Marathon last 6 miles

Aussie Observer wrote:

Honest truth wrote:

But he went 4 minutes too fast in the first 30k didn't he? And he didn't die in the last 10k.

Finishing faster feels good. So does perfect pace all the way. Finishing slower feels bad.

But sometimes the conditions change. When I ran London in 2007 it was warm and sunny. I felt fine running 5.50s until 21 miles and the humidity seemed to be higher along the river Thames embankment. We all slowed down. There was a line of runners, as far as the eye could see all experiencing the same as me, a big slow down.

The net result is the same, you get more or less the finishing time you deserve according to your fitness.

No he didn't. He went 90 seconds too fast between 10-30k, and then he lost 4 minutes between 30-40k.

If he runs at pace from 10-30k, he most certainly doesn't slow down by as much in the last 10k split. Maybe he doesn't quite get under the 3 hours, but he gives himself a much better chance.

If we follow your logic, why try to pace yourself at all? You might as well just sprint off at the start. After all, you're just going to end up with the result you deserve according to your fitness.

But I'm guessing you're not going to do that.

The marathon, more so than just about any other event, is about managing your effort, so that you spread it evenly across the distance. If your HR climbs into Vo2 Max territory - you will be forced to slow down. Not to mention all of the knock on effects that come with this e.g. the inability to adequately digest nutrition, biomechanical breakdown, gait inefficiencies, etc. Therefore, you want to avoid this for as long as possible.

P.S. with the example you give - Sure, you will slow down if the conditions become more challenging, but if you're fresher going into the challenging conditions, you won't slow down by as much.

Aussie Observer wrote:

Honest truth wrote:

Basic arithmetic isn't your strong point is it?

His own stats show he was too fast in the first 30k and lost the time gained over the rest of the race.

It's like slamming my head against a brick wall.

Sub 3-hour pace is 4:15/km (or 6:50/mile), which is 42:30 for each 10k split.

He went 42:40 for the first 10k - so no problem there, in fact it's a little slow.

He then went 41:57 for the 2nd 10k - which is 33 seconds too fast.

He then went 41:33 for the 3rd 10k - which is 57 seconds too fast (and is also getting very close to his HM pace).

You add those together and you get 90 seconds too fast between 10-30k. Again, he wasn't fast in the first 10k.

His 4th 10k was 46:07 - which is 3:37 too slow.

I'll put it as simply as possible, because you obviously aren't getting it: 3 minutes and 37 seconds is more time than 90 seconds.

You should pay closer attention to the math before throwing out some snooty, unoriginal comeback.

ugh......... wrote:

Sonic893 wrote:

Hi, looking for advise on what can help to build extra strength for the last 6 miles of a marathon.

Ran one yesterday and finished with 3:03:02. I was aiming for a sub 3 and on track till mile 22 where my legs just couldnt handle the pace anymore and felt really dizzy. Not sure if I was dehydrated possibly. Really cost me in them last 4 miles. I followed pfitz 12/70 plan. Posted the breakdown below. Looking for some advise on how to become stronger over that distance, it did feel comfortable upto 20 mile point at least then just started to decline. Thanks

10K
42:40
06:52

20K
41:57
06:45

30K
41:33
06:41

40K
46:07
07:25

Finish
03:03:02

Didn't bother reading the whole thread, so this has probably already been posted. Nonetheless, I'll say it again for emphasis:

YOU WENT OUT TOO FAST.

YOU WENT OUT TOO FAST.

YOU WENT OUT TOO FAST.

It doesn't matter what training plan you follow if you wreck the whole thing by going out too fast.

Almost everyone goes out too fast, and given that you've trained hard and are excited, it's hard to resist. Be disciplined and do it anyway. If you pace properly, you're going to look around in the early miles and see that you're surrounded by all these garbage runners that you KNOW you're better than, and every instinct inside you will scream at you to start passing them. Don't do it. Stick to your plan.

Those other runners are going to be roadkill in the last six miles while you're passing people like they're standing still (some will be!).

Honest truth wrote:

Aussie Observer wrote:

It's like slamming my head against a brick wall.

Sub 3-hour pace is 4:15/km (or 6:50/mile), which is 42:30 for each 10k split.

He went 42:40 for the first 10k - so no problem there, in fact it's a little slow.

He then went 41:57 for the 2nd 10k - which is 33 seconds too fast.

He then went 41:33 for the 3rd 10k - which is 57 seconds too fast (and is also getting very close to his HM pace).

You add those together and you get 90 seconds too fast between 10-30k. Again, he wasn't fast in the first 10k.

His 4th 10k was 46:07 - which is 3:37 too slow.

I'll put it as simply as possible, because you obviously aren't getting it: 3 minutes and 37 seconds is more time than 90 seconds.

You should pay closer attention to the math before throwing out some snooty, unoriginal comeback.

You're just plain wrong Bruce. You seem fixated on 3 hour pace. He wasn't in 3.00 shape. 3.02 at best.

I don't know if your stupid or trolling. Which is it?