track vs trail

Quoted message said:

i'm not sure if i'm out of shape or what.

I am.

Quoted message said:

is it harder to run a mile quickly on a trail compared with a track?

The trail will nearly always be slower. How much slower depends on the trail--
if it's a nice cinder path, maybe just a few seconds. If it's a hilly trail,
it could be much slower.

Also, it depends on how accurately the mile is measured.

Quoted message said:

i'm having trouble breaking 7:30 on a trail, and i know i've done 5:40
on a track once. i'm not sure if i'm out of shape or what.

If you want to know for sure, you've got to step on a track.

Having said that, a 7:30 pace should be pretty comfortable if you can do 5:40.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Once" is the key word. You probably did the one 5:40 mile on the track
and then stopped, right?

Also, tracks are made for running. Trails aren't. And most tracks are
800m, not 1/4-mile.

Man, no wonder my mile times are so bad! I've been running a little
over 4 laps instead of just over 2. :-)

I think he meant to say 400m.

John B. said:

"Once" is the key word. You probably did the one 5:40 mile on the track
and then stopped, right?

Also, tracks are made for running. Trails aren't. And most tracks are
800m, not 1/4-mile.

Man, no wonder my mile times are so bad! I've been running a little
over 4 laps instead of just over 2. :-)

I think he meant to say 400m.

Woops. Yes, I meant 400.

Quoted message said:

is it harder to run a mile quickly on a trail compared with a track?
i'm having trouble breaking 7:30 on a trail, and i know i've done 5:40
on a track once.

It would be hard to do a track vs trail comparison if your 5:40 was not
recent.

--
Phil M.

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is it harder to run a mile quickly on a trail compared
with a track? i'm having trouble breaking 7:30 on a trail,
and i know i've done 5:40 on a track once.

I assume that this is a troll, but it does raise an
interesting topic for discussion. As an example...

I used to live in Virgina where I had access to a lightly used
walking trail called Nolan Trail in the Marinar's Museum park
in Newport News. I am not sure if it was measured accurately,
but they did have wooden post markers every 1/4 mile through
out the entire loop, and most people considered it accurate to
within 100 ft or so. It was wood chip mulch and kept in good
shape. No large elevation changes, just lots of short ups and
down and constant turning.

At the time I could do a 5 mile training/tempo run in just
under 34:00 on a paved bike path near my house. On the Nolan
Trail I considered it one hell of a work out to get under
37:30.

I always assumed the difference could be attributed to:

- lack of energy return off the running surface
- the constant changes in speed caused by the turns and grades
- the concentration required to not fall

Quoted message said:

I always assumed the difference could be attributed to:

- lack of energy return off the running surface
- the constant changes in speed caused by the turns and grades
- the concentration required to not fall

That last point is something not usually mentioned. However, I think this
is a valid point. When road running downhill, if the grade is steep enough
I reach a certain level of fear where I start braking rather than letting
gravity do its thing. On a trail, especially one with loose gravel, rocks,
and exposed roots, I reach that level of fear on a lesser grade.

--
Phil M.

"Mark and Christine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is it harder to run a mile quickly on a trail compared
with a track? i'm having trouble breaking 7:30 on a trail,
and i know i've done 5:40 on a track once.

I assume that this is a troll, but it does raise an
interesting topic for discussion. As an example...

I used to live in Virgina where I had access to a lightly used
walking trail called Nolan Trail in the Marinar's Museum park
in Newport News. I am not sure if it was measured accurately,
but they did have wooden post markers every 1/4 mile through
out the entire loop, and most people considered it accurate to
within 100 ft or so. It was wood chip mulch and kept in good
shape. No large elevation changes, just lots of short ups and
down and constant turning.

At the time I could do a 5 mile training/tempo run in just
under 34:00 on a paved bike path near my house. On the Nolan
Trail I considered it one hell of a work out to get under
37:30.

I always assumed the difference could be attributed to:

- lack of energy return off the running surface
- the constant changes in speed caused by the turns and grades
- the concentration required to not fall

Not sure how long ago it was that you ran on the Nolan trail, but that's
where I currently run. It is now measured every half mile with a granite
marker in the ground. I find it very challenging and certainly more
enjoyable than running on the road, although running through the
neighborhood along the river is very scenic also. It is in very good shape
as there is always someone working on it every day. In my very short and
limited time training/running on the trail, I have noticed that the few
races I have ran that I am almost a minute faster per mile during the race
than the trail. I would assume any race/run on a flat surface would be
quicker than a trail/road with elevation changes.

terrance

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:41:34 GMT, Mark and Christine <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and i know i've done 5:40 on a track once.

