Why Boston can be run nearly as fast as Berlin

Somebody should construct a hilly track and see whether anybody can break 27 minutes for 10,000 meters. Or they could alternate uphill and downhill periods on a treadmill and compare energy expenditure at similar speeds to the flat. This is not rocket science, and the hills ARE going to slow you down.

there is no doubt that the hills are slowing you down, the point is that the net downhill makes up for that.

if you run a hilly loop, you'll definietly run slower than on a flat one but if it's not a loop and the finish is signficantly lower than the start, then you might able to run as fast or even faster than on a flat course.

i've never run boston but i've run hilly point to point races where the finish is at lower altitude than the start and could run as fast as on flat courses.

lots of pros have run personal bests at boston.

I think your formula assumes too much about how much energy is saved on the downhill. it's probably valid for wheelchair racers though.

gfgdg wrote:

there is no doubt that the hills are slowing you down, the point is that the net downhill makes up for that.

if you run a hilly loop, you'll definietly run slower than on a flat one but if it's not a loop and the finish is signficantly lower than the start, then you might able to run as fast or even faster than on a flat course.

i've never run boston but i've run hilly point to point races where the finish is at lower altitude than the start and could run as fast as on flat courses.

lots of pros have run personal bests at boston.

Well, sure, if you get to the point that the net downhill more than compensates for the hills, then of course a hilly course could be faster than a flat one. But of course a point to point course is greatly impacted by wind and this can make Boston reasonably fast. Same with Grandmas and other pt. to pt. courses.

Your formula would work in a perfectly controlled environment but since Boston is a non-rabbited race and does not occur in a lab there are a couple of problems:

1) It ignores competition

- there is an efficiency gain in running with someone which can be offset by improper pacing. So a runner would not only have to run the uphills and downhills at a perfect pace but also be perfect in calculating if he should go with someone if the effciency gain is greater then the efficiency loss due to improper pacing.

- Strategy does not necessarily work to minimize time so is never going to mirror the best pace scenario you outlined.

- Wind will screw up all the calculations above

However, if Boston ever had a rabbited race in still conditions - I bet that someone could run close to 2:05:00 if not a little under.

It's not so much that I am an idiot as just an obnoxious asshole. The fact that I come to LR to impress people with my mathematical genius says a lot about me. It also says that I can't hold down a real job. If you have noticed I always use the same boring equations on everyone of my mathematical posts.

the point is that the net downhill makes up for that...

impossible for a runner because the mathematical formula ignores the fact that downhills have negative effects on your muscles that affect your later performance on the flats. Maybe they work for a wheelchair guy but not a traditional runner on foot. Boston is only aided if there is a significant tailwind. Yesterday's winds were for the most part neutral.

Negative effect of downhill running is correlated with fitness to withstand those eccentric stresses (training specificity, fiber type, motor unit rotation/substitution), the velocity of the runner (time under tension), and body mass considerations(allometric advantage to small runners in both hill climbing and long downhill). The downhill can also spare fuel, so in truth we are adding pluses and minuses not necessarily piling up negatives. Undulating course can also provide central and peripheral recovery and delay fatigue.

The biggest problem with the analysis is the assumption that oxygen delivery limits the performance and the optimal pacing strategy would not vary depending on the strengths of the individual runner. Overall though the point is correct and a small, light runner properly trained and fueled should be able to run within 1-1.5 minutes of a flat course time.

This doesn't mean that Hall is in 206 shape but only that for some runners the Boston course is actually not so challenging as folklore contends.

Your assertion is hills shouldn't cost more than something like 2 seconds per 10k. So you're saying Boston is only like 9 seconds slower. You're funny.

ventolin^3 wrote:

If you have noticed I always use the same boring equations on everyone of my mathematical posts.

Nobody bothered to read them, much less notice any similarity to other posts they also didn't read.

10/10

Wow, good job. I was gonna say something about how you knew the energy expenditure for each of those times, but really I actually took you seriously for a minute.

ventolin^3 wrote:

the formula for smooth uphill/downhill from basic physics is :

T1 = ( T*d^2 ) / ( d^2 - ( 2*g*h*T ) )

If you actually imagine that this captures any of the essential physics of the situation you didn't pay much attention in your physics class.

enlighten usget a 10.00 guy run a 100m with a smooth 1m decline & you get an actual time of~ 9.81sabout the ballpark expected, NOT 9.0 or 9.5paula radcliffe ran 65'40 on slightly downhill course, listed herehttp://www.arrs.net/HP_GNhHM.htm

This course is point-to-point with a net drop of 30.5 m

the corrected time assuming smooth overall drop of 30.5 ( which it won't be, but it's ballpark )

= ~ 66'01

which is what wouda been expected of her - the course helps by ~ 20s for a women

A Scientists wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

the formula for smooth uphill/downhill from basic physics is :

T1 = ( T*d^2 ) / ( d^2 - ( 2*g*h*T ) )

If you actually imagine that this captures any of the essential physics of the situation you didn't pay much attention in your physics class.

If you don´t understand that you´ve just been trolled, you weren´t around when God handed out the brains.

Anyone who couldn't tell that I am a troll has some SERIOUS issues. Did you REALLY believe that there is anyone who is TRULY as pompous, arrogant, and MORONIC as I pretend to be?

Not true hills effect different muscle groups, that running on a flat course doesn't. It works your secondary muscle groups, which support your primary muscles, which eventually makes both groups more fatigued than on a flat course. This is just one example of why its not as fast. The hills effect you any to many ways, running efficiency, form, you use more energy running over 3 miles of hills than running 3 miles flat. Your example that you showed only shows one angle of the problem.

There is nothing wrong with trying to put equations to performance...I'm not sure how many "real" researchers/scis there are here but my focus throughout my doc studies was running economy and performance. A fun artical for you to read is "Margaria...Energy cost of running" Just google it and most people with a basic understanding of physiology or even training can understand it.

deriba merger, robert kiprono cheruiyot partying after 2010 boston marathon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF1xdfX9XM