1.8 s for every 10 ft of elevation drop

OK... after reading it again, I think I get... 1.8s per 10 ft of elevation drop over 5K.

1.8 seconds over the distance that it takes the course to drop 10 feet.

R.L. Scribner wrote:

1.8 seconds over the distance that it takes the course to drop 10 feet.

what if it's a sheer drop?

Unless the grade becomes steep enough to impair stride mechanics - about 7% or more.

St George loses 2560 ft, 1.849%, please do the math for me about how many minutes & seconds that would be?

week that was confuses me wrote:

"LRC running guru John Kellogg says that for every 10 feet in elevation drop (unless the grade becomes steep enough to impair stride mechanics - about 7% or more), one's time comes down 1.8 seconds."

1.8 seconds per what? per mile? or per 5K?... this is in reference to Hall's opening 5K in Boston.

(unknown) wrote:

St George loses 2560 ft, 1.849%, please do the math for me about how many minutes & seconds that would be?

6:24

I take it like this...

2560ft/10ft = 256

256 x 1.8 sec = 460.8 sec

so, St. George would be a little over 7-8 minutes faster than a flat course

Keep in mind that St George is at elevation. The first 16 miles is over 4k ft which negates some of the downhill effect.

Listen I live at nearly 7000 feet; it takes no extra effort to run down hill at marathon race pace for many miles. SG is a crap race plain & simple. Sammy & Geb would break 1:59 on that course.

Unholy Cumulus wrote:

Keep in mind that St George is at elevation. The first 16 miles is over 4k ft which negates some of the downhill effect.

week that was confuses me wrote:

"LRC running guru John Kellogg says that for every 10 feet in elevation drop (unless the grade becomes steep enough to impair stride mechanics - about 7% or more), one's time comes down 1.8 seconds."

1.8 seconds per what? per mile? or per 5K?... this is in reference to Hall's opening 5K in Boston.

It's a meaningless statisitic because the further you run, the harder it is to run downhill, so there is no reliable conversion factor.

Man, when I read the LRC week that was I almost forgot about this fact. Of course Hall went out too hard. I don't care what kind of background you had- running that fast downhill will take it out of your legs in a long race. Nice post.

Those statheads should figure out the "actual" times for every road marathon out there.

Actually, I didn't understand how to adjust for the uphill -- are we using the same amount of time per foot, or is it slightly more (since an undulating course is clearly slower than a flat one)?

I've actually never found undulating courses that difficult. I ran faster at the Nashville Marathon than at Chicago. I felt that the undulations let me alter my stride a little bit, so I was using slightly different muslces, whereas the consistency of my stride in Chicago eventually caused me to tie up.

Agree 100% with this post. Muscle fatigue on totally flat courses is harder for me than a rolling course where you make subtle changes in your stride on a regular basis.

I don't know about an undulation marathon vs a flat marathon, but I certainly find it easier to concentrate in an undulating 10k or half marathon. If all is well, you just work the hills, stride the downhills, but in flat races it's just so hard to concentrate.

Anyways, back to the original question, it's easy to run fast down a steep hill if your aren't tired, but in a road race, you won't be able to run anywhere near as fast downhill.