Sounds like a very sound theory...

I wouldn't approach it like that. I would actually suggest running your first 5 miles slower than race place. If you feel good pick it up, if not keep it there.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I think you mean consistent pace, not effort, right?

For me, pretty much all marathons start off almost effortless (at my goal pace) but get harder and harder at the same pace until I hit the wall. My only problem early it keeping those miles from being too fast. It's the same for open and IM marathons, the only difference being the pace. Isn't that how it is for everybody?

If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about starting off at a given pace as I would about starting at a given effort. Make sure it's easy early on. The only thing the watch ought to do is keep you from running faster than your goal pace in the early miles. It shouldn't keep you from running slower.

Let your goal pace come to you. If it's your day, you'll hit it soon enough. If not, you'll be glad you didn't try to force it.

Don't try to bank time. The bank charges interest.

To the OP: My stats are almost exactly what yours are.

FWIW I think JoeO is 100% spot on.

I've "run " 7 IM's now and the only one that I felt good through the entire run was my last one. I broke the course into 1/4's. The first 6 miles I used my watch to ensure I didn't run any faster than 8:00. That was very hard to do!! From 6-18 I ran 8:00-7:45, still keeping an eye on my watch to ensure that I wasn't running too fast. At 18 I started to pick it up and at 20 I ran it in with every thing I had left. I felt great that entire run. I ended with a 3:23, which isn't "great", but it sure did feel great to neg split an IM 26.2.

IM rewards those that can check their ego's at the door and have the control to properly pace themselves.

This should be true for everyone, also for the elite.
In one of my best IM- marathons I (being myself far from the elite by the way) planned, and executed, to run the first half keeping my HR<140, and to keep the resulting pace of the first half in the second half.Of course my heartrate was over 140 in the second half and it was a fight. But the result was a flat-pace marathon.

Thanks for all the replies. To clarify I guess I'm trying to hone in on the trade off between pace and heart rate. Correct me if you disagree but my impression is that you have two options on the run:

1) run a consistent pace, but this will require more effort so your HR should continuously drift higher
2) run with a consistent heart rate, but this will mean your pace is slowing drifting lower.

Running 8:00/mile in the first 5 miles is significantly easier than the last 5. So do you target pace, or HR?

Maybe I'm overthinking this...

I'm gonna go a different direction.. I used to approach it like you suggested: start at faster than target, end slower, average tardet, but then my coach had me do a bunch of runs, both open and bricks, where the entire focus was negative splitting the second half.

Found new worlds of hurt, but also found much faster times overall.

I think the biggest help during said runs was doing them with other, much faster, runners for support and motivation

1. Yes your heart rate will likely go a bit higher. Until you hit the wall. At that point it will drop to a rate that, on a normal day, would be super-easy heart rate. Only you will have hit the wall and your pace will drop as well. At that point, you will be unable to pick up the pace or your heart rate, no matter what you do. So the limiting factor is not really heart rate.

2. I've run several marathons by heart rate. I've run many more without. The only ones that ever went really well were the latter. Not that I haven't had my share of bad marathons without a heart monitor.

I once said on this forum that heart rate was better than RPE. Caught a lot of hell for that but I didn't mean it in general. Ireally only meant it in one specific aspect: If the heart monitor said my heart rate was too high early on, it always was right. Always.

Unfortunately I experienced the odd effect that monitoring my heart rate seemed to make it go higher. I'm not kidding. If I monitored myself at a given pace, my heart rate would prove higher than if I did not. I could see it in the data. I could see it on the watch. (Maybe Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle applies to running...)

Anyway if you train by heart rate, I sure don't want to be the Random Internet Guy to tell you not to use it in your race. But perhaps you should use it as I suggested using the watch; That is, if the heart monitor tells you that your rate is too high early on, then fine, slow down a bit. But if it tells you it is "too low", ignore it.

Either way, sooner or later you have to learn how to pace yourself without a metric. It's critical to racing consistently well, in my opinion.

A few thoughts.

Depends on your definition of "effort" but for me I'd equate it to power in cycling, so steady pace requires steady effort. That steady effort will see a rise in HR due to cardiac drift, and will also likely see a rise in RPE, but the actual effort will be constant. I find HR to be a useful metric, but only alongside other data like pace, RPE, race conditions, etc. Best use of it is keeping a cap on any temptation to go out too hard too early in the run.

