Highland Fling Analysis

Hi Again,

It's been a while since my last post. Hopefully tonight's post will be (i) shorter, and (ii) without the detailed statistics of last week!

You may be wondering Highland Fling?! Did I run it this year? Well I didn't, but with it being such a good race I have been taking an interest in the results and various runner's reports from the race. Although I stated above that I will avoid detailed statistics, I feel I need to finish my pacing strategy discussion.

Although I am a firm believer that there is NOT ONE correct strategy, my last post was attempting to try to get a guide, by using statistics, at what could be more likely to work. Having re-read what I wrote, apart from probably confusing you all, and to be honest, even myself! I think the only thing one can conclude from the statistical analysis of the results of the Highland Fling 2009 is that for the top three quarters of the field the pacing strategy in terms of the percentage time to get to halfway in the race, pretty well, has no influence on one's finishing time.

What about last Saturday's Highland Fling? I thought I would have one last try at attempting to get some guidance from the results at what pacing strategy may improve finishing time. This time though the plan adopted was to look at the difference in performance for those runners that finished both 2009 and 2010 races.

I wont present all of my analysis as I have promised that I will keep this post short so below is my summary.

87 runners ran in both 2009 and 2010.
48 people ran faster this year ranging from 13 seconds to 2:50:31 faster, with an average time for these 48 runners of 37 minutes and 48 seconds faster.
39 people ran slower this year ranging from 30 seconds to 2:07:04 slower, with an average time for these 39 runners of exactly 40 minutes slower.

If we look at the data for the 48 people who ran faster in terms of pacing strategy, we can use the split times at Drymen (12.6miles) and Rowardennan (27.2miles).

To keep things simple, there are three scenarios into why someone has ran faster:
(i) they could simply be fitter, and therefore run faster through the entire race
(ii) they have adopted the UltraStu strategy of "Run as fast as you can while you can" and cover the first sections faster and then slow down at the same rate so the second half of the race is run in the same time.
(iii) they have adopted the careful approach and started slower and therefore able to run the second half of the race more quickly, resulting in an overall improved time.

So what does the data tell us?

Of the 48 people that ran faster in 2010:
33 of them got to Drymen quicker, 15 got to Drymen slower.
33 of them (30 out of the 33 the same as for Drymen) got to Rowardennan quicker.

Did they continue to run faster over the second half of the race, or run at the same speed as 2009? 44 out of the 48 ran the second half of the race faster. So only 4 runners appeared to adopt strategy (ii)!

I have looked into more detail at the split times for the 87 runners, especially the 48 that ran faster, but the only conclusion I can really draw out from all of my number crunching is:

THERE IS NOT ONLY ONE CORRECT STRATEGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to further emphasis this conclusion I will present the data on three runners who have over the last few weeks contributed to my blog.

Case study 1. Thomas Loehndorf
Thomas finished in 2nd place overall in a time of 8:09:05, an improvement of 11minutes 35 seconds. Thomas indicated within his blog prior to the race that his intention was to start faster. He was 2:27 faster at Drymen, 11:53 faster at Rowardennan, and then ran the second half of the race in pretty well an identical time to 2009, actually 18 seconds slower. Was he fitter this year? Or does he simply illustrate my belief, that no matter what pace you start at you will slow down the same amount, so start fast, gain time during the first half and then run the same pace.

Unfortunately, this approach doesn't seem to work for everyone!

Case study 2. John Kynaston (Hi John, your personal coach here again!)
John finished in 51st place overall, 6th Super Vet, in a time of 10:14:09, this being 24 minutes 58 seconds slower than 2009 (sorry John for reminding you of this fact!) John indicated within his blog prior to the race that he was tempted to try starting out at a faster pace, but in the end his approach was for a target starting pace similar to 2009. However, he was 1:06 faster at Drymen, but by the time he arrived at Rowardennan he was 2:55 slower and then continued to slow more during the second half of the race. Was he fitter this year, or less fit this year? Or does he simply illustrate that you should not start too fast as you will 'pay for it' later in the race!

