'Alternative' Marathon Race Strategy

Itziger

You know sometimes on runs you just start wondering about stuff? (Yes, you do)

Well, yesterday I was out and a thought came to my mind.

Would it be completely crazy to try a progression, or even regression, run in an actual race. If we take the obvious 3 hour barrier and use km pace it's easy to explain.

Instead of the standard flat pace approach, which in this case it would be 4.15 per km, you'd do either 14k @4.30 followed by 14 @4.15 followed by 14 @ 4.00.

Obviously the regression version, as well as being depressing cos so many would be passing you, would be the other way around. 14@4.00, 14@ 4.15 and finish up with 14@4.30.

Btw, I know there are 197 metres left. Has anyone here ever tried something like this? Ever heard of people doing it? I'm curious is all.

RubyK

While I'm not in your league at all, me being a much slower runner, I'll add in my experience.

I ran Dublin 2013 in progression style . This wasn't planned, thb, on the morning there was no plan, I kinda lost the head a bit, but luckily for me it worked out. Ended up with a negative split of 4 mins 39 secs, and more importanatly a pb.

TFBubendorfer

I tried something similar in one of my early marathons. Someone on the internet had recommended it, so it just had to be true!

The idea was to run the first 2 miles each 30 seconds slower than target pace, the next 2 20 seconds slower and the next 2 10 seconds slower. That would leave you 2 minutes behind target but you "only" had a 20 mile race left. Obviously the pace for these was 6 seconds faster than target.

The first mile went very well as the congestion cost me 30 seconds anyway. The next 5 very a question of being very patient as people were flooding past me, but I managed.

The problem was that I did slow down after 20 miles, just like I would have done with a "normal" pacing plan, so nothing was gained and I never tried that again. I did subsequently run 3 or 4 marathon with a negative split, though that was achieved by pushing harder and harder over the final miles when I realised I still had plenty of strength left rather than by plan.

DogSlySmile

OT but I've often wondered could a 10k (or any distance really) be run as an interval session.

For me a pb at 10k would be 36:00, so 3:36 k pace.

But if I was to break it into an 800m interval session I could run the first 800m of each km at 3:16 pace and the last 200m of each k at 4:58 pace, which would give me a good minute of recovery before the next interval. If I was to repeat that 10 times I'd end up with a time of 35:50 and a new pb (yay, go me :rolleyes:).

Dont think I'd ever try it out in a real race situation but it is something that has crossed my mind. Of course you'd probably need a fairly flat course to pull it off

KielyUnusual

I think this is a great tactic for marathons and can work particularly well if the course profile is accommodating. In Dublin for instance,the first half of the course is more challenging than the second (In my opinion anyway), so a progressive strategy makes perfect sense.

In 2012, my tactic was to be behind pace (~10 seconds/mile) after 5 miles. Get on pace from 5 to halfway and then be a little above pace for the second half of the race. On the day, I was having a particularly good one and managed to up the pace again from the 20 mile marker. Ended up with a 4 minute negative split and the amount of people you pass in the second half is such a motivator. I've ran a good marathon too, where the pace was more even throughout so I wouldn't knock this strategy but for Dublin I would go progressive run all the way

BeepBeep67

DogSlySmile wrote: »

OT but I've often wondered could a 10k (or any distance really) be run as an interval session.

For me a pb at 10k would be 36:00, so 3:36 k pace.

But if I was to break it into an 800m interval session I could run the first 800m of each km at 3:16 pace and the last 200m of each k at 4:58 pace, which would give me a good minute of recovery before the next interval. If I was to repeat that 10 times I'd end up with a time of 35:50 and a new pb (yay, go me :rolleyes:).

Dont think I'd ever try it out in a real race situation but it is something that has crossed my mind. Of course you'd probably need a fairly flat course to pull it off

I personally feel that 1500 to 10k should almost be run like a pyramid.
Getting a good start is important, it's amazing the difference it can make if you end up in the wrong group, too slow for example.
Run your middle splits as even as possible and then finish fast, with your 1st and last splits typically being your fastest.

It's tricky to get right and what I often see happening is other runners ending up doing a mini session in a 5k.
Example: Aiming for a 20 min 5k; check the Garmin after 500 3:40 pace, slow the pace down to hit 1k @ 4mins, but then they have been running at 4:20 pace, they notice this half through the 2nd k and speed up to get back on track. Then basically they're wrecked by the 3rd k.

Go out strong, get in a good position, hit average goal pace and then gun it at the end.
All this goes out the window when racing of course and that's when I personally have run my fastest times.

Stazza

The important thing to consider when running a marathon is how efficiently we burn fuel. If we go out faster than ‘true’ marathon pace, we’re burning our available carbohydrates and invariably we’ll run out of fuel and bonk. The key here is ‘true’ mp. Most people get this wrong – they think their mp is faster than it actually is and this is one of the main reasons, as well as inadequate training, why people crash around 22 miles.

