ACorn's Blog

Hmm, is there a point where a race can go downhill so much it actually gets harder? Over here they're all loops or out and backs and the time of year pretty much determines the degree of difficulty.

SlowJoe - Collin has some theories about aided courses and altitude that I had never heard before. I do believe there can be a course that has too steep of downhill sections and it can actually be a slower course than one that is more gradual.

In terms of grade, anything past an average of around 4% causes a loss in efficiency for most people. In terms of a race like Big Cottonwood full marathon, the first half is going to be extremely aided, but the second half will be far slower than a flat sea level marathon. Without factoring altitude, a 3 hour marathoner would gain roughly 13 minutes advantage from the copious downhill on a course like Big Cottonwood. Of course, the average altitude on the course is just shy of 6000', so factoring that in, we lose 10 minutes of the advantage. 10 minutes sounds like a lot, but you have to consider the aerobic nature of a marathon. 6000' results in just over a 20% deprivation of oxygen, which is actually beneficial in very short events such as sprints, which are almost entirely anaerobic, and therefore very minimally dependent on oxygen and capable of receiving a benefit from reduced wind resistance. However, the longer the event gets, the more aerobic it gets, and the more the racer suffers from the oxygen deprivation. I recently used Daniels' equations to compute the exact effects on various races at 5000', which is relevant to us here in SLC. If a person is maxed out in a one mile race at 6:00 at sea level, they would lose 2 seconds in a race of that distance at 5000'. Moving up to the 5k, another person maxed out at 6:00/mile for 5k at sea level will lose about 7 seconds per mile in an equivalent race at 5000'. The 10k and half marathon suffer further, losing 11 and 15 seconds per mile compared to 6:00/mile sea level pace, while the marathon will be 17 seconds per mile slower. Tangents aside, on paper, Big Cottonwood is roughly 3 minutes aerobically aided for a 3 hour marathoner, compared to the very fastest sea and flattest sea level course, aerobically speaking. However, the downhill isn't evenly spaced and is set up in a way that makes it very challenging to fully take advantage of. How people will react to this is going to be pretty individualized. A very strong runner that puts in a ton of mileage should still be able to get very close to that 3 minutes of benefit, but the average runner might not see much of a benefit or will probably even run worse as a result of not being properly trained for so much pounding and downhill, followed by a less forgiving flat section that alternates up and down, likely with a headwind in one direction. St George, on the other hand, is only 2 minutes aided compared to, say, Chicago, on paper, but based on the layouts of the course, many more people will take advantage of the course. In fact, for a poorly trained individual, the benefit could well be more than 2 minutes, as it's much easier to coast the last miles on a downhill than on a flat, and the last 10 miles of St George are quite forgiving, making a trainwreck and massively falling off of pace much less likely. Now, a lot of people that are well trained still run substantially more than 2 minutes faster at St George than they do at sea level races. The reason for that is that most sea level races still aren't truly "fast and flat". The 2 minute advantage I give to St George is as compared to a course like Berlin or Chicago. Most typical sea level marathons are going to be a couple minutes slower than either of these, so compared to these, St George may well be 5 minutes faster. Bottom line with all of this rambling is that BCC full is, on paper, the fastest local marathon course, but the average person will probably run their best race at St George because almost nobody will be properly trained with specificity for BCC.

I'm kind of glad I missed this morning.

Collin, thanks for spelling that out. I haven't put much thought into elevation and performance but am now more curious. I'm surprised that a runner maxed out at a 6 min mile only slows by 2 seconds at 5000'. I would've guessed that they'd slow more.

The mile is actually pretty anaerobic. While a 5k is already largely aerobic, an all-out mile has been estimated at as high as a 75% anaerobic effort. The higher the percent anaerobic an event is, the less a runner will be slowed down by a lack of oxygen, and the more benefit they'll gain from lack of wind resistance.

I think it's very, very well established in the literature (and in common sense) that the mile/1500m is ~80% aerobic.

For me it's 80% aerobic, 20% anaerobic and 20% mental. Oh, and 20% puking.

tl;dr...

collin: st. geroge is very aided. big cottonwood is ridiculously aided. the majority of people running those races train at altitude, so it doesn't make sense to me that you factor in altitude so heavily to balance out the downhill. maybe that's accurate for someone coming from sea level? or maybe i just don't understand what you are saying.

my opinion: times at SG and BC are extremely aided -- only 2-3 minutes? at least 5! and probably closer to 10 for most people.