And finally:

Case study 3. Andy Cole
Andy finished in 47th place overall, winning the 60+ category, in a time of 10:10:43, this being 12 minutes and 19 seconds faster than 2009. Andy indicated within his blog that his intention was to get to Drymen in 2 hours or slower, this deliberately being a slower starting pace than the 1:55 it took him in 2009. He arrived at Drymen in 1:58:56, so 3:56 slower and at Rowardennan was still 3:53 slower than 2009. However, he then ran the second half of the race 16 minutes and 12 seconds faster. Was he fitter this year? Or does he simply illustrate that it best to start slowly so one is able to run quicker during the second half of the race!

Three different case studies, three different answers to which strategy works best. I will let you decide!

Well I haven't quite achieved tonight what I set out to do, there is a bit of maths, but at least it is shorter.

Within my post above I ask the question "Was he fitter this year?" Many or maybe most of you would have interpreted this question as was he physically/physiologically fitter this year? However, I was asking the question, was he overall / totally / 'globally' fitter, to do with every aspect that contributes to performance. With regards to this overall / total / global fitness, I will sign off with a quote from Charlie Spedding from his book titled "From Last to First".

"I was sure that it was almost impossible to achieve a performance that my mind, or self image, thought was beyond me.....I would train my mind to accept the reality of the performances I imagined." p85.

To everyone that ran the Highland Fling, well done on your achievements. After deciding not to run this years race, I have pencilled it in the diary for next April. So see you all next year at Millgavie.

Enjoy the running experiences,

Stuart

Pace Judgement - A Statistical Look

Hi to everyone, especially to Thomas L and John K.

A few days ago Thomas on his blog added to the discussion on pace judgement and compared his split time at Rowardennan and his finish time during last year's Highland Fling, with the winner's Jez Bragg. He calculated what his time at Rowardennan was in terms of a percentage of his overall finishing time. It happened to be identical to the winners, being 47%. Thomas therefore concluded "... my race was in fact paced exactly like Jez, and although it felt I was going too slow in the first half I was probably not."

It got me thinking, "Is what the winner does the correct strategy?"

If you have read my earlier posts, especially on pace judgement, you will know instantly the answer to my question! There is not one correct strategy, everyone is different. However, this conclusion of mine doesn't really help anyone in trying to possibly identify what is a strategy that is more likely to lead to an improved performance. Well before I could add a comment to Thomas' blog, John K then raised some further questions by calculating the halfway split time percentages for everyone during last year's Highland Fling race! He then made an interesting comment that got me thinking even more!

Firstly Rowardennan is at 50.6% distance. John then comments "If we take that 50.6% is the 'perfect' equal split then Jez came 2nd and Thomas 7th in the list"

So, is it as simple as that? Is the aim to run as even paced as possible throughout the race?

Well I have my pretty well exactly opposite views, but I thought maybe there is some way to look at the data from last year's Highland Fling to help answer the above question regarding even pace judgement. So here is my attempt at using statistics. Not one of my strengths but maybe worth giving it a go!

Logically, you would think that an even paced split i.e. the closer to 50.6%, the better. This would mean that you haven't slowed down very much during the second half of the race. However, one can also achieve an even paced split by going extremely slow during the first half of the race, so therefore able to maintain the same pace. This strategy therefore 'looses' time during the first half, hence my approach "Run as fast as you can while you can!"

Time for some statistics. If it was as simple as the closer to 50% half way time split the better the performance, then you would expect a strong relationship between the two variables. Scatter diagrams illustrate relationships and the correlation coefficient (r), that is a number between 0 and 1, indicates the strength of the relationship, with 0 being absolutely no relationship and 1 being the perfect relationship.

