Ultramarathon Daily News | Wednesday, July 17

Happy Wednesday, everyone! My name is Clint McKnight and I live and run around the trails and roads in central Oklahoma. If you are curious and want to learn more about a few of my misadventures, I post some over on my blog. I am helping compile some news for you a couple of times in the next few weeks while Eric works on his tan.

This is unfortunate. A UK man runs his first ultra and finishes in first place, but a wrong turn at mile 57 of a 100K race adds a mile to his effort and results in a DQ. I know that rules are rules but the added twist to this one is it seems he was told he would still be fine after asking specifically if his wrong turn would DQ him. Thoughts?

A tragic story and I certainly don’t want to cause more pain for folks but I think it is important to have conversations around nutrition, food regulations, self-image, and just what you are putting into your body. This mom says her daughter’s protein-packed diet contributed to unexpected death.

Speaking from experience from my last race that involved lost of heat, humidity, and a healthy dose of humility, I learned the value of staying cool while racing. Here is an iRunFar article on some cooling techniques.

I can’t get enough of Western States! Tim Lambert (previous URP podcast guest) did a great job of talking about his States experience. His report has everything – trains, germaphobia moments, Gordy, Scott Jurek, and Craig Thornley fanboy fun, nosebleeds, and oh yeah he talks about running a really long way and battling through pain while fighting cutoffs. Look do yourself a favor and spend a few minutes reading it here. Just a little taste from the report: “it has become increasingly clear to me that this isn’t about the race, its about the place”. Seriously get clicking and read it! Also if you haven’t listened to Tim’s podcast episode you should give that a listen too. Check that out here.

Keep your bear spray handy! Officials explain approval of controversial Whitefish ultra marathon.

Uh…Keto and animal rights proponents rejoice?

See Outside Magazine, trail runners are sexy, not lazy parasites!

Hey Colorado runners, here are some trail races one author thinks should be on your bucket list. Any others you would recommend?

This may have been posted before and if so I apologize but even so it may be worth a re-read. Talking about running and training for your first ultra in your 60’s.

12 Responses to "Ultramarathon Daily News | Wednesday, July 17"

Ryan Goodman (@beefrunner) says:

July 17, 2019 at 2:15 pm

The Daily Star article is interesting, but starts off with some big misnomers about livestock farming and raising cattle for beef. Science shows that raising beef in the U.S. only contributes 3.5% of our nation’s GHG emissions, much different from the 14.5% global figure quoted – all foods have GHG emissions at some level. Same goes for references to land, water, and resource use. Articles like this ignore the improvements that have been made and the environmental ecosystem contributions made by livestock farming and offer lab, cultured or processed foods as an alternative without mentioning the impact of those alternatives. The science and numbers behind these issues are recapped from peer-reviewed science journals here: https://www.beefresearch.org/toughquestionsaboutbeefsustainability.aspx

Reply
Josh says:

July 17, 2019 at 2:44 pm

We’ve seen this play out over and over, but if you dont run the offical course then you didnt run the race and well, you certainly dont win. Period

He should have turned around once he hit the road and gone back to the fork in the road, but instead he ran a different route than the rest. I am a lot faster on the road than a trail…

Reply
micahward says:

July 18, 2019 at 3:06 am

There are a lot of great trail races in Colorado Springs. The Pikes Peak Road Runners Club sponsors races on almost a weekly basis. I’ve run two 10Kish races in Ute Valley Park that are the toughest “runnable” courses I have ever encountered.

Reply
Patrick Krott says:

July 18, 2019 at 7:33 am

I love that Lambert referenced Unbreakable, and the soundtrack being in his head. You have to listen to M83’s Outro as you enter the Placer track!!!

Oh, and why am I not surprised that the “BeefRunner”, a guy who grew up on a beef ranch, handpicks his research from a beef-industry-run website? There’s more than enough legitimate research to show the detrimental environmental effects of animal agriculture. Let’s place our biases aside finally and do what’s best for the environment, the animals, and our bodies.

