Converting hilly 5k to flat 5k, rule of thumb?

Steve Scott said, "Get over it - If you have a bad workout or run a bad race, allow yourself exactly 1 hour to stew about it-then move on."

This calculator is as good as it gets.

https://thesecretofrunning.com/calculator/

Great calculator, thanks

Looks like I just need to chalk it up as a poor race.

Hillyshit wrote:

Is there a rule of thumb for converting a hilly race time to a flat race time?

I ran a 5k this morning on a hilly course (100m down, 100m up, 100m down then 100m up to the finish) in 24 minutes. Curious what an equivalent flat effort would be?

I have been training for a half in a month and was hoping to run in the 1:26 to 1:24 range based on a 10k pr from this January of sub 40 and beginners improvement (still in my first year of proper training), but now I think I need to really adjust my time goal.

Thoughts?

For every 100m of gain, you add 2 seconds/km.

For every 300ft of gain, you add 4 seconds/mi.

The best conversion is to run a flat 5K instead of hilly one. If you must, stalk other 5K times of competitors who finished around you. A very hilly 5K for someone who isn’t trained for hills will be SLOW AF.

If you ran a sub-40 10k and a 24:00 5k, either the "5K" was WAY too long, or it was a horrible race. That amount of hills is worth on the order of 30 seconds

Hardloper wrote:

If you ran a sub-40 10k and a 24:00 5k, either the "5K" was WAY too long, or it was a horrible race. That amount of hills is worth on the order of 30 seconds

ya, im not going to stew on the results

Took the poster above you advice and found out that the guy who came first (with a time of 21 minutes, so 3 minutes quicker than me) ran a 1:19 half this February and his strava description makes it seem like he was racing the event.

free_the_thigh wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

If you ran a sub-40 10k and a 24:00 5k, either the "5K" was WAY too long, or it was a horrible race. That amount of hills is worth on the order of 30 seconds

ya, im not going to stew on the results

Took the poster above you advice and found out that the guy who came first (with a time of 21 minutes, so 3 minutes quicker than me) ran a 1:19 half this February and his strava description makes it seem like he was racing the event.

Oops forgot I posted this thread under a different handle

Anyway also found the winner last year with a time of 23 minutes, ran a 17:30 5k in June that year

So, I’m likely within my striking distance of goal range after all

My personal rule of thumb is for every 1000' of net gain, add a mile to the distance for the overall time. In your case, this would come out to about 3 minutes overall, so about 21-minutes on a track. This is about 1:32 pace for a HM. For the winner, about 18-flat, or about 1:16 pace for a HM.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

free_the_thigh wrote:

ya, im not going to stew on the results

Took the poster above you advice and found out that the guy who came first (with a time of 21 minutes, so 3 minutes quicker than me) ran a 1:19 half this February and his strava description makes it seem like he was racing the event.

Oops forgot I posted this thread under a different handle

Anyway also found the winner last year with a time of 23 minutes, ran a 17:30 5k in June that year

So, I’m likely within my striking distance of goal range after all

Sounds like it's nearly 4 miles... what does his Strava say for distance?

His Strava said 5.15k, but it’s a forest path, so maybe strava measured it short idk

Tbh knowing the winner this and last year also ran significantly off their pbs as well is good enough for me, the exact reason why is less important.