Elevation Evaluation

Since registering for the marathon (way back in March!), I've been freaked out about the idea of the hills. I think it's just one of the weird, twisted ways I try to psych myself out to push myself harder. I've heard and read from others that the course for Freedom's Run is tough and the second half is difficult due to the hills. I also heard the same thing about both half marathons I ran earlier in the year and quite honestly I didn't think either of them were bad due to the hills. In fact, I'd consider the second one a fairly easy course.

Everyone's definition of a difficult course is completely subjective and I started thinking more and more about descriptions I've seen for different races - fast, flat, rolling hills, challenging, etc. I'm pretty sure I'm used to running on hills but for some reason I keep doubting that my definition of rolling hills equals others definition of rolling hills.

Usually, I'll see an elevation chart too but anytime I've looked at them, I didn't really see how they could be very helpful because I didn't have anything to put it into perspective. Sure, I can see the difference between one that looks completely flat and one with tall peaks and deep valleys but that's about it. Since I love data, analyzing things and learning about new stuff, I decided to start looking.

Here's the elevation chart for Freedom's Run.

OK, so it starts goes slightly uphill then a steep downhill but that must be where we take the stairs (yes, stairs) down to the canal. Completely flat for awhile and then we get into some hills. Back in May I ran a 5K over a small section of that hilly part. Yes, it was hilly but I also ran my fastest ever (not that I've run that many) 5K there. I could very easily go and run more of the course but I also don't want to, just enjoying it the day of sounds more appealing to me than having it all memorized and just re-doing a training run. So, it looks tough, especially since the hills are in the second half but it doesn't look completely unbearable, correct?

I don't use many of the features of my Garmin (I'm sure I will in time as I become more anal in analyzing stuff), but I thought I'd review my 18-mile long run from Sunday. Here's the elevation chart from it. That's rolling hills, right? Looks and feels that way to me. If I compare it to the Freedom's Run chart, that one doesn't look as intimidating anymore. Some of the hills still look steep but they look reasonable compared to my typical run.

I mentioned that big uphill (from about 9.75 to 10.25 miles) in my recap I posted earlier. I certainly felt it and was breathing heavier at the top, yet if I look at my mile splits, it didn't kill my times that much. These times are true - I never stopped during the run, ran (or should I say jogged) the whole time and the Garmin was never paused:

Mile 1: 10:37
Mile 2: 10:40
Mile 3: 10:25
Mile 4: 10:27
Mile 5: 10:21
Mile 6: 10:04
Mile 7: 10:22
Mile 8: 10:36
Mile 9: 10:22
Mile 10: 10:23
Mile 11: 10:26
Mile 12: 10:49
Mile 13: 10:30
Mile 14: 10:26
Mile 15: 10:52
Mile 16: 10:42
Mile 17: 10:24
Mile 18: 10:25
.03: 9:26

Overall Pace: 10:30


According to the McMillen calculator, I've been staying consistent on where I'm supposed to be on all these runs. Using my best 1/2 marathon time of 2:02:48, it states my long run pace should be between 10:24 - 11:24. But then, the paces for 5K and 5 Mile are slightly slower than what I've actually run, which makes sense since I've certainly improved since the last half marathon. If I input my best 5K or 5 mile race times, it states my long run pace should be 10:00-11:00, but of course those are really short distances to try and compare for a longer distance. Either way, looks like I'm doing everything the way I'm supposed to be and I seem to be staying consistent on time over my 'rolling hills'.


What's the point of all this? I don't really have one but will be interesting to review this after the marathon as well. I just find it interesting to look at stuff like this.


I am curious to see what kinds of routes people run in terms of flat, hilly, etc. and how your definition of those routes relates to the actual elevation changes of them and how your pace is affected. I'm off to look at and compare some other elevation charts.