me, as well as seasonal mold.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Allergies? Definitely consult your doctor, but try taking
| claritin (or generic) for 2 weeks and see if that clears things
| up.
| Accacin wrote:
| This is not medical advice, and could even be wrong.
|
| However, I had a friend with with the same problem and he did
| have asthma. The thing that helped him the most was dialling it
| back completely. Run 1km, does that make you cough? Run 0.5km.
| Once you get a distance where you don't cough, run it for a
| week or so, then increment by another 0.5km. If you start
| coughing, reduce it again.
| febrianrendak wrote:
| If you cough then you needs different method of breathing. I
| coughs when I breathing through mouth because inhale/exhale
| make my mouth and throath dry. Try use nose for both.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Exercise asthma is a drag.
|
| You might be opening up your lungs more than usual during
| running, and dirty or dry air can be irritating to pockets that
| aren't used to use. Start with short runs to build up your
| tolerance. Running on wet days can help -- the air is cleaner,
| wet, and less irritating. Good nose breathing will humidify and
| filter the air through your sinuses instead of passing straight
| to the lungs. Huffing steam through your nose in the shower
| before or after can calm the irritated tissue. If that doesn't
| work, reactine or a puffer can help. A light puff deep in the
| lungs _before_ the run can help stave it off.
| toss1 wrote:
| After getting a flu some years ago, I had a similar problem
| ever since it cleared up. I have no idea if it is like yours,
| so it might be a longshot; mine is classified as "mild
| exercise-induced asthma". It is worst in cold weather.
|
| I've also found that the inhaler helps only marginally, but it
| does help to start out each run on a much slower than normal
| pace, even walking (sort of giving the airways time to adjust),
| and also starting out wearing a scarf or big collar over the
| airways to trap moisture in the airstream. It's kind of
| annoying to do as my usual routine was a good warmup then just
| start right-off at full pace, but since then, I kind of pay for
| that.
|
| Good luck, I hope this helps or or you can find something that
| does!
| jeltz wrote:
| Does it help if you run slower? Does it happen more during
| spring (i.e. could it be allergies)?
| wara23arish wrote:
| im not a doctor but i had the same thing happen to me, but time
| after time i stopped coughing.
|
| also make sure you're breathing is correct
| chainwax wrote:
| Anecdotal:
|
| I struggled with exercise asthma for as long as I can remember
| up until about a year ago (currently 28). I had in my head that
| I'd never be athletic for this reason. Last year I started
| heavily lifting weights with a trainer in order to correct some
| of the slouch I'd developed from programming and mentioned to
| my trainer that I would never be a runner because of the
| breathing issues.
|
| I'm not sure if his response to that came from a place of
| wisdom or not, but he effectively told me to "quit making
| excuses and get after it" and started integrating runs into my
| workout. My lunch issues were always exacerbated in cold
| weather, and this was in November where the mornings were
| around 38f. It started with ~1km runs and I honestly thought
| this guy was killing me. I was bringing an inhaler in my truck
| and would use it between the "warm up" runs and doing weights
| because my lungs tight and on fire.
|
| I was doing this routine 3 days a week that entire winter, and
| the length of the warmup run would range from 1-3km. I started
| noticing the pain less and less as the weeks went by. I
| actually started enjoying it, and began running on the days I
| wasn't going to the gym. I worked from 1 mile runs to
| consistently doing 4-5 5ks a week, with the occasional longer
| run. I still try to do 3-4 5ks a week to this day.
|
| I hadn't really thought about it until this comment, which is
| probably what prompted this long-winded response. For me
| though, the solution was to just keep doing it. Your lungs get
| stronger.
| dtf wrote:
| I've had that sometimes during the cold seasons, and usually
| take a puff of salbutamol before setting out. I still get it
| sometimes after a hard run or a race.
|
| Maybe try reducing the dose of running (duration x intensity),
| until you don't suffer so much, and then slowly build up if you
| can over weeks. You can walk & run, couch-to-5K style, if it
| helps.
|
| This little-by-little approach applies to most things in
| running - from training your VO2max to coming back from an
| injury, so it may help you. The key is to understand that the
| timeframe of adaptations can be weeks to months, and not to
| rush things.
| sizzzzlerz wrote:
| How does one train for a 24 hour run? Do you need to run the full
| 24 or is it enough to run single or double marathon distances
| leading up to the race?
