Slow Day at Boston

Saw a lot of sweat residue on people, just drying up quickly from the dry air and sun exposure? I grabbed both water and Gatorade at every station after mile 2 and that may have prevented a big blow up for me. Threw water on pretty often too

I PR'd, but only by 20 seconds. I was trained for a few minutes. It wasn't ideal, but the conditions were okay.

I ran Boston today. Here are my few thoughts.

I ran 10 minutes slower than I thought I would. 9 minute positive split. I think the "lack of sweating" a previous poster mentioned had more to do with the significant headwind drying the sweat as you ran. I, for one, did not mind the headwind, as it helped cool me off in the heat. Before the race, I was getting warm just sitting around at the Athlete's Village. The first 16 or so miles of the race was especially warm(almost hot), and it only cooled off in the last 3-4 miles as I approached Boston. Not a great day for a marathon, especially since I was unable to train in any heat beforehand.

I was surprised that the elites' times were so slow. I didn't think it was -that- bad of conditions.

I was shocked at how many runners were walking, even 9 miles into the race. The last 10K was a war zone. A LOT of people were walking Heartbreak Hill.

As we saw at the Trials, it is not necessarily about how high the temperature is relative to hot weather, but how much greater it is than runners have been training in to that point in the season. But these temperatures (reported 62 at the start in the espn.com story) are just not that high, so maybe the wind was a factor. In Fl we've had unseasonably cool weather for a while, yet on most days it is around 70 at the start of runs around 7 a.m. If it was sunny, that has a significant effect. Obviously, when everyone runs slower than usual, they aren't all wimping out. As for the relatively slow times for recent American WMM races, I wonder whether the testing is known to be stricter here than at, say, Dubai.

@breh sayer you sound like a real gem2:22 does sound a lot cooler. of course! no one is arguing that. but there's a big cost. and marathons aren't that great. i mean it. i ran the 400m / 800m/1500m, so try to understand the lack of thrill running 5:35-40 miles and doing 2+ hr training runs. 10 miles max. per week is preferred. half marathons are more fun, but getting under 1:10 was the goal...the next goal is way off. big cost2:22 for me would probably mean a couple extra years of training at 80+ miles per week. I did all of my races at 65 mpw max. usually averaged 55 for 8-10 weeks. (3) 20-milers. I'm a speed guy, and prefer training to run 5k's and 10k's. It's just more fun and my body feels better. My job is more fun. My marriage is better. My social life and friendships are better. My body and appetite are healthier. having kids wouldn't be an option while going for it2:22 is just another (albeit faster) time. no sponsorship. no oly trials. just a different bragging right to other runners. i tell people my marathon pb is 5:38 pace and they turn around and say, "hey, this guy runs 5-minute miles in a marathon." yikes.....my buddy was running 85 miles per week, in amazing shape and ran like 3:04-3:05 at boston today. what a waste of timei'm in my 30's, things have been accomplished. time to move on. no regrets and so many more interesting things to do with my life

Breh Sayer wrote:

2:27 was a 5 minute PR, breh. Why retire now, breh? I mean,breh.... 2:22 sounds a lot cooler.

sayer of brah wrote:

Brah, you retired on a PR of 2:27. Seems you could get even faster, brah? Why retire now, brah?

The topic was more about why the elites ran slower times.

I would guess that 80 to 90% of runners run positive splits in every marathon everywhere.

jjjjj wrote:

As we saw at the Trials, it is not necessarily about how high the temperature is relative to hot weather, but how much greater it is than runners have been training in to that point in the season. But these temperatures (reported 62 at the start in the espn.com story) are just not that high, so maybe the wind was a factor. In Fl we've had unseasonably cool weather for a while, yet on most days it is around 70 at the start of runs around 7 a.m. If it was sunny, that has a significant effect. Obviously, when everyone runs slower than usual, they aren't all wimping out. As for the relatively slow times for recent American WMM races, I wonder whether the testing is known to be stricter here than at, say, Dubai.

I just looked at the weather history for today and it was 70 in hopkinton for the 10am start (so actually warmer than the start at the trials) and also 70 through Wellesley& Newton btwn 11:30 and 12. Maybe ESPN meant 62 in Boston (closer to the water). It did cool down everywhere starting aroujd noon. I had a very bad day but not totally sure the source of the muscle cramping. Guessing it could be heat related

weather girls wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

From what I heard, it was 68-70 in Hopkinton. Only 2.6 miles of the race is in Boston.

Here's a breakdown of the temps at start, halfway and BOS. More for hobbyjoggerish with the breakdown for each different wave along the course. Basically temps held steady until BOS. Ther temps dropped but wind picked up a lot.

http://www.findmymarathon.com/marathon-news/boston-marathon-weather/

Yeah, it was pretty warm at the start and the sun heated it up as well. No shade. Didn't cool off until the last 3-4 miles imho. That's when a tough headwind blew in.

Low humidity is great for evaporative cooling, but the price is dehydration and electrolyte imbalance later in the game. Much sneakier than humid heat. Hence the huge positive splits for most people today.

45-55 degrees. overcast, no wind and possibly light drizzle are the ideal conditions. Today was a far cry from that.

The winner ran EIGHT MINUTES slower than his PB for Darwin's Sake!

Hi Miranda!

Bwahston Stranger wrote:

Low humidity is great for evaporative cooling, but the price is dehydration and electrolyte imbalance later in the game. Much sneakier than humid heat. Hence the huge positive splits for most people today.

45-55 degrees. overcast, no wind and possibly light drizzle are the ideal conditions. Today was a far cry from that.

