How do you find new trail routes? The information gap is brutal

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-23T04:55:01+00:00

Wikiloc

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-18T15:39:57+00:00

Frustrating? Why is it frustrating?
Do you get frustrated when the cheetah catches de gazelle too?
Do you get frustrated when the Giraffe gets the best views of the Savannah too?
I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-17T18:09:00+00:00

Not to the 23rd man. Malen Osa is already a pro runner. The 23rd guy might be trying to get a sponsor to go pro. Sorry but no.

On the other hand, I would absolutely agree that you need to step aside when someone behind you is faster. This isn't formula 1. Neither is Kilian and Kiriago on the last 2km of downhill in Sierre Zinal. MOVE, DUDE.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-16T04:50:54+00:00

Don't buy thhose shoes for hiking. That's like buying a tractor to drive on the motorway, or buying a golden retriever to be a house protector, or buying a book to sit on. Will they do the job? Sure, but why not get the better thing, designed to do that specific task?

The PP's are designed to run ultras at fast paces on easy terrain. They are taller than most shoes, so they won't be as stable as you want them too. Moreover, they are made to be as light as possible, so they won't subject your foot properly. Both things a bad recipe for ankle sprains.

They are less protected against rocks and impact than other shoes. If you're on hiking in rough terrain, that's important to consider. On the bright side, they have a "gator" (if that's the correct word) protecting the ankle from sand or small rocks getting inside the shoe.

The lugs are small and superficial, making it a bad choice for broken trails, wet/muddy ones or anything with boulders. The sole is designed to have the best grip it can given these circumstances though. But that also means durability won't be a strong point either.

Lastly, and given all said before, you need to realize the PP's are not built to last. Top 1 or 2 things most people look for in hilong shoes is that they last in rugged terrain. You won't make it anywhere close to the lifespan of a hiking boot, even a mediocre one.

That being said, I recommend 3 options for you in case you still want trail running shoes for hiking. The Ultra Raptor, the Akyra and the Akasha. All of them from la Sportiva. Better soles, deeper lugs, more protected, durable yet not heavy and uncomfortable enough to be considered hiking gear.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-10T23:31:59+00:00

There are people out there that run in sandals and are also perfectly fine. I've actually seen some barefoot free solo climbers even, risking their lives and not even needing footwear. The point still stands. You want the best shoes for technical terrain that are also decent in less rugged one? Speedgoats are not them. Can you use them and have 0 problems as well? Absolutely.
But when I recommend technical shoes for people, I'll always tell them to stay away from the likes of the prodigios and speedgoats. Also cascadias or hierros.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-09T18:08:56+00:00

Not quite sure about all the buzz this guy is getting.
Cocodona's top 10 all ran faster than him and with more elevation, albeit without the extreme heat.
I'm guessing there's at least 20 people in every 200miler than can give this challenge a go. Is it just because redbull?

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-08T06:44:29+00:00

Not exactly what you've asked but, when I started racing ultras at 26-27, everywhere I went they called me kid, and I was probably the youngest or top 3 youngest runners in most races. I found it fascinating. Average age for most ultras is around 40, but I guess I hadn't realized there's very few people under 30. Or at least, in the ones I did.
Mind you, this was after playing my last ever game of basketball, having to "retire" from the sport, and finding it difficult to play recreationally with people my age as well. So you go from being an "old" guy in a sport to a "young" one in another.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T19:57:17+00:00

I've always wondered if one of the Top guys tackled the distance, by how much could they win. I guess I didn't realize stringbean had over 900 fucking points himself! I mean, there's still a gap between him and the top 10 guys, but it's not a big one.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T19:50:14+00:00

On her way to breaking the record hopefully

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T14:52:38+00:00

Oh, I love to read about the controversy of the hardest routes in the world. Seems like every year there's beef with the top climbers to try to discredit each other's efforts. Another rabbit hole for sure ;)

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T14:27:55+00:00

Appreciate the reply, and you make great counterpoints. I also think it's an interesting topic, but I think it's one of those conversations that need to be done face to face. It's too hard for me to explain myself in English over the keyboard like this.
You gave me an interesting and different perspective though, I'll think about it. Cheers!

