Hill strategy

Sam wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

My thought has been that the speed difference between two runners downhill
is less than the speed difference of them going up hill. So I hypothesize
that I am better able to catch people on a uphill than on a down hill.

Thoughts?

My experience tallies with yours. I have run a race with some pretty
severe climbs (one part they supply a fixed rope to help haul yourself
up) and I found I was overtaking people going up, who would in turn
overtake me going down.

Unfortunately I think you're probably wrong about relative speeds. Of
course it depends on how fast you're descending, but I find I'm very
cautious going downhill, and tend to brake quite a lot (especially on
rough ground) and people come tearing past me and can quickly be ten or
twenty metres ahead. It's unlikely that I can take this sort of lead
out of them at the same rate while climbing. Anecdotally, I think a
descender beats a climber every time. In races where I know most of
the people around me, on the flat we're about honours even. In a very
hilly race, I lose. I keep trying to learn to run downhill faster, but
I think "what's the point?" For me it's just an injury waiting to
happen.

Edward

Sam said:

During the race a woman would pass me on the downhills--almost like fartlek
training, then seemingly slow down when the hill flattened out only to have
me pass her on the subsequent up hill. Eventually I passed her and she was
not able to pass me back.

Just some thoughts.

How were your relative effort levels? Maybe she was trying to run close
to constant effort - which gives the appearance of fartlek by pace?
Uphill running on steep uphills is extremely costly energywise, and you
will be on it longer than downhill, assuming equal amounts of up and
down. Just by duration alone, you're probably more likely to pass people
on the uphill.

Quoted message said:

I also find that I just do not seem to run downhill very fast. I remember
in HS being able to tear up the downhill sections of our home XC cross (and
it had some serious downhill).

Do you train on the downhills? Are you losing leg speed, which is more
critical for down than up? Do you manage your energy or are you trying
to pick off the woman in front - then may not be able to run the
downhills as well as you could? Just pulling at straws.

Quoted message said:

My thought has been that the speed difference between two runners downhill
is less than the speed difference of them going up hill. So I hypothesize
that I am better able to catch people on a uphill than on a down hill.

Thoughts?

Just my opinion, but I think a lot depends on the runnability of the
course - how steep, rocks, roots, etc. Poor footing is likely to affect
downhill more - unless people go into freefall mode like they do on Mt.
Marathon. The better aerobically conditioned runner may do better on the
uphills, but the one with quicker feet, faster reaction time, and more
guts may do better on the downhills. Some people are good at both.
(some, like me, are poor at both) Some people may not be good at
managing energy / effort and blast (relatively speaking) up a hill, then
are toast for the downhill where they recover, assuming it's not too steep.

This might be bigger hills than what you were thinking of, but with
the mountain races I've watched, the leader at the top is frequently
not the winner at the bottom - but he is in the lead pack at the top.
IOW, hang together going up, and let 'er rip on the way down - or at
least conserve energy on way up. I've only been to two (one was World
Mtn Running Trophy) so they may not have been representative, but the
WMRT was tightly packed at top, and no one was near the winner at the end.

Looking at some relative splits for your local hill race (Pikes Peak
marathon), it looks like it varies a lot, except for curve-busters like
Matt Carpenter (odd years only, it looks like) - who is just plain fast
in both directions. I didn't do any calcs to see what percent of time
was downhill.
http://www.skyrunner.com/ppresults/2004ppm_m.htm

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Quoted message said:

Thoughts?>

You're wrong, at least in most cases. I used the "uphill slow"(I let
you pass) method/fast "downhill method" (I pass you) except I didn't
slow down ennough you'd catch me again. This is a proven race strategy.
Just because one girl was too slow to continue to hold you off on the
flats doesn't mean it's a bad strategy. Consider this, she wasn't in
very good shape, and was using the hills to make up a bit of time.

Quoted message said:

You're wrong, at least in most cases. I used the "uphill slow"(I let

you pass) method/fast "downhill method" (I pass you) except I didn't
slow down ennough you'd catch me again. This is a proven race strategy.

Just because one girl was too slow to continue to hold you off on the
flats doesn't mean it's a bad strategy. Consider this, she wasn't in
very good shape, and was using the hills to make up a bit of time.>

That being said, this is strictly a "RACE" strategy, not trainng.
Running downhill beats the [censored] outta your knees, and greatly increases
your chance of getting injured, so it's best saved for important races.

actually its not the running downhill that hits your kness, its the braking
action that does.
I use this mantra to help me : watch the horizon.

