Hill strategy

"Hill ~ !
Hey ~ !"
~ Folly

"Did you get our email, yet ~ ? Rest assured,
You've a very fine hill, near Watch Hill
Aviary, reserved
In your name."
~ Twittering

~ * ~
Blog, or dog? Who knows.
But if you see my lost pup, please bring him home!
I got Leon a brand-new bone.
_________________
http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo

Sam wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

American stage winners:

Lance
Tyler Hamilton
Greg LeMond
Jeff Pierce

Am I missing any? Bobby Julich won as part of a team time trial

Andy Hampston - L'alp Duez ~ 1992, though I think there are others.

-T

Sam said:

American stage winners:

Lance
Tyler Hamilton
Greg LeMond
Jeff Pierce

Am I missing any? Bobby Julich won as part of a team time trial

According to: http://cbs.sportsline.com/cycling/history/us , you're
missing:
- Davis Phinney
- Andy Hampsten

So there are 6 total. I was pretty sure about those last 2, but have
to admit that I had never heard of Jeff Pierce. So I'm guessing he's
the mystery runner here. Lance is busy right now, Tyler's distracted
(and too young), and I don't think LeMond is a runner, not to mention
that he's put on a good bit of weight.

Quoted message said:

The pace was 7:05 or so for a 10 miler (very hilly and a bit of
altitude---6200 feet)

I've never tried running at any significant altitude. I was on
vacation in Colorado in the late 90's and biked up Mt Evans from Idaho
Springs. Saw someone running along the road at around 12000 ft and
thought to myself "only in Colorado".

Dot said:

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.

Thanks DOT. Looks like a great reference. I will read it, especially
since I think it agrees with me. 8^)

Quoted message said:

Dot

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

Tom B. said:

So there are 6 total. I was pretty sure about those last 2, but have
to admit that I had never heard of Jeff Pierce.

"After earning posts on the 1983 Pan American team and the 1984 Olympic
Team, Jeff was named the country's top amateur cyclist in 1985. Turning
pro in 1986, he raced the Tour de France with Team 7-Eleven as his first
professional event. The following year he produced the solo victory in
front of 500,000 spectators on the Champs Elysees in the Tour's final
stage."
(from cyclingnews.com)
h

I cannot believe I had forgotten Andy and Davis--I have met them both (as
well as everyone else on the list except LeMond).

Good thing they do not read this board...

What is Lance doing???

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

Quoted message said:

Sam said:

American stage winners:

Lance
Tyler Hamilton
Greg LeMond
Jeff Pierce

Am I missing any? Bobby Julich won as part of a team time trial

According to: http://cbs.sportsline.com/cycling/history/us , you're
missing:
- Davis Phinney
- Andy Hampsten

So there are 6 total. I was pretty sure about those last 2, but have
to admit that I had never heard of Jeff Pierce. So I'm guessing he's
the mystery runner here. Lance is busy right now, Tyler's distracted
(and too young), and I don't think LeMond is a runner, not to mention
that he's put on a good bit of weight.

Quoted message said:

The pace was 7:05 or so for a 10 miler (very hilly and a bit of
altitude---6200 feet)

I've never tried running at any significant altitude. I was on
vacation in Colorado in the late 90's and biked up Mt Evans from Idaho
Springs. Saw someone running along the road at around 12000 ft and
thought to myself "only in Colorado".

In article <[email hidden]>,
Sam <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

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. Exceptions to this are races with a downhill finish where you do
not want to be passed obviously or a downhill close enough to the end that
you would not have time to make up the distance.

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).

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?

I think there's a lot of psychology and second order effects involved,
rather than something as straightforward as fundamental up vs. down
speed difference.

On a previous round of this I looked at little at native energetics
of hills. Per Noakes, the energy cost of running an uphill at a given
pace is (to translate) 1+x. Running the same pace downhill is 1-x/2.
In other words, you don't get back on the downhill what you lose on
the uphill. No surprise there.

