Road Racing and Training Thread- Week Ending April 16, 2017

First off, discount everything I am about to say as I have run three marathons and not managed to come anywhere near optimal splits.

Also, while this came up in the context of Runn3rgGirl's post, I am really just talking generally here and using her goal times as an example.

That being said, my take is that pacing the marathon is part physiology and part psychology.

I agree that the key is to stay aerobic, and I acknowledge that running even splits is the best way to get the fastest possible time.

But sometimes people are not seeking their best possible time, but rather to get under a specific time. Depending on your aerobic fitness, that could mean that you could stay aerobic while running a faster first half on the way to a positive split since you are not necessarily trying to capture every possible second out there.

The psychology part of it is fairly simple - people like to bank time and have a cushion. With the marathon this is a particularly insidious thing because there is good reason to want to bank time as the back end of the marathon is always grueling. Yet, you accurately point out that part of why it is grueling is that if you have gone past the LT and don't notice it, the price is steep later on.

If I think I am in 2:28:40 shape (5:40 pace), and I want to run 2:28:40, I would go out and try to split 1:14:20. However, if I thought I was in 2:28:40 shape, but my goal was simply to get under the magic 2:30 threshold (5:43 pace), I would definitely still go out in 1:14:20 rather than to back down to 1:15:00 and then try to run an even or negative split. A slight increase in risk as I may have misjudged myself to be in 2:28:40 shape when I wasn't; but worth the reduction in in-race pressure that results from having no room for error.

Assuming a fair course and a goal time of 2:45, and assuming that I had the theoretical fitness to run 2:40-2:42 range (as Runn3rGirl's recent races suggest), I would definitely try to bank time. If I were in her shoes, I would probably go out in the 1:21:30 range, leaving myself the opportunity to hit my time goal while running a 2:00 positive split.

Makes perfect sense. I think 1:21:30 would be a pretty much perfect starting pace. Thanks Smoove!

The 2:00 leaves plenty of room for cramping or any other issues. My calfs cramped like crazy my last marathon.

Have any of you tried pedialyte for hydration?

All this talk makes me want to run a lot of miles for another 6-7 weeks and run a marathon.

Smoove wrote:

If I think I am in 2:28:40 shape (5:40 pace), and I want to run 2:28:40, I would go out and try to split 1:14:20. However, if I thought I was in 2:28:40 shape, but my goal was simply to get under the magic 2:30 threshold (5:43 pace), I would definitely still go out in 1:14:20 rather than to back down to 1:15:00 and then try to run an even or negative split. A slight increase in risk as I may have misjudged myself to be in 2:28:40 shape when I wasn't; but worth the reduction in in-race pressure that results from having no room for error.

To be honest this is what I'm doing no matter how much I say even splits. I want to run 3:02, because I'm one of those sentimental types that wants to go to Boston, but I'm training with a 3:00 target and plan to go out at 90 flat even though I don't care if I break 3:00. Mine is more a concern about a bathroom break and psychology than planning to slow down, but I probably will slow down. I probably wouldn't have said anything if you said you want to go out at 1:21:30, just 1:20/1:25 seemed really aggressive/precarious, I know it doesn't sound like a big difference but I think it certainly can be if you really are right on your aerobic edge like you're supposed to be.

More about knowing your fitness than going out exactly at your pace goal. If you think you might be in 2:40 shape go for it, if you're wishfully thinking sub 2:45 but don't know then 1:20 might be a mistake. I don't know you well enough yet to know but you seem really fast.

runrincerepeat wrote:

All this talk makes me want to run a lot of miles for another 6-7 weeks and run a marathon.

Grandma's marathon registration still open...

A couple of 10ks in the 34s and a couple of halves in the 1:17 range support the 2:42 or faster fitness estimate, assuming that training transitions from 10k-centric training to marathon-centric training (some longer long runs, a few medium-long runs at marathon pace, some mixed long/LT runs, generally increased volume, etc.).

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

More about knowing your fitness than going out exactly at your pace goal. If you think you might be in 2:40 shape go for it, if you're wishfully thinking sub 2:45 but don't know then 1:20 might be a mistake. I don't know you well enough yet to know but you seem really fast.

If trained for it I think a 2:45 would be relatively easy, I am used to racing much faster, but much shorter distances. With added endurance I think a 2:45 would be good. I would like to get a trained marathon under my belt. I've done 1 but I only did a couple of 18 milers to prepare and I went out at 1:18 and closed in 1:35. I currently don't even have great half marathon endurance. The last 3-5 miles of my half marathons feel like a struggle.

Runn3rGirl wrote:

The last 3-5 miles of my half marathons feel like a struggle.

That just shows that you are doing them right!

My last 3 miles were a struggle! haha .. what happens when you go out at 1:17:30 pace on a hilly course.

Now i am considering a road marathon instead of a trail 50k in June. Not training super intense just doing a bunch of miles and seeing what happens. Been doing 90% of my miles last few weeks on pavement and dont feel beat up like I was worried about feet wise.

Smoove wrote:

Runn3rGirl wrote:

The last 3-5 miles of my half marathons feel like a struggle.

