CIM marathon advice

be just shy of goal pace at mile 10. most people blow this race in the first 10 miles trying to stay on pace in the early hills.

I was about 3 minutes faster at CIM over Boston the two years I did both (about the same fitness levels for both). At 2:55 and 2:58 (CIM/Boston) I'm nowhere near the level you run, though, so maybe it's meaningless. Good luck.

My advise is don't try to claim your CIM time as a PR. It is a non-record eligible course.

Especially irrelevant since the comparison is being made to the non-record eligible Boston course.

Craig Clutz wrote:

My advise is don't try to claim your CIM time as a PR. It is a non-record eligible course.

Well if you blow your load and miss your PR, I'll say hello as I pass you in mile 26.

You ought to aim for a slight negative split at CIM. I'm talking like 15 seconds, so if you want to run 2:29:59, you should go out in 75:0X, although obviously nobody can be that precise.

I have performed lots of calculations to come up with ideal splits for CIM, but basically all you need to know is that your first 3 miles should be 5:32, 5:52, 5:42, 5:31. That's adjusting for all the early hills, using an "even effort" for a 2:30:00. After that go by feel. It's rolling in the first half but you shouldnt have any miles slower than 5:53 for the whole race if you run 2:30.

I haven't run NY or Boston, but I'd say it's best to run a slight negative split at CIM. First mile is surprisingly fast (don't worry if you run it quick), but after that don't stress too much about pace over the hills. It really depends what type of runner you are, but for me the best part of the course was the last 10k when it's totally flat and there's no more uphill. Obviously you lose elevation before that which helps, but that's largely offset by the uphills if you're a rhythm runner like me. So save something for the last 10k and you can cut some time off your average pace then. Just my .02.

Start at half way point and you'll feel great. I have all my runners do it.

reed wrote:

Well if you blow your load and miss your PR, I'll say hello as I pass you in mile 26.

You ought to aim for a slight negative split at CIM. I'm talking like 15 seconds, so if you want to run 2:29:59, you should go out in 75:0X, although obviously nobody can be that precise.

I have performed lots of calculations to come up with ideal splits for CIM, but basically all you need to know is that your first 3 miles should be 5:32, 5:52, 5:42, 5:31. That's adjusting for all the early hills, using an "even effort" for a 2:30:00. After that go by feel. It's rolling in the first half but you shouldnt have any miles slower than 5:53 for the whole race if you run 2:30.

Yes to going out in 75-low and slightly negative splitting it. However, if you go out the first 4 miles with the splits you have with 2 5:30s, you'll be crawling at the finish. Better to go out with 5:40, 5:45, 5:45, 5:40. You'll thank me later.

First 4 miles are fast and unlike most marathons, it actually pays off to put some time in the bank early on. Nothing slower than 5:30 until after mile 5 if you want to have a prayer of breaking 2:30.

obviously ignore the guy above me who said to run opening 5mi in 5:30

the early downhills at CIM are not going to crush your quads if you go run low 5:30s. I'm only suggesting running up to 13 seconds faster than goal pace.

reed wrote:

obviously ignore the guy above me who said to run opening 5mi in 5:30

the early downhills at CIM are not going to crush your quads if you go run low 5:30s. I'm only suggesting running up to 13 seconds faster than goal pace.

I wouldn't advise anyone to go out like that at CIM. It's a recipe for disaster. No need to bank time there. Go out at pace or just slower than pace. In no way go out in 530.

Thanks for the advice… I did pretty good holding back and running pace...at Boston for the first three or 4 miles and pretty much settled in the pace cruised all the way to 20 and then just really struggled with the downhill for the last 10 K. I'm hoping a little bit flatter profile will keep the pace smoother towards the end. My legs were noodles the last 10k at Boston and heavy at NYC....

So in the first three or 4 miles quite a bit downhill? Or aggressively Rollers?

I'm still thinking it would be nice to 'try' to go through the half around 1:14...and finish with a 1:14-16...ideally? I might be delusional but I felt at Boston I could've gone out faster and probably not faded any worse the last 10k .

Like most runners i'm sure my goal my just be marginally out of reach… But I think CIM...might be a better venue then both Boston and New York for a faster time. The weather for the first time actually looks really good for me I think that's probably the biggest factor.

Very excited just for an honest effort on a fairly honest course ... I know there's a net downhill but that certainly not what attracted me I was more interested in the flat or almost flat nature .

In a perfect world I might rather be at Berlin or Chicago but cost and weather..logistics... make CIM an interesting course.

I've never done CIM, but I have done NYC and Chicago. Despite being a Brooklyn native, I would say for anyone who is not from NYC, Chicago is simply a tough-to-beat marathon. The course is flat as can be. The logistics are pretty good too - starting and finishing at the same place and having plenty of hotels at the start and finish is a big advantage as compared to NYC and, presumably, Boston and other point to point courses. I cannot think of a bad thing to say about Chicago, other than that the crowds can get sparse, and the course can get aesthetically unpleasant, out in the western portion of the race. But I think every course has its dead spots (like the Bronx in NYC), so that is not much of a demerit.

Interested in the discussion or relative courses and hills, because I will be running Boston for the first time in April.

Thanks Chicago closes reg. In 1 hour...

CIM this weekend will be near perfect weather 40-60 degrees, the course looks fairly straight forward.

Boston is definitely a bit easier than NYC...I can't say it's faster but felt a bit easier for me. I was in much better shape for Boston and only ran 3

Minutes faster in Boston so hard to say hugely different. Both NYC and Boston were windy/non-stellar days so I would say weather was a factor in both efforts. 2:36 and 2:33.... I ran about the same first half but faded harder in NYC.

So is the first 5 miles fast? Drops? CIM?

Are there any hard sections?

Strategy? Windy parts?

Was your NYC marathon in 2014?

Smoove wrote:

Was your NYC marathon in 2014?

If so, there is a decent chance that we ran some portion of it together as I ran 2:35.

And for what it is worth, I dropped almost a full five minutes from my NYC time on a fast, flat course the next year. For the 2015 marathon, my mileage was greater, but my workouts were not as good. I probably went into both marathons pretty close to equally well prepared. The drop was mostly due to weather and the course, as well as having run a previous marathon when I got to the 2015 marathon.

All of that is to say that good weather, a fast course and a bit more experience can make an appreciable difference, so feel confident no matter hat you decide come race day.

Cim-virgin wrote:

So is the first 5 miles fast? Drops? CIM?

Are there any hard sections?

Strategy? Windy parts?

It's pretty rolling for the first 10 miles. There are some short kind of steep ups and downs. Wind shouldn't be a factor since the weather is going to perfect.

Shoot for even effort early on. Don't worry about losing a few seconds on the climbs. If you try and maintain pace early on, life will suck for you when you get to mile 18.