Before looking at the statistics, one needs to be aware of a few other factors. During the Highland Fling last year it was amazingly hot! This caused problems for a number of runners in terms of dehydration, as experienced by my training partner James Wallis. His halfway percentage was 37.6% ranking him in the halfway time split percentage list as 6th to last! However, this low percentage was not due to poor pace judgement, but to other unforeseen circumstances. This may also have affected a number of other runners who were required to dramatically slow down during the second half of the race, for example due to a strained muscle or twisted ankle, i.e. unforeseen circumstances. I therefore need to remove these abnormalities from the 'equation'. Of the 237 results with the Rowardennan time split I ranked these in halfway time split percentage order and then removed the bottom 10%, i.e 24 runners. This left 213 runners. I then calculated the correlation coefficient between the halfway time split percentage and finishing time for these 213 runners. The correlation coefficient was r = -0.32. What does this value mean? This means that there is a very weak relationship between halfway time split percentage and finishing time. Taking account of all 213 data points , if the halfway time split percentage is higher, i.e. closer to 50%, then the finish time is statistically likely to be slightly lower. However,that result is an overall conclusion, which doesn't always work out for each individual. This is illustrated by the three red circles on the graph below. Nearly identical halfway time split percentages but massive differences in the finish times.

There is a term called 'common variance'. This refers to how much of the variability of one variable, e.g. finish time, is explained by the variance of the other variable e.g. halfway time split percentage. Common variance is given by the r value being multiplied by itself, i.e. r squared. For an r value of -0.32, the common variance is 10%. So only 10% of the variance of the finish time is explained by the halfway time split percentage, the other 90% of finish time variance is determined by other factors.

So to answer the question I asked above, "Is it as simple as the closer to 50% halfway time split, the better the performance", the answer is yes, but to a very small extent, only 10%, the other 90% variation in finish time is due to other factors.

I guess I could stop this post there, however, if you have read a few of my previous posts you will know that they tend to be quite lengthy. I do try to give true value for money! So I will expand on this issue a little more, with a bit more statistics. Hopefully the above hasn't already brought back nightmares of GCSE (O Level) maths!

With regards to the recent discussion on pace judgement, there has been an assumption that the rate at which you slow down during the second half of an ultra race is largely determined by how fast you have run the first half of the race. Now I believe, along with Gavin Woodward (see earlier post) that "no matter what pace you start at, you will slow eventually, so start at a fast pace". Is there any way that the data from last year's Highland Fling can help support this belief? So I started thinking a bit more. What follows is what I came up with. Warning, I am not a statistician so I may be abusing the laws of statistics, but this is a blog, not an academic journal! I think it makes sense. I just hope you are able to follow my logic!

The next question I asked was: "Is the halfway time split percentage influenced by a runner's level of fitness?" For example, do the fitter runners tend to have a higher or lower halfway time split percentage? To try to answer this question I took the runner's time at halfway as a measure of the runner's fitness level, and then calculated the average halfway time split percentage for the fastest 53 runners to halfway, also the average halfway time split percentage for runners at halfway from 54 - 106 place, also 107 - 160 place, and 161 - 213 place. If the halfway time split percentage was influenced by the runner's fitness level then you would expect to see differences between these group averages. The results were:

1 - 53 halfway average time = 4:00:26, halfway time split percentage average = 43.35

54 - 106 halfway average time = 4:35:11, halfway time split percentage average = 43.12

107 - 160 halfway average time = 4:59:10, halfway time split percentage average = 43.37

161 - 213 halfway average time = 5:32:58, halfway time split percentage average = 42.87.

It therefore appears that for the fittest three quarters of the field (1 - 160), the fitness level does not influence the halfway time split percentage. Although for the least fit quarter of the field (160 - 213) there does appear to be an influence with the least fit runners having a lower percentage, i.e. they slow down more in the second half of the race.

So to further my statistical analysis, I then removed the slowest 53 runners, leaving the fastest 160 runners. Which for these runners it appears that the halfway time split percentage is independent from their fitness level.

