femurboy69 wrote:
Probably the best benefit of running hills is the improvement it has on form.
and the reduced impact.
femurboy69 wrote:
Probably the best benefit of running hills is the improvement it has on form.
and the reduced impact.
To be fair, that race is basically stairs the entire way, and pretty steep. The winners of that race usually specialize in mountain running or Nordic skiing. Most would need to walk it.
Also the guy that won the race "only" has a 30 minute 10k pr and 3:59 1500, yet he whooped Jakob. Different disciplines.
toro wrote:
coahc wrote:
Oh but let me tell you about the famous hill sessions of Abdi Bile 9 months before he won the world 1500m champs in 1987. Haha all those who are anyone has hills in their program.
Laurel St (600m) and Lorton (2000m).
I got to do plenty of those after the Bile years.
Yea Cook broke Lorton 2k into 2x800 1x400 rest for after first 800 was 75 seconds then 60 seconds
I think we did 2-3 sets I remember chasing Stephan Franke on of them in 2:11 but Abdi was running close to 2 flat.
Cook got the idea from Peter Coe who had Seb do 800m hill repeats back in his day.
35 years ago I can still remember driving down that hill to the water and hammering up.
Good memories in time.
Interesting take from Frans Bosch on that subject:
Hill training is specific strength training with a very small overload for runners. During hill training, there can only be a high degree of specificity if the total movement performed is close to the target movement. Therefore, the rate of ascent should not be too high (tenths of percent to a few percent), otherwise the correct running technique cannot be maintained. A large overload by means of a high gradient immediately impairs the specific coordination pattern of the running movement. The running movement is modified on steep hills in such a way that the contact times become longer (loss of reactivity) and a different muscle use of especially hamstrings, gluteus maximus and quadriceps femoris takes place. From the point of view of exercise physiology, it is advantageous to include hill training in a running program because more power is required from the muscles involved than on flat terrain. From this point of view, hill training is used for distances between 300 and 2000 m. The training goal is to increase aerobic endurance. This form of hill training has an intensity and density similar to tempo training. It should be noted that due to organizational problems, the interval between repetitions is somewhat longer. The load range is between 2000 and 8000 m. The shorter variant of hill training (100 to 300 m) should be handled with caution because of the aforementioned low specificity, which is coupled with a high overload at a slope angle of a few percent. It can even be considered to replace the extra resistance of uphill running with running on flat ground with a headwind.
Really interesting subject. As mentioned before there is a lot of empirical support for hill training, because pretty much every world-class runner has integrated some form of hill training at some point. But the argumentation for the effectiveness of most forms of hill training does not seem very clear yet.
Bad Wigins wrote:
What if you trained on a hill sideways?
A track race is always turn left, turn left. On the turns you are leaning left, so the ground is like a sideways hill sloping downward from left to right.
I have just invented counterclockwise hill reps.
You're overthinking it. Just train well, and results will follow
Yes. They're a useful pt technique to straighten out your stride.
comadenem wrote:
Interesting take from Frans Bosch on that subject:
Hill training is specific strength training with a very small overload for runners. During hill training, there can only be a high degree of specificity if the total movement performed is close to the target movement. Therefore, the rate of ascent should not be too high (tenths of percent to a few percent), otherwise the correct running technique cannot be maintained. A large overload by means of a high gradient immediately impairs the specific coordination pattern of the running movement. The running movement is modified on steep hills in such a way that the contact times become longer (loss of reactivity) and a different muscle use of especially hamstrings, gluteus maximus and quadriceps femoris takes place. From the point of view of exercise physiology, it is advantageous to include hill training in a running program because more power is required from the muscles involved than on flat terrain. From this point of view, hill training is used for distances between 300 and 2000 m. The training goal is to increase aerobic endurance. This form of hill training has an intensity and density similar to tempo training. It should be noted that due to organizational problems, the interval between repetitions is somewhat longer. The load range is between 2000 and 8000 m. The shorter variant of hill training (100 to 300 m) should be handled with caution because of the aforementioned low specificity, which is coupled with a high overload at a slope angle of a few percent. It can even be considered to replace the extra resistance of uphill running with running on flat ground with a headwind.
Really interesting subject. As mentioned before there is a lot of empirical support for hill training, because pretty much every world-class runner has integrated some form of hill training at some point. But the argumentation for the effectiveness of most forms of hill training does not seem very clear yet.
+1 thanks for the great excerpt/quote
jakobbb wrote:
So you are agreeing with my statement. He was woefully unprepared by not doing enough hills, especially those that match race terrain. He finished 30th in mostly non-elite field.
No :-) He is not preparing for such a race. He was invited and showed up, but went too hard for it. A good experience of an unimportant race. But, if you want to race well in such hill races, you are right.
comadenem wrote:
Interesting take from Frans Bosch on that subject:
Hill training is specific strength training with a very small overload for runners. During hill training, there can only be a high degree of specificity if the total movement performed is close to the target movement. Therefore, the rate of ascent should not be too high (tenths of percent to a few percent), otherwise the correct running technique cannot be maintained. A large overload by means of a high gradient immediately impairs the specific coordination pattern of the running movement. The running movement is modified on steep hills in such a way that the contact times become longer (loss of reactivity) and a different muscle use of especially hamstrings, gluteus maximus and quadriceps femoris takes place. From the point of view of exercise physiology, it is advantageous to include hill training in a running program because more power is required from the muscles involved than on flat terrain. From this point of view, hill training is used for distances between 300 and 2000 m. The training goal is to increase aerobic endurance. This form of hill training has an intensity and density similar to tempo training. It should be noted that due to organizational problems, the interval between repetitions is somewhat longer. The load range is between 2000 and 8000 m. The shorter variant of hill training (100 to 300 m) should be handled with caution because of the aforementioned low specificity, which is coupled with a high overload at a slope angle of a few percent. It can even be considered to replace the extra resistance of uphill running with running on flat ground with a headwind.
Really interesting subject. As mentioned before there is a lot of empirical support for hill training, because pretty much every world-class runner has integrated some form of hill training at some point. But the argumentation for the effectiveness of most forms of hill training does not seem very clear yet.
Not sure I agree on Frans Bosch. Depends on the length of the hill reps.
If doing hill sprints (10s), the ground contact time is longer than flat, but the force required is much higher also for the calves, which makes this a high power workout. Speed is actually force per time available so if hills increases the peak force in a just tiny longer contact time, the result is increased force in the short contact time when running flat which translates to higher speed through longer stride and faster cadence. Speed is mainly force, not turnover (even if the neural ability must be good enough for sprinting)
Hills are anaerobic or aerobic depending on the intensity. 10s is different than 40-60s is different than 2-4 min. It will strengthen the legs more than flat and for long reps it will develop the aerobic capability of especially the quads, as they must work harder uphill than flat.