Monday, May 16, 2011

Look through history of LT100 ending 2009

This is from Matt Carpenter's site, he compiled a spreadsheet of almost every split for the top runners through 20hrs 33minutes. Really interesting stuff here, enough to give you a GZgasm.


Nick said...

So what's the takeaway?

A quick glance would suggest that the biggest lesson in those numbers is to not kill yourself over the first half. But I could have told you that for free without consulting the data.

Parr has the fastest 1st 50 split in race history (without DNFing). Still ended up over 100 minutes off MC's record when it was all said and done.

Don't get greedy until you're on top of Sugarloaf coming home.

PatrickGarcia said...

Yeah, there's certianly plenty of evidence to just ram home the don't overdo it point, but I think there's more to take away.

Basically what I'm looking at are the times for Half Moon/Boxcar at 69 miles. Since that's essentially as far as I've ever raced, I say, why can't I get there in the same time as I what I ran at Hellgate?

I still had legs there, so if I did things right pacing and fueling, I should be able to have some legs at Pb. However, I realize I could be running into a bonkfest of massive proportion.

Pb would be trading altitude for Hellgate's darkness, technicality, and climbing. Hopefully, if things went perfectly (which I assume they most likely will not), why couldn't I run a race like DC's 2008?

Nick said...

No reason at all, but you've got to be honest with yourself if you want to avoid the long and torturous walk of shame.

62 miles is a long way short of 100 miles. If I were you, I'd take my Hellgate time, add an hour and call that the kind of pacing you want to be on through Half Moon. A 19/20 hour goal seems reasonable, but if you think you're (honestly) in 18-hour shape, then go for it. Nobody knows better than you.

Feets of Pedestrianism said...

DC's 2008 run was quite an impressive 2nd half...

If you want to geek it up you should go play around with the 'compare races' tool over at

I've found it to be (sometimes depressingly) very accurate. It predicted my LT100 time last year within 10 minutes.

Anton said...

Obviously, as Nick said--and this goes for any 100 miler--don't kill yourself over the first half, but the unique thing about Leadville is that killing yourself over the first half--especially the first 41 miles--is REALLY easy to do.

The first 41 miles of Leadville are extremely fast (lots of road, very little vert). I've averaged between 7:50 and 8:10/mile for those first 40 every year I've run it and only in 2007 would I say that I got the pacing right (i.e. matched my fitness and the day's conditions). I think it's no coincidence that my fastest time on that course came off of my slowest split to Twin Lakes outbound.

For comparison, in my last two DNFs I hit Twin at 5:12 and 5:17 (which was really another 5:12 last year because I got lost for 5min due to course marking sabotage). When comparing splits, also remember that the run to Twin outbound is now 7-10min shorter (best guess and depending on pace, obviously) as a result of the course re-route starting in 2009.

It's really easy to get in over your head when the terrain is that easy. Run STUPID easy the first 40 miles.

GZ said...

GZgasm. I might need to trademark that.

Not sure it makes a dent on the conversation here, but do any of those splits switch up at all with the course change that went into place recently?

GZ said...

Trason's numbers are still mind boggling.

solarweasel said...

good stuff. if only i had the kind of time to sift through this stuff like MC does...

solarweasel said...

oh and how about this for a goal: negative split the return trip :)

mike_hinterberg said...

Solid advice above.

Great suggestion on the realendurance tool above, hadn't seen that.

PatrickGarcia said...

Will have to take a look at the realendurance tool, but I'm always a bit skeptical with calculators.

I can't tell you guys how much the advice is appreciated, I need to sort through a lot of things, but more importantly gague my fitness as the build continues. I'm planning on setting splits to not go under all the way to TL outbound, sort of a way to keep me in check. However, one thing I don't have is absolute leg speed, so I'm hoping that might actually play to my advantage in Leadville. Silver rush should give me a good idea of where things are 6 weeks out and if I can run comfortable to a sub 7:30 there, I will probably be aiming for a sub 19 finish. The more and more I think about the race, I consider a perfect day (conditions/fitness) a day where I could concievably run 18 flat. However, knowing that there are plenty of folks who have tried and failed miserably in their first 100 I am certainly going in with a mindset of finishing period, even if that means sleeping in a cot and walking it in.

I would rather blow up completely, than realize when I'm done that I was more fit than my finishing time. I plan on focusing a majority of my time training for leadville running the sections between the start and TL. I want to get a good feel for what all day pace feels like through TL so I know not to cross the line on race day.

I think 6hrs to TL should be within my range and 13hrs to HM/Box car. Hellgate was 66.6 so I'll be looking for 3 more miles and an extra hour to play with. I'd essentially have to be able to run strong home (30m/5hr) to hit 18, but should be able to break 20 even with struggles. It's pretty early, but these are just the thoughts running through my head.

PatrickGarcia said...

Brendan- I haven't negative split an ultra race yet, and I don't think LT100 is the place to start :)

apugladiator said...

Wow 18 hours! With that goal you'll definitely get a buckle.

Woody said...

"I would rather blow up completely, than realize when I'm done that I was more fit than my finishing time."

Cool conversation and advice provided here. Clearly, I have none to give. But do you really mean this for your first 100?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around you preferring the possibility of an 18 hour finish at the risk of time in a cot and a walk of shame just to finish...compared to a 21-22 hour finish (top 15) feeling like you could have run 19-20. For me personally, the second scenario would be much more satisfying and would get me fired up to run it again and build on it.

I'm also wondering if you're giving the altitude enough weight in the equation. I suppose Silver Rush will help provide that answer.

Again, no advice...just thinking aloud with the others. Thanks for sharing what's in your head.

PatrickGarcia said...

Woody, absolutely I would rather blow up. No question in my mind, I have too much time to sit around after this race to wonder weather or not I gave it my best shot.

I won't go for it if I don't think I'm fit for it. However, if you don't put yourself in a position to achieve to your highest potential, you never will. It's not like I won't have another shot at 100 miles if it doesn't work out, I have plenty of time to learn, but the reason I raced well last December is that I went out strong but not crazy, held back until basically 30 miles to go, and then went for it knowing I was moving beyond my experience and that it had the potential to absolutely blow up in my face.

Gangels said...

I agree with Woody that you are probably going into this a little cocky and you don't seem to respect the distance. Comparing LT to Hellgate is like comparing apples to oranges. One is 66 miles and at sea level and one is 100 miles at 10,000 feet. My suggestion is to stop looking at splits and run the race by how you feel. I suspect if you go into your first 100 with the attitude of leaving it all out there you probably will.

leila degrave said...

Interesting post. For what it's worth, the ratio of average finish times for Hellgate vs LT100 (from realendurance) over the past 8 years is 1.75, which for you equals a roughly 21hr finish. But like anything else, there's always outliers.

You know I'm one of your biggest fans, but I'm with Woody and Todd on this one...not sure how much there is to learn by following splits for a certain (maybe unrealistic) time with the idea that blowing up is preferable to finishing within your limits.

I would think that a strong top 15, maybe 21hr finish in your first 100 (like Ryan K. last year for example) would be a huge accomplishment, not a disappointment.

Not in any way to diminish your great results at Hellgate, but I agree that there are other factors to consider. There's a lot more (in my very limited experience) to a 100-mile performance than just pure fitness.

But I do admire your attitude, even learned from it a bit myself as we briefly mentioned last weekend! Thanks for putting it out there, and of course, whatever feels like the best race philosophy for you is what you should go with!