It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Thank you for any responses in advance.
I ran my first ultra distance the other week. It wasn't an organised race, but rather an organised personal challenge where I flew out to Spain an ran a coastal route.
I ran 40 miles in 6 hours, 46 minutes and 12 seconds.
However, I am curious to know if this is a good time or not? Especially given that I really dont feel I gave enough training for it. I had thought it would have taken me much longer than this.
My training went like this: I got out of hospital in December, Jan- 170 miles, Feb 151 miles, March 123 miles, April 82 miles- all including 24 etc long runs, sometime back to back, so all good so far.
But in the 2 months before the ultra my running for a variety of reasons became almost nonexistant.
In May I ran a total of 42 miles- the most being 10 miles, some weeks I ran 0 miles.
In June I had increased it again to 81 miles, but again never over 14 mile runs.
In marathon running, it seems to be that breaking the 3 hours mark is a pretty big aim, as is under 3:30, then 4 hours represents the cut off for the most serious 'runners' as opposed to those taking part for charity or as 'bucket list' etc rather than because it is a sport that they enjoy etc- no offence meant to anyway at all who runs a marathon- just people do it for different reasons, non are better than other- apart perhaps those who raise thousands for good causes.
Sorry for the long post, just wondering what the general 'tiers' are for a 40 mile ultra and if my training appears similar to others, as from what i can glean from the internet it doesn't seem to conform to the low milleage/but long run schoo, of thought. Although my pace is fast during my short 10 mile runs, so perhaps this helped?
Thanks in advance.