The question I next wished to answer was "Does the pace you run at for the first half of the race have a strong influence on how much your pace will slow during the second half of the race?" The halfway time split percentage represents how much your pace slows down during the second half of the race in relation to the pace during the first half. So if the race pace to halfway does influence the rate at which you slow down then this would be illustrated in a scatter diagram of halfway time plotted against halfway time split percentage, and the larger the correlation coefficient value (r), the stronger the relationship.

The RESULT! Take a look at the graph below. In all of my reading of journal articles I don't think I have ever seen a correlation coefficient ( r = -0.017) as close to zero as the value representing the relationship between halfway time and halfway time split percentage! In other words, based on the fastest 160 runners in last year's Highland Fling there appears to be absolutely no relationship between the pace one runs the first half of the race and the rate at which they slow down during the second half of the race!

Well all of my effort in giving thought to this topic, and in thinking that all of this data must be able to show us something, appears to have been worthwhile. Obviously if one takes this lack of a relationship to extremes, and runs a ridiculously fast pace for the first half of the race, then one may then expect a rapid decrease in pace during the second half. But by using the database of the 160 runners from last year, where we are only talking about small variations in race pace / race intensities during the first half of the race, not extremes, it appears that it may well be better to run that little bit faster at the start, now knowing that it wont cause you to slow down at a greater rate later in the race.

Just to finish off, with one alternative way to look at the data. I put the 160 runners in halfway time split percentage ranked order ranging from 47.8% at the top, down to 40.0% at the bottom, and again looked at the average values for each quartile i.e. each 40 runners, to see how the average values for each quartile group differ. Here are the results:

% ranking 1 - 40, average % = 45.43, average halfway time = 4:45:22

% ranking 41 - 80, average % = 43.63, average halfway time = 4:45:14

% ranking 81 - 120, average % = 42.60, average halfway time = 4:49:22

% ranking 121 - 160, average % = 41.09, average halfway time = 4:47:38

If the pace one ran at during the first half of the race did directly influence how much one slowed down during the second half of the race, then you would expect that those runners with the highest halfway time split percentage would have a slower time at halfway. This is expected because those runners with the highest halfway time split percentage would have taken it slower over the first half of the race to ensure that they didn't excessively slow down during the second half of the race. As you can see from the results directly above, there is pretty well no difference at all between any of the four quartile groups average halfway times!

If you have managed to get to the end of this post, well done. Even I am getting a bit fed up with numbers. Many apologies for such a boring?, well maybe for some, but more likely many apologies for such a possibly confusing and mathematical post. I will get back to easier reading in my next post, whatever that will me.

All the best to those of you running the Highland Fling this Saturday. I am not running the race this year. It was extremely tempting after last year's disappointment, with the temptation to improve my result after going off course last year. However, I already have four ultra races scheduled for the year, and trying to fit in a fifth ultra race just seemed a bit too much! After all there is more to life than ultra trail running.

This post has talked alot about slowing down during the second half of the race. To sign off, I will leave you with some words from Steve Gurney, arguably New Zealand's greatest ever multisport adventure racer. "If you keep focusing on the problem, it will surely happen. My strategy is to look at the goal, and enhance the positive things that will lead to success." Steve Gurney (2008) p198 Lucky Legs - What I've Learned About Winning and Losing. Auckland: Random House.

Enjoy your next ultra trail race,

Stuart

UltraStu or UltraStupid!

Hi to everyone out there,

Thanks to all of you that commented on my last post. I received a mixture of responses, which is great to see. Giving me satisfaction in that my 'mutterings' are perhaps providing a catalyst for people to question what they do with regards to ultra running.

One of my friends suggested that I rename by blog from UltraStu to UltraStupid! I particularly liked his response, and Peter Duggan's response "I'm ..... predicting mass self destruction if everyone else starts off running 'as fast as they can while they can'! I also enjoyed. But what I found most interesting is the website link that Richie posted http://www.ultralegends.com/the-tipton-100-miles/

Thanks for the link Richie, it was great reading.

