strategy for running sub-2:19 at Boston?

The problem with Boston is that the downhills in the beginning feel very easy, but you are actually beating up your quads very badly. By the time you get to the hills on the second half (they are not rolling, they are very long and difficult), your legs are already trashed.

If you want to bank time, do so on the flatter sections between mi 6 and 15. Jog the first 4 miles easy. It is a pretty steep downhill and puts a lot of stress on your quads. And be prepared for a few easier hills on the last 6 mi. It is not a consistent downhill to the finish.

Kilgore Troute wrote:

I was thinking shooting for low-1:08 for the first half, which would require me to hang a 1:10-1:11 for the last half.

Any insight and tips are welcome.

I agree with your strategy. Perhaps you can find a few like minded individuals to keep you company.

Last year 20 broke 2:20. Keep that in mind if you are way back in the pack the first half. You will get a good rush of adrenaline when you start passing all the wambled at 20 miles.

Hope you have a great race.

If you run that much of a positive split, you will NOT be passing guys in the last 10k. You will be one of the guys being passed. Check to see if any of the Hansons guys are running. They have had several guys go sub 2:19 on the course in the last few years.

You WILL be passing lots of back of the pack "elite" ladies though. I think they start like 25' ahead, so you will be swiftly passing any 2:45-2:55 finishers over the last 10k.

Not quite the same as chasing down guys, but certainly more visually pleasing.

If it's true that only 20 broke 2:20 last year I would suggest pulling up their splits and seeing if you can find a common "theme". If a significant positive-split is the true way to go, I imagine it will be obvious by their splits. Somehow, I doubt this is the case though.

Show up at the start as fit as possible and take what the day gives you.

Your time will depend upon the weather and your place will depend upon who does or does not show up and who does or does not race well.

You have no control over any of these things. You may calculate your chances once the race is underway, but not now.

In order to maximize your time and place run at an even output of energy that will give you varying mile splits with the fastest perhaps being the first since is has the most downhill.

Believe me. I've been there, done that and wrote the book on it.

Tom

Thanks for the input. I actually prefer an even split or even negative splits in general, but am just trying to figure out how the course layout will affect that. I'll take a look at last years finishers and their splits.

Top 20 half time, Final time, 2nd half split.

Cheruiyot, Robert Kiprono 1:03:27 2:05:52 1:02:25

Kebede, Tekeste 28 Addis Ababa 1:03:27 2:07:23 1:03:56

Merga, Deriba 29 Addis Ababa 1:03:27 2:08:39 1:05:12

Hall, Ryan 27 Mammoth Lakes 1:03:27 2:08:41 1:05:14

Keflezighi, Mebrahtom 34 Mammoth Lakes 1:03:27 2:09:26 1:05:59

Asfaw, Gashaw 31 Wollo 1:04:00 2:10:53 1:06:53

Komen, John 32 Marakwet 1:04:57 2:11:48 1:06:51

Kipkosgei, Moses Kigen 27 Eldoret 1:03:27 2:12:04 1:08:37

Lehmkuhle, Jason 32 Minneapolis 1:04:54 2:12:24 1:07:30

Suarez, Alejandro 29 Queretaro 1:04:55 2:12:33 1:07:38

Nyasango, Cutbert 27 Harare 1:03:29 2:12:40 1:09:11

Vega, Antonio 26 St. Paul 1:04:54 2:13:47 1:08:53

Keitany, Elijah 27 Kapsait 1:03:27 2:14:48 1:11:21

Kiogora, Stephen 35 Meru 1:03:28 2:14:50 1:11:22

Dechase, Chala 25 Addis Ababa 1:03:31 2:14:57 1:11:26

Polley, Drew A. 24 Rochester Hills 1:08:42 2:16:36 1:07:54

Baranovskyy, Dmytro 30 Kiev 1:03:56 2:17:15 1:13:19

Johnson, Chad N. 33 Lake Orion 1:08:57 2:17:41 1:08:44

Delaney, Jason C. 30 Golden 1:08:47 2:19:17 1:10:30

Drew Polley, Chad Johnson, and Jason Delaney are probably the guys I need to be looking at...

The others (besides Cheruiyot) ran huge positive splits, but they were also going for broke, so it's a completely different race than the one I'll be trying to run.

There's a spreadsheet out there that somebody cooked up to show "even effort" mile splits for the entire Boston course. You plug in your goal time (2:18:59) and it shows you what an evenly-paced effort would look like, adjusting for the course's variations.

Thanks for posting those. Interesting to look at.

A couple thoughts as I look at those:

1.) While the majority have a positive split, it strikes me that many were probably racing to win and then faded at some point (Note all the 1:03/1:04 first half splits in this list... some with HUGE fades). They likely weren't running for a goal time (like the OP is, going for sub 2:19).

