Uphill-downhill effect on times

I think it depends to a large degree on the type of runner you are. I find downhills good for maintaining a good average speed but I don't gain any real speed descending.

Running times had an article on this a couple of months back... pretty interesting. It also brought altitude into question, which sounds like it could have been a factor for you as well. I bet you could find the article online--I think it was the issue with Ritz on the cover (either that or the month before).

On a climb, in a long distance road race you slow down by about 1 second per metre of ascent, and gain about 1 second for every three metres of descent.

So you gain about 1/3 of what you lost on the ascent.

Your race gained about 90 metres and descended about 135

a loss of about 90 and a gain of about 45 seconds

a net loss of about 45 seconds.

In the Lore of Running, by Tim Noakes he has a some tables that pretty much agree with the slowing down 1 second per metre of ascent. However, he goes on to say that you get 1/2 of the amount lost on the ascent when you descend..... 1 second for every 2 metres of descent. This would put the net loss at 22.5 secs. I have no idea which is right but the results are not that far off from each other.

The grade in the first 3 miles averaged less than 2% so that's not too bad. And then you have the net downhill....so it shouldn't have affected the overall time too much unless there was a problem judging effort uphill.

Cheers...

I'm not sure if this reference includes wind resistance, but it is an important reason why you don't get everything back on the downhill. If you run at, say at 10 MPH - slowing down to maybe 8 MPH on the uphill and speeding up to 12 MPH on the downhill - then the wind resistance is (12/8) squared, or a factor of 2.25 higher on the downhill. On the other hand, many runners find that changes in the pace due to the terrain can help keep the legs fresh.

PTF wrote:

In the Lore of Running, by Tim Noakes he has a some tables that pretty much agree with the slowing down 1 second per metre of ascent. However, he goes on to say that you get 1/2 of the amount lost on the ascent when you descend..... 1 second for every 2 metres of descent. This would put the net loss at 22.5 secs. I have no idea which is right but the results are not that far off from each other.

Cheers...

The old guidelines for backpacking said an hour extra for 1,000 climb, and an hour extra for 1,500 down. Google's distance pedometer ignores the change in race length, but for example, the Congress Avenue Mile (racing 5/20/2007 in Austin, Texas) is deliberately set downhill to increase speeds.

Somewhere, I remember that USATF won't certify a course with more than a meter (?) difference in the start and finish.

PTF wrote:

In the Lore of Running, by Tim Noakes he has a some tables that pretty much agree with the slowing down 1 second per metre of ascent. However, he goes on to say that you get 1/2 of the amount lost on the ascent when you descend..... 1 second for every 2 metres of descent. This would put the net loss at 22.5 secs. I have no idea which is right but the results are not that far off from each other.

The grade in the first 3 miles averaged less than 2% so that's not too bad. And then you have the net downhill....so it shouldn't have affected the overall time too much unless there was a problem judging effort uphill.

Cheers...

Thanks for the info. I like Noakes, but he is wrong on the 1/2 second gain per metre of descent, It's definitely around 1/3 for most runners.

"Thanks for the info. I like Noakes, but he is wrong on the 1/2 second gain per metre of descent, It's definitely around 1/3 for most runners."

Interestingly the records for the up and down Comrades Marathon are almost the same ~5:25 despite the climb/drop being ~2400 ft.

I think I would be the same, I would rather run the uphill Comrades than the downhill. I think most Comrades runners agree.