| |
Main
Date: 21 Sep 2006 22:57:54
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Pace correction for elevation?
|
Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's pace over
hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the cumulative elevation of
a route?
Tim
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 03:52:24
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
Tim Downie wrote:
> Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's pace over
> hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the cumulative elevation of
> a route?
>
> Tim
>
I think the slope has a lot to do with it, at least for me - not to
mention footing. IIRC for hiking we used to figure about 1000ft equals a
mile of time, which isn't too far from the 6:1 figure suggested. The
fast runners up here may do 3000ft of 30% slopes (2-2.5 mi) uphill in
about 45 min while 3000ft of 50%+ slopes might take 30-35 min (1.5 mi
including the 1/2 mi flat at the start), iirc - for the uphill part. The
gentler the slope, the less difference from flat.
A guy the other night did 9k, maybe 1000ft rolling, in 28+ min while 4
mi, 3000ft takes him about 43 min uphill.
For significant hills, I was thinking the vertical rate of climb makes
more sense than horizontal pace, but once I started doing more varied
courses, that didn't hold.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 22:13:49
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote
> Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's
> pace over hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the
> cumulative elevation of a route?
I have found the 6:1 formula to work quite well for me. Adding six
feet of flat running to the overall distance for each vertical foot
of rise.
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 23:37:54
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
On 2006-09-21, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's
>> pace over hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the
>> cumulative elevation of a route?
>
> I have found the 6:1 formula to work quite well for me. Adding six
> feet of flat running to the overall distance for each vertical foot
> of rise.
That's roughly consistent with what the Jack Daniels tables have. It
does vary a bit depending on how steep the grade is, so the best you
can do is a very approximate rule of thumb.
As a general rule, I'd be pretty cautious about "correcting" for *pace* in
that manner though. It might make some sense to correct for distance if you
want a measure of training volume, but even then, why not just log altitude
or time + intensity and be done with it ? (see Dan Stumpus's training reports)
In terms of "correcting" for pace, for a moderately rolling course you
should hit pretty close to "flats" times. For an extremely hilly course,
you shouldn't try to extrapolate.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 01:15:10
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneh68ij.shn.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-09-21, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
> > "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> >
> >> Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's
> >> pace over hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the
> >> cumulative elevation of a route?
> >
> > I have found the 6:1 formula to work quite well for me. Adding six
> > feet of flat running to the overall distance for each vertical foot
> > of rise.
>
> That's roughly consistent with what the Jack Daniels tables have. It
> does vary a bit depending on how steep the grade is, so the best you
> can do is a very approximate rule of thumb.
>
> As a general rule, I'd be pretty cautious about "correcting" for *pace* in
> that manner though. It might make some sense to correct for distance if
you
> want a measure of training volume, but even then, why not just log
altitude
> or time + intensity and be done with it ? (see Dan Stumpus's training
reports)
Hills use much the same muscles, but differently, so I tend to agree. Using
the 6:1 formula makes our upcoming 50 miler with 8.5k of climb appear more
daunting if I think of it as the equivalent of 59+ of flats! In reality,
though the hills slow you down, in a long race like that they're a welcome
break, unless your quads are shot for the downs that is. Logging separately
makes the most sense.
This reminds me of Mark's trail-slowdown figure of 20% slower for the trails
he commonly runs. Useful in a rough sense I suppose, but that's one reason I
train my time and effort only. Some of the trails I run are more than 20%
slower, some less. For an extreme example, the escarpment trail is roughly
60-70% slower than marathon pace for a similar effort distance.
But, using that 6:1 formula hill formula, the 18.6 mile ecarpment trail has
at least 5k of climb so that brings it to a bit over 24 miles, closer to the
length of a marathon. The pace is then seen to be roughly only 25-35%
slower than MP, accounted for by the rocky/rooty terrain and the trail
ability of the runner. Useful meauses, if imprecise.
-Tony
> In terms of "correcting" for pace, for a moderately rolling course you
> should hit pretty close to "flats" times. For an extremely hilly course,
> you shouldn't try to extrapolate.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:54:57
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-09-21, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Is there an approximate correction that you can apply to one's
>>> pace over hills to estimate pace on the flat if one knows the
>>> cumulative elevation of a route?
>>
>> I have found the 6:1 formula to work quite well for me. Adding six
>> feet of flat running to the overall distance for each vertical foot
>> of rise.
>
> That's roughly consistent with what the Jack Daniels tables have. It
> does vary a bit depending on how steep the grade is, so the best you
> can do is a very approximate rule of thumb.
>
> As a general rule, I'd be pretty cautious about "correcting" for
> *pace* in that manner though. It might make some sense to correct for
> distance if you want a measure of training volume, but even then, why
> not just log altitude or time + intensity and be done with it ? (see
> Dan Stumpus's training reports)
>
> In terms of "correcting" for pace, for a moderately rolling course you
> should hit pretty close to "flats" times. For an extremely hilly
> course,
> you shouldn't try to extrapolate.