Reply
ndcodeblue says:

July 18, 2019 at 7:45 am

Patrick, his numbers aren’t wrong, though. If you’re talking about greenhouse gas footprint, all livestock emissions account for just 3.5% of the total US emissions inventory. Non-livestock emissions aren’t zero, so by giving up livestock, you might be able to make a dent of 2%. See the emissions inventory put together by the University of Michigan: http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Carbon_Footprint_Factsheet_CSS09-05_e2018_0.pdf

Beef really doesn’t have a big impact on US emissions. At all. As a climate scientist, it might be the biggest “fake news” that I see pushed day in and day out. It’s a nice story – if we all made the personal choice to stop eating beef, we would make a dent in climate change – but it’s wrong.

Reply
Patrick Krott says:

July 18, 2019 at 7:49 am

But you’re not accounting for the large plots of land needed to grow the food to feed the livestock which usually results in deforestation. Less forests = more CO2 and less oxygen. The lowest estimate I’ve read is that is takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. That is far more land than is necessary in order to survive and thrive.

Reply
ndcodeblue says:

July 18, 2019 at 8:50 am

Patrick, those emissions numbers are comprehensive estimates.

We do not deforest land for livestock in the US. We have an immense expanse of prairie – which is why the cattle is already raised there.

Forests are also not an infinite sink of carbon. When a plant grows in size, it stores carbon, but when it decays, that carbon is released (unless it’s at the bottom of a bog). We are also not starving for oxygen, most of it was produced billions of years ago by microbes. If all of the plants on earth were wiped out today, we would have oxygen for a long time.

If grain-fed beef bothers you, then the answer is grass-fed beef, which doesn’t require any external grain inputs. Even then, 16 pounds of corn per pound of beef equates to almost half a ton, or one cow’s worth, of beef generated per acre of grain. Grass-grazing beef require almost 20 acres of grass per cow. The grass-fed beef is arguably better for the land, because it doesn’t require intensive farming, but it puts into perspective why this system evolved into what we have today.

“That is far more land than is necessary in order to survive and thrive.”

Hey man, he who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Reply
Ryan Goodman (@beefrunner) says:

July 18, 2019 at 8:58 am

If you took time to click on the links to the white papers on the site I provided, you’d see it’s not all industry-funded research. The data comes from EPA, USDA, and academic research institutions.

Reply
Todd says:

July 18, 2019 at 9:01 am

Deforestation from soy should totally be ignored

Reply
Wade N says:

July 18, 2019 at 9:22 am

But considering that the climate is in crisis, 3.5 percent still seems significant and the only reason it seems insignificant is that the number is somewhat abstracted when dwarfed by other sources of emissions. I do like the category, “fugitive emissions.” You can count me in that category after having a bowl of lentils and cabbage or after making abrupt changes in my body’s position during morning core workouts. Sorry Earth and future generations! But, the study even says that “eating a vegetarian meal one day a week could save the equivalent of driving 1,160 miles” (in one year). That’s just one meal a week. The one vegetarian meal a week goal is funny to me. It’s like trying to change people’s habits in the least offensive way possible. Who could possibly not be able to deprive themselves of meat one meal a week? Who eats meat three meals a day? Perhaps it means one dinner a week? I could see how that might be a bit difficult for some avid carnivores, and even for semi-repentant carnivores considering the sad selection of fresh vegetables in many supermarkets in the US. In any case, getting bogged down in minutia and digging deeper into our own ideologies isn’t going to do anything to diminish the climate crisis. And remember, we’re all sinners! And sinning is fun and sensually pleasing sometimes.

Reply
ndcodeblue says:

July 18, 2019 at 10:37 am

My point is that addressing the driving factors for climate change are mostly outside of an individual’s control. 3.5% is 3.5%. Focus your energy on what matters. Racing local, taking fewer flights, and taking public transport will do far, far more than avoiding meat.

Transportation and energy generation are the primary causes of climate change, without fixing them it’s just a drop in the bucket.

Reply
Wade N says:

July 18, 2019 at 4:50 pm

Despite it being a “drop in the bucket,” due to very recent intense self-interrogation regarding my own carbon footprint, I have unflinchingly embarked on reducing my own fugitive emissions. I suggest everyone else approach their meat consumption in the same “drop in the bucket” spirit and hope that along with the transition to green energy and to greater reliance on mass transportation, and many other actions, we can holistically reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climatic disruption.

Reply

Please use real name. Anonymous comments will be deleted. Thanks.Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.