How to treat a hill ?

jprender

I'm just looking for some opinions on how your guys/gals attack hills when running.

Something I've noticed about myself is that when running up hills, generally my pace is a little faster than when I'm on the flat or going downhill. I suppose that it's because I really "dig-in" when faced with the challenge of a hill, and then I tend to "recover" when I'm over it, letting gravity help me on the declines and getting back to a more stable pace.

Is this a really bad tactic?, and is it better to take it easier going up the hill, and make up lost time when going down the other side ?

Or maybe, just a nice even pace regardless of going up/down/on the flat ?

What is the best way to treat a hill ?

Krusty_Clown

Are you sure you are increasing pace (do you look at Garmin pace statistics?) It could be that you are increasing effort as you tackle the hill. Some great thread on uphill and down-hill running previously. I'll see if I can locate 'em.

Krusty_Clown

Uphill and Downhill running tips.

jprender

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Are you sure you are increasing pace (do you look at Garmin pace statistics?) It could be that you are increasing effort as you tackle the hill. Some great thread on uphill and down-hill running previously. I'll see if I can locate 'em.

Yeah, I'm looking at my splits (using Runkeeper).

Here is a fairly typical training run, although it's more of an "incline" than a "hill".

donothoponpop

A 10 meter gain over a kilometer isn't a hill. That's a 1:100 gradient.

I would suggest you are indeed mentally speeding up where you perceive a hill is coming up. Time yourself over a proper hilly course and you'll see what slows you down.

metamagical

Being able to maintain a consistent pace across varied terrain is a valuable skill to have, so fair play to you if you're managing it. However, if you're a strong uphill runner, recovering on the downhill is a bit tactical mistake in races - that's where the guys who are weaker on the hills will gain or make up ground on you. Ideally you should be working hardest just beyond the top of the hill, not at the top - that means you'll have kept up the pace and pushed on to the downhill.

The other thing is that your figures are showing a max elevation gain per km of 11m. How do you handle bigger climbs or sharper ones?

jprender

donothoponpop wrote: »

A 10 meter gain over a kilometer isn't a hill. That's a 1:100 gradient.

Yep, it's an incline rather than a hill alright I should have picked a better example.

donothoponpop wrote: »

I would suggest you are indeed mentally speeding up where you perceive a hill is coming up. Time yourself over a proper hilly course and you'll see what slows you down.

I'll now have a search for decent hills around my area to see if they will indeed kill me.

What sort of gradient would be considered a hill on here, and over what sort of distance?

jprender

metamagical wrote: »

The other thing is that your figures are showing a max elevation gain per km of 11m. How do you handle bigger climbs or sharper ones?

I'll go back through my runs and see if I can dig something out.

donothoponpop

jprender wrote: »

Yep, it's an incline rather than a hill alright I should have picked a better example.





I'll now have a search for decent hills around my area to see if they will indeed kill me.

What sort of gradient would be considered a hill on here, and over what sort of distance?

Those gradients you posted would be considered very flat by most everyone (I know these are subjective terms), but a hilly road might be 1:20 to 1:10 or so. Offroad hills would be tougher, 1:4 right up to cliffs.

T runner

metamagical wrote: »

Being able to maintain a consistent pace across varied terrain is a valuable skill to have, so fair play to you if you're managing it. However, if you're a strong uphill runner, recovering on the downhill is a bit tactical mistake in races - that's where the guys who are weaker on the hills will gain or make up ground on you. Ideally you should be working hardest just beyond the top of the hill, not at the top - that means you'll have kept up the pace and pushed on to the downhill.

The other thing is that your figures are showing a max elevation gain per km of 11m. How do you handle bigger climbs or sharper ones?

I disagree tehre. An even effort is best over a hilly course if possible. There may be Mitigating racing circumstances: e.g. you might be having to work harder to keep with a group when losing a group would be a greater racing disadvantage than the inefficiency at running at different intensities.

T runner

jprender wrote: »

Yeah, I'm looking at my splits (using Runkeeper).

Here is a fairly typical training run, although it's more of an "incline" than a "hill".

A 1:100 gain over a kilometer might only correspond to 2-3 seconds over a flat kilometer. There would be know noticeable reason to check stride lenght or cadence so the pace wpould remain constant. There may actually be no increase in effort, if the body adjusted to the change with a slight improvement of form.

jprender

donothoponpop wrote: »

Those gradients you posted would be considered very flat by most everyone (I know these are subjective terms), but a hilly road might be 1:20 to 1:10 or so. Offroad hills would be tougher, 1:4 right up to cliffs.

Ok, just checked back, and the greatest incline I've come across has been an average of 8.4%, and yes, it kicked my ass !

So I think that the first response by Krusty was spot on, my effort is increasing (as it should), and not my pace.


Jeez, one of the first posts I've started in here and I've made an idiot of myself :rolleyes:

RacoonQueen

jprender wrote: »

Jeez, one of the first posts I've started in here and I've made an idiot of myself :rolleyes:

Nah you just had a mountain runner respond to you. They have a different definition of what a hill is to the rest of us.