Thanks, I was just kind of curious as I was trying to do a 10 mile MP run
the other day but it was windy as hell and my 10 mile route isn't flat. It
was actually 10.4 miles and 550ft ascent and I averaged 7:42.
Giving the figures the 6:1 twist translates to a 6:31 pace (which seems
surprisingly fast). In practice, I very much doubt that I'll come anywhere
near that in my marathon largely because I really haven't trained
consistently enough to know my "marathon pace" and that run was probably
faster than my true MP. There's also the issue of how hilly is "extremely
hill"? Some of that 550 ft could be described as rolling so I ought to
knock off a bit for that.
Tell you what, I think I'll wait till I've done my marathon. Then I'll know
my marathon pace. ;-)
Tim
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 14:11:14
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote
> Thanks, I was just kind of curious as I was trying to do a 10 mile MP run
> the other day but it was windy as hell and my 10 mile route isn't flat.
> It was actually 10.4 miles and 550ft ascent and I averaged 7:42.
I ran a 10k with 1200' of climb, and interviewed 5 or 6 runners about their
comparative times to flat 10k's.
The rule for that particular trail 10k was approximately (for an equal up
and down course), was a bit over 1 minute per 200' of up/down (for runners
in the high 30's to mid 40's in a flat 10k -- I think you are in that
range...). This course had no downhills steep enough to cause you to brake,
and no technical downs. Either of the above would make a big difference.
So this would correspond to a 7:22 flat equivalent pace. (no warranty on my
math!).
> Giving the figures the 6:1 twist translates to a 6:31 pace (which seems
> surprisingly fast).
Can't be right....
> In practice, I very much doubt that I'll come anywhere near that in my
> marathon largely because I really haven't trained consistently enough to
> know my "marathon pace" and that run was probably faster than my true MP.
If you know your pace at 10k and 5k races prior to your last marathon, you
can use that to extrapolate your marathon time. Use the difference in pace
in seconds/km between 5k or 10k to your last marathon. That method seems to
be pretty close for me.
> Tell you what, I think I'll wait till I've done my marathon. Then I'll
> know my marathon pace. ;-)
True, but it's good to have an idea of how fast to go out...go 15 sec/mile
too fast, and you'll bonk.
-- Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 19:40:15
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Thanks, I was just kind of curious as I was trying to do a 10 mile
>> MP run the other day but it was windy as hell and my 10 mile route
>> isn't flat. It was actually 10.4 miles and 550ft ascent and I averaged
>> 7:42.
>
> I ran a 10k with 1200' of climb, and interviewed 5 or 6 runners about
> their comparative times to flat 10k's.
>
> The rule for that particular trail 10k was approximately (for an
> equal up and down course), was a bit over 1 minute per 200' of
> up/down (for runners in the high 30's to mid 40's in a flat 10k -- I
> think you are in that range...). This course had no downhills steep
> enough to cause you to brake, and no technical downs. Either of the
> above would make a big difference.
> So this would correspond to a 7:22 flat equivalent pace. (no warranty
> on my math!).
>
>> Giving the figures the 6:1 twist translates to a 6:31 pace (which
>> seems surprisingly fast).
>
> Can't be right....
I think we've already established that maths isn't my stongest subject. ;-)
>
>> In practice, I very much doubt that I'll come anywhere near that in
>> my marathon largely because I really haven't trained consistently
>> enough to know my "marathon pace" and that run was probably faster
>> than my true MP.
>
> If you know your pace at 10k and 5k races prior to your last
> marathon, you can use that to extrapolate your marathon time. Use
> the difference in pace in seconds/km between 5k or 10k to your last
> marathon. That method seems to be pretty close for me.
>
>> Tell you what, I think I'll wait till I've done my marathon. Then
>> I'll know my marathon pace. ;-)
>
> True, but it's good to have an idea of how fast to go out...go 15
> sec/mile too fast, and you'll bonk.
This does presuppose that I'll be looking at my watch. The more running I
do, the more I feel that new fangled things like wrist worn chronographs are
a dangerous innovation. I think I'll have a squint at the sun when I start
and another one when I finish. No way to run a PB I know but I'm actually
enjoying running on "feel" rather than watching my pace (or have done during
my last two races anyway).
I'm the kind of guy who always tries to make up a slow mile (no matter how
slow) in the next mile to get "back on track" rather than pacing myself over
a few miles. Given such fecklessness, I think I'm better off without a
watch. ;-)
Tim
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 23:07:25
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote
> This does presuppose that I'll be looking at my watch. The more running I
> do, the more I feel that new fangled things like wrist worn chronographs
> are a dangerous innovation. I think I'll have a squint at the sun when I
> start and another one when I finish. No way to run a PB I know but I'm
> actually enjoying running on "feel" rather than watching my pace (or have
> done during my last two races anyway).
