UKC

So, at the weekend I ran a 10K race. It was very windy (50mph according to the weather forecast) and we were quite exposed being on the coast.

First 2 miles were into the wind, the first being not too bad as I was fresh legged and probably slightly protected by the crowd of other runners and maybe a few buildings. The second mile was much harder as the wind hit me full on as I was more exposed.

The middle 3 miles were great! Managed to maintain a nice pace whilst also recovering a little bit

The last mile was awful. Like running into a brick wall. I nearly threw up when I crossed the line.

Anyway, it was half a race into a 50mph wind and half a race with it behind me. I feel like this is not ideal for a PB (and indeed I was a bit slow). I guess my question is, does that make sense, even if the net effect of the wind was even/zero? Did I have a bad race, or do you expect to lose time in such conditions?

Appreciate this is a bit of a geeky question (and perhaps nobody cares), but thought I'd ask!

In reply to mountainbagger:

The net effect isn't zero, running in to the wind is far more hinderance than any benefit you get from a tailwind.

In reply to The New NickB:

Thanks. I guess I'm wondering by how much. My PB for 10K is 40:16 (a while ago now), and in good conditions more recently 40:50, but Sunday was 42:13. Is that a lot of time to lose given the conditions or about right?

I am 40, and would like to get under 40 minutes for 10K (well, it's something to aim for)...but I'm wondering whether the 40:16 a few years ago was my peak

In reply to mountainbagger: Seems about right.

The stock answer to any question about improving at road and cross country is what's your 5k?

In reply to wbo:

19:45, but that wasn't a race, just a training run on local roads. I've never raced a 5K, just lots of 10Ks, HMs and marathons.

My local parkrun clashes with the kids' swimming lessons and it's a slightly bumpy/xc course I think.

In reply to mountainbagger:

Yes, we know from cycling, where wind resistance is more significant than in running, that it doesn't even out at all; the losses from a headwind are not offset by the gains from a following wind. Same with hills.

BTW why do you guys bother running around everywhere when Nature endowed us with brains capable of inventing bicycles?

In reply to mountainbagger:

I did a 10k in Glasgow a couple of weekends ago in very windy conditions. The guy who won it last year (in almost perfect conditions) reckoned the wind cost him about 40 seconds, over a race time of 32.something, so extrapolating over an expected 40 minutes would give you an extra minute or so, give or take.
Running into the wind is much more of a hindrance than running with the wind is a benefit, especially when it's as strong as you say it was.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


Because occasionally you may have to train for an activity that doesn't involve sitting down for long periods of time.

In reply to mountainbagger:

Loved the fact it was a 10k but you state everything in miles. Does your brain you work in miles on a 10k?

In reply to Orgsm:


Yes it does work in miles, even on a 10K! They have KM markers on the course, but I often miss them, so I just rely on my watch beeping every mile and maintaining a pace of 6:xx min/mile (well, ideally, just under 6:26, but I can't keep that up).

Problem with kilometres is there's just too many of them

In reply to tony:


That's just the sort of info/data I can work with! Thanks

In reply to mountainbagger:

Last Saturday I ran out to Steeperton Tor and back on Dartmoor, outbound into the teeth of a gale ( and rain lashed, lovely). Return journey was obviously much quicker!

One thing I find makes a big difference is if the wind assistance comes while you are running uphill. It hugely increases my speed, while downhill of course you actually use even more energy trying to retain control.

In reply to Wainers44:

Good point, makes sense. This race was flat (I was PB-chasing). Fortunately for me, a lot of off-road stuff near me is sheltered by trees (North Downs).

I remember once running up a hill near Mam Tor which was quite steep and as I got nearer the top the wind picked up (against me). Felt like I was running on the spot! In fact I was. Despite the wind effectively blowing straight into my gasping mouth, it felt really hard to breathe.

Also, along ridges/technical ground, the wind behind sometimes gets annoying as my feet don't quite land where I want them to! Probably similar point to your downhill one about retaining control.

In reply to mountainbagger:

There's an old maths chestnut which goes along the lines of:

You're in a car and have to cover two miles in two minutes. You drive at 30mph for the first mile. How quickly do you have to drive for the second mile to stay within the time limit?

You can't, obviously. It's an exercise to demonstrate that the relationship between speed and time isn't completely intuitive: losing significant time early on would mean ridiculous speeds later to stay inside your 40 minute time limit. And by then you're knackered anyway.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Yes. The average is a widely misunderstood concept.

If you have 9x1.9 and 1x2 then all the 1.9's are below average.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Mode average number of legs: 2
Mean average number of legs: less than 2
Median average number of legs: 1

I love thread hijacks, me.....

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I suspect more than 50% of the population have 2 legs so that would mean that the Median is 2.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Wouldn't that be the mode (most popular)?

I'm a long way out of school, so is it that median isn't just the middle option out of 0, 1 or 2 legs?

In reply to Martin not maisie:
Nope; Median is the middle value if you put all the answers in order in a row - it's the 50th centile - i.e. half the answers (not half the values) above & half below.

If any value has >50% of the answers then it must also be the median - I was probably able to prove that about 35 years ago.

Mode - correct.

