^X2- another shining example would be the escarpment, see you next week, good luck with the foot
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [Murphy'sLaw]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [Murphy'sLaw]
[ In reply to ]
I wondered if this thread was about AmZof when I 1st saw it. I'm thinking of a new strategy this year: intentionally dog the 1st lap. All part of my negative-split-the-whole-race race strategy ;-p
To breathe, to feel, to know I'm alive.
To breathe, to feel, to know I'm alive.
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [Dragger]
[ In reply to ]
Dragger wrote:
Been thinking about if there's a particular angle where it is faster to "power walk" up a steep climb on the "run" and if there is, what the easiest way to figure out what it is? Thoughts?I don't have a hard and fast rule for going uphill, but I never walk downhill. Use the gravity while it's your friend.
-- Scott
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [phog]
[ In reply to ]
phog wrote:
I once walked past a guy who was running....and it wasn't on a hill. (it was an IM distance and he was running really slowly)
There's a moral and an answer somewhere in there, buggered if I know where.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
There is no point running up a steep hill and saving a few seconds if you lose minutes over the rest of the run. Far better to stay out of the red and walk.
There will also be a crossover point where it's more efficient and economical to sustain a certain speed by walking rather than running. Approx 2m per second according to a study I read, which works out at 4.46 mph / 7.2 kph on the flat. Heavier runners on steep hills could well go faster walking for the same energy cost, and arrive at the top of the hill fresher than if they ran - thus maintaining a higher speed after the hill over the rest of the run.
It all depends on fitness, weight, gradient and distance. A hill you might normally run up in a cross country race or training might be a hill you would walk up after 10 miles of the run, the bike and the swim in a triathlon.
The comment about running but being overtaken by people walking is very funny - but it's happened to me - I was overtaken by a walker once when riding a bike up a steep hill as well.
There will also be a crossover point where it's more efficient and economical to sustain a certain speed by walking rather than running. Approx 2m per second according to a study I read, which works out at 4.46 mph / 7.2 kph on the flat. Heavier runners on steep hills could well go faster walking for the same energy cost, and arrive at the top of the hill fresher than if they ran - thus maintaining a higher speed after the hill over the rest of the run.
It all depends on fitness, weight, gradient and distance. A hill you might normally run up in a cross country race or training might be a hill you would walk up after 10 miles of the run, the bike and the swim in a triathlon.
The comment about running but being overtaken by people walking is very funny - but it's happened to me - I was overtaken by a walker once when riding a bike up a steep hill as well.
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [Sweeney]
[ In reply to ]
Sweeney wrote:
I think it's safe to say that there is no course in Triathlon where it is faster to walk. It might be faster for you to walk than run the hills but I'm willing to bet that the winner of the race will be running. I have a friend who used to run the Vermnt 100 every year. He would train doing laps up the 5 mile climb of Overlook Mt in Woostock. He would do 2 running laps then 1walking, repeat, repeat.
If you plan on walking the steeps in races, you should practice walking the steep sin training.
Yep, I have yet to see anyone "win", be in the top racers who walk hills. I am always running by them even though it is slow, but have never ever had one of these folks come back and pass me during the run.
If you do not practice lots of hills, running, in training, how would you expect to run a hill in a race. I do 3000 feet of hill climbing per week in my runs. Takes me 4 minutes to run up, and it gets to about 15% grade. I do this 3 times per session.
Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net
Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist
Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Re: Angle where it's faster to walk? [h2ofun]
[ In reply to ]
h2ofun wrote:
Sweeney wrote:
I think it's safe to say that there is no course in Triathlon where it is faster to walk. It might be faster for you to walk than run the hills but I'm willing to bet that the winner of the race will be running. I have a friend who used to run the Vermnt 100 every year. He would train doing laps up the 5 mile climb of Overlook Mt in Woostock. He would do 2 running laps then 1walking, repeat, repeat.
If you plan on walking the steeps in races, you should practice walking the steep sin training.
Yep, I have yet to see anyone "win", be in the top racers who walk hills. I am always running by them even though it is slow, but have never ever had one of these folks come back and pass me during the run.
If you do not practice lots of hills, running, in training, how would you expect to run a hill in a race. I do 3000 feet of hill climbing per week in my runs. Takes me 4 minutes to run up, and it gets to about 15% grade. I do this 3 times per session.
Dave - I provided an example of somebody who won - AND SET A COURSE RECORD - while walking the steepest parts of the run at AmZof.
I won LC there that following year, and I walked part of the steep climbs too.
Isn't Jesse Thomas on record as having walked parts of Wildflower?
Didn't he "win"? 6x?
The list of things you've "never seen" but that actually happen regularly, would be far too long to post here.
float , hammer , and jog
As others have commented, certainly there is no definitive answer.
Even for the top runners, it varies. Walking efficiency and energy expenditure varies between individuals at all levels.
I once sought race advice from a friend who had won a popular 28 mile trail race. His advice was "Walk the hills. I do." Admittedly, he was previously on the cusp of Olympic selection as a race walker and lost relatively little time to his running competitors when he walked, but his advice was solid for runners of most abilities at that race.
If you're racing a 5 km course in 20 minutes there is nothing to gained by slowing to a walk, whereas the same hill when you're running at 5 miles/hour in a 100 mile race is a different proposition. The potential time gains vs available energy is drastically different.
A particular % incline may be perfectly runnable on a smooth road, but difficult on rocky, loose or muddy terrain. Similarly, what may be runnable at sea level could be a walk opportunity at 12000 feet.
A 10% incline for 100 yards could be easily runnable, but 5 miles at 10% in the same race could be an opportunity to have a walk to conserve some energy, engage some different muscles and take in some fluids and solid food.
Training, current fitness, age, injury all play a factor.
The answer to the question isn't a single number to be found on a forum. It's out there in the hills and at the races, building experience and an understanding of both race strategies and your body's capabilities.
Even for the top runners, it varies. Walking efficiency and energy expenditure varies between individuals at all levels.
I once sought race advice from a friend who had won a popular 28 mile trail race. His advice was "Walk the hills. I do." Admittedly, he was previously on the cusp of Olympic selection as a race walker and lost relatively little time to his running competitors when he walked, but his advice was solid for runners of most abilities at that race.
If you're racing a 5 km course in 20 minutes there is nothing to gained by slowing to a walk, whereas the same hill when you're running at 5 miles/hour in a 100 mile race is a different proposition. The potential time gains vs available energy is drastically different.
A particular % incline may be perfectly runnable on a smooth road, but difficult on rocky, loose or muddy terrain. Similarly, what may be runnable at sea level could be a walk opportunity at 12000 feet.
A 10% incline for 100 yards could be easily runnable, but 5 miles at 10% in the same race could be an opportunity to have a walk to conserve some energy, engage some different muscles and take in some fluids and solid food.
Training, current fitness, age, injury all play a factor.
The answer to the question isn't a single number to be found on a forum. It's out there in the hills and at the races, building experience and an understanding of both race strategies and your body's capabilities.