Life is an ultramarathon

I know it might seem odd to some, but despite the frequent overcast London sky, it doesn't rain that much here. So much so that hosepipes are already banned and probably will be for the entire summer, if not until Christmas! It's OK, though, worse comes to worse I can use my purifier to get water straight from the Thames rather than from Thames Water...

But the most paradoxical is probably that following the heavy rain for the last couple of days, flood warnings have been issued in drought areas, which will nevertheless stay in drought...

Ultra lack of rain

I've just read this article on BBC news: Could you run a marathon without training?

And without surprise, the answer is yes if you have a decent level of fitness. In particular, John Brewer, Professor of sports science at the University of Bedfordshire reckons that "if you're a runner and your body is conditioned to running 5k or 10k in distance, as long as you set your goals properly and you run at a very slow pace, you could probably get around".

How many times have I been laughed at when asserting that if you can run 5 km you can run a marathon after some training. This article suggests that you could even do it without training!

Ultra unnecessary training

Following a question about the Chinese New Year on the BBC Quiz of the week's news, I discovered that Chinese years are not only associated with an animal, but also with an element, which in 2012 is water.

That somehow started me thinking about the Thames Source Quest (TSQ) again. The Dragon is arguably the luckiest animal, and the Water element is a fairly good omen to run (and drink) the Thames. Digging further, I learnt that years alternate between Yin and Yang. Like all Dragon years, 2012 is Yang, which is associated with fast and focused, so that is pretty optimal too! That said, water would typically be Yin (which is slow and passive). The next occurrence of a Yang Water Dragon year is in 2072, following a 60-year cycle (12 animals times 5 elements)...

But it goes even further! There is apparently an "energetic high point" during the year, which is the Dragon moon in the lunar calendar. This year, it starts on the 20th May, and finishes on the 18th June. The dragon full moon will be on the 4th June, that is currently my exact planned TSQ completion date! You just cannot invent these things :)

Now, whether a Yang Water Dragon will let a vulgar Yin Metal Rooster achieve his goal remains an open question...

Ultra water dragon

Looking for the word "training" on my blog leads to these disconcerting results for the last couple of years:

Watford Half Marathon (January 2009):

I've not trained much

3 Forts Marathon (April 2009):

given my nearly-inexistent training

Marathon 06 (November 2009):

with a very minimal training!

Hyde Park Relays (February 2010):

given my current general lack of serious training

Thames Source Quest (July 2010):

without much training...

PTL (August 2010):

given the extremely poor training regime I followed

Marathon 06 (November 2010):

given my minimal 3-week training plan

Hyde Park Relays (February 2011):

given my lack of training

Notice a trend here? Looking back at all the events I entered during the same period, I actually found only 4 on which I didn't complain about my training or the lack of it. Therefore in the last 2 years, I didn't train as much as I'd hope to for two third of the events I committed to!

That's for the overall picture. Now if we look more into the details, there are actually two distinct scenarios: events that I took easy on purpose, because they were not main objectives, and events where I didn't have the time and/or the motivation to train.

The former case raises the issue of using races to support my training schedule. It might sound like a good idea, as it combines the motivational and social aspects of a race with a good training session. It's also a good fitness benchmark. But the aim of a training session is not necessarily to push it as hard as possible. So can I really take it easy on such events? I often got caught in the game, and ended up faster than expected. Last year's Hardmoors 55 is a typical example, where I pushed a bit harder to finish quicker than expected. Should I set myself with a minimum finish time, and slow down if I am to finish quicker?

The latter case is slightly more worrying. I sometimes have "good" reasons not to train, but I sometimes don't. Am I getting bored of training and prefer racing or major unofficial events?

What is certain, is that my overall running volume during the 2009-2010 period is no less than during 2007-2008. I've basically trained a bit less and raced more! Meanwhile, I've reduced the number of runs, but increased the average distance. It looks like I can't be bothered to go for short runs :)


Number of events per year.

Looking back at 10 years of racing, the number of DNFs doesn't seem directly linked to the sharp increase in number and distance of races and major unofficial events.


Maximum distance of attempted and finished events.
Ultra training

As they've now arrived in the UK, I've just ordered some GU energy gels for inclusion in my comparative test. Whilst I was browsing their website I came across a comparison of their own. It reads:

Lining up every imaginable energy gel and scrutinising the nutritional fine print isn't unheard of for serious endurance athletes. The table below provides a quick comparison of the critical components of the energy gels most readily available.

