How to Pace First Sub 3 Marathon Attempt

assuming a course where the 1st and 2nd half are roughly equally difficult with respect to course profile, weather, etc., and at the paces we are discussing, I consider anything within a few minutes effectively an even split.

So, anything between 1:28 and 1:32 is pretty much perfect (IMO).

I lean towards expecting a positive split, but that is more because i entered marathons on the undertrained side and I'm not an endurance monster...my thinking is that I'd have to go very, very slow to be able to pick up the pace after 20-22 miles.

Also remember that sometimes a poor 2nd half may not be due to bad pacing as much as it simply not being your day.

I prefer to aim for a slight negative split. I typically aim for about 10 seconds slower than MGP for the first four miles - or about 7min/mile if aiming just under sub-3. From 4-20 I try to maintain goal pace and then for the last 10k I run all out until the finish. The slower start helps me ease into race pace and 40sec or so isn't much time lost so I figure if I cannot make up the lost time in the last 10k then it wasn't meant to be.

marathon wrote:

Hi,

I was wondering how you would approach such an attempt, or for that matter any time goal in mind.

Do you recommend a total even split (1:30 first half), a slightly positive split a la Pfitzinger (1:28:30 to 1:29 first half), or negative (1:31 first half). I know it seems like splitting hairs but every second counts, right?

I have run a 3:05 going a positive 1:15 last time.

Thanks!

Wait, so you went 1:15/1:50 last time your ran and now you're asking about the merits of 1:29/1:31 vs. 1:31/1:29?

I think the OP was saying the it was more like 1:32/1:33 for the 3:05 which is not positive split, but a very even run. Probably perfect, in fact!

Exactly this.

1:32:15 to 1:33:30

Thanks!

How many miles per week do you do? If you are a high-mileage guy, maybe even or slightly negative splits might work. I was a low-mileage guy (45/week during the last 3-4 months). My 2:57 was very positive split (1:22/1:35) and I'm glad I did it that way. After 18 miles, my legs were going to break down anyway and I needed the cushion I had. Had I gone out in 1:28, I likely would have went 1:34 in 2H and failed. Each person is different, but I warn against being too conservative in 1H as your body may slow down anyway in the 2nd Half and you might want to have some minutes to play with. Remember unlike say a 5K, cardio/breathing too hard is not what kills you in the marathon but instead your leg muscles breaking down late in the race.

I've had one failed sub-3 attempt. From that I concluded that the best way to get a sub-3 is to be in 2:50 shape.

Have you raced any halfs lately? It would be really helpful to know what you can do for the half. It you want to squeak under the 3 hour wire, you probably want to give yourself a cushion - but not a huge cushion. You want to go out between 1:26 and 1:28. This gives you a little cushion because your legs are going to get heavy. This pace SHOULD feel easy in the first half, but not too easy. Ideally, you would have raced a half in 1:22-1:25. If you can run a half much faster than the above mentioned pace range, you are underachieving in the marathon and need to do the long runs. If you have done the mileage and can't do a half in this pace range, the sub 3 hour marathon might be out of reach for you this season.

Hi,

Thanks for the responses!

I peaked at 75 miles. An average week would be around 60 with the usual LT cruise intervals and MP runs in a week.

My half about 8 weeks out was 1:25:30.

I'm on the razor's edge I know.

Banking time is a terrible idea. Honestly I don't think you're ready unless this course is alot easier than your half or you know, not think, you've improved. My rec is go out in 1:31-1:32

Going out in 128, only 3 minutes off your half pr is suicide

I'm convinced it is best for most people to run even splits or slightly negative splits. If you run positive splits (aka banking time) you are by definition running faster than your sustainable pace EARLY in the race, so you are almost guaranteeing you will feel horrible at the end. If you run negative splits, at least the "fast" running will be in the second half where the end is near and the negative effects won't get compounded. Plus you'll be passing all the positive splitters who are dying at the end.

renewed marathoner wrote:

Banking time is a terrible idea. Honestly I don't think you're ready unless this course is alot easier than your half or you know, not think, you've improved. My rec is go out in 1:31-1:32

Going out in 128, only 3 minutes off your half pr is suicide

Dude, his goal isn't to run a perfectly paced 3:01 (which would be fine goal too), he is aiming for sub-3.