Conversely, an even effort runner should slow down by twice as much
on the uphill as he speeds up on the downhill. Given some heart rate
monitor experiments of mine, and experience of a former college XC racer,
it is difficult to run fast enough to keep the effort as high on the
downhill as for the flat (for any 'interesting' downhill). I do so,
when in good training, and at those times fly past her on the downs.
She passes me on the ups at all times. Races, with us both in good shape,
are close in net.

With it being difficult to run fast enough on the downs to maintain
even an even effort, much less to pick up the pace relatve to that, the
place to make your gains relatve to even effort is on the ups. Energetically
speaking. The distance gain is less than if you could expend that
extra on a downhill, but most runners are going to be hard pressed to
maintain even an even effort downhill.

For the HS advice ... well, we're talking about HS runners. No
problem seeing that they'll kill themselves running the downhill and
toast the race there. I remember some of our practices ...

But much of endurance racing (as opposed to running) is psychology
rather than biology. If you're mentally toasted at the sight of
somebody passing you on the up/down hill, you don't run hard enough
on the other end to pass the other guy back and lose the race for
that reason, not for the hills themselves. If you have the mantra
that you'll always pass someone back on the opposite slope, it keeps
you mentally in the race. A lot of even fast and experienced -- on the
flat -- runners are scared of racing on hills. Pass them on an
uphill and you'll never see them again.

Still, I do most of my passing on downhills. People who pull
away on the ups are putting too much effort, usually, into the
uphill and they come back on the down. When I was racing often,
there was only one runner in my part of the pack I had to pass
on the ups. She blistered the downhills (and the starts -- bad
sign if I saw her in the first mile of a race).
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Quoted message said:

Per Noakes, the energy cost of running an uphill at a given
pace is (to translate) 1+x. Running the same pace downhill
is 1-x/2.

OK.

Quoted message said:

In other words, you don't get back on the downhill what you lose on
the uphill.

Logically, yeah; but wording affects emphasis e.g. "whatever you gain
on the downhill, you'll lose more on the uphill."

Quoted message said:

it is difficult to run fast enough to keep the effort as high
on the downhill as for the flat (for any 'interesting' downhill).

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

With it being difficult to run fast enough on the downs to
maintain even an even effort, much less to pick up the pace
relatve to that, the place to make your gains relative to
even effort is on the ups. Energetically speaking.

Whoa there! Don't think I quite follow or agree - if your thinking
runs beyond "ya just can't do it on the downs, so that leaves the ups"
(and I bet your thinking does), I wish you'd elaborate.

To the extent these

down: 1 - x/2
flat: 1
up: 1 + x

roughly model the cost of running at some range of paces, they must
also represent the cost of an additional unit of speed, no? Assuming
we're not already out on the asymptote at 99% effort.

Then my interpretation, energetically speaking, is that:

[a] An increment of speed is cheapest for the downs, and most
exorbitant on the ups; so for the gods' sake, don't skimp on the downs
and save yourself for the ups.

Or: run everything, including the downs, as close to even effort as
possible - which will probably be as fast as you're able and willing on
the downs.

Or: you may as well run the downs as fast as you're able and willing:
since the effort will be less than for flats/ups, you are in effect
still recovering, relatively.

[b] The ups being so expensive, if you're tempted to spend an extra
Effort Unit to pass the guy in front, you'd get more mileage
(literally) out of that same energy on the flats (or especially the
downs, if you foolishly weren't already maxed out there).


I've long - well, relative to either my brief running career or to the
duration I generally stick with an opinion or theory on running - held
this and raced accoringly, and believed that as you say:

Quoted message said:

People who pull away on the ups are putting too much effort,
usually, into the uphill and they come back on the down.

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

Quoted message said:

...............

Quoted message said:

With it being difficult to run fast enough on the downs to
maintain even an even effort, much less to pick up the pace
relatve to that, the place to make your gains relative to
even effort is on the ups. Energetically speaking.

Whoa there! Don't think I quite follow or agree - if your thinking
runs beyond "ya just can't do it on the downs, so that leaves the ups"
(and I bet your thinking does), I wish you'd elaborate.

