Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
CW - your 1 minute to go drink - does that not swill around your stomach for the first few miles?? Was considering a gel and a couple sips water at the start line, and similar with your coffee 3.5 hours before.
kowtow
MarkyN: I probably will run a positive split & that will probably be because I balls it up. Surely that just shows the flaw in the argument. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, tell people to hit their targets they need a positive split, in doing so they fade & run an even bigger positive split, the data will then show that 9X% of people ran a positive split so next year run the 1st half even faster!
Regarding that article: does it not reflect the likelihood that most people aim for a even-pace/negative split but often slow down due to myriad variables? It strikes me that if you 'aim' to slow-down, you're likely to encounter more serious problems than if it occurs "naturally".
My strategy is half-way 1.27ish and second-half as close to that as I can possibly manage.
Just got back from an enjoyable 5k, including about 2.5miles at MP (6.40). Legs felt surprisingly bright, although my non-cold is causing minor snot issues. Hopefully a decongestant and lots of sleep before Sunday will sort that.
Getting very excited now
BP - I don't think that many people 'aim' to slow down in a marathon. If you let your mind accept that a positive split is the way forward, when you do slow down due to fatigue in the second half you are mentally prepared for it and therefore less likely to blow up completely and throw the towel in just because you are moving off target pace.
Marky N
Forgetting the flawed stats arguments there are still a few other things to consider
- Muscle cramps. Are they more or less likely if you run quicker in the first half?
- Fat vs glycogen burn. What happens to this in a quick first half?
- Overtaking people in the second half can provide a powerful mental boost.
I'm running to heart rate. Run first 2 miles less than 156, plus the "bonus" downhill third mile. Concentrate on keeping below 160bpm to 20 miles. Then, run as first as I can with out cramping up.
nichs - I only held 160 (156 average) until mile 16 in Bcn 4 weeks ago. Then up to 165bpm (163 average) until mile 22. From then on I averaged 171 bpm to the finish.
Will try to replicate on Sunday.
The positive split argument guy is using flawed logic. Agree with Oldn7 that it's a win win for him. At no point he goes into setting realistic targets!
I don't see how it's 'flawed logic' just because it goes against what most people consider to be the 'best' way of pacing a marathon (i.e. even/negative split). He does talk about realistic targets:
Target marathon finish times must be realistic and based on some evidence / data, rather than just 'guessing' a time. But generating target marathon finish times is a totally different topic. What the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator assumes is that the target marathon finish time is realistic.
I guess if you managed to run to your maximum potential with an even course and benign conditions then you would probably run something of the order of a minute split. I shall almost certainly have a bigger +ve split, because I want to start by aiming toward the top end of realistic possibilities. I'm on an upward curve still so it's hard tin down how well I can do.
Negative splitting is a fine art and very difficult to get right. That's why only 5% achieve it.
Of course an easy way to negative split is to set off 5 minutes slower than target pace and finish strong but that also defeats the purpose of maximising one's potential.
To aim for your potential one must push the limits to see where your line is and every now and then you'll surprise yourself with a strong performance but more often than not you will end up with a positive split. The key is to minimise that positive as much as possible.
Setting off 5% quicker than your estimated target time is bonkers and can't possibly return a best result. It might produce a PB but you'll never know if a negative split would have produced a better time.
I agree with Yasunga that setting off that much faster than your target time is nuts & leaves a good chance of bonking. I don't think there is anything wrong with a slight positive of around 1-2 minutes but what is being advocated in that article is going too far
Yasunaga, "rising to 171 over the last 4 miles" would be ideal, it all depends on my hammies allowing the final push. My heart rate max is 191 and resting is somewhere in the 40s. 160bpm average is the best I have done for a well executed marathon.
Yasunga, Old No7
+1
Tmoth -- I can be conscious of the on-the-line drink for a while, but it doesn't seem too bad. I normally finish feeling like I've overindulged a bit on sugary gunk, but hopefully that means I've been absorbing some of it at least.
MarkyN -- another vote here for even splitting. By far my best results have been even splits, and the whole experience is a hell of a lot less -- well, hellish -- too. My best shorter races have also involved accelerating at the end rather than hanging on when I'd set an unsustainable pace earlier.
