How much does Boston add to your time if you don't train on hills?

Treadmill?

Good answer. In the days before treadmills, I used stairs. Are there any long flights of stairs or tall buildings where you live?

Treadmill access is very difficult for me (no health clubs nearby and no room in the apartment for a treadmill--downstairs neighbors would also be pretty unhappy). Used to try to do stadium steps but the pounding leaves me with inflamed shins. Do you have to run up the stairs or does walking do it?

And surely, someone out there has trained for Boston on flat ground without a treadmill.

And surely, someone out there has trained for Boston on flat ground without a treadmill.

just a suggestion wrote:

Treadmill?

Good luck finding a treadmill that allows you to run downhill. That's the crucial part.

Nutella wrote:

Good luck finding a treadmill that allows you to run downhill. That's the crucial part.

Phonebooks. Obviously difficult to pull at a health club.

if you've only added 3-5 minutes to your time you're doing fine. hills are harder than flats. even hall added about that much time (not to mention 3-5 minutes is a much bigger deal for him) between flat land and a hilly course.

Ok. The point of my OP was not to try to figure out how to train for Boston's hills if you live in the flatlands. Really, the point is to try to understand what kind of pacing handicap you should give yourself in order to run well at Boston (i.e. solid pacing, no bonking) ASSUMING that you did not train on hills. The reason I wonder is because many friends of mine have run Boston and came back with pretty ugly positive splits. They thought they were ready for the hills, but totally overestimated their ability, probably due to spending the vast majority of their running time on the flatlands. So, I would like to get a better idea of what is a good flatland handicap for Boston that will enable a flatlander to run their best on the hills.

not a big deal wrote:

if you've only added 3-5 minutes to your time you're doing fine. hills are harder than flats. even hall added about that much time (not to mention 3-5 minutes is a much bigger deal for him) between flat land and a hilly course.

Wrote my post before seeing yours go up. 3-5 minutes seems right to me, but I wonder whether it would be a bit more for someone in the 2:50 range. Also, still interested in any advice from fellow flatlanders based on their experience (Chicago time v. Boston time, and so on).

Also, I appreciate the posts about training for flatlanders training for Boston. I have generally given up on trying to simulate the hills and am resigned to adjusting my pace.

not a big deal wrote:

if you've only added 3-5 minutes to your time you're doing fine. hills are harder than flats. even hall added about that much time (not to mention 3-5 minutes is a much bigger deal for him) between flat land and a hilly course.

Wrote my post before seeing yours go up. 3-5 minutes seems right to me, but I wonder whether it would be a bit more for someone in the 2:50 range. Also, still interested in any advice from fellow flatlanders based on their experience (Chicago time v. Boston time, and so on).

Also, I appreciate the posts about training for flatlanders training for Boston. I have generally given up on trying to simulate the hills and am resigned to adjusting my pace.

I ran yesterday and in hindsight I don't think I did enough hill training. I've got no excuse though. I live in the northeast and actually ran the first 21 miles on a training run.

I was thinking that splits of 1:24 and 1:26-7 were reasonable for me. I hit the 1:24 almost on the nose and then came home in 1:34. I managed to stay close to 2:50 pace through 30K but the last hill and then the rest of the way home was pretty unpleasant.

So for me, I'd say that not training enough on hills probably cost me about 6-8 minutes.

I did little to no hill training for Boston. A couple of downhill treadmill runs at recovery pace maybe 2 newton hill simulations on the treadmill. Nothing probably within the last six weeks. I think you just went out too fast. I went 1:28:30 then 1:30. Took it easy on the uphills. When I crested heartbreak hill I coasted in. Only at the end of heartbreak did I feel any bit tired. Could have been the wind. Ran 3 minutes faster than I did in Houston 3 months earlier. You basically need to take easier the first 16 in Boston.

No way it's 3-5 minutes.

another wrote:

I did little to no hill training for Boston. A couple of downhill treadmill runs at recovery pace maybe 2 newton hill simulations on the treadmill. Nothing probably within the last six weeks. I think you just went out too fast. I went 1:28:30 then 1:30. Took it easy on the uphills. When I crested heartbreak hill I coasted in. Only at the end of heartbreak did I feel any bit tired. Could have been the wind. Ran 3 minutes faster than I did in Houston 3 months earlier. You basically need to take easier the first 16 in Boston.

No way it's 3-5 minutes.

Wow. Do you think that your fitness improved a lot since Houston? It certainly sounds like it. Or is taking the uphills easy the answer for a flatlander?