St George Marathon, what is the advantage in minutes or percentage?

Remember that the course is at altitude.

dean moriarty wrote:

Remember that the course is at altitude.

Yes, but altitude doesn't affect you nearly as much when you're running downhill. Seriously, you really feel the affects running uphill, and St George has only a few climbs.

The current issue of RT has an entire article devoted to this, and in fact uses St. George as an example. Here's the pertinent stuff:

Another contender for fastest course in the West is the St. George Marathon, which drops 2,560 feet. But the steepest (and potentially fastest) of all is the now-defunct Pines to Palms Marathon in California, which virtually falls off a cliff with a total elevation loss of 4,920 feet.

In theory, descents that large should speed you up by four to eight minutes — a truly enormous assist. For Tucson, the gravity boost is almost precisely 4 minutes for 5-minute milers, 6 minutes for 7:30 milers, and 8 minutes for 10-minute milers. At St. George, it’s roughly comparable because, while that marathon has 400 more feet of downgrade, it also has one significant hill.

But two other factors make it unlikely that most runners will see such large gains.

One is simply that downhill courses can be rough on the quads. People in my running club always think they’re going to run PRs at Boston (a much more gentle downgrade) and only one has ever succeeded. Even if you train for them, downhills are deceptively tiring.

But a bigger problem is the fact that the only way to design a course with a big drop is by starting high. If you’ve not taken a couple days to acclimate, Tucson’s 4,730 feet is high enough to leave you out of breath. St. George starts even higher, at 5,240 feet.

Even if you’re acclimated, those are high enough to slow you down.

Altitude physiology researcher James S. Milledge studied this, publishing his results in the Oxford Textbook of Sports Medicine. The book is hard to find, but the results are summarized by South African exercise physiologist Timothy Noakes, in his treatise-length book, Lore of Running (4th Ed., pp. 574-580).

According to Noakes, Milledge examined the effect of altitude on running performance at distances ranging from 60 meters to the marathon. He found that at an altitude of 2,500 meters (8,250 feet), marathoners were slowed down by about 8 percent.

Noakes also describes a similar study from the Journal of Applied Physiology, in which a team led by kinesiologist Francois Peronnet of the University of Montreal conducted a mathematical analysis of the effect of altitude on running. Among other things, Peronnet’s team calculated that running a marathon in Mexico City (7,400 feet) would slow you down by 7.3 percent.

Both studies also found that up to elevations of about 8,000 feet, the amount of slowdown is directly proportional to the altitude. (Higher, it increases sharply.)

This means that even an elevation as low as 1,000 feet will slow you down. Specifically, each 1,000 feet above sea level will slow you down by about one percent.

Even more than beating up the quads, this is the Achilles heel of the “fast” downhill courses. In order to get the big drop, they have to start high. Even Steamtown averages 1,000 feet above sea level. Tucson averages 3,300 feet — high enough to pretty much negate the benefit of the downgrade. St. George is worse; its average elevation is about 4,500 feet — enough to convert a 3:00 marathon into a 3:08.

That's interesting. I assume that Noakes tested athletes running on courses that did not have net elevation losses, or at least not dramatic elevation losses.

Again, I suspect that marathoners don't slow down by 8% running downhill at 8,000' (compared to running downhill at the same grade at sea level). OTOH, I suspect that marathoners slow down much more than 8% running uphill at 8,000' (compared to running uphill at the same grade at sea level).

The RT article was nonsense (although coated with a nice sheen of arithmatic and physiology). Just look at what runners actually do in these races (St. George, Steamtown, etc.): They run times that they never come close to on record-quality, loop courses.

Of course, not everyone will have a great day. Plenty of people will get caught up in a reckless, quad-busting pace that they'll pay for in the late going. But some reasonable training for the specific demands of the race, coupled with a reasonable pace, will generally bring you to the finish line a few minutes faster than you would finish a record-quality course.

I coach a few folks...many run faster at Chicago than St George or Tucson...BUT, I do think one of the reasons people run so fast at these venues is the weather. Usually about perfect. St George in particular---not a hint of wind, no humidity, and perfect temp--that is why year after year after year folks do run well there VS a Chicago where the last couple of years they have fought some tough breezes.

St G, fastest 25 mile marathon race in the world. Short & downhill.

pinto wrote:

St G, fastest 25 mile marathon race in the world. Short & downhill.

If you think the course is short, go video-tape yourself measuring it with a running wheel. I can vouch that it's a full 26.21 miles.