Our Aerobic Threshold is roughly a couple of seconds per mile faster than our true mp and serves as a good training guide to judge mp. AT is roughly the pace we can hold for approx. 2hrs -2:05. After this point, we rely on Anaerobic Respiration (AR). When we transition to AR, we burn our available carbohydrates more quickly than when we’re running aerobically – we notice this when we’re out doing our long run and we go over the 2hr mark: things start to get a little more uncomfortable. If we’re running within ourselves we normally last to about 2:20 before things start to tighten up/get uncomfortable. Of course, ultra runners and well trained runners might be able to run efficiently without problems for 2:30+.

This is normally evidenced with the usual sniper shots to the hamstrings and gastroc./the glutes faltering and the unnecessary salt tablets. The reason why the cramps are coming in is because the muscle fibres are exhausted and the body can't recruit the extra fibres necessary.

So, if we start faster than AT we will suffer. If, however, we start off at 10 secs per mile slower than true MP for the first 4 miles and then ease up to true MP and hold that pace until the 22 mile mark, we will –all things being equal – find that we haven’t exhausted our carbohydrates as we’ve been burning fuel efficiently at ‘true’ marathon pace. Then we are able to finish with authority.

Look at any marathon race and the splits – most people slow down over the final few miles, while some (the smart ones) speed up.

RayCun

You mention two factors there, lack of available carbohydrates and muscle fibre exhaustion. Are they the same thing, are you talking about lack of carbs in the muscles? Or can the muscle fibres be exhausted from running at that pace even when carbs are available (because they were topped up with gels, or the runner is burning more fat)?

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

You mention two factors there, lack of available carbohydrates and muscle fibre exhaustion. Are they the same thing, are you talking about lack of carbs in the muscles? Or can the muscle fibres be exhausted from running at that pace even when carbs are available (because they were topped up with gels, or the runner is burning more fat)?

They're not the same thing, but in my experience lack of carbohydrates in the muscles would be very rare. Most runners get into problems due to exhaustion. That's also backed up by more recent research, marathon runners still have glycogen in their muscles when they hit the wall (I can dig out some links if anyone's interested).

Btw, and off-topic really, despite Stazza calling them unnecessary, I have several good experiences of salt tablets being very helpful.

dublin runner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Btw, and off-topic really, despite Stazza calling them unnecessary, I have several good experiences of salt tablets being very helpful.

Would agree with this. I was struck down with cramp in Dublin last year at Mile 22-23 when feeling quite fresh (well for that stage!) and full of energy. This year in Rotterdam, while not running great, I had no such issues. I was very conscious of salt intake in the lead up to the race and during the week itself. For me that confirmed it wasn't a fatigue issue......but then again I was better trained this year round!

RayCun

(replying to TFB)
In that case, what is the wall? Mental exhaustion? Cramping from muscle exhaustion?

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

(replying to TFB)
In that case, what is the wall? Mental exhaustion? Cramping from muscle exhaustion?

Good question, and one that's not been answered in full yet.

Central Governor starting to shut down things BEFORE they get too bad would be one answer. Mental exhaustion would be a similar explanation. Personally I definitely think that the wall is mental rather than physical, though.

Cramping is a little bit different, I think. Causes are not fully explained, but I find that the better trained I am the less likely I am to cramp. But I have at least one example where lack of salt/electrolytes played a major role in cramping.

ultrapercy

Im someone who ran many marathons without taking on carbs. This usually resulted in a 3-4 minute positive split and a death march process of digging very deep and finding very little. In ultra races where carbs were readily available due to multiple lap courses I found I finished stronger and easier. This year in Rotterdam Marathon I executed a proper fueling strategy for the first time in a marathon resulting in a pb(tho outside my desired target) and my strongest ever finish, a positive split but that was due mostly to increasing wind. I had also ran my longruns pre breakfast so my body was better conditioned to use fat as fuel so thats also a factor. I think fuel conservation is the most important factor in long distance running so even pacing is always the most efficient method. Training should be focused on pacing and fueling I believe. Thats not to say other methods cannot be successful, everyone is different and respond in varying ways to circumstances.

Stazza

RayCun wrote: »

You mention two factors there, lack of available carbohydrates and muscle fibre exhaustion. Are they the same thing, are you talking about lack of carbs in the muscles? Or can the muscle fibres be exhausted from running at that pace even when carbs are available (because they were topped up with gels, or the runner is burning more fat)?