| scojomodena wrote:
| Marathon-esque training is pretty good. The difference is
| really in being able to slow down so you are well within your
| aerobic zone, below your threshold pace/effort. Running slow
| enough so you can breathe only through your nose is a good
| measure. From there, it's about eating and hydration, etc.
| Ultras are often described as a "an eating competition with
| some running thrown in". The joints of course is a big deal
| too, some can do it easier than others.
|
| Also, most people walk a lot, you don't have to run, you just
| keep making forward progress.
|
| source: I've done a few Ultras and have used a running coach.
| eitally wrote:
| Alexandr had been running 185mi/wk average to train for this
| over the past 3 months. Lots of marathon and 2x marathon runs
| on back-to-back days. That said, there's an enormous chasm
| between someone like this training for a 24hr world record and
| your or I just training to finish a 24hr race on our feet.
| f311a wrote:
| Aleksandr is very gifted genetically, he ran a marathon after one
| week of training while being overweight (100kg). It only took him
| 50 days to train for 100 km after the marathon. He is also 40
| years old.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aSLyzAH9Y0A
| nl wrote:
| It's worth noting that the previous record had stood since 1997.
| That's an incredible amount of time for a running record,
| especially with the huge increase in ultra running over the last
| 10 years.
| oakesm9 wrote:
| I beleive that he broke the 1997 record last year and this was
| breaking his own record.
| ryannevius wrote:
| Aleksandr's training is public on his Strava:
| https://www.strava.com/athletes/26934035
|
| Something to remember is that this is his pace _after_ pit stops,
| so his actual running pace was faster. Also notable is that this
| course was kind of terrible, with four 90 degree turns and three
| 180 degree turns each lap for 209 laps. There's little doubt that
| he could run > 200 miles on a course with fewer turns.
| georgecmu wrote:
| He's got the fly-bys enabled, too -- and you can watch the
| replay of the race with 20 other athletes:
|
| https://labs.strava.com/flyby/viewer/#7828119666?c=u0pf6j88&...
| speedgoose wrote:
| I didn't know you could get a watch with more than 24 hours of
| battery life including GPS tracking (COROS APEX Pro). The
| accuracy is a bit weird though, the elevation chart doesn't
| make sense.
| ezfe wrote:
| The Apple Watch Ultra is rated for 36 hours so long as cell
| service isn't enabled.
| trimbo wrote:
| That's 36 hours of normal use, with a 60 minute workout[1].
| My Fenix 6 lasts 8 days of normal use and currently tells
| me it can record a 14 hour run even with only 42% battery.
|
| [1] - Details in footnote #1 on
| https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-ultra/
| zikduruqe wrote:
| My Apple Watch with Cellular enabled is the only
| electronic doo-dad that I carry on my bike rides, even up
| to 100 miles. At the end of the night when it goes on the
| charger, I might have 20% left. That's good enough for me
| considering I seldom, if ever, leave the house with a
| phone.
|
| And if one could ever get a cellular enabled watch
| without an iPhone, I'll be first in line.
| groby_b wrote:
| High-end Garmin watches as well. The fenix 7 can do 48+h
| including tracking, the Enduro2 will likely go 3 days.
|
| And yes, elevation is bonkers, because GPS elevation via
| watch is about as precise as you guessing. (+/- 400 feet on
| Garmins, but I'm not sure there are any watches significantly
| better than that. )
| jeltz wrote:
| Mid range Garmin watches too. The Forerunner 255 can do 30
| hours. It is only their entry level stuff which cannot.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| All of the higher-end Garmin watches can do this, it is one
| of their main selling points. In normal use, I charge mine
| around once a week.
| jeltz wrote:
| I ran for 8:30 with my ancient Forerunner 235 and it still
| had some batteries left. Modern watches can easily do 24
| hours, even the mid range Forerunner 255 can do 30 hours and
| the larger 955 can do 42 hours.
| dfc wrote:
| I don't think it's that big of a deal for good running
| watches. I ran the JFK50 with a three year old Garmin 935
| with a heart strap (HRM-Tri) in a little under 11 hours. My
| watch was close to 50%. That was with GPS updates every
| second. It would have been much better if I left it at the
| default, not the ultratrac or whatever they call the
| endurance battery mode.
| js2 wrote:
| It's really only been the last few years that running
| watches could last >24 hours with GPS tracking enabled.
|
| I also have a Forerunner 935 which I've used for 24 hours,
| but I think I had it in ultra-mode where it takes GPS
| samples less often.