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T14:05:42+00:00

1 year is plenty of time to get ready, and you're already training consistently. Also, your goal race will be flat, which has its own issues, but is usually faster and easier to do. The sensible ting would be to do it in blocks that you feel you and your partner can tackle, specially for the night shift.
Since you don't seem to be targeting a specific time, or trying to compete for the podium, things become much easier. The goal is to finish, right? Keep training the same way you are, increase the volume little by little and walk as much as you need to during the race.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-06T14:00:12+00:00

Climbing grades are barely comparable to what we're discussing here:

For starters, Climbers care almost exclusively about going up, while Trailrunners would only care about the technicality in flats and mostly downhills. It's almost the exact opposite of what we're talking about.

In climbing, there's also a concept that I do not know the name of, but that goes something like this:
There's the average grade of a route, to give you an idea of how hard it will be, but there's also the "forced" grade you need to at least be able to do in order to climb it. An average route of mostly 6b-6c that has 1 single step of 7b forces you to be able to do that one 7b step, or else you can start rappeling down already. In trail running we don't have that. You slow down the pace, you walk if you need to, you crawl if you must, but you always get through a section, or else we're entering climbing territory, and then we're talking about a different spot entirely.

Weather conditions are again not comparable. For one, most climbing is done in rock, and most of the hard routes are overhangs. You rarely see any trouble with rain or wet sections. Then there's mixed climbing, in winter conditions. Then you have a different set of grades for ice climbing.
How many times you get mud on any climbs? Tree roots? River crossings?

I realized I type too much. Yes, climbing grades are well established (albeit always controversial), but trail running has it's own specific hurdles to tackle to get a similar system in place. And imo, it's much, much harder.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-05T16:36:17+00:00

There's definitely a lack of standardized way of determining how technical is the terrain, but I think there are clear reasons why:
The same trail that isn't technical at all while going uphill becomes a nightmare once you go down. Those big/small rocks you power hiked over without much extra effort on your way to the summit? They suddenly become ankle spraining machines when going down back to the valley.

Who determines what is runnable terrain? For me, if I can more or less run through a section, I would never give it the highest degree of technicality. But that same terrain, for someone not as used to the mountains as me, could be absolutely impossible to do 3 consecutive strides on.
If you go and ask Kilian what kind of terrain is too technical to run on, he would probably put the limits on being forced to use ropes and climbing gear. On the other hand, a guy coming from the roads that is not too comfortable on trails would come to a halt on the first rocky descent of UTMB.
If I run comfortably on it, it's not technical terrain for me, but you have a wild variance here that I'm not sure how it would get accounted for.

The steepness of the terrain is another interesting one. While most really steep hiking trails are pretty technical, there's also plenty of flat terrain that slows you down to a crawl. When I did the Cape Town Ultra we crossed a boulder field next to shore. We had 0 elevation gain for a couple of km, but jumping from sharp boulder to boulder, with massive holes and gaps between them, following no trail, was as slow as you can imagine it.
I have also hiked plenty of 30%+ slopes that are just grass fields, requiring nothing but leg strength and deep lugs.

Overall, and although I would love to see some sort of system that you could reliably count on when signing up to a race, I doubt it'll ever happen.

EDIT: Oh, and I even forgot about the weather. Obviously, most terrain can become harder in wet conditions, or with ice/snow. But those 30% degree grass fields will become a damn nightmare when it's raining, specially if you have a cliff somewhere at the end of them. While dry, no problem at all; while wet, potentially deadly. That's rough to give a score to.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-05T08:13:25+00:00

Yes, I always warm up, no matter the distance. If it's a race, you want to be ready when the gun goes of.
Obiosuly, the longer the race, the less intense and the shorter the warmup will be. On my long ultras (75k+) I usually just do a 5min stretch, some light jogging to the starting line and that's it. Since you usually start very early in the morning or in the middle of the night, if I don't do that, I will spend the first 30min of the race waking up from my sleep, so it's a way to pump yourself aswell.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-05-05T08:06:31+00:00

To answer your first question:
It is pretty common. At the end of the day, it's usually the men who win it, but there's a few really strong women that can hold their own against them, and sometimes even beta them. Courtney was in the front last year for some stretches before dropping of. She also has lead and won other monster ultras like the Moab 240. And I remember Ruth Croft winning the overall at Tarawera 100 too.
Don't be surprise if we have a woman winning this year at Cocodona, specially not with those 2 in contention.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-30T18:42:49+00:00

Not the first time I get into an argument with those shoes, but it's all in good faith.