Great questions - very complicated to explain. They are the same and they are not the same thing :)First off, before anybody picks me up - by muscle fibres I mean motor units. And before we move on, just a couple of quick points:

1. 'Available' carbohydrates means carbohydrates that are 'available' for motor units to function/be recruited at MP. If we go out too fast we will 'burn' our carbohydrate supplies and fatigue will follow. When fatigue follows, we slow down. When we slow down we have 'available' carbs at our new and slower pace, but not at mp. If we didn't have any carbs, we pretty much wouldn't be able to move.

2. Bekele started cramping in Paris - he was unable to recruit motor units at the speed he was moving due to fatigue/glycogen stores depleting and motor units not recovering during the cycle in time to be utilised. He eased off slightly, allowed the motor recruitment cycle to catch up/recover, and then moved on. His body started to recruit more FT motor units to take on the work load. Due to his training, he was able to then utilise his FT units.

3. Motor unit recruitment can fail for a number of reasons. One reason is glycogen depletion, another is inadequate training. Generally, this manifests in cramp like symptoms. More often than not, inexperienced runners will blame this on electrolytes and salt etc. Many a time I've read about runners taking salt tablets and still cramping.'Most' of the time, the cramping stems from going out too fast and motor unit failure. Yes, on some occasions, salt tablets will do the trick. But I bet if the runner were trained adequately and didn't go off too fast, the salt tablets wouldn't be necessary.

4. Motor units can fail, even when there are 'available' carbs - this normally happens in lesser/inadequately trained runners.

dublin runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

I had also ran my longruns pre breakfast so my body was better conditioned to use fat as fuel so thats also a factor. I think fuel conservation is the most important factor in long distance running so even pacing is always the most efficient method. Training should be focused on pacing and fueling I believe. Thats not to say other methods cannot be successful, everyone is different and respond in varying ways to circumstances.

This is something I want to improve on. How would you approach running on empty? I was thinking on slowly introducing it when training really kicks in next week.

For example, if it's a double day do the AM run (let's say 4-6miles) on empty once or twice a week before building it up to MLR (13+) and eventually to LSR (18+). The benefits on running empty are obvious so would like to start but for some reason it's scares the bejaysus out of me! At the moment it's hard to imagine running 20+ miles with nothing in the system.

Stazza

dublin runner wrote: »

Would agree with this. I was struck down with cramp in Dublin last year at Mile 22-23 when feeling quite fresh (well for that stage!) and full of energy. This year in Rotterdam, while not running great, I had no such issues. I was very conscious of salt intake in the lead up to the race and during the week itself. For me that confirmed it wasn't a fatigue issue......but then again I was better trained this year round!

Do you think that you had fully recovered from the hills of Tralee? Maybe some residual fatigue that was exposed at MP in windy conditions? You don't have to be feeling tired for motor unit failure to occur. That's why you suddenly cramp - the body fails to recruit the necessary motor units as they are in the recovery part of the cycle.

TRR

Stazza wrote: »

Our Aerobic Threshold is roughly a couple of seconds per mile faster than our true mp and serves as a good training guide to judge mp. AT is roughly the pace we can hold for approx. 2hrs -2:05. After this point, we rely on Anaerobic Respiration (AR).

Couple of things, anaerobic respiration relates to availability of oxygen. Glucose is only broken down anaerobically when oxygen is lacking. The duration of the run shouldn't dictate when one transitions to AT rather the availability of oxygen which will be directionally proportional to pace and more precisely when we reach and maintain threshold pace.

Stazza wrote: »

When we transition to AR, we burn our available carbohydrates more quickly than when we’re running aerobically – we notice this when we’re out doing our long run and we go over the 2hr mark: things start to get a little more uncomfortable. If we’re running within ourselves we normally last to about 2:20 before things start to tighten up/get uncomfortable. Of course, ultra runners and well trained runners might be able to run efficiently without problems for 2:30+.

hmmmm, first off carbohydrates (glucose) are not burned off more quickly in anaerobic respiration. They are burned off inefficiently relative to aerobic with a significantly difference in ATP production ideally 36-38+ for aerobic versus 2 for anaerobic but I'm sure you know this!

Stazza wrote: »

Great questions - very complicated to explain. They are the same and they are not the same thing :)First off, before anybody picks me up - by muscle fibres I mean motor units. And before we move on, just a couple of quick points:

motor units vs. muscle fibres!!! don't see the need to differentiate between the two. All a motor unit is, is a motor neurone (effector) that innervates muscle fibres. I suppose it sounds more complex though!

Stazza

Couple of things, anaerobic respiration relates to availability of oxygen. Glucose is only broken down anaerobically when oxygen is lacking. The duration of the run shouldn't dictate when one transitions to AT rather the availability of oxygen which will be directionally proportional to pace and more precisely when we reach and maintain threshold pace.