Actually I can still prove it by a bit of logical deduction - 3 possibilities:
Assume the value with >50% of the answers is x.
1. Median is below x, therefore >50% must be below x, say 50+y %. Therefore total must be 50 + 50+y > 100% - ERROR.
2. Median is above x, therefore >50% must be above x, say 50+y %. Therefore total must be 50 + 50+y > 100% - ERROR.
3. Median is x - only possible remaining answer.

There is a type of case that might fail this - e.g. population is 0,0,1,1,2,2,2,2 - not sure what the median is then as it's between 1 & 2 and 2 has 50% of the answers.

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Have you allowed for those of us with a third leg?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I was thinking about that, it won't affect any of the averages unless there are more of you than people with 0 & 1 leg.

Anyone out there want to claim 4 or more legs?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Just how big a leg are we talking?

In reply to Michael Hood:

It'd change the mean, surely?

In reply to Martin not maisie:

What's happened to my thread about wind? I just popped out for a run (which wasn't windy but very muddy) and come back to find you're all being mean.

In reply to Martin not maisie: Course it would, I meant it would still be below 2 unless there were loads of 3+ leggers.

In reply to mountainbagger:

Yes you lose time, you get some back but work too hard in the wind. For a 5-10k not too much but for halts and longer it really has an impact.. Later on times drop. I think 10-20 seconds a mile depending how strong and how exposed.

In reply to Wainers44:

Yeah I just ran philly marathon, pacing the ladies for 2:43 at the Olympic trial qualifying time. 6:13 pace, we were running up hills with the wind in our faces. My job was 20 miles at 6:13 pace which we did but they fell apart running into the wind from miles 15-20. The early hills and wind hurt too much. Even with the wind for the last 10k the damage was done.

In reply to mountainbagger:


I think we've an answer for you, but it depends - how many legs do you have?

In reply to mountainbagger:


Sorry. Might have been my fault or someone mentioned 30mph somewhere.

The point I was trying to make was if you drop 10 seconds on 1k, your average drops and it's almost impossible to get it back up without running 1second faster (on average) than your PB in all the other kms.

Values chosen for ease there. Add your own in. And consider additional factors like the hills. Mathematically it's a very hard thing to model, but if you analyse your times in Strave (or whatever) you'll see where you lost time. If that was on a downhill into the wind you're stuffed.

In reply to Martin not maisie:


3, but one of them is rarely used these days.

In reply to mountainbagger:

Wind is always a bit of a bummer. If you want to run your own race then you will suffer & lose time. If however you're not too proud then sheltering behind a group or even an individual can help a lot. If you really want to draft then sharing leads might be the way to go. In training when there's no one else then it's just tough. Always found that it was worse on the bike though.

In reply to Alan Breck:

A few years back I remember a very windy 10K out and back along the coast, where me and another chap did all the leading amongst a gaggle of about 5 - 10 runners. The lot of them did me on the finishing straight as I practically crawled over the line on my last legs! Cheeky b*stards!

In reply to mountainbagger:
That's harsh but pretty naive tbh. Sit in, unless you all agree you share, share but keep it as easy as you can. At Chicago I just sat whilst others want to lead groups, they like to get he crowd reaction, but come 21-22 miles I stepped out and could then break away from the group. There's no comments on the results..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Yes, if I'd been racing for position I would have been more annoyed (and I agree it would have been naïve of me). In this instance though, it was already the second half of a 10K. I was just trying to get the best time I could given the conditions. I wasn't happy just pootling along in a group that wasn't pushing, so I took it on (with another guy). Hopefully we all got a better time as a result, including myself, but it was still annoying to be done on the finish line!

Who knows, some of the group may have felt maxed out just keeping up, so couldn't even contemplate having a turn at the front. I always go off hard and try to push it throughout the race. Not always the best idea, but I prefer to know I gave it everything and blow up a bit towards the end than to have too much left in the tank...I think it's an OK approach if you're not racing for position. You've got a target time and sometimes you make it, sometimes you don't!

In reply to mountainbagger:

I always go off hard and try to push it throughout the race. Not always the best idea, but I prefer to know I gave it everything and blow up a bit towards the end than to have too much left in the tank...I think it's an OK approach if you're not racing for position. You've got a target time and sometimes you make it, sometimes you don't!

Certainly should work for a 10K. I always found that a 10K would hurt which is why I didn't like them. On the other hand for a half or a full marathon such a strategy would be disaster. I used to like halfs and marathons as you could "relax" somewhat. Still 2.40 wasn't bad I thought........for a marathon....NOT a half!

On another tack entirely I once did the Fort William half marathon. An out and back course along a windy Loch Eil. You could spot your competition at the turn around. Despite that some barsteward passed me like a bat out of hell on entering Fort William. Never did see him at the halfway!! Wonder where he was sheltering??

In reply to Alan Breck:


Yes, for HM I don't do this, or at least l am more careful about setting off at a reasonable pace. When I got my PB, I was good to about 8 miles, when it became mentally and physically demanding to maintain my pace (but I did). With 10k, I'm usually already in that pain zone by halfway. But then I'm an amateur so I could be doing it all wrong!

In reply to Alan Breck:


2.40 for a marathon? Wow, that's great BTW!