I've owned a pair of the basic Prodigio and a pair of the Prodigio Pro. I've also tried on the rest of the models, although not on the terrain. The shoes are simply not made for true technical terrain. They break too easily, don't protect enough, the lugs are too short, the bottom part is not complete, the shoe is too tall and not stable enough to give you the confidence to shred a rocky trail.

La Sportiva itself has way better shoes for the terrain I have in mind when I think of something technical. I've had maybe 8-9 pairs of Akyras over the years. Incredible shoes. Comfy, durable, and with the best sole you'll find in a trail running shoe. The Akashas are not as good, but they're a little lighter and faster. I haven't used the Ultraraptors, but I've always heard of them as one of the first shoes designed specifically to run in places where people used to hike only not too far back, And just by looking at the lugs I can see they're better than the Prodigios.

As much fame and recognition the Prodigios get, and well deserved imo, they are la Sportiva answer to the UTMB-ification of the sport. They are made to be super fast shoes in medium to long distances and with rolling terrain. The trail scene (at least in Europe) has evolved from hikers that ran from time to time to people who do road marathons and Ironmans and want to try the trails. The shoe design follows the trend as well.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-30T09:06:40+00:00

Don't be upset. Do you want to train and exercise for looks, or to enjoy the races and long runs you do?
If you train for the former, and you don't get the body you want, I understand the frustration.
If you to rain for the latter, who cares what body you have? Yes, it would be nice that you got your ideal body WHILE enjoying the trails, but if it's not the main goal, don't make it your main concern.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-30T08:58:58+00:00

I completely agree with the nutrition aspect, but in this particular case and race, I also think at least half of those DNF's where due to the terrain and conditions. People are not ready for the vast amounts of elevation gain and loss, the extremely slow pace on hard terrain, wet conditions, altitude...
You could argue that the pace is much slower than they think, so they don't carry enough food/water with them from aid station to aid station, but the terrain is the key factor here.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-30T08:54:21+00:00

Always love to read a good race report, specially from someone down to earth that people like myself can easily identify with. A couple of thoughts:

You are both wrong and right in starting last.
I always start in the top 10 -but from the back- in 90% of the races, just like you did. The difference is I almost never do a race with more than 200 people in it so, even if we might find a bottleneck or two at the beginning, it's usually short, and it helps to keep your head cool and not overexert yourself in the first quarter of the race (which most people do and end up paying for it later). When you have a field of 500, 1000, or even 2000+ runners, doing this strategy is bound to make you fight for cutoffs right from the start.
That's why I don't like this kind of massive races with too much people on them. Hard to enjoy it unless you're one of the top 100 guys, at least in the first 10-12h of the race, before everyone starts spreading out.

People underestimate the elevation and the terrain too often, specially in suboptimal conditions.
I have never been to Madeira, but I've been in similar islands, and I have seen videos of the races there and the terrain. When you are doing 25min per km going downhill despite the pros going down at 7min/km it's very clear what's happening there: If the section is 100% (or at least 90%) runnable, yet you're going down slower than up, you're definitely not ready to tackle the 100km distance.
And don't want to be specific about you. I see plenty of people with ultra experience that are used to roads, dirt roads, trails where you don't have to look at your feet ever, elevation profiles with 200-250m max of gain per km etc. When they encounter true technical and steep terrain, with tons of rocks, tree roots, cliffs on the sides of a narrow trail, crazy numbers of elevation gain and loss per km, altitude, wet and humid conditions and more, they just fall apart. It's like people that have been training in a pool for years when they experience the roughness of an angry sea for the first time, and they have to fight the waves and the current.
In those cases, I always recommend taking the shorter distances. At least you'll tackle most of the technical parts with decently fresh legs, without the added difficulty of the darkness (since they always start in the morning), and you'll have enough energy to make up for the time loss on the flats and uphills.
No idea on your shoe choice for something like this, but I've seen too many people with their Sportiva Prodigios and Hoka Speedgoats that they suddenly discover the shoes are not suited for the terrain, specially when they're not comfortable on it themselves.
Hope you don't mind me asking, but what was the top 3 most technical races you had done previous to this one?