If you monitor your effort by HR, this effect is easy to see. I can easily
push my HR up into LT region going uphill, but unless it's a very gentle
downhill, it's difficult to push my HR up into LT region, especially on
trails where you have to watch your footing more.

It depends on the grade of the hill, the terrain, and the length of the
race. In shorter races where a constant effort would be at or above LT, it
would be difficult to run fast enough down medium to steeper hills at the
same effort level.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

I can easily push my HR up into LT region going uphill, but unless
it's a very gentle downhill, it's difficult to push my HR up into
LT region

Understood.

It *is* very easy to increase your HR on the ups. Easy in the sense
"you're barely running faster at all, yet your HR/effort are
significantly up", or "what a skimpy reward of a tiny increase in
speed, in return for pushing your HR into LT".

My objection is to RG's:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the place to make your gains relative to even effort is on the ups

I contend, energetically speaking, that's true only if the race has no
level ground and you've already maxed out your downs.

Pacing algorithm:

[1] First max the downs (to the limits imposed by the slope, trail
footing, your raw footspeed, and your slavish clinging to
self-preservation) because that's where speed is cheapest.

[2] Distribute whatever remaining effort that leaves *evenly* among the
ups and flats (assuming even effort really is optimal). This will
likely come out to a higher effort level than your downhill max was.

[3] If for some reason you didn't spend all of your effort units in
step 2 above, use up whatever remains on the flats not the ups. You
get a better rate on the flats where 1 speed unit costs 1 effort unit,
vs. 1+x effort units on the ups.

Once again: this is rough approx not accounting for psycho-jumbo, quad
fatigue after scorching downs for any distance, et cetera ad nauseum.

Charlie Pendejo said:

Quoted message said:

With it being difficult to run fast enough on the downs to
maintain even an even effort, much less to pick up the pace
relatve to that, the place to make your gains relative to
even effort is on the ups. Energetically speaking.

Whoa there! Don't think I quite follow or agree - if your thinking
runs beyond "ya just can't do it on the downs, so that leaves the ups"
(and I bet your thinking does), I wish you'd elaborate.

I don't quite follow it either -- Robert, is that a typo ?

Did you mean to say that it's easier to overtake on the downs (because
you can do that without increasing level of effort) ?

Or are you saying that if you're going to run with uneven effort, it's
better to do so on the ups, since it's hard to run with even effort on
the downs ?

Quoted message said:

Then my interpretation, energetically speaking, is that:

[a] An increment of speed is cheapest for the downs, and most
exorbitant on the ups; so for the gods' sake, don't skimp on the downs
and save yourself for the ups.

I think there's got to be a reason why not everyone bolts on the downs
though. Maybe it's because of mental effort, maybe it's because people
tend to "take a break" on the downs (very bad idea), maybe it's because
you beat up your muscles if you run the downs too hard.

Quoted message said:

Or: run everything, including the downs, as close to even effort as
possible - which will probably be as fast as you're able and willing on
the downs.

I suspect that this could trash your quads really quickly even if the
actual heart rate reading is relatively low. Heart rate reflects mean
effort/load, but another factor is peak load, which may have some effect
on muscular fatigue.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who pull away on the ups are putting too much effort,
usually, into the uphill and they come back on the down.

I unintentionally reinforced this conviction by taking the ups a harder
in my last race -

I think the above can depend on a number of factors. Someone could use
the hill as an opportunity to drop a weaker runner. Some of the top Kenyan
marathoners do this (e.g. power over the bridges in the NY marathon), and they
seldom come back. But that's a little different to what RObert and you are
talking about-- I agree (with you and Robert) that the person who attacks hills
indiscriminately is just asking for trouble.

Quoted message said:

first-ever hill hard reps in preceding weeks had me
unusually confident and excited to unleash my new ascending prowess -

"Indiscriminate" is the key word. Use your prowess judiciously -- for example,
use it when you're heading into the NY marathon finish line, or when you reach
heartbreak hill in Boston.

