Uphill vs downhill running (physiology question)

Yes and yes but it also depends on what sort of hills you are talking about.

Typically runner B will be some combination of more athletic, better 100m speed, more fluid, more strength in the weight room, better feet, etc.

Runner A will typically be better at the half-marathon between these two hypothetical runners. They may also use a less loping stride in the 400 compared to runner B.

The uphill runner will have the strongest and most active glutes. The downhill runner will have good quad strength. Most forefoot runners I know do well on downhills as they have very strong quads. Not sure who you would count on to do well going uphill. There would definitely be a benefit to having a lighter frame and not having to carry so much weight up the hill. Otherwise, I am not sure what other attributes would correlate to uphill runners.

Bump

Fast stride turnover is essential for swift downhill running. Also, a low centre of gravity would be useful, both of which imply shorter stature. The inverse would apply to uphill. Naturally uphill uses the posterior chain much more, whereas downhill uses the anterior chain to a greater degree.

Precious Roy wrote:

The uphill runner will have the strongest and most active glutes. The downhill runner will have good quad strength. Most forefoot runners I know do well on downhills as they have very strong quads. Not sure who you would count on to do well going uphill. There would definitely be a benefit to having a lighter frame and not having to carry so much weight up the hill. Otherwise, I am not sure what other attributes would correlate to uphill runners.

This post confuses me. I do agree forefoot runners seems to do well downhill (runner A), and I agree with the other poster who says they have better technique/speed.

I'm on the other hand your typical runner B, slow downhill, heel striking, but on the muscle side my posterior chain is way less developed than quads.

I think forefoot runners have stronger calves/hamstrings, not quads.

I used to be a good uphill and downhill runner.

As I got older, my uphill speed remained good but downhill speed decreased. (relatively).

What changed and what did not may help answer the question.

good uphill: low weight, good power to weight ratio, good endurance, good willingness to hurt, good ability to judge effort level, good ability to redline without going into oxygen debt, good running efficiency/economy.

bad downhill: less top end speed, less bounce/spring in stride, poorer balance, more fear of falling, increased memory of bad falls (trails), less flexibility, less explosive power, shorter max stride length, likely fewer fast twitch muscle fibers and the few that are left fatigue quicker, less willingness to take risks, less core strength.

On hilly courses, with all else being equal, the better uphill runners beat the better downhill runners because more overall time is spent running uphill. More time to gain (or lose) on uphills than on downhills.

yesandyes wrote:

On hilly courses, with all else being equal, the better uphill runners beat the better downhill runners because more overall time is spent running uphill. More time to gain (or lose) on uphills than on downhills.

I have found this to be true especially as the hills got steeper. I am a good uphill runner but average downhill. Many races I went back and forth with faster downhill runners. In some trail races a couple runners would be out of sight after a downhill but when the next steep climb came, I would pass them before halfway up the hill. After a while, I would never see them again as they couldn't make up the time I gained especially if the hill was steep enough that they had to hike where I was still able to run.

I think the difference is mainly weight. Much harder for a heavier runner to overcome gravity. Same principle as why a hilly race is slower than a flat race.

This is definitely the best theory I've read on this thread. I've wondered about this a lot myself as I'm a much better downhill runner than uphill and have come up with my own ideas as to why. I've always thought height (and with it center of gravity) were huge. I'm pretty short at 5'7" and always find I'm relatively better at downhills compared to my tall friends and relatively worse on the uphill.

The stuff people have mentioned about speed, foot plant and weight making you better at uphills I don't think works. Personally I have horrible sprint speed, heel strike like it's my job and am light at 135lbs ... and I'm better downhill runner than up.

I think a lot of it comes down to height. I also think that runners with more speed/power will do well at uphills.

If it adds anything, I also notice I'm a lot better at gradual uphills or short steep ones rather than long steep ones. For anyone who's ran VCP for example, I love the Back Hills (both up and down), but hate going up Cemetery.

This is true. I still prefer hilly courses though over flatter ones just because the overall pace will be slower for everyone which helps me since I don't have a lot of speed. I think there area lot more "track speed" type guys out there than guys who just kill the uphills.

Soprano wrote:

I also think that runners with more speed/power will do well at uphills.

I am tall, heavy and speed-oriented and I can power up hills easily and can't run downhill for shit. Sometimes I wonder if I actually run faster uphill than downhill, instead of just relative to other people.

Soprano wrote:

I'm pretty short at 5'7" and always find I'm relatively better at downhills compared to my tall friends and relatively worse on the uphill... Personally I have horrible sprint speed, heel strike like it's my job and am light at 135lbs... and I'm better downhill runner than up.

I think a lot of it comes down to height. I also think that runners with more speed/power will do well at uphills.

We have an interesting point of comparison as I'm a little taller but not by much (5'9") and I come in at 170lbs so quite a bit heavier. I am also a midfoot striker. I love running uphill - midfoot striking has given me relatively strong calf muscles and extrinsic flexors and I feel it helps be bound up and 'bite off' a little more lateral movement for each stride. But I really dislike downhill as my natural tendency is to consciously plantarflex so as to land midfoot. This means my point of contact is well in front of my COG, much more than a natural heel striker and my tibialis anterior and extrinsic extensors aren't comfortable at all.

I think height is a big factor (lever length is also critical when talking about raw power output) but I also suspect footstrike patterns play a part as well.

From my own experience running downhill also takes conscious practise to grow comfortable with and I suspect some are better than others. Uphill, you just pump your arms, lift your knees and try not to pass out.

Those are some good points. I'm probably oversimplifying it by saying height was the crucial factor. There is probably some combination of height, COG, foot plant, stride length, and more at work.

How is being short an advantage dowhnhill?

Flat running requires a good balance of eccentric and concentric capacity. Eccentric in the calves, quads, glutes. Concentric in calves, hamstrings, glutes.

Uphill running is concentric dominant and those with good concentric quad abilities are smiled upon.

Downhill running is eccentric dominant, again in the calves, quads, glutes.

Big guys that go uphill good do so not because of their size (Newton says duh!), but because their quads are better at concentric contractions. Being heavy and sub-par at eccentric contractions will kill your downhill ability.

If you heel strike going downhill you can use the skeletal system to "roll" and somewhat bypass your otherwise crappy running skills on the flats and uphills. Again, this has nothing to do with body size, only body awareness.

Good god this is me. I'm a totally shit uphill runner, a slowish flat runner (17:50), and I assume a pretty decent downhill runner, as I've run 4:05 mile going down 4% grade.

Part of the reason I probably suck uphill is that I'm still not at race weight, I'm 5'8" and around 155 which is obviously much bigger than the typical 125-140 you might be looking at.

Possibly related, but I'm quite a strong climber when it comes to cycling, even carrying a little extra weight. Frustrating to climb that well cycling but be so utterly useless in any race that has a bump.

I'm a really good non-technical trail downhill runner. I used to be a good uphill runner too, but I'm now I'm about 25lbs heavier than my PR weight (5'9.5" 165 lbs vs 140 lbs 25 years ago), so the not being at race weight applies to me too.

In the local fun trail/xc series, that I'm running after not training for the past two months, I'm being left by people going by me left and right on the up hills (including my girlfriend), but am able to roll by people on the downhills well enough that it more than makes up for my uphill deficit for my current poor fitness. As formerly faster runner than most (29:x 6 mile time trial), I have better form/form memory than just about everyone in these races. I'm just old and hugely out of shape. With gravity assist on an constantly up/down course, I can still hit 4:30 pace on the downs.

A few years ago, doing an early season training run up and down a local 6 mile/2,000 ft climb gravel road, was hitting 5:07 pace average for the 6 mile downhill after not running all winter (xc skiing instead). You know how your quads can be trashed from downhills if you haven't done them in a while? My quads were totally fine after that run, and it wasn't from recent training. Apparently, my form when trying to go fast on downhill minimizes braking with the quads. (I visualize sprint form starting downhill, and maintain that form as much as possible, pushing with my legs down the hill rather than trying to brake.). Later, doing my first technical trail or mountain downhill of the season, my quads did get sore like expected, but those were downhills that required braking.

Do you think it could possibly be the force that is pushed against the ground when running? More force would most likely equal more vertical oscillation therefore gravity would have more of an effect on running up or down hills.

Someone who pushed a lot of force would be like runner B and get a lot of help from gravity downhill.

I think it's not so much physical size as leg length.

Uphill and downhill running involve different biomechanics and therefore presumably favor different characteristics; however, I doubt that anyone here knows what they are (I certainly don't), and all of the explanations I've read so far in this thread are highly dubious.