Agree with this but the point was, if you are running at AT pace you will cross the threshold after about 2hrs and you will no longer be producing lactate in and around 2 mmol. So, the duration of the run does matter when you are running at AT pace. – but I’m sure you knew this.

hmmmm, first off carbohydrates (glucose) are not burned off more quickly in anaerobic respiration. They are burned off inefficiently relative to aerobic with a significantly difference in ATP production ideally 36-38+ for aerobic versus 2 for anaerobic but I'm sure you know this!

Linguistically, I’ll accept that inefficient is a better description than quickly – but I think we both know that it means the same thing.

motor units vs. muscle fibres!!! don't see the need to differentiate between the two. All a motor unit is, is a motor neurone (effector) that innervates muscle fibres. I suppose it sounds more complex though!

Yep, agree again. Just wanted to clarify.

Hope you're recovering well after London.

dublin runner

Stazza wrote: »

Do you think that you had fully recovered from the hills of Tralee? Maybe some residual fatigue that was exposed at MP in windy conditions? You don't have to be feeling tired for motor unit failure to occur. That's why you suddenly cramp - the body fails to recruit the necessary motor units as they are in the recovery part of the cycle.

That's a fair point about the cramp issues. The week leading up to Dublin I just drank a lot of water and coffee. This time I drank a moderate amount of water balanced with electrolyte drinks (and dioralyte).

Interesting point about Tralee. I may not have been fully recovered but I felt I was, even the day I wasn't overly fatigued (the late night with many drinks left their mark though!) Still running a marathon (even slowly) does take time to recover from. The week leading up to Rotterdam I knew I wasn't 100%, I was slightly off. My taper just may have been too extreme (100mpw-56mpw-30ish on race week). I think it was too sudden and a more balanced approach will be employed next time. I may also have been overtrained as the whole body was tight the week beforehand (the absence of a sports massage was a big mistake in hindsight).

TRR

Stazza wrote: »

Couple of things, anaerobic respiration relates to availability of oxygen. Glucose is only broken down anaerobically when oxygen is lacking. The duration of the run shouldn't dictate when one transitions to AT rather the availability of oxygen which will be directionally proportional to pace and more precisely when we reach and maintain threshold pace.

Agree with this but the point was, if you are running at AT pace you will cross the threshold after about 2hrs and you will no longer be producing lactate in and around 2 mmol. So, the duration of the run does matter when you are running at AT pace. – but I’m sure you knew this.

no I didn't actually know this. To be honest my knowledge of cellular respiration comes from classic biochemistry books and none of the above terminology is ever used. Maybe it is used in specialised sports physiology texts but definitely not in any standard animal/human physiology text books I use

I'm confused, as we said anaerobic respiration occurs when oxygen is low. What is magic about the 2 hour barrier in a well trained athlete that signifies they switch to anaerobic respiration, even if they have been at AT pace for that duration? Surely they are not in oxygen dept? Consider the hypothetical situation, if in a lab setting they were hooked to an oxygen tank would they continue to burn aerobically after 2 hours?

I still think oxygen demand trumps duration when we talk about anaeobic respiration!

As for the two hour mark I'm guessing that just has to do with muscle fatigue. I spent a number of disturbing afternoons creating and videoing myographs by stressing out frogs calf muscles. After a while with constant motor stimulation they just became knackered! I'd like to stress I'm not a sports scientist but would love to see any empirical data that backs the 2 hour AT switch from aerobic -> anaerobic stuff up.

RedRunner

Jaysus lads. This thread is a fascinating read. particularly for me after my London experience this year. I was much better trained than previous efforts but still fatigued badly after the 35k mark. earlier in the race I had really bad cramping (just before 19 mile marker).

Pre-race I had a dioralyte solution and was well hydrated generally. During the race I drank conservatively enough and took lucozade sport occasionally. I took 5 gels in total, one which I took before start. Others were taken at 5,10,15, 20. I too 8 salt tabs in total during race too.

I generally sweat a lot, but especially in the heat. Since London I've been racking my brains as to why I still fatigued so bad. Reading what Stazza says I'm beginning to think I may not have been running my "true" Mp in the early stages of race. I was targeting 3:45, went through 35k on 3:42 pace but finished in 3:52 after having to adopt run/walk strategy from about 23 miles or so.

So I've been trying to think about what I should do differently for DCM14, next goal marathon. I'm inclined to think I should stick to proper 3:45 pace in first half, regardless of how training goes over summer and try to run the full marathon for first time and see what transpires. Any advice? London was marathon no3 for me.

dublin runner

RedRunner wrote: »

Jaysus lads. This thread is a fascinating read. particularly for me after my London experience this year. I was much better trained than previous efforts but still fatigued badly after the 35k mark. earlier in the race I had really bad cramping (just before 19 mile marker).

Pre-race I had a dioralyte solution and was well hydrated generally. During the race I drank conservatively enough and took lucozade sport occasionally. I took 5 gels in total, one which I took before start. Others were taken at 5,10,15, 20. I too 8 salt tabs in total during race too.

