Why is leading races hard?

OP you are incorrect. Leading a race at 5:10 pace is MUCH easier than being in a pack at 4:50 pace. This is also true for you, no matter what you may think is the case.

I disagree Piort. What makes you right, and me wrong? Everyone I have talked to agrees with me.

Not a leader wrote:

I disagree Piort. What makes you right, and me wrong? Everyone I have talked to agrees with me.

OK so to start with we have physics on my side of the argument. Maybe in a hurricane you and your unthinking brethren may be correct. Psychologically, you and your brethren must be fragile and timid souls indeed if leading a race is so deleterious that it dwarfs the laws of physics.

Yes, I recognize that 5:10 is a slower pace and would be easier if the context were the same. However, there seems to be a psychological factor that comes into play when you are either preying down (pack running) or being chased and preyed upon (leading). The point of this post is to ask accomplished runners, or those with the experience, as to whether or not my assumption is correct or at least in the ballpark.

If you had said 4:51-4:53 is harder up front than 4:50 is in a pack I might agree, but 20 seconds is just way too much. If that actually feels harder to you the problem is in your head.

But to answer the question, wind resistance and more mental energy are the main reasons leading is more difficult.

Thank you Silky Johnson. Would you agree that the 2-3 second difference is very severe in feel? I typically do not run 5:10s and am in the 4:50 range, but I can agree that 4:50 in a pack is a hell of a lot easier than 4:51-4:53 in a group. Night and day difference for myself.

I feel that if anyone leads more than 50% (half) of the race, they should get the victory no matter what. After all, you led the majorit!. If no one gets 50%, then you can have tie-breaker rules, probably giving extra weight to the latter half of the race (say 2:1 for last mile to first). Position should count more than time (no-one but running nerds care about "negative splitting" or whatever).

Leading a group at 4:51-4:53* ^^

Not a leader wrote:

I typically do not run 5:10s and am in the 4:50 range

wow 4:50s you must be an incredible athlete! amazing

wow!!!! wrote:

Not a leader wrote:

I typically do not run 5:10s and am in the 4:50 range

wow 4:50s you must be an incredible athlete! amazing

I'm sure you're much faster than that.

It is psychological more than physical. Certainly air resistance plays a part. But having a rabbit helps many, setting a goal to chase.

Personally I was and am a front runner.

It might be more stressful psychologically, but running at 510 is easier than drafting at 450.

I appreciate all the replies. Context of the situation was I ran sub 24:30 in an 8K for the first time in a big race. Then, I go to a smaller race trying to front run and I ended up doing horribly. I am trying to figure out how to approach the championship meets given that I have a weakness both for 8K's and front running.

There are only TWO factors making leading more difficult then running in a pack:

Weather- self explanatory

Mindset- if an athlete is trained to run I up front it's easier on them then running in a pack ie John Ngugi, Almaz Ayana, Mary Keitany. A TRULY fit front runner will always be more relaxed mentally and physically leading a race then in a pack. Many races even marathons have been won by individuals discarding the pack and running solo.

That's about the smallest possible sample size, but this is a common experience that has fascinated me for decades.

Magness had a great article about the negative effects on endurance of attention/cognitive demands, summed up with the advice "turn off your mind and go for a ride" (by drafting to a PR).

Personally, I've always felt that leading also makes me expend energy inefficiently with constant minor adjustments to stride/pace, accelerating and decelerating, while drafters smooth out a more steady pace. At least it feels that way, along with lots of mental stress and having to pay attention to where I'm going (off track), my splits, what's going on behind me, etc.

And of course there are some other physical factors like wind resistance and other points made in this thread.

Not a leader wrote:

I appreciate all the replies. Context of the situation was I ran sub 24:30 in an 8K for the first time in a big race. Then, I go to a smaller race trying to front run and I ended up doing horribly. I am trying to figure out how to approach the championship meets given that I have a weakness both for 8K's and front running.

You have to be talking about college cross country races, correct? If so, every course is different. Even things like the hardness of the grass can make a big difference in pace, let along things like hills, turns, wind etc. And this doesn't even consider how you were feeling/training going into each race.

You should be racing more on perceived exertion in cross country, not a slave to your splits.

Oh and many college courses can be short as well (even some of the bigger, faster courses), so I wouldn't hold your one sub-24:30 up as the kind of shape you're in and expect to reproduce that in every race. Do what you need to do to get the best result, whether that's pushing the pace in the lead or sitting in and making a smart mid-raced surge.

Not a leader wrote:

I disagree Piort. What makes you right, and me wrong? Everyone I have talked to agrees with me.

That's because all the people you talk to are average, or less.

wow!!!! wrote:

Not a leader wrote:

I typically do not run 5:10s and am in the 4:50 range

wow 4:50s you must be an incredible athlete! amazing

A 15 minute 5k is fast.

A 30 minute 10k is really fast

A 2:10 marathon is national class in all but 2 countries.

Please grow up.