No more marathons
Given two runs of equal effort and equal time but different terrain and elevation change, would you expect them to provide equal training effect even if the distance covered is significantly different?
Here’s the specifics – Run 1 – asphalt and mostly flat (one hill with about 80 feet gain – run twice) – 1:15 total time, 8.5 total distance
Run 2 – all trail – 350 climb from mile 3 to 3.7 - 1:15 total time, 7.5 total distance.
Boston 2014 - a 33 year journey
Lordy, I hope there are tapes.
He's a leaker!
If you're talking about "equivalencies" in terms of time and intensity, then I'd say they're similar.
BUT if you're talking about other types of effects, then the hilly trail is obviously better training for a hilly trail race, and it might even be better for a flat road race. Depending upon how you run the hill, it could provide strength endurance, power (if you put some surges in there, which could be done on the flat), or just tighten your stride (if you're slogging it). (been there, done that on all 3)
Benefits also depend on what the rest of your volume looks like. If you run a lot of hilly trails, and preparing for a flat asphalt race, then the diversity of the flatter course may provide needed benefits - esp. a longer, more consistent stride.
The benefits of a run go beyond the simple numbers.
MTA: My runs vary from flat easy trail, to rolling hills with a few roots, to some with a few more roots, to medium and big hills to hardpacked snow to slush to soft snow to smooth asphalt. Even have one run on cobbly floodplain. Hills and footing are a significant part of why I choose certain routes for my runs.
Thanks AK - all good points. My concentration for both training and races has always been on distince covered in the least amount of time. Which leads to an avoidence of trails. But considering the trail workouts based on the overall time spent and not being too concerned with the distance might help me get over that particular obsession.
Trail Monster
I look at trail runs in terms of distance AND elevation change. My last trail run was 14 miles with 6800 feet up and the same down. The day before I had run 8.5 with 3300 up and same down. That means I ran 22.5 miles but then I add the 3+ miles of elevation change in my evaluation of performance and it suddenly looks a lot better than it seemed in comparison to a flat road run.
2013 races:
3/17 Shamrock Marathon
4/20 North Coast 24 Hour
7/27 Burning RIver 100M
8/24 Baker 50M
10/5 Oil Creek (distance to be determined)
My Blog
Brands I Heart:
FitFluential
INKnBURN
Altra Zero Drop
Will run for scenery.
I'd say if you have that trail available to you for training, by all means use it !
One of the things about trails (if they are at all interesting !) is that each step is different. The angles (front/back, left/right) that your foot makes differ, the placement of each step (stride length, side-to-side motion) can vary based on rocks, roots, etc, and the slope is likely to be a lot more wavy.
So not only do you have more to think about, but you place a huge variety of loads on your body. And your body responds to loads by increasing fitness. (One advantage to being a wee bit older is that you get to feel each and every one of those adaptations.)
The other thing it teaches you is to constantly "feel around" for how to run more efficiently in each new circumstance. I've been noticing lately a huge boost on steeper grades if I use my arms more (pumping action). And if I can see the grade is about to level out (even a little) I can afford to speed up and squeeze a little energy out of my hamstrings b/c in just a few seconds they'll be getting a little rest. And so on.
The frustrating thing, as mentioned, is that trail runs can't be typed into a log with just a number or two. It's not always clear how they fit into a fixed training program. But, IMO, they are a very good form of training, even for road races.
Stupid feet!
Stupid elbow!
Are they equivalent workouts? No. You are using different muscles in different ways. Even if that elevation had been on pavement, it wouldn't be equivalent. That does not mean one is better than the other - only that they are different. That's actually a good thing as variety helps to make you a better runner and helps to prevent injuries plus it keeps things interesting and that makes it more likely you'll continue heading out the door in the first place.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
I'd say if you have that trail available to you for training, by all means use it ! The frustrating thing, as mentioned, is that trail runs can't be typed into a log with just a number or two. It's not always clear how they fit into a fixed training program. But, IMO, they are a very good form of training, even for road races.
I've run this particular trail (called North Slope in the Pisgah Ntl Forest) many times in the past, but always with my eye on my watch, constantly trying to meet a specific time goal. As a result, I think, I came to not really liking it much. Today's run was much different - I went into the run with the idea of getting an hour or more workout in - didn't matter how far I went. As a result the run, while still not what I'd call "fun", it was much more enjoyable. Might need to try it a little more. Also on this run I concentrated on swinging my foot back and up with the idea of avoiding the trips that I often make on trail runs. This was also successful - no falls.