That just shows that you are doing them right!

That makes me feel better haha.

Smoove- You run great marathons and race pretty even. How do you typically feel right after finishing a marathon compared to a half or 10k?

That's hard to answer because of the limited sample set of marathons that I have done.

With the 10k, the last mile feels similar to the end of a 5k - taxed to your limit, holding on for dear life, desperate for oxygen - just taken down one notch.

With the half, I definitely recognize that the pain is less intense than for the shorter stuff. Whereas I might feel like I cannot breath enough in the late stages of the 5k or 10k, in the late stages of the half I can breathe just fine, but the amount of air coming in just doesn't do much to address the challenges that I am facing. Again, the intensity of the pain is still pretty high, but definitely down a couple of notches from the 5k.

In my three marathons, I bonked once (my first, NYC 2014) and cramped up twice.

In the one where I bonked, I really just couldn't get my legs to turn over, I was hyper-focused on holding on and not giving too much time back, and I really had no sense of my surroundings anymore. I went to the dark place. No way to really compare that to anything else; it is an extraordinary experience.

In my last two marathons, I never really felt all that bad aerobically at all. In Chicago (2015), I felt ready to keep rolling and even my legs felt great except for my calves seizing out of nowhere. I suspect that I was closing in on the point where I would have felt similar to the way I feel at the end of the half, but just never got there because I ended up stopping and slowing down so much to relieve the cramps. In Boston, I was absolutely fine aerobically and don't think that holding pace would have been an aerobic challenge at all. I think that I would have had to pick up the pace to get to the same place that I do at the en d of the half. But my legs were far more trashed than they were at Chicago. My calves had me super-preoccupied, but if they were fine, my quads would have been the limiting factor on my performance the last 8 miles, not my lungs.

Long answer without any real nugget of wisdom in there; but I think that is kind of the nature of the marathon - each one is a special beast.

And I realize I may have missed the question altogether. Post-race, I am absolutely wrecked after a marathon. Imagine the tightness that you feel in your calves after racing a 10k or half in flats, and then expand that to every muscle in your legs (including adductors, hip flexors, etc.). That's how my legs feel. Then on top of that, imagine how you feel when you are stuck at work all day and don't have time to eat anything - that depleted, fatigued feeling. Add that on top of the muscle fatigue, and then throw in just being physically tired.

Comparing that to merely feeling a little tired and having fairly tight calves after a half or a 10k.

If your goal is 2:45, then 1:24/1:21 is a three-minute negative split. The best I have ever felt in a marathon was when I was running that type of negative split. It is hard to say what would have happened, as I made a wrong turn and went off course late in the race, but my body was respnding very well to the straregy and I was clicking off fast mile after fast mile in the second half of the race.

The worst of all possible scenarios is to go out too fast and to start burning your matches too soon. This is where "redlining" is the worst. Pushing it in the second half has some risks, but clearly fewer of them.

Have a great race...

outsiderunner wrote:

If your goal is 2:45, then 1:24/1:21 is a three-minute negative split. The best I have ever felt in a marathon was when I was running that type of negative split. It is hard to say what would have happened, as I made a wrong turn and went off course late in the race, but my body was respnding very well to the straregy and I was clicking off fast mile after fast mile in the second half of the race.

The worst of all possible scenarios is to go out too fast and to start burning your matches too soon. This is where "redlining" is the worst. Pushing it in the second half has some risks, but clearly fewer of them.

Have a great race...

You still weren't going to make sub3 in that race dude.

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

runrincerepeat wrote:

All this talk makes me want to run a lot of miles for another 6-7 weeks and run a marathon.

Grandma's marathon registration still open...

Seems like a nice course, but the weather is very iffy. Also, with those little rollers very late in the race, a 70-degree day could make for quite a disaster.

outsiderunner wrote:

If your goal is 2:45, then 1:24/1:21 is a three-minute negative split. The best I have ever felt in a marathon was when I was running that type of negative split. It is hard to say what would have happened, as I made a wrong turn and went off course late in the race, but my body was respnding very well to the straregy and I was clicking off fast mile after fast mile in the second half of the race.

The worst of all possible scenarios is to go out too fast and to start burning your matches too soon. This is where "redlining" is the worst. Pushing it in the second half has some risks, but clearly fewer of them.

Have a great race...

I know my body pretty well, and I don't trust myself to make that type of negative split. It gives you no room for error. A lot of weird things happen to your body after mile 19 in marathons.

I understand...to each, her own. In my view, you leave yourself no room for error when you go out too fast.

outsiderunner wrote:

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

Grandma's marathon registration still open...

Seems like a nice course, but the weather is very iffy. Also, with those little rollers very late in the race, a 70-degree day could make for quite a disaster.

But if he's looking for something at least 6-7 weeks from now, then something as far north as Duluth on a huge lake is the best you can hope for. Looking at historical data they seem to get great weather 25% of the time, decent weather 50% of the time, and bad weather 25% of the time. You can look at average finish time to see which years are hottest (2009 & 2016).

Plus in decent weather years they have like 300-400 sub3 hour finishers...perfect for not getting lonely if you're an above average runner.