Having done some light ultra events myself I have definitely found that going faster can be less tiring overall because you reduce overall duration - less sleep deprivation, less time on feet, etc.
Less time on feet but under a bigger strain with less efficiency which will make you more tired. It's the same for all of these.
>(sun, rain, wind, snow)
You are are not as long in the sun but you are longer in the sun under a less efficient energy expenditure. You will sweat more because your are not in an ideal window.
If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a fast walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked these events and got very good results.
The more you weight the further the efficiency goes away. Even the top runners only walk the steep uphills. And in long races with lots of elevation gain at the and they are walking all hills. It's exactly because it becomes so inefficient even for lightweights
> If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a fast walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked these events and got very good results.
Sorry, but this is totally incorrect. The record for the Western States 100, which has nearly 19,000' of elevation gain, is just over 14hrs for men, and about 15.5hrs for women.
Fast hiking in that terrain would be 4mph which translates to 25hrs minimum.
The world's best ultra runners can maintain 6+mph average in insane terrain.
> The record for the Western States 100, which has nearly 19,000' of elevation gain, is just over 14hrs for men, and about 15.5hrs for women.
Tor des Géants (78,700' over 205 mi) men's record is 66:44 at just over 3 mph and that doesn't touch the Barkley marathon with 60,000' gain and under 2mph, though that's more to do with the rough terrain than elevation.
190' per mile isn't that much, especially since the Western 100 ends 5,000' lower than it starts.
There certainly are "ultra" routes that essentially require just speed hiking. But the majority of 100+ mile ultras are not like this, and allow capable runners of moving much faster than "speed hiking" pace.
OP said "Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain" (emphasis mine).
"Tons" is subjective, but their statement is objectively true for a bunch of ultra marathons - Tor des Géants and Barkley were just the ones of the top of my head. He is not "totally incorrect" as you said.
You are are not as long in the sun but you are longer in the sun under a less efficient energy expenditure. You will sweat more because your are not in an ideal window.
If you look at the Ultra events with 100+ Miles and tons of elevation gain, even the winners have an avg pace of a fast walking speed. There are some hikers who only hiked these events and got very good results.
The more you weight the further the efficiency goes away. Even the top runners only walk the steep uphills. And in long races with lots of elevation gain at the and they are walking all hills. It's exactly because it becomes so inefficient even for lightweights