In just over three months I will tackle my first marathon. Loch Ness starts with several miles of mainly downhill running, and sneaking a peek at previous runners' Strava splits, it looks like most runners set off significantly faster, I guess to take advantage of the descent.
I just wondered what the current thinking is on marathons like this, where an initial drop (or climb) means that the usual start slowly or start easy approach might be chucking away a real advantage to make faster progress.
Thoughts, my good people?
0 ·
Comments
As long as you keep enough in your legs for the Dores hill at 17 miles, and the wee lump at Scaniport, it's flat and downhill all the way to the end from 21, so even overdoing it a wee bit at the start is recoverable.
Maybe better qualify that with my figures:
I'm aiming to (ideally) break 4 hours. So, in my metric world, that's 5m41s/K average pace over the entire run. If I set off slower than that, I assume that to achieve the same goal (just under 4 hours) my marathon pace should ideally be quicker than 5m41s/K to allow the slower start?
One thing is for sure, if you go out too hard in the first few miles (even if it feels super easy) you will pay later. So keeping it steady is key. I disagree with Sub17 that your first 4-5 miles should be "well below" marathon pace, for the reasons you state - making up a lot of time in the latter stages of a marathon is hard. (Although it's all relative - for someone who can run a 17 min 5k, marathon pace is much quicker, so 10 seconds per mile is a big margin).
I'm slow. My last marathon was 5:22, which was inside my 5:30 target. 5:30 pace is just over 12.5 minute miles. I know that 11 min miles feels comfortable for me for 8-9 miles, so my plan was to absoloutely not go over 12 min miles for the first 4 miles, knowing that I'd slow in the latter stages because I'd only done 2 x 19 miles in training, and had been out of running for a long time before starting back in November. It wasn't totally successful, but I did hit my target, even though the "predominantly flat" course was rather lumpier than I expected.
I think with the long downhill start, trying to keep close to your 5:41/Km pace would be a good compromise - you stay on time target but get the benefit of the easy terrain to keep the effort down, so by the time you get to the tougher sections, you are well warmed up and haven't overtaxed yourself. The last 5 miles being flat/downhill also means that you shouldn't lose as much time as you might towards the end, so as long as you get to the top of the hill at Dores in reasonable shape, you should be home and dry.
But Nessie's correct. For my second marathon (Manchester, which is flat), I was aiming for a sub-4:30 with the secondary goal of running all the way (no walk breaks). This required an average pace of 10:15. I ran the first half a little quicker (just under 10 minute miles) then from 13-18 I was closer to MP. Last 6 miles I was slower but got through without stopping and finished in 4:29:29.
I ran Liverpool at the end of May which is more undulating. My training for this had been hampered by tendon trouble, but it was my pacing that did me in. I felt good to start with and went a bit quicker than Manchester. Then I hit the long downhill stretch from mile 7-10 and really made the most of it. But I paid for it. I was already slowing by mile 11 and by mile 16 my legs had gone to jelly and the rest turned into a death march. I finished 8 minutes slower than in Manchester. So yeah, don't do that.