I generally sweat a lot, but especially in the heat. Since London I've been racking my brains as to why I still fatigued so bad. Reading what Stazza says I'm beginning to think I may not have been running my "true" Mp in the early stages of race. I was targeting 3:45, went through 35k on 3:42 pace but finished in 3:52 after having to adopt run/walk strategy from about 23 miles or so.

So I've been trying to think about what I should do differently for DCM14, next goal marathon. I'm inclined to think I should stick to proper 3:45 pace in first half, regardless of how training goes over summer and try to run the full marathon for first time and see what transpires. Any advice? London was marathon no3 for me.

-3.45 pace is 8:28 per mile
-3.42 pace is 8.35 per mile

Is 7 seconds per mile too fast enough to derail a marathon? It very well might be. Without seeing your training, I would hazard a guess to say that what happened at the 35k marker was a fatigue issue. Was 3.45 pace a bit ambitious to start off with?

Stazza

TRR wrote: »

no I didn't actually know this. To be honest my knowledge of cellular respiration comes from classic biochemistry books and none of the above terminology is ever used. Maybe it is used in specialised sports physiology texts but definitely not in any standard animal/human physiology text books I use

I'm confused, as we said anaerobic respiration occurs when oxygen is low. What is magic about the 2 hour barrier in a well trained athlete that signifies they switch to anaerobic respiration, even if they have been at AT pace for that duration? Surely they are not in oxygen dept? Consider the hypothetical situation, if in a lab setting they were hooked to an oxygen tank would they continue to burn aerobically after 2 hours?

I still think oxygen demand trumps duration when we talk about anaeobic respiration!

As for the two hour mark I'm guessing that just has to do with muscle fatigue. I spent a number of disturbing afternoons creating and videoing myographs by stressing out frogs calf muscles. After a while with constant motor stimulation they just became knackered! I'd like to stress I'm not a sports scientist but would love to see any empirical data that backs the 2 hour AT switch from aerobic -> anaerobic stuff up.

Great stuff. I'll come back to you later but for now, have a look at your 2012 DCM splits that you posted on the Garmin link. Then, read your 2013 DCM race report, then read your London race report. Apart from the fact that need to spend some time working on improving your speed at LT*, I think you might notice something...

Now, just before I pop off. 100% your knowledge of cellular respiration in frogs, wooly mammoths, and human's out trumps mine by a mile. No argument or problem for me there. I am, however, struggling to believe that for somebody who has been running since they were 10 doesn't get Aerobic Threshold or hasn't heard of it before. But, I will explain and give you several studies and references.

*Later, I'll explain why you need to work on this if you want to break out of your 2:35-36 rut - I'm not being a pr1ck; I'd genuinely like to see you get more out of your running for the investment you are making - that's the truth.

pconn062

This has to be the geekiest dick-measuring contest I've ever seen! :pac:

theboyblunder

pconn062 wrote: »

This has to be the geekiest dick-measuring contest I've ever seen! :pac:

Im not taking that from a track fairy

Biggest race strategy worries: shades or no shades? spandex or shorts??


Seriously, when youve crashed badly in a marathon, and felt that pain, this stuff is bloody interesting.

TRR

Stazza wrote: »

Great stuff. I'll come back to you later but for now, have a look at your 2012 DCM splits that you posted on the Garmin link. Then, read your 2013 DCM race report, then read your London race report. Apart from the fact that need to spend some time working on improving your speed at LT*, I think you might notice something...

Now, just before I pop off. 100% your knowledge of cellular respiration in frogs, wooly mammoths, and human's out trumps mine by a mile. No argument or problem for me there. I am, however, struggling to believe that for somebody who has been running since they were 10 doesn't get Aerobic Threshold or hasn't heard of it before. But, I will explain and give you several studies and references.

*Later, I'll explain why you need to work on this if you want to break out of your 2:35-36 rut - I'm not being a pr1ck; I'd genuinely like to see you get more out of your running for the investment you are making - that's the truth.

I'm going t have to walk away from this thread but you've some cheek. I've yet to see a single race report from you to back up any of your training "methods". Not one, no training paces either and now I hear you've moved away from your original 5k goal! And I'm in a rut. If you consider running a marathon PB while working a full time job, with no afternoon naps, with interrupted sleep due to 2 young kids and the constant threat of injury than fair enough. You don't know what sort of investment I have made, good or bad. And yeah I've been running since I was 10 while you've been reading up on it! I'm more of a practitioner myself! By the way if you're looking at my London report and picking at the fact I cramped in the last 6 miles that was down to a bladder infection but you see stazza I don't like to mention stuff like that in case it's seen as an excuse!

pconn062

theboyblunder wrote: »

Im not taking that from a track fairy

Biggest race strategy worries: shades or no shades? spandex or shorts??