Slogger Jogger

Cmon down to Wicklow and we'll show some hills

I'd bow to T-Runners opinion here. 3rd place on Powerscourt Ridge race last weekend so in good marathon training / hill running form. Sometimes the hill demands respect and can reduce the majority to but a walked stride.

Krusty_Clown

jprender wrote: »

Jeez, one of the first posts I've started in here and I've made an idiot of myself :rolleyes:

There are no idiots here (just idiotic questions ). /joke..


I like Mapmyrun's algorithm for categorizing hills:



Basically, it's not a hill unless it's 500m long and at least a 3% grade (obviously this is meaningless, if you're doing short hill reps on something really steep.

Here's an example from last week's run. These hills feel like feckers, but... only rate a 4 or a 5 on their hard-climbs scale. Oh, and my pace slowed dramatically, while running up these!

donothoponpop

jprender wrote: »

Ok, just checked back, and the greatest incline I've come across has been an average of 8.4%, and yes, it kicked my ass !

So I think that the first response by Krusty was spot on, my effort is increasing (as it should), and not my pace.


Jeez, one of the first posts I've started in here and I've made an idiot of myself :rolleyes:

Not a bit of it! You've learned something practical about your training, and also increased the likelihood of you one day running off-road across glorious open mountain. This has been a good day!

jprender

donothoponpop wrote: »

and also increased the likelihood of you one day running off-road across glorious open mountain.

I LOL'd.

Strictly tarmac for this boy, tackling those killer 1% hills

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I like Mapmyrun's algorithm for categorizing hills:



Basically, it's not a hill unless it's 500m long and at least a 3% grade (obviously this is meaningless, if you're doing short hill reps on something really steep.

Here's an example from last week's run. These hills feel like feckers, but... only rate a 4 or a 5 on their hard-climbs scale. Oh, and my pace slowed dramatically, while running up these!

That's great!! I am glad to kow that I have been regularly running up a cat3 hill. I always thought your hills were a lot tougher!!

Clearlier

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

There are no idiots here (just idiotic questions ). /joke..


I like Mapmyrun's algorithm for categorizing hills:



Basically, it's not a hill unless it's 500m long and at least a 3% grade (obviously this is meaningless, if you're doing short hill reps on something really steep.

Here's an example from last week's run. These hills feel like feckers, but... only rate a 4 or a 5 on their hard-climbs scale. Oh, and my pace slowed dramatically, while running up these!

They look like the definitions used by cycling although I believe that they were originally defined by Michelin to give car drivers a guide to crossing some of the mountains in France.

Agree with T-Runner about even effort. I've run a number of races at marathon pace heart rate (if that makes sense) and sometimes when going up hills I'll dropp my heart rate to 1-2 beats below my target to prevent my competitive instincts from taking over. I'll still usually take time out of whoever is running with me. Not infrequently people will pass me at the bottom of the hill but fall way behind when we get to the top. I imagine it's a little different near the front but I don't know what it's like up there That said when I'm actually racing, people around me are usually faster up hills but I think that's because I'm a little heavy!

Krusty_Clown

menoscemo wrote: »

That's great!! I am glad to kow that I have been regularly running up a cat3 hill. I always thought your hills were a lot tougher!!

If it were a pissing contest, I'd point out that if you add up all of the three hills, you get a much bigger hill. But it's not. So I won't.

Krusty_Clown

Clearlier wrote: »

They look like the definitions used by cycling although I believe that they were originally defined by Michelin to give car drivers a guide to crossing some of the mountains in France.

Yep, I believe they're derived from the Tour de France cycling route and hill categorization, you'd have to refer to the mapmyrun site for further info.

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If it were a pissing contest, I'd point out that if you add up all of the three hills, you get a much bigger hill. But it's not. So I won't.

Hey, Mine has a category 5 hill as well

Krusty_Clown

menoscemo wrote: »

Hey, Mine has a category 5 hill as well

..and it's a biggy. There's only one way to settle this. You come out and run my hills, and I'll come out and run your hills. Then we'll go out and run D'pop's and Slogger Joggers, and realize that we're both basically soft.

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

..and it's a biggy. There's only one way to settle this. You come out and run my hills, and I'll come out and run your hills. Then we'll go out and run D'pop's and Slogger Joggers, and realize that we're both basically soft.

I prefer to stick to the tarmac. My poor ankles can't take all that rough terrain.

T runner

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Cmon down to Wicklow and we'll show some hills

I'd bow to T-Runners opinion here. 3rd place on Powerscourt Ridge race last weekend so in good marathon training / hill running form. Sometimes the hill demands respect and can reduce the majority to but a walked stride.

Dont know about that. The two runners ahead paced it better for sure! Hill running you do have to put more effort into the ups or youll lose too much time. As even as possible i suppose is most efficent for the body in a time trial sense. A race youd have to adapt.