For those of you that didn't follow the link it was about Ultra Runner Cavin Woodward, from Leamington Cycling and Athletic Club, setting the World record for 100miles on the track in 1975. What was so amazing about Cavin Woodward was his approach to pacing ultra events, very similar to my thoughts expressed in my last post:

"Run as fast as you can, while you can!" and "... no matter what pace you run at, ... , after 5 hours of running you feel tired." Stuart Mills, 2010.

Well compare this to Cavin Woodward, 1975 - World Record Holder 100 miles - 1975-1977.

The article quotes his strategy as "... to go off as fast as he could for as long as he could." With Cavin quoted as saying "No matter what pace you start at, you will slow eventually, so start at a fast pace ..." Cavin Woodward, 1975.

It is great to see that the approach I proposed in my last post led to a World Record in 1975. What was so interesting about the article is that it also listed the 10 mile split times for not only Woodward's world record in 1975, but also Don Ritchie's world record in 1977, which stood for 25 years until Oleg Kharitinov broke the record in 2002. (http://www.americanultra.org/news/2002news/23oct02b.html

(And Kouros running 100 miles on the road in 1984)

The absolutely amazing thing is that Kharitinov and Woodward used completely opposite extremes in terms of pace judgement. Clearly illustrated by the difference in running the first and second 50 km split times, being 1 hour 41 mins slower for Woodward, compared to only 13 minutes slower for Kharitinov!


The main conclusion I draw from these articles is that there is NO "one correct way" to run ultras. As much as science tries to provide the one answer, one answer does NOT exist, and whoever tries to tell you that "this is how things should be done" needs to be referred to the history of the 100 mile world record, especially to Cavin Woodward.

Sadly Cavin recently died in February this year. Upon reading about his approach to racing I was so inspired that I wanted to chat to him. I had loads of questions to ask him ... did he try even paced racing? what did he consider to cause him to slow down? what fuel did he use? etc. etc. One can learn so much from others, as well as from oneself.

So should I rename my blog UltraStupid? I now have evidence to support my ideas. So no way, the name UltraStu stays. How can setting a world record be stupid?

I am truly inspired by what I have read, so please look out for me in my next Ultra. To try to honour Cavin Woodward, on how he did things his way, not following the norm, my aim is to run the first mile in the same time as he ran the first mile of his world record - 5 minutes and 19 seconds. Lets hope it's a downhill start!

To all of you reading my 'mutterings', whatever your approach is at the start of your next Ultra, my signing off quote is from Steve Black - coach, motivator, counsellor and friend to rugby great Jonny Wilkinson.

"You've got to believe in what it is you are trying to achieve. Without that belief you've little chance of accomplishing anything of worth." Steve Black, 2008. Page 29: Jonny Wilkinson, Tackling Life - Striving for Perfection. Headline Publishing: London.


Enjoy, as you achieve.


Stuart


PS. I have finally got around to downloading the photos that my family took of me as I ran the Hardmoors55. Take a look at the two photos below. They really illustrate the tough conditions.

Running out of the mist!

Wearing a balaclava for the first time ever in a race. But still all smiles!!!!!!!!!!

Hardmoors 55 Ultra Trail Race - Reflections on Pace Judgement

Hi, welcome to post number three.

Firstly I would like like to thank those of you who have given me positive feedback. I will try to 'live up to your expectations'.


My aim of this blog is that through my posts which are based upon my experiences, I will try to stimulate thought amongst other ultra runners. Working within academia (University of Brighton) we always stress amongst the students the need to provide evidence. Well the great thing about my blog is that I can write what I want! No need for evidence, well not of the published type, just my conclusions based on the research I have carried out on myself over the years, as I have trained and competed in many races.


