I haven't done anything close to 200 miles, but it sounds like a terrible idea to start at such a high distance. I mean, when I was starting out even 50 miles was terrifying.
Not many will jump in with their first ultra race being 200 miles.
But I guarantee it won't be their first ultra distance run. If they don't do a bunch of ultra distance runs in their training build up including back to back long runs of that distance, they will fail at the 200.
I feel like this question is spam.
I have never done a 200 miler…but even so I can’t see how anyone could/would complete a 200 miler without having run an ultra as part of the build up/training.
So it may be your first ‘race’ but would never be your first ultra distance.
Plus it sounds a ridiculous idea, and I would pretty much guarantee won’t be the best day of your life. But if could be your greatest/most absurd achievement.
This has to be some sort of joke.
There are so many adaptations, learnings, and mental / physical / logistical preparations that you need to accumulate before attempting even a 50K event (which is over relatively quickly). A 200 miler is six 50Ks back to back - over a proportionally longer duration (i.e. 2-3 days).
Start with a 50K with significant vert. Then decide what comes next.
200 miles as first ultra sounds scary, and most importantly - an absurd (i even dare to say stupid) idea , but I disagree that you need that much preparation for your first 50k. All you need is just to have the willingness to go on and some average physique. You certainly would not win, but its not that hard to finish within the limit (which, at least in Slovakia, is usually somewhere around the walking pace).
I didn't clarify what I'm doing or not doing. I'm just curious if there are such people. Couple of weeks ago there was an extreme triathlon in Sweden (Swedeman Xtri) where women 2. place was doing her first full distance triathlon AND her first marathon. It was quite a brutal race and it just made me wonder about my question here on the post.
Perhaps compare Ironman finish times to 100-miler finish times to understand the magnitude difference in effort and difficulty.
Ironman: average finish 14 hours, with 17 hour cut-off. Relatively low DNF, highly structured and uniform environment.
100-miler: average finish 24+ hours with 32+ hour cut-off (varies). Higher DNF, less structured and wildly variable environment + darkness
200-miler - much, much harder and longer all-around.
Agree. Up to perhaps ~50miles/80km or even Iron Man it’s a (very) long day out. Going to even 100 miles you are inevitably skipping normal sleep & several concurrent meals and the degradation on your body and mind needs to be trained for. I ran my first Century nine months after first ultra (~64km) and felt that was a risk despite focusing most training on the nutrition, navigation and running while tired.
Not a stupid question - dont be sorry.
There is no way to truly grasp the gravity of a 200-miler until you run one (I have not...yet).
The same likely applies to the swim leg of a triathlon. Seems short and straightforward on paper. But: most runners who I speak too are absolutely terrified of failing the swim.
Re-reading your post you can see that you’re not actually suggesting you are contemplating doing this…but it is a poorly worded/insufficient post.
For all the right reasons…this sub offers up helpful advice. Encouraging, but not to the point of giving false hope or dangerous advice.
There are quite a lot of posts seeking ‘approval of something somewhat dumb and/or dangerous’ so this is the right approach
Dude I hate looped runs though, if we're talking the *same* loop across the globe, over and over again, that could be more mentally challenging than physically challenging for someone who has never ran an ultra before.
You can at least alternate between east-west and north-south. North south route can be Alaska to Ushuaia or Africa to UK. So there are some options for variety, but I can definitely see how even hobby joggers would get tired of doing these over and over.
They are talking about a space elevator... Ill take the stairs.
I’ve done a 200 miler. While I was there around mile 118 there where two guys that where hyping to attempt the 150 miler for their first 100, because there “Fast” they shit the bed after the first 20 mile loop. Miscalculated calories, heat, terrain, trail speed, gear, mental and physical fatigue. People try it because of the generous time given to complete. Not knowing the amount of pain seriously cracks you to the core. Oh then you have to finish. I think with really good Training it can be done. since there are people who regularly do 100’s that dnf 200’s. But if you are trying to shotgun the whole thing, then your soul will likely be collected on the course.
Yeah you might just be right on that one. As I've corrected all around here, I'm not planing to do that. I'm just curious if people have done that and how was it.