Avocado's Number wrote:

The RT article was nonsense (although coated with a nice sheen of arithmatic and physiology). Just look at what runners actually do in these races (St. George, Steamtown, etc.): They run times that they never come close to on record-quality, loop courses.

Like who?

Steamtown was slow and painful for me....you absorb a lot more pounding from the drops than you take back in speed. I've run my two fastest times on the two flattest courses I've run.

"Like who?"

Exactly. We went over this with all the people who believe Tucson and CIM and Boston (!) are super-blazing fast courses compared to a course like Chicago. A couple minutes advantage on the right day? Maybe ... "Several" minutes (5-10)? ... Probably not.

Listen H Geb would turn this into the first Sub two hour mararthon. St George is not legit, plain and simple. From the looks of it the race loses 97 plus feet per mile or about a 1.8 percent drop during the event. The times turned in there are not and can not be replicated at other marathons.

My final answer would be 5 to 9 minutes faster then what one could run on a loop course.

Denny Deckchair wrote:

Listen H Geb would turn this into the first Sub two hour mararthon. St George is not legit, plain and simple. From the looks of it the race loses 97 plus feet per mile or about a 1.8 percent drop during the event. The times turned in there are not and can not be replicated at other marathons.

My final answer would be 5 to 9 minutes faster then what one could run on a loop course.

I would agree with this 100%. This past year they had

a course change, and it appears to be even faster than

in the past.

5 to 9 minutes faster, eh? That's interesting. Did you know that 83% of statistics are completely made up?

Denny Deckchair wrote:

Listen H Geb would turn this into the first Sub two hour mararthon. St George is not legit, plain and simple. From the looks of it the race loses 97 plus feet per mile or about a 1.8 percent drop during the event. The times turned in there are not and can not be replicated at other marathons.

My final answer would be 5 to 9 minutes faster then what one could run on a loop course.

I've run St George and it's not as easy as it looks on paper. Some of the downhills are not quite as gradual as they seem on an elevation chart. The first 14 miles are more like rolling hills with a net elevation loss. Then the back half falls off precipitously (which isn't all that helpful because of the pounding).

I think you're more likely to pick up 5-9 minutes on a downhill *half* marathon like Fontana Days in southern California than you could at a full marathon at St George.

Don't get me wrong, I think you pick up some time at St George, maybe 2-4 minutes, but not anything like 5-9. Based on my races leading up to St George, my marathon pace runs, and my long runs, I don't think I did that outstanding at St George and I gave it everything I had.

Maybe there's some St George veterans who can say, yep, I gained 5-9 minutes there, but I didn't think I did.

Denny Deckchair wrote:

Listen H Geb would turn this into the first Sub two hour mararthon.

listen, you're a moron...

I cant comment on St George since i have never run it but i have run 4 net drop races. 2 marathons (steamtown, Tucson) half marathon (fontana) and the Desert News 10k.

The 10k and half were amazingly fast courses. The 10k i was pulled along by a few others and was a little bit sore after the race. during the race the pounding was not bad and i ended up with a fast time and know ill effects.

Fontana half drops more per mile then any race i have ever heard of (2000 ft or so). It was a solo effort but i ran a 3 min PR on a 90+ degree day w/ the second half baking in the sun. Legs sore the next day but i was racing a week later with no ill effects.

Tucson marathon was alone and the downhills (and wind) got to me. I positive split the race by 6 mins. Added a min a mile the last 4 miles to my marathon pace.

Steamtown i ran very conservative in the early downhills and negative split the race (- 15 seconds). Legs were fine during the race but sore after.

Conclusion: "Net drop" races for non-marathons are a huge advantage because they are short enough where the soreness does not effect you till afterward.

"net drop" marathons are much more of a gamble. Patience might help but at tucson i dont feel like i went out to fast and have gone out faster in flat marathons. I think net drop marathons are worth a shot but I plan to stay away for a while.

-One last comment on the altitude. I dont think altitude has any effect for these 3 (except at Utah). I did read the Running Times article too but as far as i know it really only affects you when you are at 4-5000 + feet. I dont think the 1000-2000 at steamtown was a factor at all. I dont think tucson was any different.

This race is the worst garbage race in the country. You could not cheat better then this even if you were on EPO. Why in the world would USATF allow SG to be a Trials Qfer is beyond me?

I haven't run either, but looking at the elevation charts Steamtown looks pretty painful. All the downhill happens in the first half of the course. There must be a lot of runners doing the death march at the end. St. George looks like it can be a faster course. The early uphills and altitude will slow you down early, which may help to save your legs for the downhill during the second half of the race.