Quoted message said:

But I also agree, in racing all that psychological mumbo-jumbo :-)
comes into play as well.

When you're racing, and not time-trialing it does. If you're time trialing and
running with others who are also time trialing, it makes no difference (since
other runners aren't reacting to what you're doing). But for example, in a
sparse cross country race, or in a track race with a reasonably well matched
group, it can be very useful.

The point about the "mumbo jumbo" I was trying to beat into Lance's very thick
skull, is that having the mental fortitude to win a close battle will not help
you a great deal, if the people who you *should* be competing with are a few
minutes ahead of you.

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

Quoted message said:

I suspect that this could trash your quads really quickly even if
the actual heart rate reading is relatively low. Heart rate reflects
mean effort/load, but another factor is peak load, which may have
some effect on muscular fatigue.

Yeah, once we open this up to include more "real world" factors, I
agree. And BTW thanks for acknowledging my disclaimers to this effect
and not simply thrashing a Pendejo strawman here, I appreciate the
civility.

Quoted message said:

The point about the "mumbo jumbo" I was trying to beat into Lance's
very thick skull, is that having the mental fortitude to win a
close battle will not help you a great deal, if the people who you
*should* be competing with are a few minutes ahead of you.

Nice whittling; that's concise.

All that said, it seems to me he's just gotta have considerable talent,
given his results vs. training/fitness/elderliness. Lance: beat (a
healthy and serious) Donovan outright, any date any distance over 100m,
and I'll spring for a very good bottle of wine from a real wine-making
country. ;-)

Charlie Pendejo said:

All that said, it seems to me he's just gotta have considerable talent,
given his results vs. training/fitness/elderliness. Lance: beat (a
healthy and serious) Donovan outright, any date any distance over 100m,
and I'll spring for a very good bottle of wine from a real wine-making
country. ;-)

He is pretty talented, no doubt about that. He was beating me (outright,
none of this bogus table BS) when we both started racing. Beating me "age
adjusted" is a ridiculous goal for him -- he's already achieved that and
he's hardly trying.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Charlie, please experiment some. It is supposed to be possible for google
to preserve attributions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, you don't get back on the downhill what you lose on
the uphill.

Logically, yeah; but wording affects emphasis e.g. "whatever you gain
on the downhill, you'll lose more on the uphill."

Whichever emphasis works for you.

[quote="Quoted message"]

Quoted message said:

With it being difficult to run fast enough on the downs to
maintain even an even effort, much less to pick up the pace
relatve to that, the place to make your gains relative to
even effort is on the ups. Energetically speaking.

Quoted message said:

People who pull away on the ups are putting too much effort,
usually, into the uphill and they come back on the down.

In Jim said:

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.

From a Sept. 1998 posting:

In article said:

does running downhill screw your knees up? i say this because the
steeper the hill, the further your leg has to fall resulting in more
impact, resulting in a jar.

Realizing that the hill is the diagonal of the horizontal at the point
of initial foot contact...and that the diagonal is longer than the
horizontal...it would make sense that a normal stride would be an
overstride on a hill because the next step would be on the bottom of
the diagonal from where the last step initiated...then it would make
sense to me...and has for the past 20 years that in going done hill,
I'd have to place my foot down more quickly so that I don't overstride.

The other part is that in running down hill, the idea is to keep the
body from impacting vertically...especially if one overstides...and
when you think about it...the normal stride is an overstride because it
lands on the bottom of the diagonal...so once again the thinking body
or the mindful runner shortens the stride but following Denny and
Charlie and Miles...and GAPO... their 180 may have to go up to 190 so
that there is no overstride and one literally rolls down the hill on
those 180 to 190 steps/minute...while the image is that body parallels
the diagonal with minimal vertical impact. I know it can be
done...doing it all the time.

And in going up hill, the same holds true but in reverse. The steeper
the hill the shorter the step so that the body maintains the slight
forward lean. That way I have taught several thousand people how to
fall up a hill. That way the shorter step keeps the diagonal from
being an overstride.

In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp