If the flat course had a really windy day or it was terribly hot and maybe bad footing it could be slower than the rolling hill course.
Otherwise, no.
If the flat course had a really windy day or it was terribly hot and maybe bad footing it could be slower than the rolling hill course.
Otherwise, no.
Umm.... ever heard of CIM?
Physiologically speaking no. Practically speaking maybe... I have had good success with out and backs where the uphill is gradual on the way out. The way back is a huge mental relief and really helps dial it in.
dsafdsfds wrote:
Do you guys really think it's a coincidence that the marathon WR is always set/lowered on a course that is extremely flat? Don't you think that pretty much closes this discussion?
It is impossible for a course to be perfectly flat because of the curvature of the Earth.
This helps marathoners not because it's flat, but because the distance is far enough that they're going significantly downhill in every direction.
If you had an ultramarathon all the way around the world, it would have a drop in elevation twice the diameter of Earth, but also no drop at all.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elevationBad Wigins wrote:
dsafdsfds wrote:
Do you guys really think it's a coincidence that the marathon WR is always set/lowered on a course that is extremely flat? Don't you think that pretty much closes this discussion?
It is impossible for a course to be perfectly flat because of the curvature of the Earth.
This helps marathoners not because it's flat, but because the distance is far enough that they're going significantly downhill in every direction.
If you had an ultramarathon all the way around the world, it would have a drop in elevation twice the diameter of Earth, but also no drop at all.
rogermortimer wrote:
I think footing makes more of a difference than anything. One year I finished 4th in my Power 5 conference in XC - 10K back in the day - and it most of the race was on a rock hard trail that was like a track (I was a miler). Run that race in the mud and I would have been 20th. Conditions matter in XC, except to truly great XC runners (why I was so impressed by Connor Mantz's performance this year).
I agree conditions are huge especially in cross country. I ran at NAIA cross country nationals in 1985 and when we warmed up on the course the day before perfect conditions that evening and overnight 12 inches of rain fell in Kenosha. Needless to say the course was a lake in sections and the hills on the trails were like a mudslide. Definitely makes the race more mental and not always do the best guys run the best conditions change how many finish
jamin wrote:
I say maybe. The seconds you lose on the uphill could be regained on the downhill, plus a bonus second when it flattens out and you have that little boost from the downhill speed. I stress the word mild.
No. Unless you change the laws of physics.
Try this experiment. Get on a treadmill. Set to around marathon pace. Set incline to 1%, initially. Toggle pace each minute to 1.5%, 0.5%, 2.0%, 0.0%, 2.5%, -0.5%, 3.0%, -1.0%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 0.5%, etc. Some other day, try with fixed 1% instead. Compare how you felt.
Charlesvdw wrote:
jamin wrote:
I say maybe. The seconds you lose on the uphill could be regained on the downhill, plus a bonus second when it flattens out and you have that little boost from the downhill speed. I stress the word mild.
No. Unless you change the laws of physics.
What would physics say about a race between rolling balls on two tracks, with the same start and finish height and straight line distance - a ball that has to go up and down rolling hills, or a straight shot?
https://youtu.be/DCMQRPQS9T4One cannot compare a ball on a rolling track and running. There is an explanation to why running differs. For a ball, the big difference to running is that it rolls. We have to land on the foot and we also change our running slightly into a hill and down a hill. Running economy depend a lot on storing the impact forces into the muscles and tendons and releasing this in the gait. Uphill this is reduced a lot and downhill this can increase, but not to the degree needed. So we have to use more energy when we climb up the hill and get less help from landing impact, and we need to use less energy downhill, but are not as efficient at using the "free" energy from gravity throught he impact forces. This makes us less efficient for a rolling course than a flat one.
Mental aspects can still make us perform better than theory and make up for some of the difference, but the physics is clear and it is for instance well documented by the Strava GAP-funtionality (on average figures for runners)
point-to-point, net elevation loss wrote:
Of course it's possible, are you daft?
He said rolling hills, are you daft?
Nope
I always feel that hitting a bit of an incline late in a race when I'm tired is beneficial to me, as it loads the muscles a bit different and straightens out my fatigued form a bit. Not sure if it actually makes me faster overall
This is the ENTIRE distinction. Not sure why anyone else is saying anything without first talking about this. Sharp uphill followed by long, drawn-out downhills are much faster than symmetrical hills.
81314082955 wrote:
This is the ENTIRE distinction. Not sure why anyone else is saying anything without first talking about this. Sharp uphill followed by long, drawn-out downhills are much faster than symmetrical hills.
Really? Show us your calculations?
Hardloper wrote:
Renato Canova and Kevin Hanson both say yes. See the third to last paragraph
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5276018#5276640
The conclusion Renato comes to here is laughable. He first explains that many athletes don't specifically prepare for the 10000 during that period because there simply wasn't many opportunities for high level competition and adverse conditions are likely to harm an athletes performance and then somehow uses the fact that the 15k WR was done on the Seven Hills course? Name me another international world class 15k? There are none! And the only big name 15k I can think of off the top of my head is Gate River Run (maybe one in Jacksonville?) and that race only brings top level Americans that are nowhere near able to challenge the WR. Get big prize money, pacers and a flat course with decent weather and that record will be broken in the races first year. 41:05 is roughly worth a 59 low. Kandie and the other 4 in the pack in Valencia came through 15k right around that time, couldn't find splits but used the race video. Use common sense.
Boston is downhill.
Ignoring potential physiological advantages of slight rollers (mixes up muscle usage), the answer is that a flat course will always be faster than a net-flat course with rolling hills. Taken to the extreme, imagine a marathon where you climb 13.1 miles up a 90 degree cliff for the first half, and plummet off of the cliff 13.1 miles down for the second half. Sure, you'll be really fast in the second half (a few minutes of free fall) but this is more than made up for by the days and days you spent climbing up.
The reasoning is the same as why a course where one half is into the wind, and the other half is with the wind, will always be slower. Imagine running your first half of a marathon into a 100mph hurricane, and then running the second half with the hurricane at your back. It's a trick of course as you'll never make it to the half as the wind will prevent any forward movement.
Helping wind or hills can decrease your times toward 0 sec, but when you are fighting against wind or hills, the amount of time you spend is unbounded. This asymmetry in gains or losses is something that any GME short-seller is intimately familiar with.
Though clearly the extreme examples are not realistic, the same logic applies when the hills are 45 degrees or 10 degrees or even 0.1 degrees.
OP never stipulated a loop course