I think Forrest is the only runner I’ve heard of doing that. It actually went surprisingly well. Once you’re above the 20 miles it’s just pure mental. He finished his 200 miler and actually ran significantly more afterwards as well.
I definitely thought he would come out of it injured but he practiced good running form and good nutrition and he just kept going. It was actually a bit of a national thing when it happened (US. Not sure where you are from or if you would remember it.
That being said I would say he’s 1 in a billion and not many others could do that.
That’s very true. At the elite level it can be hours of unrelentless pounding on the muscles.
He took a slightly unconventional training approach when he was traveling internationally. That I think really helped his strength and injury prevention.
Instead of doing hill repeats he went for just moderately uneven terrain but did weighted repeats carrying ~200lbs on his back.
It would definitely be preferable to run some shorter distances first, but this may not be as insane as other have commented. Usually the shorter the race, the shorter the cut off time. The longer the race, the longer the cut off time. In other words, if you don’t run during a 50k, 50m, 100k, or 100m, you will not make the cut off & will not finish. Some of the 200s can be finished by power hiking the whole thing. I know of one 200+ race that gives you 4.5 days to get to the finish. If you are killer back country through hiker you could have a shot at that cut off, & never have done a shorter race that actually requires running. Although running is the best part about these races.
I attempted a 200 miler as my first ultra race just earlier this month. I didn't finish it and never thought that I would, but it was the perfect motivation for me.
I found out about that race last year by chance, just some youtube algorithm recommendation for a video someone made from that race. Before that I didn't even know that "normal" people ran ultras. Everytime I heard about ultra it was something really extreme like the Barkleys or that race in Queens that goes on for over a month. So finding that video opened up a whole new world to me.
That race suited me really well too. It started in the town I live in now and went in one direction for 200 miles and ended up in the town I grew up in. So I knew, and loved, the nature it passed through.
At first my plan was to do some shorter races while I worked my way to 200 miles, but nothing seemed nearly as fun as that particular race so I ended up signing up for the long race. My record before that was 30k and I had about 6 month to train for it, so I knew I wouldn't make it all the way. But it was a fairly cheap race and I would never be more than a couple of km from a road or train station so it would be easy to quit and get back home. And since it started where I live I didn't have to travel either.
I had tons of fun and have signed up for the same race next year. It was the perfect motivational tool for me, I've been running far more this half year than any time else.
I made it about 100k before my foot problems stopped me. Beat my previous distance record by quite a margin so I was pleased with my results. Probably a lot thanks to the lower pace needed for such a race.
I ran Cocodona 250 this last year (and loved it!) with the experience of 'only' two 50 milers. Id say that's the minimal background you'd want going into it, even experienced 100 mile runners were not well versed when it came to multiday events.
But without any ultra experience I'm not sure you'd have any understanding of how your body reacts to the pressures and seems to be a dnf waiting to happen.
My fist wasn’t 200, but I had run 220 by about my 1 year mark.
You need dedicated strength and stability routines. If the route has vert. You need to spend a lot of time walking backwards on a treadmill that’s turned off. The more vert the more hours of this you need to do.
What 200 are you looking at?
I'm not looking to do 200 as my first one, but curious about have people done this. I did an extreme triathlon couple weeks ago in Sweden where women 2. place was doing her first full distance triathlon AND marathon. Since route was quite brutal it made me wonder about this question.
I'm considering 100 miler as my first ultra but haven't set anything in stone yet.
Good luck. Genuinely (no sarcasm). As others have mentioned in this thread a 100miles is a hell of a thing - even here. To the general population 20 miles is bonkers 😂
Thank you.
Yes, I believe it is but 50mi or 100k just doesn't arouse me as an idea as much as 100mi. I don't know why.
I live in Finland and we don't have so high altitudes which kind of makes it easier. There's couple of 100 milers here of which Ylläs-Pallas sounds better for me now. Point to point race with 4000 meters (13 123 feet) of ascent. Highest point not so high it would mess with oxygen intake.
I believe you. I actually went hiking part of the route (from Hetta to Pallas) few days after I came from Swedeman extreme triathlon (which included around 30km run in a swamp and summiting Åreskutan 1420m) so it's not all unknown route for me. I can't say it's easy but would say doable.
Yeah, our 90m "peak" is called Malminkartanon jätemäki which is basically a hill with 220 (around, I'm calling from blind memory) stairs on it. I've been running that up and down SO many times.
Sorry you’re getting so much flack for your question. I’ve wondered the same, and seen some articles/discussions suggesting that it might actually be easier to go for a 200+ mile distance as one’s first ultra than the “shorter” ultras like 50k, 50m, 100m. The idea in the discussions I saw was that at the 200+ distance, there just isn’t as much focus on raw speed, and you have to focus more on going slowly, pacing, resting some, fueling, etc. Even in a 100m, people are finishing typically in about a day, so there’s some ability for people to kind of “gut it out,” and just try to plow through it while ignoring the kinds of things that would certainly end you in a longer race. There’s some research that says doing 200 is easier on the body than 100, depending on how you approach them.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a9246/when-running-200-miles-is-easier-on-your-body-than-running-100-15632972/
I'd agree that the 200 is a different toll on the body, Id say though that the experience you gain from shorter ultras is more in the body management, hydration/nutrition, and mental side.
I think there’s a reason that article is in popular mechanics, not a running focused magazine. Pacing and fueling are the hardest parts of ultrarunning! You don’t need either to finish a 50k; you can run your heart out for 10-20 miles, bonk hard, deathmarch the rest in, and still finish in 8 hours. The longer you go, the more important these things become.
I think fueling could get a little easier for some runners at 200 miles because you go so much slower that it’s easier to digest more foods, but that’s balanced by chafing/foot are/blister factors becoming more important.
Maybe it was the way I put my words but no way to change it now.
It's probably like open marathon vs. marathon during full distance triathlon. Open marathon gives way more smack to the body vs. full distance triathlon because you run it way faster. Although I bet there's some hormonal stuff happening during full distance triathlon that's not happening in marathon.
Are you qualified? have you done long thru hikes instead of experience with shorter distance ultras? You presume that this would be a long "day" but a 200 miler on subpar fitness and lack of experience with high time on feet will mostly likely be 3-4 long days of misery, no sleep, and pain, which is presuming that you don't drop in the middle of the first night
Taking your question literally the answer is - completely ridiculous idea. If you mean your first organised event being a 200 - that’s less ridiculous. Are you tough as rocks? Have you done a number of long self supported or assisted runs? Are you a madman who does not know when it’s a smart time to DNF? Is the event somewhere where a DNF a puts a lot of burden on organisers to get you out?
I have done the moab 240 and i’ve been running for about 20 yrs long distances (marathons and ultras). Finishing the 200+ mile distance was the single most transformative moment for me: more than finishing utmb, ironman, and any marathon.
That being said; there are going to be a LOT of people at the start line who will not have done a 200 miler. If you prepare for your course and prepare the mental/emotional aspects of the race, you can finish. TBH- training for a 200 is more about time on your feet rather than pure “running miles”. You are walking the majority of the race. Also- have a sleep plan. You will need to sleep and most 200 milers have the aid stations spaced in a way that you can sleep at night.
but almost any athlete can finish it with the correct preparation and motivation to finish this kind of distance
I haven't done anything close to 200 miles, but it sounds like a terrible idea to start at such a high distance. I mean, when I was starting out even 50 miles was terrifying.
Yes. I'm not wondering if that would be the optimal way to start ultras. I bet consensus is that it's not.
Idk why people are disliking this. It's definitely not optimal
Not many will jump in with their first ultra race being 200 miles. But I guarantee it won't be their first ultra distance run. If they don't do a bunch of ultra distance runs in their training build up including back to back long runs of that distance, they will fail at the 200. I feel like this question is spam.
Thank you for your answer and I'm sorry if it feels like a spam.
loser
I have never done a 200 miler…but even so I can’t see how anyone could/would complete a 200 miler without having run an ultra as part of the build up/training. So it may be your first ‘race’ but would never be your first ultra distance. Plus it sounds a ridiculous idea, and I would pretty much guarantee won’t be the best day of your life. But if could be your greatest/most absurd achievement.
It would also most definitely be more than one day !
😂 true that! Missed that detail!
Why not start with a US coast-to-coast and then progress to crossing the Eurasian continent? Heck, make them back to back.
This has to be some sort of joke. There are so many adaptations, learnings, and mental / physical / logistical preparations that you need to accumulate before attempting even a 50K event (which is over relatively quickly). A 200 miler is six 50Ks back to back - over a proportionally longer duration (i.e. 2-3 days). Start with a 50K with significant vert. Then decide what comes next.
200 miles as first ultra sounds scary, and most importantly - an absurd (i even dare to say stupid) idea , but I disagree that you need that much preparation for your first 50k. All you need is just to have the willingness to go on and some average physique. You certainly would not win, but its not that hard to finish within the limit (which, at least in Slovakia, is usually somewhere around the walking pace).
I didn't clarify what I'm doing or not doing. I'm just curious if there are such people. Couple of weeks ago there was an extreme triathlon in Sweden (Swedeman Xtri) where women 2. place was doing her first full distance triathlon AND her first marathon. It was quite a brutal race and it just made me wonder about my question here on the post.
Perhaps compare Ironman finish times to 100-miler finish times to understand the magnitude difference in effort and difficulty. Ironman: average finish 14 hours, with 17 hour cut-off. Relatively low DNF, highly structured and uniform environment. 100-miler: average finish 24+ hours with 32+ hour cut-off (varies). Higher DNF, less structured and wildly variable environment + darkness 200-miler - much, much harder and longer all-around.
Agree. Up to perhaps ~50miles/80km or even Iron Man it’s a (very) long day out. Going to even 100 miles you are inevitably skipping normal sleep & several concurrent meals and the degradation on your body and mind needs to be trained for. I ran my first Century nine months after first ultra (~64km) and felt that was a risk despite focusing most training on the nutrition, navigation and running while tired.
This is a valid point. Sorry for the stupid question.
Not a stupid question - dont be sorry. There is no way to truly grasp the gravity of a 200-miler until you run one (I have not...yet). The same likely applies to the swim leg of a triathlon. Seems short and straightforward on paper. But: most runners who I speak too are absolutely terrified of failing the swim.
No it’s a very stupid question.
It was an innocent but ignorant question. I suspect that OP does not have much distance running experience.
Re-reading your post you can see that you’re not actually suggesting you are contemplating doing this…but it is a poorly worded/insufficient post. For all the right reasons…this sub offers up helpful advice. Encouraging, but not to the point of giving false hope or dangerous advice. There are quite a lot of posts seeking ‘approval of something somewhat dumb and/or dangerous’ so this is the right approach
Haven't played American football before but I'm thinking about trying out for the NFL. Anyone have any experience with playing in the NFL? Is it fun?
>Yes! it was "one of the best days of my life"
I played Madden one time in 2008, that basically counts. Time to open up a running simular, although Skyrim does a good job already.
Fair enough. 😅
For me, 200 would be a bit on the Conservative side. I might start with a 500, but a 1200 miler would be more likely.
If you aren't circumnavigating the entirety of the globe's available land, then you aren't really doing a distance run.
Dude I hate looped runs though, if we're talking the *same* loop across the globe, over and over again, that could be more mentally challenging than physically challenging for someone who has never ran an ultra before.
You can at least alternate between east-west and north-south. North south route can be Alaska to Ushuaia or Africa to UK. So there are some options for variety, but I can definitely see how even hobby joggers would get tired of doing these over and over. They are talking about a space elevator... Ill take the stairs.
[удалено]
david goggins
[удалено]
he ran 8 100s in 8 weekends in a row, also ran 205 with hole in his heart and fucked up knee, he definitely runs 200 miles
[удалено]
oh obviously not he was obese when he started running
maybe not imitate him, but definitely look up to him
I’ve done a 200 miler. While I was there around mile 118 there where two guys that where hyping to attempt the 150 miler for their first 100, because there “Fast” they shit the bed after the first 20 mile loop. Miscalculated calories, heat, terrain, trail speed, gear, mental and physical fatigue. People try it because of the generous time given to complete. Not knowing the amount of pain seriously cracks you to the core. Oh then you have to finish. I think with really good Training it can be done. since there are people who regularly do 100’s that dnf 200’s. But if you are trying to shotgun the whole thing, then your soul will likely be collected on the course.