The fell captain from my club aimed for sub 3 at Manchester and managed it by about 20 seconds which for a lad who doesn't run on the road much it was a great result. What I couldn't understand though was the fact he went out at 6.30 pace when he only needed to hold 6.52 and ran a large positive split. Using the logic in the article this pacing allowed him to hit his goal and was 'successful' however I reckon he could have gone out at 6.45 pace and run faster. Maybe not negative but a much smaller positive. Just my view mind
Just realised I might have accidentally carb depleted earlier this week. Ended up eating a load of quinoa Monday and Tuesday which is just found out is a protein and not a carb. Probably why I felt so shit and lethargic!
Yes, the link has been posted before and yes, the argument is still flawed.
MarkyN - his use of statistics to back up his argument is based on the assumption that everybody got their optimal result on the day. If you want to see how statistics can be misused, then how about I suggest to you that there is only a 40% chance that the winner on Sunday will be African-born (if you allow for the fact that the first race was a tie between 2 non-Africans) ? Statistically only 14 winners out of 34 races (35 winners) have been won by an African runner, so I could suggest that you can't claim that my logic is flawed surely? In reality however, 13 of those 14 wins to African born runners were the last 13 races.......
Additionally, 5% quicker than your target time would be, for a large majority of people, inside their HM pb'.
Tmoth/Charlie - drinking on the start and/or drinking from a bottle over the first few miles is infinitely easier than two hours later.
Positive Split blog - Here's what will happen. It will become a mantra for all runners. All runners will run the first half faster and then (inevitably) the second half even slower. Then that idiot of a bloke will conclude that things were even worse than he feared and people should run even faster because the stats show it. Ultimately they'll be sprinting the first mile and living in a commune in Waco, where he'll blow them all up.
I had another read of Noakes on carbs last night. Sadly, I fell asleep with the book propped up on my chest but he's deffo clear on two points:
1. liver glycogen depletion causes you to hit the wall and NOT muscle glycogen
2. ingesting carbs during the run is a big boost
As TT says, however, there is isn't a formula cos everyone will have different this and that and t'other things.
I knew LD would sum that positive split blog up nicely
I now see that I should run the first 100m like a fully-supplemented Asafa Powell, and run the last 100m like this fellow in picture 1 http://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/apr/11/10-best-marathon-moments-in-pictures-london. I just need to work on a plan for the middle bits.
Went back to this list because I want to link up with you Yasunaga and Bainspj for our 2:43x train. Bainspj I've got your number. Any other distinguishing features? Do you have a number Yasunaga? You look tall and lithe but that could be true for a lot of the 2000 in fgfa
I'll be wearing the outfit you see on the left, pink shoes, no 32515 on the front and this on the back:
I'll probably be there early. Actually having said I'll be wearing all this, I may well have black bin bags wrapped over top and bottom to stave off cold.
Thanks HR. I will be in black vest and black shorts. # 31397
Want to meet up maybe by the FGFA entrance at say 9.40?
CC2 - I also got nabbed for the Manc Met blood study. The nice Irish rugby player made up for the needles, and at least the smidgeon of blood I donated provides another excuse come Sunday. Are you on the Champ start? I think we're going for a v. similar time, so I'll look out for you - Notts vest?
Indeed, although I suspect it will be covered up things to make me warmer. Just had the pre-race hair cut, so the trademark black ponytail is rather shorter now. What's your kit?
Yasunaga excellent that sounds great 9:40 it is. Both in all black then
The Beeb have firmed up on their plans. The piece I've recorded will air on BBC1 just before I finish, then Jonathan Edwards will interview me. This is all assuming I'm still in one piece and the transmission time of 2.30pm hasn't passed
Haha. Oh my. 12.44 it is then.
How times change its all carb depletion and loading on here now, a few years ago it'd folks saying how fast they ran for a few minutes and then how much they gorged on afterwards (aussie stylie).
ran 2M early doors, all seems so pathetic really, a few weeks ago I was trying to jam 18M in before work. Been too busy to carb load too much today, life has got in the way a lot this campaign, dont think I've ever been so "whatever" on the friday before VLM. Hope I enjoy it Sunday.
can we find someone to give TR an invigorating slap on the start line? volunteers please
I would volunteer, but am slightly afraid he might be holding the famed Lucozade bottle at the time...
Not that ultrastu rubbish again. I put 2:35:56 into his calculator, a time I did two years running. He says I should run the first half in low 1:16 to get that, which coincidentally I did the second time around, fading badly. The first time I had a low 1:17 first half, and unfortunately for his argument I was 30s quicker a year earlier with a 1:18 first half.
Unfortunately LD is probably not far off the mark, despite it apparently being stu's last word on the subject it'll become mantra.