Strategy for marathons that start with long uphill or downhill stretches?

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?

Comments

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    I generally go by perceived effort, rather than actual pace.  If I know how I feel at my target pace on a flattish run, then I would stick to that and ignore the Garmin to a certain extent.  Although the first 4 miles at Loch Ness are downhill, it's not particularly steep (if you went the other way, you wouldn't be looking ahead crying), so you should be able to keep pace in check while still taking a bit of advantage.  Watch out for the couple of steep lumps at 4.5 and 5.5 miles - beasting up them because you still feel really fresh can take a lot out of your legs.  They are really short, so easing off on the up and having a shake out on the down won't lose you much time, and won't trash your legs.

    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.
  • I agree with Nessie - run to effort or feel rather than pace. I thought the hill was at about 21 miles though Nessie? Mind you it's a few years since I ran Loch Ness.
    If you think you can or you think you can't you're probably right.
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    The Dores hill is at 17 to 19 miles, with a wee sharp lump at 21, LMH. 
  • Take the opening miles easily to conserve energy and minimise leg fatigue to run the rest of your marathon. Cruising along well below your marathon pace for the opening 4 or 5 miles will help you conserve energy for the final 4 or 5 miles of the marathon when the leg fatigue kicks in.
  • jtcedjtced ✭✭✭
    Just a question, then: if the initial miles are well below marathon pace, to ensure that average marathon pace is achieved, does this mean that at some point you need to run quicker than marathon pace to recoup that lost time?  Or is it more a matter of setting a slightly faster marathon pace that you settle into.

    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?
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    I think it will depend a lot on how well trained/experienced you are.  If you think you can keep up the same pace for the whole 26 miles, then that is what you should do.  But that's really hard, especially for a first marathon.  There's a reason that some people class half way in a marathon as 20 miles.

    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.


  • Cal JonesCal Jones ✭✭✭
    I think a lot depends on how seasoned a marathon runner you are. I'm a marathon novice (three to my name now) so getting through the entire distance is a challenge and there's always a likelihood that you'll slow towards the end. If you're more experienced then there's more chance you'll be able to run a negative split.
    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. :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.