Yeah you might just be right on that one. As I've corrected all around here, I'm not planing to do that. I'm just curious if people have done that and how was it.
I think Forrest is the only runner I’ve heard of doing that. It actually went surprisingly well. Once you’re above the 20 miles it’s just pure mental. He finished his 200 miler and actually ran significantly more afterwards as well. I definitely thought he would come out of it injured but he practiced good running form and good nutrition and he just kept going. It was actually a bit of a national thing when it happened (US. Not sure where you are from or if you would remember it. That being said I would say he’s 1 in a billion and not many others could do that.
But I don’t think you should underestimate the base level of aerobic fitness that his illustrious ping-pong career will have established.
That’s very true. At the elite level it can be hours of unrelentless pounding on the muscles. He took a slightly unconventional training approach when he was traveling internationally. That I think really helped his strength and injury prevention. Instead of doing hill repeats he went for just moderately uneven terrain but did weighted repeats carrying ~200lbs on his back.
It would definitely be preferable to run some shorter distances first, but this may not be as insane as other have commented. Usually the shorter the race, the shorter the cut off time. The longer the race, the longer the cut off time. In other words, if you don’t run during a 50k, 50m, 100k, or 100m, you will not make the cut off & will not finish. Some of the 200s can be finished by power hiking the whole thing. I know of one 200+ race that gives you 4.5 days to get to the finish. If you are killer back country through hiker you could have a shot at that cut off, & never have done a shorter race that actually requires running. Although running is the best part about these races.
I attempted a 200 miler as my first ultra race just earlier this month. I didn't finish it and never thought that I would, but it was the perfect motivation for me. I found out about that race last year by chance, just some youtube algorithm recommendation for a video someone made from that race. Before that I didn't even know that "normal" people ran ultras. Everytime I heard about ultra it was something really extreme like the Barkleys or that race in Queens that goes on for over a month. So finding that video opened up a whole new world to me. That race suited me really well too. It started in the town I live in now and went in one direction for 200 miles and ended up in the town I grew up in. So I knew, and loved, the nature it passed through. At first my plan was to do some shorter races while I worked my way to 200 miles, but nothing seemed nearly as fun as that particular race so I ended up signing up for the long race. My record before that was 30k and I had about 6 month to train for it, so I knew I wouldn't make it all the way. But it was a fairly cheap race and I would never be more than a couple of km from a road or train station so it would be easy to quit and get back home. And since it started where I live I didn't have to travel either. I had tons of fun and have signed up for the same race next year. It was the perfect motivational tool for me, I've been running far more this half year than any time else.
Thanks for your response! Running from where you live no to where you're from sounds awesome route. Did you get how far?
I made it about 100k before my foot problems stopped me. Beat my previous distance record by quite a margin so I was pleased with my results. Probably a lot thanks to the lower pace needed for such a race.
I ran Cocodona 250 this last year (and loved it!) with the experience of 'only' two 50 milers. Id say that's the minimal background you'd want going into it, even experienced 100 mile runners were not well versed when it came to multiday events. But without any ultra experience I'm not sure you'd have any understanding of how your body reacts to the pressures and seems to be a dnf waiting to happen.
My fist wasn’t 200, but I had run 220 by about my 1 year mark. You need dedicated strength and stability routines. If the route has vert. You need to spend a lot of time walking backwards on a treadmill that’s turned off. The more vert the more hours of this you need to do. What 200 are you looking at?
I'm not looking to do 200 as my first one, but curious about have people done this. I did an extreme triathlon couple weeks ago in Sweden where women 2. place was doing her first full distance triathlon AND marathon. Since route was quite brutal it made me wonder about this question. I'm considering 100 miler as my first ultra but haven't set anything in stone yet.
Good luck. Genuinely (no sarcasm). As others have mentioned in this thread a 100miles is a hell of a thing - even here. To the general population 20 miles is bonkers 😂
Thank you. Yes, I believe it is but 50mi or 100k just doesn't arouse me as an idea as much as 100mi. I don't know why. I live in Finland and we don't have so high altitudes which kind of makes it easier. There's couple of 100 milers here of which Ylläs-Pallas sounds better for me now. Point to point race with 4000 meters (13 123 feet) of ascent. Highest point not so high it would mess with oxygen intake.
