Running Elevation Gain

That is what I consider a "hilly" ride.

For running, just my own personal training (hilliest race I did was a marathon with 4K plus feet of elevation), I consider a run with more than 100 feet per mile to be hilly. 

i.e., Hilly run

Edited by ChrisM 2016-06-22 3:03 PM

Recent 70.3 I did the run was 850 ft for the 13.1, and I considered it very hilly. Tough to judge, as you said...I don't pay as much attention to that stat for my running as I do riding, I admit. No idea why

Good question. Not sure two runners would agree on how to determine whether a run is hilly other than both being unhappy with pacing and needing a reason that sounds good.

I did an Xterra years ago in Sisters Oregon that showed one short hill and ended up being about 200 feet of sand and gravel. Brutal start to the 13 miles.

I can't seem to find the total elevation changes at Vineman Full but it felt pretty hilly but I don't think is anything near 850 ft in 13.1.

I've done Race to Robie Creek which is a running 13.1 out of Boise. That race pretty much has two climbs but the main climb is brutal because it keeps getting steeper toward the summit. However, it is a long sustained climb which I feel is easier than a long series of steep rollers.

 

When I was running in college our standard for elevation was the "Abraham Run" .  It was a 1700 ft ascent over 10 miles. It was a lot more that what normal sane people would ever run so I would think that your 1000 ft over 10 miles would work as a reference point for running too.  You should consider the descent when running too through because the stress on the body is worse going down hill than it is going up hill.  

 

 

Edited by BlueBoy26 2016-07-12 12:04 PM