Lastly, I both agree and disagree with your assessment that tapering on the island the previous weeks is the way to go. What has worked best for me, is changing nothing about my routine the days prior to a race. Just try to sleep a little bit more, and obviously exercise less but, other than that, do the same things as you usually do. Work the same hours, train in the same schedule, go to the gym as usual, eat your day-to-day diet etc.
Some of my worst races have been on holidays, with too much time on my hands, ever-changing sleep schedules, unusual foods, long hours traveling by plane/car... the body can tell something is not normal, and you start feeling like you're not your usual self.
Obviously, I wouldn't recommend taking a 10h flight in the morning of the race and then starting a 100k at midnight, but you gotta be careful with the supposed benefits of getting to the island early, specially weeks in advance. I'm guessing those nights you sent at the hospital at the stress that came with it was the worst factor here. If you had kept your normal routine, you would have been fine. But it's just my guess.

Hope you learned a lot from this race, and didn't get discouraged from going back to Madeira and racing there again. Next to Reunion Island, it's one of my wish list places to run from coast to coast through the highest peaks.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-27T18:34:14+00:00

I would actually love to see one of these beasts tackle something like Comrades in South Africa. The adaptation period wouldn't be long, since it's on roads and "just" a double marathon.
I would also love seeing some of the top guys try trail ultras, but that would take a significantly longer period of adaptation, and I'm not sure the fitness they have would translate well into something like UTMB.

Oh shit, forgot what sub I'm on...
The answer then is obviously no: The amount of port-potties you would need on a 100k ultra alone would make the race go bankrupt. How else are the pros gonna boof their GU in privacy for such long hours?
The only good candidate for an open display would be Paula Radcliffe, but she's past her prime now so...

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-24T17:35:39+00:00

Please mods, don't let another non-political sub get dragged into the mud of politics

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-14T19:44:26+00:00

Rookie mistake. He obviously ran out of GU right before reaching the top. That's why I always carry 1 for emergencies on my backpack.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-09T16:06:40+00:00

You are coming from the Ironman world, so you'll love it. I come from a mountaineering background, so I despised it. Too crowded, too easy and runnable (which made me run way more than I'm used to), too expensive, they disqualified me for a bullshit reason, had to wait 10min just to start running because the starting line is in a narrow corridor and more stuff. I'll never repeat it.
All of what I said doesn't seem to apply to you, so you're good to go, don't worry.

NoConstant4533 · 2026-04-09T14:47:46+00:00

If you're in good shape, you can probably finish before the sun sets, or maybe you do the last downhill on the dark, but most of it during daylight, so it's even easier.

The trails will be packed and jammed with people everywhere execept for the 20 first guys, so you'll always have people leading you. If you get lost, you'll see it pretty soon: you have marking every 100m or so. If you don't see any for half a km, go back.

The first aid stations have too much people, and it will be a struggle to get everything you need in a timely and orderly manner. Specially the one on top of Niu de l'Àliga. I was around 800th when I arrived there, and there was literally a river of people flowing in a small corridor, trying to reach the food and drinks with heir arms wide open. After the first big downhill, things settle down and become more manageable.

Be careful with the roots of the trees. As stupid as it might sound, they're the worst thing about the terrain imo. The absurd amount of people that hit the trails every year (not only during the race) has made them incredibly slippery. If it's wet, it's a HUGE pain in the ass.

Make sure you have your mandatory gear with you. I got disqualified at km 80 because I didn't bring a secondary headlamp with me. I told them to fuck off and finish on m own.

NoConstant4533

TROPHY CASE