The winner ran EIGHT MINUTES slower than his PB for Darwin's Sake!

I agree completely. Yes--eight minutes of his PR.

I never undestand why people want "nice weather" for a race. Cloudy, cool (around 40), and perhaaps some light raiin make for ideal conditions. The sun and any kind of warmth are deadly in a marathon. The wnd is a beast, too. And "nice weather," meaning no rain or clouds, is just dumb. I have run well even in moderate rain.

Ran Boston today:

Sun was intense at start.

First 13 were fine.

Picked up pace through the hills. (Negative split planned)

Mile 21 started the muscle cramps.

I felt great otherwise, frustrated as you can't push through those cramps mentally or by brute force:(

I saw a lot of people in the same situation as me, just couldn't move their legs without cramping and had to walk.

This felt completely different from my qualifier marathon when I felt like my legs just slowed due to fatigue at the end and had nothing left to give.

I think there maybe something with the combination of sun/heat/wind causing an electrolyte imbalance as someone mentioned earlier.

My 2 cents

Ditto.

nonsense

In ideal Boston conditions, the best time is 2:03. todays race was won in 2:12.. best women's is 2:18, won in 2:29. according to my calculations, if they paved the road with Mondo track, and they ran in spikes, it would be 4 seconds faster per mile, 4 seconds for 26.2 miles, lets say we save 2 minutes.

proof: Leonard Komon ran 26 44 on the road. WR is 26 17. this is 27 seconds for road vs track, 10k. with 42k this is 27*4.2=113.4 sec

Heat was already calculated to be a constant 9-10 minutes delay (10 min for around 3 hr, 11-12 for 4 hr).

carbon dioxide and monoxide from the city and leading cars delay 1 sec per mile to the lungs. if the city did a pollution control, this would save 26 seconds on each mile. stop driving hummers and range rovers!

The winner is worth 2:00 flat! in ideal conditions. with tail wind we save 2.5 sec per mile (65 sec overall). this marathon was well worth a sub 2, in the range of 1:58-9 effort, given the ideal weather conditions, tailwind, pollution control 65 + 26+ 113 + 9 min = 12:24 saved

2:12:45 - 0:12:24= 2:00:21

given crowd hype, this would shed 1.7 seconds in the last half marathon. the crowd will realise they can break 2 if the split is just right. 1.7 * 13= 22.1 sec!

2:00:21 - 0:00:22.1 = 1:59:59!

not to mention if the city planted more greenery, more oxygen would be available. this could shed 0.5 sec per mile. proof: someone here ran 4:02 on the Oregon Michael Johnson Track, but ran 4:04 on a standard track.

not to mention, if they did EPO, and we assume Paula DID dope, we can use the Paula standard, assume 3 min faster (2:15 to 2:18) however, we cannot assume Paula doped, so we will cause this the "secondary pacing" method. that is, we have pacers pace the leaders in the second half

1:59:59 - 0:03:00= 1:56:59!!!

58 back to back halfs are doable, considering east africans go through the 10ks in 30 and 29s

now if we can only get a mondo track paved for 26 miles, abundant greenery, strict carbon emission laws, ideal temperature, pacers all race then we could have seen a sub 2 today. it was a sub 2 effort, but external conditions were not setup right. this was indeed a world record performance

In 2014, Meb split 64:21/64:16 to win.In 2011, Mutai set the CR and split 61:58/61:04. And Mosop was right there with him.In 2010, Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot set a CR splitting 63:27/62:25.In 1993-95, Cosmas Ndeti negative split the course for each of his 3 victories.Even in the heat of 2012, Wesley Korir had near even splits of 66:08/66:32.

nope wrote:

99% false.

Any rational runner positive splits Boston. It has everything to do with the massive downhill first half, and very-little to do with weather or not pacing well. If someone maintains the same grade-adjusted pace the entire way--difficult as is--then that marathoner will have a big 'ole positive split.

boston native wrote:

This is 100% true. Every single year without fail I see all of my friends/acquaintances start off right on goal pace or faster and hold that through the first 20-30k only to hit the brakes hard and continue slowing down all the way to the end.

It turned out to be about 71 and sunny at the start. I was trying to hide out behind people in the first corral in wave 1. The heat lasted well into the Newton hills with the relief coming only on the descent to Boston College. So that means we were going 20+ miles in 70+ degree heat. Ironically, the later starters had some relief by Wellseley as the sea breeze kicked in there at about noon.

I was 20 minutes off my target time, as were many other people. Unfortunately, the relief didn't come soon enough. I started falling off a 2:40 pace at around mile 10. I knew I was toast even before making the turn onto Commonwealth Ave. to begin the Newton hills. The really lucky ones were only 5 minutes off.

It was brutal out there given that the previous (and subsequent) days were much cooler. We just got really unlucky today.

Granted, I was on the unrestrained for this Marathon. It felt flat out hot until we crested Heartbreak Hill. Then there was a headwind all the way to the finish and it literally felt like it dropped 20 degrees. The local news here said they treated many people for heat-related illness as well as cold injuries - very strange indeed. I felt terrible, I would have definitely DNFed if it wasn't Boston.

Ha ha, I walked up about 50% of heartbreak. It was a very strange combo of heat, wind, and cold. Didn't help that we had a February-like April in MI to train in.

This is what the Boston Globe said:

With an official temperature of 69 degrees in Hopkinton for the start of the women’s elite race at 9:32 a.m. (it was 71 degrees for the men 28 minutes later), the race became a challenge of dealing with the heat along with the infamous grind of the 26.2-mile course.

It definitely felt much higher than 67 at the start.