I hope that "no person" above wasn't trolling (you never know), but I agree with him that many runners will slow the 2nd half simply because those final miles can be tough regardless of your pacing.

Some runners well suited to the 'thon can run even splits the whole way. Some recreational runners think they are master pacers when the negative split, but they may have just been sandbagging the first part of the race.

Better not to think of it as "banking time"...maybe consider the final few miles as a cool down instead. Think of it as the opposite of those guys that claim it should be a 20 mile jog followed by a hard 10k.

Going out in 131-132 would be a nice conservative strategy. going out a bit faster increases odds of actually achieving the goal. Now, if that 125 half represents his current fitness, i agree, 128 would be a bad idea. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he would be good for a little faster.

Now, the real risk of aiming for something like 128is first half is having the discipline to not get excited and go out faster than that!

I respectfully disagree.

I understand his goal. Negative split is his best chance and honestly that's pretty well established knowledge. He will likely blow up with a 1:28.

Think of the % of marathoners out there around his level going for 3 hrs. Most blow up aiming for the arbitrary goal when they really should aim for 302-305 (or even 3:10 haha)

If you had to bet money would you bet on him breaking 3 or not? I'd definetly bet not. He hasn't noted any substantial improvements in any other prs. Asking for 5 minutes is a lot. And with a 1:25:30 half? Extremely unlikely. Personally, feeling strong at the end passing all the faders really helps. But the wild card is the course difficulties for sure.

Anything can happen. But I consider 1:31 at the half "going for it". If I was recd going for 305 id say go 133:

I agree with almost your entire post above, especially the arbitrary sub-3 goal point. And if that 1:25 was a good effort, a 3 hour performance would take a very good day of running

I guess we differ mostly on negative splits being optimal...I still think for most they are a ultra-conservative strategy and kind of a wimpy approach IF you have a good idea of your fitness...for a first marathon, or if if the goal is to have fun running 26 miles, I think aiming for a negative split makes sense.

The OP did mention averaging 60 mile/week which is above what most 3 hour guys would do.

I also agree that a serious attempt at a 3 hour race depends greatly if that 1:25 HM was a good effort or not.

Negative split. "Putting time in the bank" is a fools errand.

Thanks again for the thoughts!

Was the half marathon a good effort? Yes it was honestly. It was about a minute and twenty second PR from my half time at the time of my last marathon in the spring (the 3:05, which was a nine minute PR).

And yes, I'm counting a lot on upped mileage. Before this I maxed at 55 and averaged around 45, so it's a jump up this cycle.

I agree 1:28 would be rough for the first half. I know it's splitting hairs but I was thinking 1:29, 1:30, or 1:31.

"A" goal is at least make Boston (never have) so that take about 3:03 probably for me. "B" goal at least take a stab at sub 3 (intelligently).

Isn't it funny how neurotic we can become in our last week when the running is lower than usual?

i'd go with a very slight positive split. aim for 1:29 flat, or just under 1:29, for the first half.

give yourself a few seconds to give back in the late miles.

look at race results and see how uncommon negative splits are executed.

jwd wrote:

i'd go with a very slight positive split. aim for 1:29 flat, or just under 1:29, for the first half.

give yourself a few seconds to give back in the late miles.

look at race results and see how uncommon negative splits are executed.

Just because everybody else runs stupidly is not a reason for you to do so as well.

By running a negative split you are keeping yourself in the fight, go out too fast and blow up at 22 does you NO good. Getting to mile 22 and feeling like you can still push the pedal down more, that's a great thing.

Not trolling. I think you want to bank a few minutes. It's just unrealistic to think that you are going to blast out the second half of a marathon. You are stringing two half marathons back to back. The second one is going to be more difficult than the first. You want a little wiggle room in case you slow down a bit during the second half. If the time goal is to break three hours, there is a huge amount of psychological pressure the runner has placed on themselves. If they run through the first half in 1:32, they now know they have to take three minutes off this time in the second of two back-to-back half marathons. If they run through in 1:28, they know they can afford a second half marathon in what would, for them on another day, be a fairly easy and slow half marathon performance. I