Yeah, in high school, 22 years ago.

"terry" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:pFP8f.4207$LR1.3982@dukeread09:

Quoted message said:

Not sure how long ago it was that you ran on the Nolan
trail, but that's where I currently run. It is now
measured every half mile with a granite marker in the
ground. I find it very challenging and certainly more
enjoyable than running on the road, although running
through the neighborhood along the river is very scenic
also. It is in very good shape as there is always someone
working on it every day. In my very short and limited time
training/running on the trail, I have noticed that the few
races I have ran that I am almost a minute faster per mile
during the race than the trail. I would assume any
race/run on a flat surface would be quicker than a
trail/road with elevation changes.

terrance

My husband and I moved in 2002 after living there for 15
years. He says that you are correct about the 1/2 mile marks
and that I was thinking of the fitness trail around the golf
course off MacGrudder Blvd. When we move they had just
renovated the trail and changed its route slightly. The 1.5
mile mark had been bypass because that part of the trail went
too close to the edge of the lake and kept getting very soft
with the slightest rain.

Christine

"Hail, Thee ~ !"
~ Folly

"Mark and Christine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"terry" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:pFP8f.4207$LR1.3982@dukeread09:

Quoted message said:

Not sure how long ago it was that you ran on the Nolan
trail, but that's where I currently run. It is now
measured every half mile with a granite marker in the
ground. I find it very challenging and certainly more
enjoyable than running on the road, although running
through the neighborhood along the river is very scenic
also. It is in very good shape as there is always someone
working on it every day. In my very short and limited time
training/running on the trail, I have noticed that the few
races I have ran that I am almost a minute faster per mile
during the race than the trail. I would assume any
race/run on a flat surface would be quicker than a
trail/road with elevation changes.

terrance

My husband and I moved in 2002 after living there for 15
years. He says that you are correct about the 1/2 mile marks
and that I was thinking of the fitness trail around the golf
course off MacGrudder Blvd. When we move they had just
renovated the trail and changed its route slightly. The 1.5
mile mark had been bypass because that part of the trail went
too close to the edge of the lake and kept getting very soft
with the slightest rain.

Christine

Hello Christine:

Overall the trail has been solid. I have ran it in a slight drizzle, but
never a serious down fall. Not sure what it would be like in those
conditions, but in the drizzle, it's still been a very good run. Never
washed out, but still a very good run. I haven't walked/ran the path around
Magruder Blvd in quite some time, so I have no idea how it is marked. In
my opinion, the Magruder trail is ok, but nowhere near the caliber of the
Nolan trail. I will be looking for runners in the near future who would
like to run the Nolan trail, so hopefully I'll find some. I think it to be
one of the great scenic runs. Talk to ya soon.

terrance

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I always assumed the difference could be attributed to:

- lack of energy return off the running surface
- the constant changes in speed caused by the turns and grades
- the concentration required to not fall

That last point is something not usually mentioned. However, I think this
is a valid point. When road running downhill, if the grade is steep enough
I reach a certain level of fear where I start braking rather than letting
gravity do its thing. On a trail, especially one with loose gravel, rocks,
and exposed roots, I reach that level of fear on a lesser grade.

Righto Phil. In the escarpment trail run, people would practically stop when
the terrain got rough going downhill. To run steep technical sections well
is actually a bit like downhill skiing for those who've done that. On an
expert ski slope, the idea isn't to go slow and stay in total control, it's
to control the fall just enough and keep moving. So downhill trail running
is like that: a controlled fall. You have to learn how to take short steps
at times, gallop at other times, and to let your stride slalom from one side
of the trail to the other, carrying momentum while looking for good
footfalls without braking.

What I call the gallop is to lead with one foot and don't let the trailing
foot to come much past the front foot. Once you master this technique, you
can switch sides and mix it with a normal gait adjusting to the trail. It's
generally only for steeper downhill sections, but you fear falling once you
master it, and thus don't have to slow down as much.

For moderately rough trails, you have to learn to run light, and eventually
you'll get a reflex action in your feet: if your foot plant goes wrong
(ankle roll or something) your weight never goes completely on that foot,
and is taken up on the next foot plant. It's rare, but I've had it happen
where 2 consecutive foot plants went bad, and you end up either falling or
in a crouch because your body drops with each failed foot plant -- but it's
a hell of a lot better than busting your ankle.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

--
Phil M.