Seriously, when youve crashed badly in a marathon, and felt that pain, this stuff is bloody interesting.

Shades man, always shades! And spandex is better for highlighting certain features!

Stazza

TRR wrote: »

I'm going t have to walk away from this thread but you've some cheek. I've yet to see a single race report from you to back up any of your training "methods". Not one, no training paces either and now I hear you've moved away from your original 5k goal! And I'm in a rut. If you consider running a marathon PB while working a full time job, with no afternoon naps, with interrupted sleep due to 2 young kids and the constant threat of injury than fair enough. You don't know what sort of investment I have made, good or bad. And yeah I've been running since I was 10 while you've been reading up on it! I'm more of a practitioner myself! By the way if you're looking at my London report and picking at the fact I cramped in the last 6 miles that was down to a bladder infection but you see stazza I don't like to mention stuff like that in case it's seen as an excuse!

Relax.

Itziger

Kinda sorry I posted the initial bleeding query now!

But, I will ask again, especially for the regression approach. Has anyone ever tried or know anyone who's tried a faster than pace, pace, slower than pace approach??

Intentionally.

RedRunner

dublin runner wrote: »

-3.45 pace is 8:28 per mile
-3.42 pace is 8.35 per mile

Is 7 seconds per mile too fast enough to derail a marathon? It very well might be. Without seeing your training, I would hazard a guess to say that what happened at the 35k marker was a fatigue issue. Was 3.45 pace a bit ambitious to start off with?

Maybe 3.45 was too ambitious a target alright, coming from a 4:27 previous attempt in Oct 2012. Training though was much better this time round and I had a 1:39:50 Half in March. I followed a 17 week plan and only had 1 bad week in the middle and 1 very light week in taper due to a bit of a niggle/PF

Here's my splits from London:

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/480082857

Here's my splits from DCM 2012:

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/238390095

I think I got my fuelling strategy right so only thing left is the endurance issue. The alternative method of a progression run sounds interesting but maybe I'd be better of with a more conservative even pace next time round until I get more experienced at racing the distance??? Lot's of food for thought in this discussion....and a lot of science!

There's probably no perfect answer but its certainly interesting to read the different views on how to tackle the problem.

RedRunner

Itziger wrote: »

Kinda sorry I posted the initial bleeding query now!

But, I will ask again, especially for the regression approach. Has anyone ever tried or know anyone who's tried a faster than pace, pace, slower than pace approach??

Intentionally.

Haha...yeah I see what you mean. Thanks for posting though because it's certainly an interesting topic. I'd Imagine that approach might be feasible up to hm distance but after that the effectiveness might diminish. Maybe the progression method would be better. Would be a great study to compare the different approaches.

RedRunner

Itziger wrote: »

Kinda sorry I posted the initial bleeding query now!

But, I will ask again, especially for the regression approach. Has anyone ever tried or know anyone who's tried a faster than pace, pace, slower than pace approach??

Intentionally.

Haha...yeah I see what you mean. Thanks for posting though because it's certainly an interesting topic. I'd Imagine that approach might be feasible up to hm distance but after that the effectiveness might diminish. Maybe the progression method would be better. Would be a great study to compare the different approaches.

morceli

A friend of mine tried a similar approach to bank te over the first 10 mile the. Get to 20 on pace and hang in for the last 6. He was hoping for sub 3 but it went very wrong. Finished in about 3:30 so the idea of running faster then maratho pace to stat with wouldn't be one i would go with.
His next marathon was another shot at sub 3 and was now been coache by a club so he planned to get to halfway in 1:32 and run a negative split. It didn't work out for the sub 3 but he did run a 92 92 split for a big pb.

TRR

Itziger wrote: »

Kinda sorry I posted the initial bleeding query now!

But, I will ask again, especially for the regression approach. Has anyone ever tried or know anyone who's tried a faster than pace, pace, slower than pace approach??

Intentionally.

Yes, I like to think of the marathon as 2 * 10 milers and a 10k to finish.

I'd normally set out to start off slightly slower than MP (5 seconds maybe) for the first 10 miles. Then come into MP up until 20 and then all going well pick it up for the last 10k. If things aren't going well in the last 10k just try hold onto MP and because the first 10 miles were slightly easier than what I trained for it generally works out OK.

Some people have more extreme examples. Check out Tunguska's race report of DCM13 in the training log forum.

There are also lots of people who like to "bank time" but unless the course suits that approach it's usually a mugs game from my own experience and what I seen happen to others.