When running uphill, dont look at your toes, look up where the road goes
flat - at the "horizon". This keeps your running open & easy and your
breathing the same. Dont hunch.

When running downhill, dont lean back looking at the sky, if you do then
each stride is a breaking action, rather look down hill to where the flat
starts (the "horizon"😉 and dont be afraid to run fast - with your weight
over your feet instead of behind them you will feel much more in control and
you can handle a faster pace.You dont want to keep your body vertical
regardless of the terrain, as is the "natural" tendency, but rather to get
your body as perpendicular to the slope as you can take - less overstriding,
less breaking, easier on your knees. And faster.

--
Jim

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're wrong, at least in most cases. I used the "uphill slow"(I let

you pass) method/fast "downhill method" (I pass you) except I didn't
slow down ennough you'd catch me again. This is a proven race strategy.

Just because one girl was too slow to continue to hold you off on the
flats doesn't mean it's a bad strategy. Consider this, she wasn't in
very good shape, and was using the hills to make up a bit of time.>

That being said, this is strictly a "RACE" strategy, not trainng.
Running downhill beats the [censored] outta your knees, and greatly increases
your chance of getting injured, so it's best saved for important races.

Know yourself. Some people are better at different phases.
I used to have very good lungs and the uphill was when I
would make my move.

Jim> actually its not the running downhill that hits your kness, its
Jim> the braking action that does.

Actually, while braking may be worse for knees, Pippy's also right
insofar as flying down hills with the brakes off is a real challenge to
the body as well, and certainly can move you in the direction of
injury. Google for something like "eccentric muscle contraction
downhill running".

IMO like so many other things, it's a case of "good if done right
(amount, frequency, technique, etc), bad if done to excess".
Personally I love flying downhill at top speed but believe indulging
several times a week on paved surfaces has been an injury factor in the
past. I do it less often now, and mostly on wood (Brooklyn Bridge) or
a dirt trail.

Sam> My thought has been that the speed difference between two
Sam> runners downhill is less than the speed difference of them
Sam> going up hill.

Sam, are you trolling here? That's unlike you. (Then again so are
Pippy's serious and reasonable responses... is it in fact Freaky Friday
here at wreck.jogging?)

First and most pedantically, of course the interesting difference in a
race is the *time* delta, not the speed delta. OK, maybe you were
playing fast and loose with English there.

But second, whether the uphill speed (or time) delta exceeds the
downhill speed delta depends entirely on both runners' uphill and
downhill speeds. Sure that's obvious and tautological and sounds
flippant but I don't understand why you'd assume there is some
invariant law dictating a greater uphill delta.

Dan Stumpus put it concisely recently: on downhills, technique is king.
(or something to that effect) Certainly technique is a factor on
flats or uphills too; but on downhills you don't especially need
aerobic fitness or strength (well, for a LONG race with lots of
downhills I guess you better have strong quads) or power, just good
technique, sufficient confidence, and the ability to keep getting your
feet down in time to keep it a "run" and not a "fall".

And my experience is, by blazing the downhills, in hilly races I finish
with people who seem aerobically stronger than I. Now even if some of
those I pass on downhills end up ahead of me at the finish, I'm still
no doubt placing better than someone of equivalent fitness but average
downhill speed, i.e. I'm beating some people who are faster than me on
a flat course. The downhill burst comes free or at least cheap: on a
big enough hill, I'm still spending less energy to fly down it -
because beyond a certain point I'm unable or afraid to move the feet
any faster - than on flat or uphills, so I'm still recovering.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

During the race a woman would pass me on the downhills--almost like
fartlek training, then seemingly slow down when the hill flattened out
only to have me pass her on the subsequent up hill. Eventually I passed
her and she was not able to pass me back.

I've always been strong on uphills. When I first started racing, I would
blast by people on uphills, and often get passed on the downhills. I soon
learned that it was more effective to back off a bit on the uphills, and
push the downhills. I think it was because uphills are "fun" for me, that
I was working them too hard, and needed to recover.

I read Lydiard, and did his hill workouts, which worked ups and downs. Most
don't practice downhill speedwork. My advice: soft surfaces, never all-out,
and little goes a long way. It makes a big difference, imo. Eventually I
could run in the high 4's on downhills in races lasting less than an hour.