That's a great way to go if you know, if you've learned "the feel". I think
your ultra experience (where one can learn to run 50 or 100 miles without
bonking) is a great help here. My recent problem is that I've got a pretty
good feel for a 5 hour mountain race, and for a 50 miler (8+ hours), but my
marathon feel is completely lost. Hope I get it back on my next one.
> I'm the kind of guy who always tries to make up a slow mile (no matter how
> slow) in the next mile to get "back on track" rather than pacing myself
> over a few miles. Given such fecklessness, I think I'm better off without
> a watch. ;-)
Fortunately, I seem to have feckfullness in that regard :-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 19:40:34
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:4niovrFaogt9U1@individual.net...
> Dan Stumpus wrote:
> This does presuppose that I'll be looking at my watch. The more
> running I do, the more I feel that new fangled things like wrist worn
> chronographs are a dangerous innovation.
As far a know we have no instrument that we can strap on that tells us
how we feel on given day/moment. The more you learn to feel yourself
the better the runner you will be. I'll bend a little if you are doing a
track workout.
>I think I'll have a squint at the sun when I start and another one when
>I finish. No way to run a PB I know but I'm actually enjoying running
>on "feel" rather than watching my pace (or have done during my last two
>races anyway).
Been running on "feel" for 15 years. I wear watch in a race to only
keep my total time and that assumes I remember to start and stop it.
There are times I start the chrono and then switch it to time of day
frame. When asked for the time in race I'll answer 3 o'clock. I get some
strange looks. ;)
> I'm the kind of guy who always tries to make up a slow mile (no matter
> how slow) in the next mile to get "back on track" rather than pacing
> myself over a few miles. Given such fecklessness, I think I'm better
> off without a watch. ;-)
Me too!
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:41:06
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote
> Been running on "feel" for 15 years. I wear watch in a race to only keep
> my total time and that assumes I remember to start and stop it. There are
> times I start the chrono and then switch it to time of day frame. When
> asked for the time in race I'll answer 3 o'clock. I get some strange
> looks. ;)
I'm similar, but not quite as hard core. In my last race, I kept track of
the half-way split, and then only looked at my watch again 3 miles from the
finish to see if I should pick it up to make a magic number. The guy I was
running with for the last 7-8 miles said "Wow, I think we might break 5
hours!" And I told him "Don't tell me, I'll look near the end."
-- Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:20:45
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
On 2006-09-22, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Thanks, I was just kind of curious as I was trying to do a 10 mile MP run
> the other day but it was windy as hell and my 10 mile route isn't flat. It
> was actually 10.4 miles and 550ft ascent and I averaged 7:42.
>
> Giving the figures the 6:1 twist translates to a 6:31 pace (which seems
> surprisingly fast).
I think you've done this incorrectly. It does seem awfully fast. I get 7:15 which
seems more plausible. Maybe you used yards instead of feet ?
10 / (10+(550*6 /5280.)) * (7*60 + 42) = 434.8
> faster than my true MP. There's also the issue of how hilly is "extremely
> hill"? Some of that 550 ft could be described as rolling so I ought to
> knock off a bit for that.
Part of the problem is that you do gain something back on the downs, so if you
"correct" for altitude, you could be left with a downhill course and not a flat
course.
I wouldn't bother correcting for that sort of climb unless it's all packed into
one part of the course, but I suppose it's still nice to have the 7:15 figure as
an "optimists" estimate.
> Tell you what, I think I'll wait till I've done my marathon. Then I'll know
> my marathon pace. ;-)
Seems to be the most effective method.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 14:33:21
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-09-22, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I was just kind of curious as I was trying to do a 10 mile
>> MP run
>> the other day but it was windy as hell and my 10 mile route isn't
>> flat. It
>> was actually 10.4 miles and 550ft ascent and I averaged 7:42.
>>
>> Giving the figures the 6:1 twist translates to a 6:31 pace (which
>> seems surprisingly fast).
>
> I think you've done this incorrectly. It does seem awfully fast. I
> get 7:15 which seems more plausible. Maybe you used yards instead of
> feet ?
Doh! Absolutely right. I knew it sounded too fast to be true. Ah well, it
was fun to believe even fleetingly that I could be that swift. ;-)
Cheers.
Tim
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:26:29
From: Lowtuc Zowtuc
Subject: Re: Pace correction for elevation?
|
23=BC=B0tilt N pole is back.
40076Km around equator.
90 miles less from N pole to N pole.
equator to N and S differ some.
butt at 7 p.m. tonight brit time......
I say earth is traveling thru space at a south west angle.
around the sun.
and then the milky way is traveling toward vega. in the North East or
North.
the zodiac is allso traveling disk at a slight angle to: were we can see
5 zodiac in a vertical way. and the big dipper is the horizon last week.
as far as the hill. on me bike. I tend to huff it up. saves me sproket.
did some math. butt me notes are not with me.
so I say. follow the zodiac. then we might be at the low end of the
disk.
look for the W....at heads up.....
butt like I said. me notes are not with me...
Don't trip and fall down the hill.
half way there?.
K.I.S.S. Bite me.
|
|