ThePiedPiper

I tried to bank time in the Boston marathon a few years back due to a very fast first 15 odd miles. Ran at sub 3 pace for that much of it, even though it was never going to be realistic due to no training..

it didn't work out well, even remotely. I got swallowed up by a couple of thousand runners, finished in 3:34. Disaster! I didn't learn from it either, tried the same approach in New York a few months later and got eaten up again, finishing in 3:15 after getting to 18 miles at sub 3 pace.

It wasn't until I wised up my strategy that I started finishing marathons at the target time. Progression all the way for me these days.

drquirky

Stazza wrote: »

Great stuff. I'll come back to you later but for now, have a look at your 2012 DCM splits that you posted on the Garmin link. Then, read your 2013 DCM race report, then read your London race report. Apart from the fact that need to spend some time working on improving your speed at LT*, I think you might notice something...

Now, just before I pop off. 100% your knowledge of cellular respiration in frogs, wooly mammoths, and human's out trumps mine by a mile. No argument or problem for me there. I am, however, struggling to believe that for somebody who has been running since they were 10 doesn't get Aerobic Threshold or hasn't heard of it before. But, I will explain and give you several studies and references.

*Later, I'll explain why you need to work on this if you want to break out of your 2:35-36 rut - I'm not being a pr1ck; I'd genuinely like to see you get more out of your running for the investment you are making - that's the truth.

No offense Stazza but whats your mara PB?

Stazza

drquirky wrote: »

No offense Stazza but whats your mara PB?

Oh, here comes the rest of the hardmen.

drquirky

Stazza wrote: »

Oh, here comes the rest of the hardmen.

not a hardman just give us a race result!

drquirky

Just would like to say. Would never question someone who puts in an honest effort. Not about times at all. Plenty of runners run times all over the spectrum and 4hr guys can give great advise as can 2:30 guys.But you call your self the "running master....**** off. But you are a complete spoofer Stazza. I've known that from the start but like to give people a chance. Post BS splits for BS workouts and give people "advise" either put the **** up or shut the **** up- pretty simple. Not fair to give people advise when you've no verifiable experience to back it up.

Stazza

drquirky wrote: »

not a hardman just give us a race result!

I've never raced a marathon. If I were to train for a marathon this year, I doubt I get close to TRR's pb. Appreciate my candour? Happy? Good.

Also, I haven't raced properly since I started back running. When I'm good and ready, I'll race. When I start racing, I'm sure even your times will be faster than mine. But give me a few races and then we'll see what's what. Appreciate my candour? Happy? Good?

But that's not what this about. I posted some thoughts on how to approach racing a marathon - many people were interested in those thoughts. And if we're being honest, we know exactly what happened - the usual sh1te.

For me, it's over.

Stazza

drquirky wrote: »

Just would like to say. Would never question someone who puts in an honest effort. Not about times at all. Plenty of runners run times all over the spectrum and 4hr guys can give great advise as can 2:30 guys.But you call your self the "running master....**** off. But you are a complete spoofer Stazza. I've known that from the start but like to give people a chance. Post BS splits for BS workouts and give people "advise" either put the **** up or shut the **** up- pretty simple. Not fair to give people advise when you've no verifiable experience to back it up.

What BS splits and what BS workouts?

Stazza

drquirky wrote: »

Just would like to say. Would never question someone who puts in an honest effort. Not about times at all. Plenty of runners run times all over the spectrum and 4hr guys can give great advise as can 2:30 guys.But you call your self the "running master....**** off. But you are a complete spoofer Stazza. I've known that from the start but like to give people a chance. Post BS splits for BS workouts and give people "advise" either put the **** up or shut the **** up- pretty simple. Not fair to give people advise when you've no verifiable experience to back it up.

2000 and it's 2 mins slower than my pb.

ecoli

Mod: Reminder personal abuse is not tolerated so lets keep thing somewhat civil

tunguska

Itziger wrote: »

You know sometimes on runs you just start wondering about stuff? (Yes, you do)

Well, yesterday I was out and a thought came to my mind.

Would it be completely crazy to try a progression, or even regression, run in an actual race. If we take the obvious 3 hour barrier and use km pace it's easy to explain.

Instead of the standard flat pace approach, which in this case it would be 4.15 per km, you'd do either 14k @4.30 followed by 14 @4.15 followed by 14 @ 4.00.

Obviously the regression version, as well as being depressing cos so many would be passing you, would be the other way around. 14@4.00, 14@ 4.15 and finish up with 14@4.30.

Btw, I know there are 197 metres left. Has anyone here ever tried something like this? Ever heard of people doing it? I'm curious is all.

Like the lads have said, banking time never works out, especially in a marathon. Thats a sure fire way to die a death and run a massive positive split( and maybe end up on a stretcher at an aid station). I've known a few people who've tried this and the results are always hilarious. Running a negative though makes sense, especially on a course where the second half is easier than the first. I think even splits is something to be reserved for pancake flat courses.