Road running: even effort would be best. Youd lose momentum going up a hill...so a small bump of a hill might be forced through as the extra effort to keep momentum through it might be less tahn teh effort to accelerate to flat pace after the hill.

ecoli

Gonna come at this from a different angle from the Billy goat gang (i.e mountain runners who frolick up what most people refer to as hills but they consider flat;))

In terms of Road racing I think T runner has a point even effort to conservative is a smart approach. I think I remember Bernard Lagat in college talking about how he left competitors to "attack" the hills.

He felt that by doing this the increase effort meant that they were working too hard (anaerobically) and as a result this would take its toll later in the race.

Growing up coach always told me short snappy strides working my arms was a good approach to hills without increasing effort too much and has worked for me

nerraw1111

Coming from a race perspective, it is sometimes useful to attack the hills in the hope of breaking the runners behind you and get a gap that will put them off trying to bridge.

I tend not to push too hard on the climb until near the top so you hit the summit running and get a gap on the descent. Out of sight = out of mind. Nothing worse than breaking your backside powering up a hill only to be overtaken on the descent because you're too knackered to run.

metamagical

T runner wrote: »

I disagree there. An even effort is best over a hilly course if possible. There may be Mitigating racing circumstances: e.g. you might be having to work harder to keep with a group when losing a group would be a greater racing disadvantage than the inefficiency at running at different intensities.

I think we're both actually in agreement - I mean that there's a natural tendency to slack off on downhills, and that you should keep pushing there rather than take it as a recovery. I've been guilty of that in several XC and IMRA races, and there's nothing as frustrating as being passed on a descent by someone you overtook with ease on a climb.

ocnoc

T runner wrote: »

Hill running you do have to put more effort into the ups or youll lose too much time

Yes you'll lose some time, but if you attack hard enough with the aid of gravity, its easy* to make it back up


*Hill racing is never easy

T runner

ocnoc wrote: »

Yes you'll lose some time, but if you attack hard enough with the aid of gravity, its easy* to make it back up


*Hill racing is never easy

John Lenihan's attitude was treat the top of the mountain as if its the end of the race. Hed take a minute or two cruising after the top and then push on down. (Leg strenght is a huge factor in fast descending especially in long races.)
If the hill was made of a smooth surface where there was no obstcale to descending then an even effort is possible. Becuase its not, even the best descenders will have to slow on an uneven surface relative to an even one. You must alter your stride to some degree which makes your descending less efficient.
That means that they will have left something on the course by not going harder up. They could have managed the same descent speed by climbing a little harder.

Obviously in very long races where pacing and/or energy supplies are greater factors: a steady pace up the first climb may mean having revs in the tank when it counts at the end.

* Going hard up is harder than going steady up.

ocnoc

and theres me thinking you had to attack off of the summit when peope are "recovering"

T runner

ocnoc wrote: »

and theres me thinking you had to attack off of the summit when peope are "recovering"

Thats a great place to attack ofcourse. But it means you have gone up at the correct effort and youre competitors they havent. If youre in group youll back off slighly so that you can crack the gap off the top.

If youre on your own youll go a little harder and use a few minutes to transition. That might be faster although more difficult to lose stragglers if they are around.


What im saying go up as fast as possible leaving enough to descend strongly. So if it was a perfectly smooth downhill you would leave more in the tank. As it isnt you go up harder because you cant come down as hard. An example like the sugarloaf: youd put a lot into teh climb as the descent is more about technique than fitness. (granted you need something to shift the feet fast)


My problem on Powerscourt ridge was that Brian Furey was "recovering" a good distance down the mountain ahead of me. If id gone up harder i may have been able to witness this recovering at first hand and left myself with less to do.

Anyway Ill show you all this at the next race.;)

jeffontour

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Nothing worse than breaking your backside powering up a hill only to be overtaken on the descent

Tell me about it! I climbed well to Maulin during the Powerscourt race and had lost 3 places before the river as I descended with all the dexterity of a mitten wearing violin player.

Too little hill racing this year.

ThisRegard

It's been said already, if you just continue on through at the summit you'll notice a lot of people noticeably slow right down. I do very little overtaking on the climbs, not by choice minD you.

Although I don't think you could be as bad as James Cracknell. I've been watching the Adidas Terrex Coast to Coast at ungodly hours of a Sunday morning on Channel 4 the last 2 weeks and he's absolutely brutal on the down hill sections, even by his own admission. I don't think I've ever seen someone look so uncomfortable going down at an IMRA race. That coast to coast race is great by the way.

anymore

Your own pace on hills v.s flats is not the only rel;evant factor but how the other runners are doing on the hill !
I find i can make up pace on hills although, possibly due to age, i am not in the fast league versus good runners. ( I have only been runnning races for a year and am in mid fifties.)
One imprtant thing on the hills is not to tire yourslef out as that will impact later on. If getting a good time is a factor for you, try not to ease off as you approach the crest of the hill - it is a tendency for msot people, but keep the same pace you used on the rest of the hill until you get right to the top and then you will gain ever so slightly on other runners who will ease off near the top.