2.) The two names (Hanson guys?) from MI at the bottom of the list, Drew Polley and Chad Johnson, both ran even/slightly negative splits. I would assume that these are the guys and pacing strategy you want to emulate if you're going for your best-possible time.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of even / slight negative splits in general, so I'm probably biased.

these guys are racing for the win or high placing which would lead ot a different strategy, hence the big positives. I have the exact same question and run the same style as the OP does (only I'm a hobby jogger not a 2:20 guy!). I generally run negative marathons as I find them more enjoyable, but this is my first Boston and I'm confused as hell as to what strategy to use to maximize my performace!My hunch is running even splits is like running a negative but it seems a slight positives is maxing out. Veterans keep throwing you opinions out here perhaps there's a trend!

Jogger to be wrote:

Top 20 half time, Final time, 2nd half split.

Cheruiyot, Robert Kiprono 1:03:27 2:05:52 1:02:25

Kebede, Tekeste 28 Addis Ababa 1:03:27 2:07:23 1:03:56

Merga, Deriba 29 Addis Ababa 1:03:27 2:08:39 1:05:12

Hall, Ryan 27 Mammoth Lakes 1:03:27 2:08:41 1:05:14

elton wrote:

There's a spreadsheet out there that somebody cooked up to show "even effort" mile splits for the entire Boston course. You plug in your goal time (2:18:59) and it shows you what an evenly-paced effort would look like, adjusting for the course's variations.

Good excel file that you can plug your goal time into and decide on your pacing strategy. It takes into account the specific course and how you want to start the race. I used this in NY very successfully.

There is a 5 day trial to check it out before spending 5 bucks for the 6 month use.

You can starty by learning the verb conjugation of 'run'. Run, ran, have run. "For those who have RUN Boston..."

If you drop that much time (10-15 seconds/mile) you are going too hard the first 10-18 miles. As the poster above me said, running negative splits is the most enjoyable way to go because it does not hurt as much.

Psychologically, it is better to run negative splits in a way that is not readily appreciated. Specifically, in the later stages you will not be able to burn glycogen for as large a portion of your energy output. As a result, you will get a little 'fuzzy' in the brain (can you calculate splits etc as quickly the last 10km?).

A related effect is that the lower level of glycogen leads to you feeling more depressed. If, in addition, you are dropping off your pace and others are passing you, it is easy for the negative side to get bigger and you cannot push as well.

You are also more likely to get sloppy, and in Boston with ups and downs you want to work at staying really efficient and when fatigued it is harder to rely on you standard feedback to stay efficient.

One 'rule of thumb' is that every minute too fast in the first half will cost you two minutes in the second half (or more if you crash physically or mentally).

I would try to hit half way in close to goal pace, meaning you are not running as hard the first half and saving precious glycogen stores for the later stages. Do not blow this valuable store by storming up the Heartbreak Hill trio but do run it well.

Sorry that I cannot say that this based on either having run Boston or having run 2:19; however, I have run fast enough and have read enough over time to have some confidence in what the right answer is.

help a guy out wrote:

If you run that much of a positive split, you will NOT be passing guys in the last 10k. You will be one of the guys being passed. Check to see if any of the Hansons guys are running. They have had several guys go sub 2:19 on the course in the last few years.

Well,

It worked out OK for this guy:

Delaney, Jason C. 30 Golden 1:08:47 2:19:17 1:10:30

Read more:

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

my advice is to pray for a tailwind or pick an easier marathon.

other than that i would suggest a seven or negative split on boston. really focus on that last 10k. remember its 3 parts- first 16 miles, then newton hills, and finally the last 5 miles or so after the big hills. part 1- take it easy. part 2- consolidate and maintain. just survive here. you want to hit the last part hard. so dont be surprised to be about a minute or so behind schedule going into the last 5 miles

Kilgore Troute wrote:

Thanks for the input. I actually prefer an even split or even negative splits in general, but am just trying to figure out how the course layout will affect that. I'll take a look at last years finishers and their splits.

In 1986 I ran 1:06:50 first half and 1:08 flat second half. I went from 20th to 6th place in the last 6 miles.

I'm just sayin...

1.) de Castella - 2:07:51

2.) Boileau - 2:11:15

3.) Pizzolato - 2:11:43

4.) Rodgers - 2:13:36

5.) Barrios - 2:14:09

6.) Hodge - 2:14:50

7.) Tibaduiza - 2:15:22

8.) Cummings - 2:16:05

9.) Schlesinger - 2:16:29

10.) Ito - 2:17:02

11.) Tiainen - 2:17:04

12.) Meyer - 2:17:29

13.) Nagashima - 2:17:38

14.) Huggins - 2:18:11

15.) Doyle - 2:19:03

16.) Hurd - 2:19:04

17.) Fieldsend - 2:19:19

18.) Patterson - 2:21:14

19.) Johnsen - 2:21:19

20.) Cusack - 2:21:24

It was before Hodgie time but it was in 1909 that Henri Renaud ran in 53rd place in Framingham at about 6 miles and passed everyone to win in temperatures of 83°F with high humidity and a following wind at about race pace. He ran 2:53 for the shorter course.

But in 1976 Jack Fultz failed to break 2:20 in winning but was fit to do it because it was at times 100°F on the course.

On the other hand with cool weather and a tail wind Joan Benoit ran a reckless pace early in the 1983 race and got away with it.

You have to take what the day gives you.

Tom