Hit the track or treadmill and spend time learning exactly what the minute per mile pace you want to set feels like. Run it consistantly. Do go out too fast and don't start too slow. Try to run steady throughout and stay mentally strong so that you don't fade near the end. Good luck!

Well you could do what I did for a 3-45 in my first marathon, run sub sevens for the first 20, then, well let's not talk about the last 6.
Both the men's and women's world records were run with negative splits, and negative splits are not just effective for elites, it works for us too. It's very tough to do, you have to know yourself very well. I've only acheived it in one of my 10 marathons (in IMLP this year) and it was by far the easiest of them all, and the only one where I far exceeded my expectations. Plus it will hurt less and you'll recover faster. The first few miles will need to feel ludicrously easy, but it will be worthwhile. I don't mean go at at 10 min pace, but certainly go out closer to 9s than the 8-35s that you plan to end up averaging. Plus going by hordes of folk in the last 10 miles will help you even more.

3:17 + 3:28. A ten minute fade in the second half is the way to go. This whole theory about even pacing for your rank and file person is bogus. If you even split you left "time on the table" in the first half. Just look at the results of any marathon or Ironman and for 98% the second half is slower to the tune of 10 minutes or more. Bank time while you are fresh, but don't go nuts and then hang on without blowing up, just plan for a gradual deceleration.

My best marathon was a 1:23 +1:25 = 2:48. My second best marathon was a 1:19 + 1:31 for a 2:50 and I was nowhere near the condition for the 2:48. In the first example, I left too much time on the table in the first half as I was in incredible shape and likely in 2:45 condition and should have tried to go out in 1:20 . In the second one, I went too fast in the first half, (likely 1-2 min fast) and slowed down a bit too much in the second half. This was 13-15 years ago. Now I am lucky to even break 3:20 (3:19 at Boston this spring !). At Ironman LP this year, I did something like a 1:47 + 1:57 for a 3:44. A 10 min fade is a very reasonable target.

Which race are you doing? I'm doing Chicago and looking to pace about the same.

If that's the one you are doing, New Balance has pacing teams. I've never tried that, but I think it could be really effective.

I am doing Chicago, and I've found that the pace teams get fairly scattered- I don't trust them enough. I guess they can be used as a reference though.

I have always had a hard time performing a negative split. Its not that I don't believe in them but I have never been able to regularly pull them off. Right now I am in training for the Marine Corp. and have been really working hard, on all my longer runs, practicing a negative effort. I continue to find it very difficult to do and time is running out. By the way I want to qualify for Boston at 3:20.

So now you come along with "(the) theory about even pacing for your rank and file person is bogus" comment. Well that gives me some relief but is it true? Should I plan around 1:35 then hang on with a 1:40? I believe this is much more "doable" for me than say a 1:38/1:39. Does anyone else have a similar feelings on this.

I saw that post and thought "That's a recipe for pain, but I think it reinforced my original strategy (Pre thread)

first worry about where you are going to start. The first 4-5 miles are more about survival than pace. If you are planning 3;45, I would start in the area that is a little faster than that or else you will find yourself time to make up to get back on pace. During the first 6 miles there are some turns you may end up literally walking thru if you are not careful.

Enjoy - the first 13 miles will fly by. It gets a little lonely around miles 20-23.

For elites, it seems that an even or slightly negative split is probably better, but I don’t think that what applies to professionals that run 100 plus miles per week applies to most of the rest of us. Personally, my best marathons were with slightly positive splits, up to 5 minutes slower the second half of the race. I think that I would not have done my best race had I been 10 minutes slower over the last half of the race. FWIW, my PR is around 3:45 and I should be able to improve upon that a fair bit this year. So, Dev would beat me fairly handily, and maybe you should just listen to him.

But, if you want to keep reading, I think you should probably pick your marathon pace based upon what you have been doing in training rather than how fast you wanted to run the marathon when you started to train. For example, if you are running less than 40 miles per week, you probably cannot run much faster for the entire race than you can run on your long runs. If you are running more than that and training more intensely, you can run between 30 and 90 seconds faster per mile during the race than during your long runs.

Rover. Look at the results of ANY marathon where they have first and second half splits. Positive splitting is a REALITY. Better to work with it. Negative splitting is a myth for your rank and file. We just don't have the fitness and base to pull this off without leaving time on the table in the first half.