Ceepo

Here are the splits of friend of mine who ran a Marathon a few weeks ago,
Nice to be able to move through the field like this,

Serious positive split,

Split time distance avg
1 6:16.4 1.00 6:16
2 6:11.4 1.00 6:11
3 6:19.1 1.00 6:19
4 6:11.2 1.00 6:11
5 6:22.2 1.00 6:22
6 6:19.8 1.00 6:20
7 6:23.7 1.00 6:24
8 6:22.4 1.00 6:22
9 6:14.9 1.00 6:15
10 6:16.9 1.00 6:17
11 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
12 6:06.4 1.00 6:06
13 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
14 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
15 6:15.7 1.00 6:16
16 6:03.9 1.00 6:04
17 5:57.9 1.00 5:58
18 5:57.9 1.00 5:58
19 5:59.2 1.00 5:59
20 5:58.0 1.00 5:58
21 5:59.4 1.00 5:59
22 6:02.1 1.00 6:02
23 5:53.5 1.00 5:54
24 5:47.0 1.00 5:47
25 5:54.4 1.00 5:54
26 6:14.8 1.00 6:15
27 3.30.3 1,00 6.21

TRR

Ceepo wrote: »

Here are the splits of friend of mine who ran a Marathon a few weeks ago,
Nice to be able to move through the field like this,

Serious positive split,

Split time distance avg
1 6:16.4 1.00 6:16
2 6:11.4 1.00 6:11
3 6:19.1 1.00 6:19
4 6:11.2 1.00 6:11
5 6:22.2 1.00 6:22
6 6:19.8 1.00 6:20
7 6:23.7 1.00 6:24
8 6:22.4 1.00 6:22
9 6:14.9 1.00 6:15
10 6:16.9 1.00 6:17
11 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
12 6:06.4 1.00 6:06
13 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
14 6:07.9 1.00 6:08
15 6:15.7 1.00 6:16
16 6:03.9 1.00 6:04
17 5:57.9 1.00 5:58
18 5:57.9 1.00 5:58
19 5:59.2 1.00 5:59
20 5:58.0 1.00 5:58
21 5:59.4 1.00 5:59
22 6:02.1 1.00 6:02
23 5:53.5 1.00 5:54
24 5:47.0 1.00 5:47
25 5:54.4 1.00 5:54
26 6:14.8 1.00 6:15
27 3.30.3 1,00 6.21

negative

Ceepo

Thats what I ment. :D
Positive running all the same

Bugsy2000

Being someone who cramps a lot, especially towards the back end of long distance events, I was interested in the debate about muscle fatigue (undertrained) versus dehydration / electrolyte depletion. I had always figured my cramping issues were down to me being the type of person who sweats A LOT during running.

I came across this which kinda backs up what Stazza was saying. Now I know it's only a small case study & far from scientific proof & if you look long enough on the internet you'll find information to back up every argument but it's food for thought.

I did find it intersting that they found no difference in electrolyte serum levels between those who cramp & those who don't.

Stazza

Bugsy2000 wrote: »

Being someone who cramps a lot, especially towards the back end of long distance events, I was interested in the debate about muscle fatigue (undertrained) versus dehydration / electrolyte depletion. I had always figured my cramping issues were down to me being the type of person who sweats A LOT during running.

I came across this which kinda backs up what Stazza was saying. Now I know it's only a small case study & far from scientific proof & if you look long enough on the internet you'll find information to back up every argument but it's food for thought.

I did find it intersting that they found no difference in electrolyte serum levels between those who cramp & those who don't.

Bugsy, you might like this.

Edit
The slide show's worth a watch.

And for those who don't get or have never heard of Lactate shuffles/shuttles - you might like to watch the video about lactate. The video is a teaser on Lactate Shuttles/shuffles.

And then, how do you combat the problem of cramping/hitting the wall...?

jonny99

Great thread,agree with most,but youve gotta love Traviss:)

http://traviss.co.uk/race_reports/290_Houston_100_Race_Report.html

sconhome

Bugsy2000 wrote: »

Being someone who cramps a lot, especially towards the back end of long distance events, I was interested in the debate about muscle fatigue (undertrained) versus dehydration / electrolyte depletion. I had always figured my cramping issues were down to me being the type of person who sweats A LOT during running.

I came across this which kinda backs up what Stazza was saying. Now I know it's only a small case study & far from scientific proof & if you look long enough on the internet you'll find information to back up every argument but it's food for thought.

I did find it intersting that they found no difference in electrolyte serum levels between those who cramp & those who don't.

Read Tim Noakes Waterlogged and you will find that he pooh poohs the idea of salt issues at all. He claims the salt levels are so miniscule and so carefully balanced by the body that no supplimentary salt is ever going to be required and is not a cramping factor.

Alex Hutchinson says similar in his blog articles too.