Without sounding like a 'safety warning', I feel it is important that one realises that all runners are different. What works for one runner doesn't mean it will work for other runners. So although I will be sharing my thoughts on various things to do with ultra running, it is not to suggest that others do the same, but more for the readers of my blog to simply question what they do. Is an alternative approach worth a try?


So, now onto the title of this post - The Hardmoors 55 - specifically Pace Judgement, as the Hardmoor 55 checkpoint times are now available on the race website. For those of you not familiar with the race, the Hardmoors 55 was only 54 miles, due to a late course change which was much appreciated, as it avoided crossing a busy A road and running through the streets of Guisborough to reach the finish.

The times for the seven checkpoints give some indication of how one's pace changes throughout the race. I often spend as much time analysing the data I obtain from a race, as it takes to run the actual event. In addition to race split times, for the last two years I have raced with a Garmin 305 GPS watch. I have the watch set to automatically record the time, average and maximum heart rate for each mile of the race. The watch also graphically displays the heart rate and the elevation during the race, as well as showing the route taken on Google Earth. To access my data for the Hardmoors 55 click the following link to the Garmin Connect website:
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/27711963

The website shows that the race distance was 54.57 miles. This is not correct as I briefly got lost around the 11 mile mark, and also forgot to stop the watch at the finish line! I would say the course is around 54.2 miles. The image below displays the key data, with the extra little bit of distance recorded after the finish line removed. (Not sure on how to make it bigger without it going blurry, so any advice would be appreciated. Or how do you insert a file?)

Also displayed below is the elevation profile my heart rate trace throughout the event as this information is useful to help assess my race intensity.


What does all of this data tell us? First impressions, one might conclude that I went off too fast with my average mile pace to checkpoint1 being a quick 7 mins 13 secs per mile, followed by progressively slowing down during the remainder of the race. However first impressions are not always as they seem. Let me tell my interpretation of the data!

Although the elevation profile gives the impression that it was pretty well all up hill to checkpoint1, in fact the climbs were rather gentle. This combined with there being sections of road, the off road being not too slippery underfoot and being sheltered from the wind meant that the first 9 miles were a good opportunity to run quickly. If people continue to read my 'mutterings' they will soon discovery that often I approach things slightly differently to the norm (not only in running!). So here are my first 'words of wisdom' when it comes to ultra running (please take note of the safety warning above) "Run as fast as you can, while you can!"

For the Hardmoors 55 I actually ran more cautiously at the start than many of my previous races. Those who were present at the Highland Fling last year will recall some 'lunatic' sprinting off at the start, only to get lost (but that's another story)! As I wear a GPS watch I am able to access split times both during and after the race. For the London to Brighton 56 mile off road ultra race in October 2008, my first mile was 5 min 58 secs, so with a first mile of 7:20 for Hardmoors 55, this was significantly slower than usual.

Why the change in strategy? Not because I think it is unwise to start an ultra too quickly, but in the case of the Hardmoors 55 I was not wanting to run the whole 55 miles on my own. Not many runners start an ultra at 6 minute mile pace, so if you start that fast you end up running on your own, until they catch you, or until the finish line!

What is the problem with running this quick, say around 6:00 - 7:00 mins per mile? Physiologically the main problem is that you will utilise too much of your precious glycogen stores which will lead to problems later in the race. However, if your body is able to take on board carbohydrate during the race, then you can spare your glycogen, so hopefully it will last to the end. It takes a bit of trial and error (when an error occurs it isn't a great feeling) to establish just how quickly you can go so as not to deplete your glycogen stores. Also requires trial and error on what food your body is able to process to keep your blood glucose topped up.