You answered your question. Go for 1:35 + 1:44 for a 3:19. This is always easier and less risky than trying that BOGUS 1:40+1:39 approach that almost always fails.

Not everyone is the same. When I BQ'd last year at Grandma's., I even paced the whole race. I have also done negative split marathons. I am FAR from being elite anything, just a meat and potatoes runner who knows his body and can train for and hold an even pace. One size doesn't fit all with pacing, but even pacing is a sound startegy for some (me).

---

Lar Dog

When I first entered MCM it was not just to qualify for Boston. I had always wanted to do the race and it came at a good time for me. Once I finished with my Tri's for the year and began to focus on running I felt I could do the distance at a little under 7:30 per mile or just fast enough to qualify for Boston hence that became my goal.

The other thought that I had on the positive/negative split idea was that if I went out at say 7:15 per mile (within my abilities for a half mary) it would leave me with plenty of wiggle room at the other end (up to a leisurely 7:45 per mile) plus if I was having a really good day my time would be PB (well actually since this is my first non-ironman marathon anytime would be a PB but you know what I mean.)

But I keep coming back to why or how did this idea of doing negative splits get such a following?? Should I give it up and accept a positive split as reality and train in that manner?

The whole negative/even split coaching mentality comes from track and field where most races are a mile or less. You try to even split every lap. At these distances, this makes a lot of sense. The energy systems are different than a marathon. Pretty well everyone should be even splitting their 400 splits for a mile. This even holds true up to 5000m, even for the average joe.

Track and running coaches have taken this model and "scaled it to marathon". The problem is that the controlled scenario of a track no longer exists. Also, the controllable energy output is thrown out the window when you get up to marathons.

Let's just put it this way. Coaches the world around say you should negative split or even split. Everyone is trying to do his. Look at EVERY marathon and look at what the masses are doing:

THEY ARE POSITIVE SPLITTING

If everyone is trying to negative split yet 98% are positive splitting, what do you think this is saying ? It says that the human body is designed to positive split at these distances. The data/real world stats are there to prove it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

So just accept that the human body is designed to positive split a marathon and work within that reality to your best possible race, rather than dogging the first half, leaving time on the table and stroking your ego claiming that you negative split.

I'd rather run a 1:25+1:34 than a 1:30 + 1:30. I did exactly this to break 3 hours at Boston in 2002.

Consider using the "10 10 10" plan :

First 10 miles - run at goal pace to + :05 sec / mile
Next 10 miles - run at goal pace to - :05 sec / mile
Final 10 Kilomters : Hang on with whatever is left.

There will be a lot of folks in the 3:45 that
will be committed to bring it in sub 3:45

btw - I am running Chicago too (my 7th marathon).

Do you have a preferred starting number ?
This helps A LOT (as Chgo is very crowded)

Dan Brown

Dev makes excellent points here. Negative or even splitting for the masses is a myth, a phantom, and a dumb idea. If you try picking up your pace at the mid point you're more likely to pick up too much and end up blowing up around 19-20.

For the average to above average joe, splitting the marathon in half isn't a particularly great idea either. More than that, it's difficult to hold focus that long. I'd look at a 10-10-10 split or think in 6 mile chunks with a 2 mile hang on at the end. But this should follow Dev's statements of expecting and planning to fall off, not pick up pace.

Bank a little time while you're fresh because no matter how fast you are, you are exhausted when you're at mile 20 and think you're going to somehow "kick".

"I did exactly this to break 2 hours at Boston in 2002."

Sorry, I don't believe you. You may have broken 3 hours, but I don't think you broke 2. ;)

When I set out to break 3:45 (my BQ pace) at the Gulf Beaches Marathon in January, my original intention was to start at around a 7:35 pace in the first few miles, then drop to a 7:20 pace and try to hold that until late in the race, when I knew I would inevitably slow down. The net result, I hoped, would be close to an even split between the first and second halves. By start time, however, it was apparent that we would have a 20mph tailwind during the first half, which would become a 20mph headwind in the second half. So I decided that any attempt at even splits would be ridiculous under the circumstances. Like everyone else, including the top finishers, I ended up with a strong positive split, but I did achieve my goal.

Edit: I see you recognized your mistake!

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.