Is 40M tune up race for JFK too far?

I was thinking of doing a 40M tune up trail race in PA on 9/21 to prepare for JFK in November. As JFK would be my first longer race, I'm wondering if the 40M would be too far for a tune up and if I should just find a 50K somewhere instead?

Since I am just a mere-marathon runner my input is probably not reliable but if you use the same concept of marathon training it is typical for someone to run 20 or even 22 miles which is 80-84% of 26.2. So 40 miles would fall under the 80% which one would think would make sense if you stuck with the above model.

However, ultra race and training I think you need to throw out the conventional marathon type of training and attack it differently.

If you are doing back to back long runs some weeks like Sat/Sun (20,30)(18,50K), etc I'd see no reason to push yourself to 40 miles. But, I also think it depends how you run/walk the 40 miles.

Something to think about while Ultra Runners (not me) chime in.

I'm far from an expert on this, but 40 miles as a tune-up might be a bit much to get ready for JFK.

There's a good training plan (click here) that I've been using to get ready for my ultra this summer, and it recommends against going more than 30 miles at a go in the 16 weeks prior to the event.

They say: "Don't risk developing injuries that will interfere with the last phase of your training or will not heal by race date. When toeing the 50-Mile start line, it is better to be a little more under-trained than over-injured!"

Makes sense to me.

Mark B wrote:

When toeing the 50-Mile start line, it is better to be a little more under-trained than over-injured!"

Words of wisdom!

I don't know if it's smart but I did a 60k (37 miles) as part of my build up. I ran it 6 weeks prior to my 50 without any ill effects. Please note that it was a trail race and trail races are much more forgiving on your body.

Alex sure you could run 40 miles, 35 miles, 30 miles but I think the questions that need to be ask are:

1. How long would it take to recover?

2. Is the increased risk of injury worth the extra miles or time on your feet?

I really think that how far to go is solely up to each individual person. Example for JFK my longest run was 30 miles. I did do a lot of back-to-back long runs though. This year I'm running the North Country in August as a 50 mile training run. Just like marathon training I think that anyone new to Ultra's and if your goal is just to finish, I would tend to believe that 40 miles may be just a little to much. Then again it can depend on how you approach those 40 miles. Point being you don't want this run to put you on the shelve because you have to recover and in the end miss more training due to it.

Here is also something to think about Karl Meltzer who has won more 100 mile races than anyone has been quoted saying "I don't schedule runs longer than 20 miles when training for any 100 miler. I feel it's too hard to recover in one evening to have an effective run the following day."

So this goes back to the theory that building a huge aerobic base with consistency could be a better way then worrying about doing super long runs that will take one from training.

Just something to think about and remember we are all different and all have to find and know our own bodies and adjust from the feedback we know. This were have past logs to look at from marathon training and etc. can really come in handy about know your own bodies and what limitations we have or don't have.

I think a 50k training run/race is enough. Especially if you do a few back-to-back weekends before that. Like building up to a 20 Saturday / 20-26 Sunday type weekend.

Agreed that the risk outweighs the reward.

Yes Alex, it is.

What they said. I tend to over do it when training for 100.I pack in 3 40-50 milers 3, 6 and 9 weeks before the race. For me it is part of the experience though. I love spending time up on the mountain trails. But for a 50 miler, 50k is plenty.

cush wrote:What they said. I tend to over do it when training for 100.I pack in 3 40-50 milers 3, 6 and 9 weeks before the race. For me it is part of the experience though. I love spending time up on the mountain trails. But for a 50 miler, 50k is plenty.

agree. The most I'd do before a 50 mile is 35 about 3-4 weeks out from the 50...and not "race" it. get to the start line healthy.

Too far...will cost you unnecessarily long recovery. I've only done two ultras (and one 50), but what I've found works best is a training plan characterized by the following:

1. Overall high mileage (peaking at 90+)
2. Very low intensity
3. Back-to-back long runs on weekends, with at least 2-3 of those total 50 (I did a 30/20, 33/17, etc.)

I never went beyond 33 in my build up for Ice Age, though I did run consistently in the high 80s/low 90s. I was definitely prepared.

T Miller wrote:I don't know if it's smart but I did a 60k (37 miles) as part of my build up. I ran it 6 weeks prior to my 50 without any ill effects. Please note that it was a trail race and trail races are much more forgiving on your body.

I'm not so sure there were NO ill effects. You had an AWESOME 60K, and a less awesome 50. Now, your course conditions were horrendous, it was your first, etc...but I think the fact that you ran it at race effort did hurt you. Just my observation.

We have to realize, however, that part of the reason we (or at least I) run long distances is because I love it so much. If a 60K or a 40 mile race is going to bring you joy, and you don't care how it affects your 50...I vote do it.

Moral of the story: listen to your wife.

Moral of story 2: even lazy Jerry can do a ultra then.

I have absolutely no ultra experience, though I still harbour the intention. Intuitively, it seems to me that that a 40M trail race would be more like having fun than tuning up - a perfectly worthy thing to do, but perhaps you need to be absolutely sure why you do it.

The tune-up 40M would also be a confidence booster.