What makes a good hill runner?

LM wrote:

Fairly simple question, but what is it that makes one runner better than another at going up hills?

You can have two guys with identical PRs, say 15:30 for 5k, but one will run noticeably faster than the other uphill. Why?

First thought would be the obvious answer, power to weight, but I've even seen runners of similar build and weight have variation in how well they run hills. Perhaps it's changes in the musculature and one runner is able to apply more force relative than the other due to the changes in the stride.

I honestly have no real idea here, and was curious if anyone has insight either of their own or from literature as to what the physical cause is for this discrepancy.

Very cool insight on this thread. Honestly, compiling anecdotal evidence will probably provide more insight than any study because of the sheer volume of factors (beyond the obvious study favorites like VO2 max) that influence solid hill running.

Obviously skill specificity is a factor. I grew up on a very hilly street. All of my runs as a teenager involved running steep road hills. To this day (I'm 31 now), I blow people away on street hills with ease. But on trail hills, I'm back to my extremely mediocre self.

Another interesting comparison is hill running to stair running. As fast as I am on street hills, I'm extremely slow on stairs.

And height/body structure is also something that impacts hill running, although I'm not sure exactly how. I'm 6'1 with long legs, and I glide up hills seamlessly. But my form on flat ground is awkward and jerky.

For downhill running (on streets at least), I think it's mostly a matter of conditioning your connective tissue to take the pounding and then just letting the legs fly.

VO2 max

Yea, butt wrote:

While we're on the subject, and this seems to be a serious thread...

Does biking help make you a better downhill and uphill runner?

Would doing " hill repeats " on a bike help you run hills better?

Every now and then I'll bike up hill both sitting down and standing up amd then peddle backwards on the decent. I feel like this is a heck of a workout. I'm a mid 15 5k guy but a 400 meter steep hill can get me breathing pretty hard

I don't think cycling hill repeats help, or at least they haven't helped me. I've been more a cyclist the past two years than a runner and while running uphill seems to be a hopeless case, I do my most of my cycling workouts uphill and am a very strong climber on the bike. It's kind of amusing going from really bad on ups and flying on the downs on foot to the exact opposite on the bike (little guys have a disadvantage going downhill on a bike)

I suspect the difference there is that on a bike power is power. You're ability to generate power doesn't change substantially whether you are going up, down, or level.

ive noticed that runners with bigger dicks have trouble on hills. the added weight and annoyance of it flopping around hurts them on hills. so smaller dick=good at hills

Short skinny guys do best on hills. Skeletor was the best hill runner ever here in Colorado. I was never great going up hill because I was more muscular than all the other runners, I had to catch them on the downhill and the flats.

Some Kind of Ratios wrote:

I was a very good downhill runner, under control with long strides, and pretty crappy at any kind of steep hill. I figured it had to do with hamstrings and quadriceps and maybe the ratio between them. Heck, I have no idea. But although I thought doing hills in practice would have cardiovascular benefits, I never thought it would make me a better hill runner per se.

I'm the exact same way. I can't speak to the kinesiology of it, but for me it's all about technique. I drop my arms to lengthen out my stride, lean forward, and try to maintain the same cadence that I had on the flat, letting gravity pull me down. It feels somewhat out of control, which I think is why most people don't do this (instead leaning back, moving arms side to side, and slowing down their cadence).

I honestly choose local races with hills because I can be the most competive at races with them. The ideal race is gradual uphill then gradual downhill after halfway. On flat courses it only feels like a tempo. On uphill I churn a high cadence, high knees and a vuscious swing. On the downs I try to focus on a longer stride and an extreme recoil kick behind me. That's it! Those are the secrets to uphill and doqn hill running.

notamorningbird wrote:

And height/body structure is also something that impacts hill running, although I'm not sure exactly how. I'm 6'1 with long legs, and I glide up hills seamlessly. But my form on flat ground is awkward and jerky.

For downhill running (on streets at least), I think it's mostly a matter of conditioning your connective tissue to take the pounding and then just letting the legs fly.

I'm 5'4" with very short legs, and a high cadence (185 ish for easy runs; 200s for track workouts, per my Garmin). I'm a lousy uphill runner, despite regularly running hilly routes, and a very fast downhill runner.

I've always thought that my hillrunning skills (or lack) are related to the fact that I'm a very efficient runner, but not a very powerful one. My efficiency means that I can really make use of the downhills, but my lack of power and explosiveness hinders me on the uphills.

As with many of these physiological/biomechanical/health topics, this thread is long on anecdotal evidence and short on experimental evidence. Not surprisingly I've read we need to practice/we don't need to practice, we need to be short/we don't need to be short, we need strength or power/we don't need strength/power, we need short legs/we need long legs. So I conclude from what's been posted that basically some people think they're good on hills and others don't.

Here's my anecdotal evidence to add. We need to differentiate short from long hills. I feel like I suck at short, steep hills (say on a rolling XC course) but I feel pretty good on long climbs (trail races with long hills or mountain races). Oh, I am 5-10 with longish legs and feet but a short trunk and have very skinny, non-muscular calves/thighs. I have to wear ladies watch bands but my chest is reasonable for my weight.

We have the same PRs lol. I'm also a strong hill runner. I like your points. Also, I think the more efficient runner with better (mid foot vs heel strike) form is going to run better on flats, but it's not possible to heel strike on a hill given the incline, so it kind of creates a level playing field so to speak.

As with many of these physiological/biomechanical/health topics, this thread is long on anecdotal evidence and short on experimental evidence. [/quote]Wish there was more, but I'm not sure it's been looked into too heavily. The VO2 max theory is the most compelling to me so far. Wish I knew my VO2, but sadly never been tested.

middle professor wrote:

So I conclude from what's been posted that basically some people think they're good on hills and others don't.

Interestingly very few seem to think they suck on hills entirely. Most report being good on at least one half of the hill. Or both.

middle professor wrote:but I feel pretty good on long climbs (trail races with long hills or mountain races).

Oh what I wouldn't give to be good at any hill longer than 20-30s. As well as I run downhill, and through wierd stuff (mud, snow, gravel, etc) if I could just run uphill I would do well above my track ability in XC.

Data points for me: I ran 20' threshold today up 5.4% avg grade @ 8:10 pace.

Downhill I've run 3:48 mile on a -7% grade.

Normal flat threshold is around 6:05 pace. 5k typically mid 17s. Right around 5:00 mile shape if I had to guess.