In terms of race intensity, 6:00 - 7:00 mins per mile is below my maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) also known as lactate turnpoint, so I will not have any accumulation of lactate. So from my experiences I believe the key to ultra running is fuelling. At the start of the race I have plenty of fuel, so why not run fast. I love running fast over the trails, so as I stated above, keeping in mind glycogen utilisation, I run as fast as I can while I can. The "while you can" relates to my experience that no matter what pace you run at, whether 6 - 7 minute miles or 10 minute miles, after 5 hours of running you feel tired. I would rather have completed closer to 45 miles after 5 hours than only 30 miles! So my challenge to the readers of this post is for them to give some thought to how they determine the pace they start their ultra races at. What is the decision based on? How do you know that you are not capable of running faster over the first few hours? Will you feel more tired/exhausted after 5 hours if you run faster at the start? This leads into a really interesting topic, what causes fatigue, but that is for another day!

So back to the Hardmoors 55. My race went really well to checkpoint1. Shortly after the checkpoint I go off course as I cross the A road, hence the drop in the HR trace. Running along the tops heading towards checkpoint2 I start to begin to feel cold. Without really noticing, my pace and HR drops. I consider stopping to put on extra layers but decide to continue until checkpoint2 at Osmotherly as once I turn left and leave the tops, I begin to warm up a wee bit.

Reaching Osmotherly having looked at the course profile and knowing that the course heads back up high I make my best decision of the day. I put on all of my reserve clothing, including a reasonably thick fleece, multiple thermals/helly hansens, rain jacket, gloves and shortly after reaching high ground again a balaclava! I have never raced wearing a balaclava before! I spend approximately 9 minutes inside the village hall getting changed, which during this time no other runners arrive. Having lost loads of time at the checkpoint, then followed by the course getting quite muddy underfoot, my desire for a quick time disappears. I then lose my 'focus' and just 'cruise along' for the next 2 hours or so, wondering what the views would be like on a sunny day.

At the drink station after Wainstones I get a real shock, Simon Deakin, currently in second place runs up to me. We have a brief chat and then head up the next climb running together. It doesn't take me long to get back into race mode. We run together for I guess around 5 minutes and then I gradually manage to run away from him. I then run quite strongly to the checkpoint at Kildale. After only a brief stop at this checkpoint, I start making my way up to the Captain Cook monument. It is during this period of the race that I realise that I have been neglecting my food intake. The increase in intensity to run away from Simon, combined with not taking on sufficient fuel is resulting in the 'woozzy head' feeling. I immediately have to slow my pace and concentrate on taking on fuel. It is during this short stretch to Roseberry Topping that I lose 10 minutes on Simon (60 minutes compared to his 50 minutes). Very shortly after I start my descent of Roseberry Topping I get the second shock of the day as Simon is nearly at the summit of Roseberry Topping. He must at most be only one minute behind.

Fortunately, the fuel I have taken on has done it's trick and I am now feeling fine again. So back into race mode again and I have a great last 6 - 7 miles to Guisborough where it feels like I am running really quick, but not in reality when compared to the first 9 miles. But then I have been running for over 8 hours! The last mile along the disused railway line is very satisfying as it becomes apparent that I will finish first. Although it is not the winning that is the motivation to run ultras, it does add to the overall enjoyable experience. So I am a happy runner as I finish 12 minutes ahead of Simon, who is shortly followed by Richie Cunningham in third place.

I have a shower, go to a pub for some food and return to the cricket club to welcome other runners finish. There is a 'real buzz' around the place as it has been such a hard day in such difficult conditions, and everyone is well satisfied with finishing. To all of you that finished the Harmoors 55 I offer my congratulations, it truly was tough out there, which my report above maybe hasn't really described. To those of you that were unable to finish due to the extreme conditions I really feel for you, as I know how disappointing it is when one is unable to obtain their goal, especially when it is largely due to unforeseen circumstances such as the extreme weather during the day.

Lastly I would like to thank John Steele and all of the marshalls. They really put on such a terrific event in such demanding conditions. Well done to everyone involved.

Well, the above is truly a bit of an epic, apologies for its length. It may well be a while before my next post. Until then, I hope the above has been thought provoking and interesting. I will sign off with one of my mottos:

"Run as fast as you can, while you can!" Stuart Mills (2010)

Stuart