The table is obviously designed to favour their gels. For example, it seems to show that only GU has caffeine and anti-oxydant. Whilst they are not lying strictly speaking, they are really borderline. For example, the SiS Go, High5 and PowerBar have variations that include caffeine. They might not be sold under the exact same name (SiS Smart1, High5 Plus, PowerGel), but they do exist. They've simply not been considered as "most readily available". And I won't even mention the large number of gels on the market that are not even listed here. Furthermore, the choice of "critical components" is totally arbitrary.

What is really missing now is a proper scientific study that would compare most gels in a real race scenario. I guess that would mean involving a cohort of runners/cyclists in a number of races and draw statistical conclusions. I guess that there isn't a single gel that would be perfect for all in all occasions. For example, the sodium intake should be related to body fluid loss which itself is linked to temperature.

Test results in a few days hopefully. Given that a lot of runners (such as Mike M) only swear by them, I'm impatient to taste them.

Ultra biased

I've been hill-walking and hiking as far as I can remember, and have been wearing hiking boots for that purpose (nearly) as far as I can remember too. It's always been quite obvious to me: on rough, unstable terrain, you need good ankle support and decent grip. I would believe people hiking in trainers to be unaware of the risks and rather foolish.

But things started to change in my mind after my first UTMB in 2005. Indeed, I came to realise that I had actually covered the entire length of a long-distance alpine hiking path wearing trail running shoes, whereas I would have never hiked it in trainers. The fact I was running as opposed to hiking doesn't change anything to the risks associated with wearing inappropriate footwear. If anything, it's even worse as you go faster, by night and sometimes in extreme fatigue. And what about fell-running on the PTL or in North Wales? Was that foolish? Probably not, it's just a matter of knowing how to use the ground in the mountains: fell running shoes' grip is as good as most hiking boots, and if you're careful on foot placement, there's little risk of injury.

On the other extreme, I saw loads of people wearing hiking boots on the grassy hills of Seven Sisters on the south coast a few weeks ago. It might be slightly hilly, but the ground is really soft and smooth all the way. Ironically, I was walking in trail running shoes on that day :) . So why bother with heavy leather hiking boots if not to be seen as a hiker? Maybe to feel like a hiker?

Indeed, we've already discussed on this blog the fine line between running and hiking, to which I should add mountaineering. I believe this fine line is more a matter of state of mind than actual speed. And it looks like wearing a specific type of shoes has become a way to materialise this state of mind rather than a technical necessity: "I wear hiking boots to show and to convince myself that I'm not 'just' having a Sunday stroll: I'm hiking". L'habit ne fait pas le moine (you can't judge a book by its cover).

In general, when people get "serious" into some kind of activity, they tend to go a bit over the top in terms of gear (sport equipment brands do help). Hiking/mountaineering boots were invented at a time when sport shoes were non-existant by people requiring extra grip and protection to progress in truly tough environments. But with the range of lighter trail shoes available nowadays, I'm not convinced hiking boots provide any significant advantage on easy-going paths, might they be long-distance such as the Tour du Mont Blanc, let alone Seven Sisters.

Now that I've got a range of running shoes for every situation (road, trail, fell) on top of my hiking boots, I'm tempted to re-evaluate what footwear is really adapted for each outing, based strictly on the actual route technicality and not on the denomination of the event (stroll, marathon, hike, trail run, ...). That said, I'm not sure in what sort of context I should wear my hiking boots any more. Apart from bogs and snow, I don't see much scope for them. Fell running shoes are much lighter and will do as well otherwise.

Has wearing a specific type of shoe become a (self-)statement more than a necessity?

Ultra shoes

Qualificative points required to enter the UTMB over the ages:

• 2003 and 2004: "free" entry
• 2005 and 2006: fully booked
• 2007: 1 point *
• 2008: 2 points (2 or 1+1)
• 2009: 4 points with maximum one 1-point race (4 or 3+1 or 2+2)
• 2010: 4 points in 2 races maximum (4 or 3+1 or 2+2)
• 2011: 5 points in 2 races maximum (4+1 or 3+2)

Ultra progression

(*) the term "point" was not used, but the qualifying races at the time would be considered as worth 1 point by nowadays standards.

In a bit more than a week, I'll take part in the Marathon des Alpes-Maritimes. For various reasons I'm not running much at the moment and I don't feel generally very fit. My longest run lately was a modest 25km, that I finished with my head rather than my legs. Although the split times and slowing-down coefficient would suggest a 3:31 time on the marathon, it doesn't leave me über-confident for the actual race.

I think I'll try to enjoy the seafront while meditating on Barney 2:15

You don't train for a marathon, you just run it!

This passage of the scriptures is summarised here.

Ultra unprepared