building schedules

[ponte_ricky]

Hi, i'm not sure if this is the right bit of the forum to put this but i was wondering if anyone has useful tips for putting schedules together for rounds and things like that. Obviously the bob graham has some very well established schedules but i have a few things i'm putting together myself later this year and want to try and figure out a rough schedule.

I've come across the Naismiths rule before briefly but isnt that more applicable to hiking?

any tips or advice would be great thank you

[drd1234]

you might like to look at this book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Training-Up.../dp/1938340841
It's a bit pricey but covers the sort of things I think you're interested in
There is a Kindle version but I think flicking forwards and backwards would be difficult for a technical book like this

Are you bothered about speed, or predominantly endurance?

[BillJ]

I've come across the Naismiths rule before briefly but isnt that more applicable to hiking?

Naismith's works just as well for fellrunning too, though I've found from personal experience that the ratio is more like 1:8 (100m climb = 800m distance) since we're used to doing hills.

And bear in mind the extension to Naismiths about steep descents being slower too. That's even more dependent on terrain, but 1:2.5 (100m steep descent = add 250m distance) is a very rough approx.

Anyway... that's my take on Naismiths since you mentioned it.

[anthonykay]

Naismith's works just as well for fellrunning too, though I've found from personal experience that the ratio is more like 1:8 (100m climb = 800m distance) since we're used to doing hills.

And bear in mind the extension to Naismiths about steep descents being slower too. That's even more dependent on terrain, but 1:2.5 (100m steep descent = add 250m distance) is a very rough approx.

Anyway... that's my take on Naismiths since you mentioned it.

I don't have it to hand at the moment, but I seem to remember that Phil Scarf's analysis of fell race results gave a ratio of 1:7.92, very close to your 1:8. But, as you point out, the big problem with Naismith is that it doesn't take into account what happens on descents: faster on gentle descents, then becoming much slower on steeper descents. Any simple linear rule won't work!

[BillJ]

I don't have it to hand at the moment, but I seem to remember that Phil Scarf's analysis of fell race results gave a ratio of 1:7.92, very close to your 1:8

Phil also once set a problem for his students - assuming a conical hill and all things equal, if you are to get from one side to the other, is it quicker to go over the top, around it, or somewhere in between?

Interestingly the answer is always somewhere in between - how far up the shoulder of the hill depends on how steep it is.

We've done a handful of mountain marathons together and discussed mathematics on the way. Happy Days!

[Hank]

Phil also once set a problem for his students - assuming a conical hill and all things equal, if you are to get from one side to the other, is it quicker to go over the top, around it, or somewhere in between?

Interestingly the answer is always somewhere in between - how far up the shoulder of the hill depends on how steep it is.

We've done a handful of mountain marathons together and discussed mathematics on the way. Happy Days!

For MMs I've always gone with something like 100m of climb = 1km of flat, so 2km of flat running might be 12 minutes and 1km with 100m climb about the same. It's only ballpark and the terrain makes a huge difference, but it's easy to work out on the fly and add/subtract time as appropriate.

[BillJ]

For MMs I've always gone with something like 100m of climb = 1km of flat, so 2km of flat running might be 12 minutes and 1km with 100m climb about the same. It's only ballpark and the terrain makes a huge difference, but it's easy to work out on the fly and add/subtract time as appropriate.

That's what Naismith's rule is, Hank.

[anthonykay]

Phil also once set a problem for his students - assuming a conical hill and all things equal, if you are to get from one side to the other, is it quicker to go over the top, around it, or somewhere in between?

Interestingly the answer is always somewhere in between - how far up the shoulder of the hill depends on how steep it is.

We've done a handful of mountain marathons together and discussed mathematics on the way. Happy Days!

I've also done some work on the conical hill problem. If you're really interested in the maths, I can send you a copy of what I've done.

[BillJ]

I've also done some work on the conical hill problem. If you're really interested in the maths, I can send you a copy of what I've done.

Yes please Anthony that'd be interesting. my email address is watchcave at hotmail dot com

[Graham Breeze]

I've also done some work on the conical hill problem. If you're really interested in the maths, I can send you a copy of what I've done.

Sparing Anthony's blushes may I point out to others that The "Critical Gradient" Should we go straight up hills or zig zag? is in the Autumn 2010 Fellrunner on page 70.