Actually, the literature is very contradictory. General idea now is that it's between 50-80% aerobic, but some stolwarts still insist on far less than 50%. Frank Horwill came up with the system of training used by Sebastian Coe (greatest 1500 runner of all time?) based around a 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic split in the race, so it's definitely not well established to be 80% aerobic. In any case, my calculations are derived from Daniels, but I'm not sure exactly which selection he made. It appears that he considers the mile more anaerobic. That's the one pace I haven't tested as thoroughly in converting sea level to 5000' (I hate running fast single miles, and for me it's basically 100% puking), but everything from 5k on up to marathon effort has been extremely exact for me, so I trust it.

Allie, my times are factoring 100% acclimation to altitude. Perhaps you acclimate better than average, but when running my sea level marathon pace here on flat ground, I die very quickly. I still suggest that SG is 5 minutes aided compared to the typical sea level course. It's 2 minutes aided compared to the fastest sea level races in the world, such as Dubai, which is so scary fast that both James and I were convinced it had to be short until I made a couple realizations (just how straight it is, that the high point is only 2-3 feet different from the low point, and a few others). One other reason that my sea level paces are faster than most peoples is that I do my workouts in a train low mindset, which most Utahns don't. I might still have to do them at nearly 5000', but I do the majority of my tempo/marathon work on a treadmill, specifically targeting the ability to run within 1-2 seconds of exactly sea level effort pace (lack of wind resistance exactly cancels altitude for my pace between tempo and marathon), so I can get a greater benefit at sea level. All of my calculations assume not only 100% acclimation, but maximum training at the exact sea level paces, which basically no-one else does.

Yeah, pretty contradictory:

http://goo.gl/khYSUQ

Seb Coe was coached by his Dad (Peter), and Peter Coe wrote an entire book (Better Training for Distance Runners) which I'd be happy to let anyone borrow. It's a great resource. Lots of citations in the back.

Oh, and I agree that Big Cottonwood is ridiculously aided for the half. I proved that on Saturday. I'm not even in shape right now and I ran a 1:10. Jake or Riley could possibly run sub-60 if properly trained for the downhill. The full is still very aided, but it's much less so than the half. Everything from 14 to 23 completely sucks.

Jake, you are ignoring Jarver, which may be a bit outdated, but is classically more used than any of those. This is all still beside the point, however. I'm telling you guys. Actually go run at sea level with training focused on sea level pace. You'll be shocked.

Another good point. I really shouldn't be saying anything... I've never even run a flat, sea level race!

Come on... You really think your race history is more relevant than the entire career of one of the greatest coaches of all time?

Who, by the way, has a PhD in this field?

Greetings from 400'. Shortly after eating a massive dinner and drinking 2 beers, I went for an easy run in Dallas. Despite having to run in basketball shorts and a cotton t-shirt in 98% relative humidity (I forgot running clothes beyond a garmin and shoes), my average pace for an easy run was 6:31, something which, even on the flattest of paths in Salt Lake, would feel pretty hard for me (my effort felt right around 7:00 pace for Salt Lake). Altitude makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD for easy aerobic runs.

As far as training for middle distance races like the 800 and 1500 is concerned, the emphasis is increasingly on the aerobic side as opposed to the anaerobic. All the coaching clinics I attend stress the idea that current research attributes a greater role to aerobic fitness. No serious coach who is up on things buys into the 50-50 aerobic-anaerobic split anymore.

Not to say anaerobic fitness isn't important, even essential, especially in the critical zone of a race, but that fitness can be developed much more quickly than aerobic fitness.

Collin just proved my theory: wherever you happen to live and train is the hardest place to run in the world, and everyone else has it easier.

I am quite certain I live in one of the better places to run and you do in fact live in one of the worst, Joe! There are maybe a handful of days where it is prohibitively difficult to run outside here.

When considering a move to Houston, running there was at the top of my minus column.

You're not helping my theory Josh!

By the way, having grown up in Houston, (even putting running aside) you did the right thing not moving there.

Haha, actually, I like training in Utah. Here in Texas, either it's hot or humid. Running kind of sucks here 24 hours a day; it's just faster.

Some crackpots even think the heat and humidity make you go slower. But I'm glad you were able to disprove that yesterday!

Yeah, no, it does. That's why there was only a 25-30 second easy pace differential. Haha.

Although, actually, it hasn't been very hot here... It's been hotter in Utah the whole time I've been here. Still, humidity is gross.