The author says he was first surprised by his slowness on the trails despite the feeling that he had put in real effort. After the run, his breathing was steady and his legs were working “as they should.” Then, when he checks his watch, he finds that the displayed pace is “slow enough” to suggest a problem if it were seen on the road.
The core point is that trail running doesn’t follow the same rules as road running: the ground is different and demands a different rhythm. The author highlights that your stride changes and that your ankles, hips, calves and even your brain have to work harder, even when the trail seems easy. The key is therefore to put the number into context before you doubt yourself.
Among the explanations, the author stresses the energy you lose because of the terrain and the lack of consistency. On the road, energy is mainly used to move forward, whereas on trails part of it is used to stay upright, find grip, brake and avoid striking a stone. He describes sequences of surfaces (dirt, gravel, mud, root) that force the body to adjust constantly.
He also links the drop in speed to the climbs and to the difficulty they reveal very quickly. Even trails described as “flat” include rolling sections, dips, twists and climbs that make pace fall without necessarily looking spectacular. On the uphill, the demands rise for your calves, glutes, hamstrings, breathing and patience, and the author says you can “fake control” on the flat, but not for long on a steep climb.
Finally, the article offers a way to interpret your outings: rather than focusing on distance and instantaneous pace, the author advises judging the effort, the time “on feet” and how the course was managed. He recommends avoiding comparing a road run and a trail run with one another, and explains that instantaneous pace can become “messy” with turns, changes in elevation and GPS offsets.