Those of you that run trails frequently - do you trip? Or have you learned how not to? I realize I've gotten sloppy in my form over the past few years - more of a shuffle than a run. Need to relearn how to run correctly - thinking that by running the trails and forcing the correct gait to avoid falls will help me on the roads.
We'll see.
I look at trail runs in terms of distance AND elevation change. My last trail run was 14 miles with 6800 feet up and the same down.
6,800 feet! Really? Were you a sherpa in a past life? I cannot even begin to imagine a run like that.
No thanks - I'm a flat lander at heart (started running first in Tampa - max elavation gain was going over bridges). I've adjusted somewhat to the hills of western NC, but elevation changes of more than 1,000 are not in my list of favoriate things to do.
Where do you find hills like that near Pittsburgh? I grew up in Altoona and we had some hills (not that I ever ran then) but nothing like what you are talking about.
Learning not to trip is half of it. Learning how to fall is the other half
The biggest thing is if you're going down, just let it happen and roll with it. Putting your arm out to 'break the fall' is a good way to get hurt. I had one good fall last year during a steep downhill in a race. Caught a toe, couldn't recover, found myself going headfirst downslope. I tucked my head under, rolled into a sommersault, and came right back up onto my feet and kept running - not a scratch. Pretty sweet.
This season I fell once. Not as graceful but I came out w/ just a few scrapes on my knee and elbow. That was enough to wake me up and lately I haven't had and close calls.
Usually one good trip or close call is enough to keep you alert for a while!
Are you sure about those measurements? You're talking about climbing 6,800 feet in 7 miles and then running back down the same slope. That exceeds in length and distance what is perhaps the most famous climb in all of cycling, the L'alpe D'huez. Western States 100 only has 18,000 feet of elevation gain and 23,000 feet of elevation challenge. That's 41,000 feet of elevation change spread over 100 miles or an average of 410 feet per mile. In your case, you're talking about 13,600 feet spread over 14 miles or 971 feet of elevation change per mile.
Beer-and-waffle Powered
Are you sure about those measurements?
Assuming that was a straight out and back climb then the 6800 ft up in 7 miles would be 18%, which (while not impossible) is incredibly steep and casts some doubts. If that's based on altitude data points from a GPS device then I wouldn't be surprised by numbers like that. I often get a few hundred feet of climbing reported for a flat out-and-back run that I do (in reality there's probably about 30 feet difference in total due to a bridge. Maybe the banshee can post a screenshot of the profile.
In the words of my late-coach : Just hang in there, relax... and at the end of a race anyone you see.....just pass them
And if it's not a straight out and back, the slope would be even steeper when you were climbing. There is a road leading into a residential neighborhood near where I work and it climbs about 400 feet in perhaps 3/4 mile. I sometimes run it twice and my butt is completely kicked at the end. It is very steep. Mind you, I have run some trail runs that are steeper but they essentially go straight up the side of the mountain. My guess is that this is more of the GPS error as I have seen the same thing. I run on almost completely flat terrain on my normal running routes and the GPS elevation profile is vastly different from the pancake flat route I'm actually running.
It was on the brutal Rachel Carson Trail. Here is the link to their page. The elevation profile is at the bottom if you scroll all the way down.
From the site:
"The Rachel Carson Trail is a "primitive" trail in the sense that no special grading or surfacing materials are used. While the trail is blazed with yellow blazes, there will be an occasional missing blaze where a tree has fallen or when you are following a logging road, a power line or gas line; there will be blow downs, washouts, poison ivy, nettles, bugs, loose gravel and rocks, gullies, and wet stream crossings. There are no switchbacks on the trail; all hills — some are quite steep — are traversed directly up and down. You must be prepared to expect the unexpected and think the unthinkable. The better hiker you are, the better you will do on the Challenge."
http://www.rachelcarsontrails.org/rct/challenge
And if you want to get some first-hand footage this guy took a video with a GoPro last year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1cLx96OLRY
20% slope is fairly standard for the easier mountain trails around here - about 1000ft in a mile. Some are 3000ft in 2.2 mi and our most famous one climbs about 3000ft in 1mi (approx.). We have a 14mi race with 9000ft of up and 9000ft of down - view out my kitchen window. Although I haven't done the race, I do train on the first leg - as do a large percentage of runners around here, as well as folks training for Denali and sheep hunting and whatever else folks around here do.
Banshee's numbers are reasonable. These aren't roads people are talking about.
If you wonder what these look like, check out some of the pics on Alaska Mountain Runner's FB page.