backcountryrunner Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 197 Utah, United States |
Posted: Wed 10 Oct 2007 06:12 am GMT |
top |
Sounds fun - good to hear your report. The mud must have made it a lot harder -- your description reminded me of some really sticky, muddy trails I've been on where I was forced to scrape the mud off every so often or it'd weigh my foot down (Utah clay soil...). Anyway, I think a 50k is perfect for a first-time beyond-marathon distance. Did you train harder for it, or did you stick to a marathon-training routine? |
run4urlife Joined: 15 Oct 2006 Posts: 11 Pennsylvania, United States |
Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 09:03 pm GMT |
top |
The mud absolutely made it harder. Very slippery on the up and down slopes, and there were a number of places where the mud just sucked my shoes right off my feet! I hope to do it again this year, and see what the lack of mud does on my race time. There were 8 stream crossings so the mud got washed off on occassion. My training was slightly different than my marathon training. First, I added more trails and hills. Second, I did a few more miles on the long runs when peaking, and did some back to back runs (a shorter run the next day right after my long weekend run) to get me used to the "pain" of the longer runs. I used a similar method for my first 50 miler, doing back to back long runs (20 miles on Saturday, followed by 20 more on Sunday). It worked. |
backcountryrunner Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 197 Utah, United States |
Posted: Fri 12 Oct 2007 05:09 am GMT |
top |
No doubt your race time would be faster in other conditions. I've heard from quite a few runners that the back-to-back long runs are the way to go. Supposedly our body reacts the same as if it were done in one long run. I wonder how the powers-that-be came to that conclusion? Oh well, if it works, it works. |