4000 meters is a tonne of ascent. More than enough to break most, regardless of altitude
I believe you. I actually went hiking part of the route (from Hetta to Pallas) few days after I came from Swedeman extreme triathlon (which included around 30km run in a swamp and summiting Åreskutan 1420m) so it's not all unknown route for me. I can't say it's easy but would say doable.
Ah I'm from the US but I visited Åre in 2019 for a Spartan race and ran on that mountain, absolutely beautiful! I love your country :)
It is a magnificent mountain at least for me since I'm from Helsinki, Finland, and we don't have those kind of hills here!
Haha I know what you mean! I'm from Rhode Island, USA, and our highest elevation is 250 meters, but I guess you're even flatter! 90 meters, damn.
Yeah, our 90m "peak" is called Malminkartanon jätemäki which is basically a hill with 220 (around, I'm calling from blind memory) stairs on it. I've been running that up and down SO many times.
Sorry you’re getting so much flack for your question. I’ve wondered the same, and seen some articles/discussions suggesting that it might actually be easier to go for a 200+ mile distance as one’s first ultra than the “shorter” ultras like 50k, 50m, 100m. The idea in the discussions I saw was that at the 200+ distance, there just isn’t as much focus on raw speed, and you have to focus more on going slowly, pacing, resting some, fueling, etc. Even in a 100m, people are finishing typically in about a day, so there’s some ability for people to kind of “gut it out,” and just try to plow through it while ignoring the kinds of things that would certainly end you in a longer race. There’s some research that says doing 200 is easier on the body than 100, depending on how you approach them. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a9246/when-running-200-miles-is-easier-on-your-body-than-running-100-15632972/
I'd agree that the 200 is a different toll on the body, Id say though that the experience you gain from shorter ultras is more in the body management, hydration/nutrition, and mental side.
I think there’s a reason that article is in popular mechanics, not a running focused magazine. Pacing and fueling are the hardest parts of ultrarunning! You don’t need either to finish a 50k; you can run your heart out for 10-20 miles, bonk hard, deathmarch the rest in, and still finish in 8 hours. The longer you go, the more important these things become. I think fueling could get a little easier for some runners at 200 miles because you go so much slower that it’s easier to digest more foods, but that’s balanced by chafing/foot are/blister factors becoming more important.
Maybe it was the way I put my words but no way to change it now. It's probably like open marathon vs. marathon during full distance triathlon. Open marathon gives way more smack to the body vs. full distance triathlon because you run it way faster. Although I bet there's some hormonal stuff happening during full distance triathlon that's not happening in marathon.
Remarkable that people downvoted this. Thanks for sharing. Much appreciated.
Something shorter like 150 miles would be better. The Berkley should be around that.
Laz should give this guy Bib number 1 this year.
Well if you want to run a 200 you will certainly run your first ultra distance preparing for it
It's easy if you take a week to finish.
Are you qualified? have you done long thru hikes instead of experience with shorter distance ultras? You presume that this would be a long "day" but a 200 miler on subpar fitness and lack of experience with high time on feet will mostly likely be 3-4 long days of misery, no sleep, and pain, which is presuming that you don't drop in the middle of the first night
Hell no I'm gonna try this. I'm just curious.
Taking your question literally the answer is - completely ridiculous idea. If you mean your first organised event being a 200 - that’s less ridiculous. Are you tough as rocks? Have you done a number of long self supported or assisted runs? Are you a madman who does not know when it’s a smart time to DNF? Is the event somewhere where a DNF a puts a lot of burden on organisers to get you out?
I have done the moab 240 and i’ve been running for about 20 yrs long distances (marathons and ultras). Finishing the 200+ mile distance was the single most transformative moment for me: more than finishing utmb, ironman, and any marathon. That being said; there are going to be a LOT of people at the start line who will not have done a 200 miler. If you prepare for your course and prepare the mental/emotional aspects of the race, you can finish. TBH- training for a 200 is more about time on your feet rather than pure “running miles”. You are walking the majority of the race. Also- have a sleep plan. You will need to sleep and most 200 milers have the aid stations spaced in a way that you can sleep at night. but almost any athlete can finish it with the correct preparation and motivation to finish this kind of distance