|
| Before that I had a Forerunner 230 and I had to charge that
| mid race during a 100-miler, which was fun to do while
| running (used an external battery, put the watch and
| battery in a running vest while running one of my laps).
|
| The latest watches which do 36 hours or more with full GPS
| accuracy are really amazing.
| djsavvy wrote:
| A sibling comment to yours asked about the elevation ---
| apparently it's actually a measure of air pressure.
| speedgoose wrote:
| That's strange that they use such an inaccurate sensor when
| they have a GPS.
| Guillaume86 wrote:
| I knew the Garmin Enduro could do it, it can apparently do
| 80h of GPS tracking with solar charging:
| https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/02/garmin-enduro-gps-
| watch-...
| c-fe wrote:
| Strava also shares the latitude/elevation during the run.
| (Screenshot in case you dont have Strava
| https://imgur.com/PuuKo5r) What I find interesting and don't
| really understand is why the elevation keeps going down during
| the run, even though he stayed on the same track. Anyone have
| an idea why that could be?
| gorkish wrote:
| The elevation in this case is just a proxy for storing the
| barometric pressure, which is because the actual air pressure
| is the important thing to track if you are trying to
| normalize against athletic performance. If the watch logged
| the GPS altitude, it would be a lot more accurate, but less
| useful as the air density would only be estimated..
| Lukas_Skywalker wrote:
| All GPS watches already calculate their altitude (GPS uses
| three dimensional trilateration for computing the position,
| so you must get the elevation because you must calculate
| the three dimensional position). The elevation measure is
| usually pretty inaccurate in Central Europe. Since the
| satellites are comparably low above the horizon, flat
| movements of the runner have a large effect on the run time
| of the signals coming from the satellites, while vertical
| movements do not really change the run time and are
| therefore much more affected by any error.
|
| This is why most portals like Strava run a data correction
| by overriding the elevation data of the GPS track by
| tracing the path over their internal elevation model.
|
| The barometric elevation calculation is usually much more
| accurate and is constantly calibrated on the watch. This
| breaks down a little if you run for over 24 hours and the
| weather changes a lot. The drift over the 24 hours of this
| run amounts to about 8m over 2 hours, which doesn't really
| matter. And while air pressure can be used to normalize
| performance of the athletes, the absolute values measured
| by the barometer are usually pretty inaccurate, while the
| relative changes are quite accurate. Therefore, they can be
| used to measure climb/descent, but not really for an
| absolute air density measurement.
|
| Source: I have worked on a GPS wearable (without barometric
| pressure sensor).
| hammock wrote:
| It's probably based off of a barometer in a watch, not GPS,
| and the air pressure was changing
| folli wrote:
| Yes, a high-pressure area was moving over Italy the last
| couple of days.
| milansuk wrote:
| I downloaded .gpx of the run and it's 6.7MB. He started with
| 4min/km pace, held it for 130km(9 hours) and then He "slowed
| down" almost linearly to 5min/km when he finished.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I've taken to running during my lunch break in March this
| year and I can now run a 5k most days of the week at a 5:30
| per km pace.
|
| So I can't even imagine how he does that.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Wow, my best ever 10k pace was 6min/km. 9 hours ag 4min/k is
| insane.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| 4min/km = 6:27/mile roughly, I think? If I did the math
| correctly?
| folli wrote:
| Where did you get the GPX file from?
| milansuk wrote:
| You have to login. Then on map there is "GPX" button.
| folli wrote:
| Thanks!
| vytis wrote:
| Another incredible ultra-runner from Lithuania is Aidas
| Ardzijauskas who last year completed his 444 day run covering
| 30303 km, which is on average 68km every day for almost 1.5
| years! His plan originally was to run around the world, but
| during the pandemic it wasn't possible to do that so he just ran
| it all in Lithuania. Unfortunately there isn't much English-
| language coverage about the monumental feat, but this is readable
| with Google translate:
| https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/sportas/10/1568074/finisas-pasi...
|
| And he tracked everything on Strava too -
| https://www.strava.com/athletes/16416410
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| That's an amazing feat. Goes to show we once were predators who
| weren't fast but had the stamina to outrun most of our prey.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Come on, Roman Empire's Parateus Messenger Express do this every
| day.
|
| /sarcasm
| thrownaway561 wrote:
| I just ran a 5km today with a 6:02 pace. I was just about to
| collapse and I've been running for about 2 years now. I can't
| even imagine doing a full 24 hours just walking let alone 4:30
| per km.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-19 23:02 UTC)