Now I let the next guy kill himself on the ups; I love it when the guy next
to me is breathing harder on an uphill -- I'll be waiting for the crest to
surge. I could smoke him up the hill, but I'm keeping my powder dry.

Quoted message said:

I also find that I just do not seem to run downhill very fast. I remember
in HS being able to tear up the downhill sections of our home XC cross
(and it had some serious downhill).

Don't know how old you are, but age takes it's toll. My podiatriast (ex
2:24 guy) says downhill speed is the first thing to go. Nowadays I slow
down when there's a danger of falling (rocky terrain), but I can still
boogie if it's non-technical. Back in the Day, I remember races where I
flew over rocks and boulders, being utterly confident that I wouldn't fall
(and I never did).

Quoted message said:

My thought has been that the speed difference between two runners downhill
is less than the speed difference of them going up hill. So I hypothesize
that I am better able to catch people on a uphill than on a down hill.

Everyone has different strengths, but I'd keep these things in mind:

1. If you burn too hard in the uphill, you won't be able to relax and run
fast on the downhills.
2. Try to keep the same heartrate on the downhills as uphills. This is
where downhill training helps. When I'm out of downhill shape, it feels
hard to run at a 135 pulse downhill. In shape, I can crank 160's, and go a
lot faster.

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

When running uphill, dont look at your toes, look up where the road goes

flat - at the "horizon". This keeps your running open & easy and your
breathing the same. Dont hunch.>

Oh man is that ever the EXACT OPPOSITE that works for me. If I look at
the top of the hill it seems to take forever, but if I look at my feet
it goes by with relative ease.

Quoted message said:

Know yourself. Some people are better at different phases.

I used to have very good lungs and the uphill was when I
would make my move.>

What if Big Bird were in front of you Rick?

Dot said:

Sam said:

During the race a woman would pass me on the downhills--almost like fartlek
training, then seemingly slow down when the hill flattened out only to have
me pass her on the subsequent up hill. Eventually I passed her and she was
not able to pass me back.

Just some thoughts.

How were your relative effort levels? Maybe she was trying to run close
to constant effort - which gives the appearance of fartlek by pace?
Uphill running on steep uphills is extremely costly energywise, and you
will be on it longer than downhill, assuming equal amounts of up and
down. Just by duration alone, you're probably more likely to pass people
on the uphill.

Constant effort is what I strive for on a hilly course. In one 10k I
ran, I kept passing a couple on the downhills while they passed me on
the uphills. I overheard the man comment something like, "don't worry
about him, he'll burn himself out". Well near the finish I passeed them
and left her behind. The man tried to pass me but wasn't able to until
the final long level straighaway before the finishline.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also find that I just do not seem to run downhill very fast. I remember
in HS being able to tear up the downhill sections of our home XC cross (and
it had some serious downhill).

Do you train on the downhills? Are you losing leg speed, which is more
critical for down than up? Do you manage your energy or are you trying
to pick off the woman in front - then may not be able to run the
downhills as well as you could? Just pulling at straws.

Downhill training is important, as others have mentioned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My thought has been that the speed difference between two runners downhill
is less than the speed difference of them going up hill. So I hypothesize
that I am better able to catch people on a uphill than on a down hill.

Thoughts?

Really not sure what you mean here. Dot made some good comments.

I look at it this way. In a flat course, you are best with near
constant effort. When going uphill then, the road basically Rises to
meet your foot before it would on the flat. IOW, your stride is
shortened, hence your speed is lowered for the same effort.

A similar effect happens on the downhill, but many people who haven't
trained for downhill running end up leaning back and becoming
heal-strikers. IOW, they end up putting on the brakes, using energy to
actually slow themselves down. The comments about torn up quads from
downhills in this group seems to suggest that more runners need to
train for downhills.

Done right, the downhills can be a big performance boost, but as
always, YMMV.

Enjoy the run,
ed

Thanks to everyone for their reasoned responses. I might have missed some
since I killfile regular trolls.

I have not done a lot of hill training this year so I knew the course was
going to be a challenge. Just to clarify, it was a road 10 miler, not a
trail run. Thus footing was never an issue.

To give you an idea of the course, here is the map with elevation
http://www.pikespeakmarathon.org/2005_gog_general_info.htm#Garden%2010-Mile%20Course%20Map

The first 2 miles are fast. I held myself in check pretty well. Mile 3 is
hard, but it is early and I was fresh. Miles 7-9 are pretty tough.

As for the training, I have added hills but that was the plan for this time
of year anyway since I got a late start on training. Someone asked about
age and I can see the rationale for age taking its toll on leg speed and
that affecting downhill running speed. I am pretty sure I can get some of
that with some specific training. There is a trail 12K coming up that will
give me a chance to practice some more!

I was aiming for constant, consistent effort. The mile splits are useless
with the terrain, but I my breathing stayed pretty even (aside from my
"kick"😉. However, I was not pushing the downhills partly because I wanted
to maintain a conservative effort.

I was focusing on better downhill running form, but I fear that I was
getting a little fatigued and might have lost form. Good thing to watch out
for in the future.

I was not trolling at all with my comment about the speed differential. If
I am running 6:30 pace and another person is running 6:15 pace that is a
speed differential. I think that I can make up a few lost seconds from a
downhill on the uphill. The problem to me is to minimize losses on the DH.
Since I can remember I have not run downhills well and can remember always
being able to pass more people on uphills than downhills---of course I was
also really light in those days so the uphills were even easier for me.

This probably would not have made a difference except my former boss (an
okay guy) was just ahead of me and I could not catch him. It might have
helped had I known it was him earlier. By the time I knew it he had about
150 meters on me and less than a mile to go. That last mile was downhill
all the way and I just could not make up the 150 meters. My old boss is
quite fit aerobically--he was a winner of a stage in the Tour de
France ---so there is really no shame other than the fact that I AM A RUNNER
AND SHOULD NOT LOSE TO A CYCLIST. He has been running for a couple of years
so it is not like he just jumped in the race. Oh well, gotta get him next
time!

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I recently ran a 10 miler where for 8.5 miles you are pretty much
either going up or down a hill.

My kind of race.

Quoted message said:

I was taught in high school not to worry too much about people passing
me on the down hill and since then I have found that if people pass me
on the downhill that I will make up the distance on the flat or next
hill most of the time.

This may be true at the High School level.

Quoted message said:

My thought has been that the speed difference between two runners
downhill is less than the speed difference of them going up hill. So I
hypothesize that I am better able to catch people on a uphill than on
a down hill.

Thoughts?

This is a difficult strawman with too many variables. I say it depends
on how much specific training one does on both up AND downhills. If a
runner exceeds his training on the downs he/she will pummel their quads
and turn to mush especially in a 10 mile race. Although the Boston
Marathon is 26 miles it is one prime race to see people turn to [censored]
with gentle downhills. Will you catch them on the ups? Maybe! If they
train for the ups, you may not see them until the finish line.

Personally I spend a lot of time on hills and I'll bet only a handful of
people have ever passed me in race during the second half. It isn't
speed as much as strength in longer races. If you have both, all the
better. If you don't have the speed and genetics have tied a rock to
your ass, make yourself a stronger hill runner.

In general when people fly by me on the downs I ignore them. Either they
are better/faster and there is nothing I can do, or they are over their
heads and will come back most likely on the ups. I will admit I'm pretty
good at reading form on the downs and can tell if they are within their
abilities or carried away by the moment.

-DougF

"Tom B." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My old boss is
quite fit aerobically--he was a winner of a stage in the Tour de
France

You've got some very interesting friends. How many TdF stage winners
are here in the US, anyway? Maybe 10 at most? (just guessing) So
"quite fit" is probably downplaying things somewhat, given that TdF
stage winner roughly equates to Olympian, and maybe Olympic finalist.

Dan's theorem: Former World class endurance cyclist A will almost always
beat city-class runner B, provided that A and B train similarly....(adjusted
for age -- 1% slowdown / year after age 39). Reason: massive training
background, and higher Vo2 max.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

---so there is really no shame other than the fact that I AM A RUNNER
AND SHOULD NOT LOSE TO A CYCLIST.

I lost a 50 mile mountain trail race to a triathlete who ran only 50 mpw,
but who trained 25-30 hours/week overall. After 5 hours, he pulled away in
the heat. He was national class, and I was in 2:3x shape which is
definitely *not* national class. Regardless of his speciality, I learned to
respect the superior athlete.

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

Another thing I've noticed is that people with more bounce (less efficient)
in their strides are often better on uphills than an equally fast flat
runner with less bounce.

They intercept hill at top of their bounce? 😉 That is if a person is
used to putting all energy in going straight ahead, they have to lift
more to get up a hill. A bouncy runner is already doing that. (I am
being a little facetious here.)

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Sam said:

As for the training, I have added hills but that was the plan for this time
of year anyway since I got a late start on training. Someone asked about
age and I can see the rationale for age taking its toll on leg speed and
that affecting downhill running speed. I am pretty sure I can get some of
that with some specific training. There is a trail 12K coming up that will
give me a chance to practice some more!

Here's some data that might be of interest. It's on treadmill (hence
footing isn't an issue) and uses slopes from 0 to +-45% looking at
energy costs. (yea, what a tm) It is oriented toward mountain runnning,
but includes gentler slopes:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/93/3/1039

From the conclusion:
...."3) a better progression economy is expected in mountain-running
athletes in the downhill range; and 4) the running speeds adopted in
downhill competition are far lower than metabolically feasible, mainly
because of safety reasons. If athletes wish to improve their
performances in competitions alternating ascent and descent phases, they
should pay greatest attention to the training of movement coordination
during downhill running."

Note that some of their calculations are based on *vertical* speeds, not
horizontal.

Quoted message said:

I was aiming for constant, consistent effort. The mile splits are useless
with the terrain, but I my breathing stayed pretty even (aside from my
"kick"😉. However, I was not pushing the downhills partly because I wanted
to maintain a conservative effort.

For curiosity, have you ever tried to flat line a hilly (within reason,
not Pikes Peak) course on your hrm (I think you've got one but don't use
it often - or ever, iirc). By "flat line", I mean running with a
constant hr so the hill isn't apparent in the hr profile.

I used to be able to do it on roads, I haven't been able to do it on my
usual trails because of the steepness of the hills (maybe hr +
adrenaline on down = hr on up) - I'm not good on downhill, but am
working on it. My latest "thinking" (loosely used) for *my* running is
that there's an optimum energy management, rather than a true constant
effort (as measured by hr) that works better when you get on steeper
hills. IOW, on steep hills, keep the uphill energy expenditure under
control (under LT, assuming multiple hour race - or equivalent for
shorter race) so as not to get too fatigued, then take off downhill (at
effort minimizing pain) - where form may be more important than energy
expenditure.

Quoted message said:

This probably would not have made a difference except my former boss (an
okay guy) was just ahead of me and I could not catch him.

Ah, the true reason comes out 🙂

It might have

Quoted message said:

helped had I known it was him earlier. By the time I knew it he had about
150 meters on me and less than a mile to go. That last mile was downhill
all the way and I just could not make up the 150 meters. My old boss is
quite fit aerobically--he was a winner of a stage in the Tour de
France ---so there is really no shame other than the fact that I AM A RUNNER
AND SHOULD NOT LOSE TO A CYCLIST. He has been running for a couple of years
so it is not like he just jumped in the race. Oh well, gotta get him next
time!

I gotta agree with Dan's Theorem 🙂

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:35:33 GMT, "Sam" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was taught in high school not to worry too much about people passing me on
the down hill and since then I have found that if people pass me on the
downhill that I will make up the distance on the flat or next hill most of
the time.

You were taught wrong. It is overall average pace that matters, not
whether you go faster uphill, downhill, whatever. Run in such a way
that your total time to cover the course is minimized and don't worry
about anything else. In a race, the only thing that counts is how
long it takes you to get from start to finish.

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Another thing I've noticed is that people with more bounce (less
efficient) in their strides are often better on uphills than an equally
fast flat runner with less bounce.

They intercept hill at top of their bounce? 😉 That is if a person is used
to putting all energy in going straight ahead, they have to lift more to
get up a hill. A bouncy runner is already doing that.

Yes, that's how I look at it.

I'm a relatively bouncy runner, and I can outclimb just about anyone who
runs as fast as me on a flat course.

"User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:35:33 GMT, "Sam" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was taught in high school not to worry too much about people passing me
on
the down hill and since then I have found that if people pass me on the
downhill that I will make up the distance on the flat or next hill most of
the time.

You were taught wrong. It is overall average pace that matters, not
whether you go faster uphill, downhill, whatever. Run in such a way
that your total time to cover the course is minimized and don't worry
about anything else. In a race, the only thing that counts is how
long it takes you to get from start to finish.

I would disagree in terms of high school cross country where time is
meaningless; place is what counts. This is racing; you are talking about
time trialing (which is what most of us do most of the time).