Second point is that personally I wouldn't get too fixated on specific pace targets. IM is a very long day and fairly unpredictable - even if you're having a good day then heat, cold, wind or rain can easily have a big impact on race times. Factor in the possibility of overcooking the bike, having nutrition issues, or just not having your best day, and I think it's much better to approach the start of the marathon with a fairly open-minded view as to what sort of time you're going for. Having a pre-race goal is fine, but unless you're prepared to risk blowing up and walking it home, then the evidence of what your legs are telling you once you've settled into the run and done a few miles should trump whatever number you had in mind on the start line.

In terms of overall pacing strategy I'd definitely go for the conservative start with a view to even or negative splitting. Take the first couple of miles pretty easy while you shake the bike out of your legs and let the HR settle down after the excitement of T2. Once you've settled in and have a decent view of how you're feeling, you can start taking the pace up if you feel good. I know an awful lot of people who have gone out too hard on an IM run and ended up walking/limping/crawling home. I don't think I've ever yet spoken to anybody who said they went out too easy and left too much in the tank!

Very few people actually negative split in an IM marathon (I did on my first but that was due to going in with poor run training due to injury, setting myself the goal of simply running/jogging the whole thing and not walking, and then finding myself feeling really pretty good at the halfway point and finishing strongly), but in terms of the RPE I think the mindset of negative splitting is a good one.

This is such good advice

This is a great thread. Thanks for asking the question...

Perfectly written!

---

---

"It's too dangerous and expensive to ride with d*ckheads" -tridork

3) run with a low HR for the first half; on the back half pick up the pace and let the HR do what it may

My best 70.3 came with this strategy. I had a HR cap for the first 7 miles. The pace felt painfully slow. My buddy was chasing me off the bike and caught me right about mile 7. He was spent about the time I was getting ready to drop the hammer. Dropped him like a rock. That happened once. He's crushed me every race since.

On a 140.6/26.2 I'd probably hold back until 18. If you can hit 18-20 feeling good you've nailed it.

No.

---

Jim Vance
http://TodaysPlan.com.au (Disclosure: I am contracted with Today's Plan)
http://www.CoachVance.com/
Twitter @jimvance

I think it's difficult to run negative splits in an open marathon, much less an IM. But negative splits on the run is a better strategy than "banking" time, in my view (6 IMs and 20 marathons).

Your bike mileage in training may really help, but for my body, the fade seemed inevitable. Even when I held back on the bike leg and kept a slow pace on the first half of the run, I still found it hard in Ironman to run those last few miles well. (I don't train super hard, though.)

"On a 140.6/ I'd probably hold back until 18. If you can hit 18-20 feeling good you've nailed it." Those are good words.

As for HR, even Dr. Maffetone, the king of the cautious heart rate, (I think) says that you shouldn't watch HR too much while racing, particularly on the Ironman run. Because your heart rate is going to climb after a long day. I'd dial back that goal pace for the first 10 miles, stick to it, try to gradually pick it up for 10 and then see if you have much left.

I walked in one Ironman for several miles but came up like gangbusters for the last 10K. Wasn't a good strategy, but boy I sure looked good to the spectators ...

Since I believe in learning through debate, I'm going to challenge the above line of thinking.

To be honest, I find this advice confusing. On one hand, you admit that PE is "off" early in the run. However, it's very well-established that your PE:pace coming off the bike is completely out of whack, relative to an open marathon. I could run 7:00 pace the first 3 miles of the IM run and it would feel very easy but I know from experience that would far too aggressive to produce an optimal IM run time. If I start off any open run at 7:00 pace it feels pretty much like 7:00 pace. Mind you, it doesn't feel like a 7:00 pace after 20 miles but we're trying to compare the PE between the early miles of an IM run vs the early miles of an open run/marathon.

Point being, don't run those early miles at a given effort and do run them at a given pace because your mind will deceive you and you'll inevitably run too fast.

I have (or I had) very similar run results as the OP. If I was him, I wouldn't start (i.e., first ~3 miles) the IM run faster than 8:15 and ideally more like 8:30 and I'd watch pace (and HR) like a hawk for the first 3 - 5 miles.

The reason why I would watch HR too is because *if* your HR is high for whatever reason on this specific day then you need to slow down. There's no way you can sustain a higher-than-normal HR for 26.2 miles so you'll have to adjust accordingly. The challenge is determining what a normal HR should be for you on the IM run because it won't be the same as an open marathon (given that you started the run coming off a 112-mile bike). You also need to get some (extra) calories into your system early in the run which is the other reason why you don't want to sustain a relatively high HR.

Note: Those who know me or have raced against me are aware that I had a reputation for even splitting the IM run. I have even neg split the IM run at least 3 times which is a VERY hard thing to do. Interesting enough, I have actually neg split the run on a descending HR but that's because I don't seem to suffer from cardiac drift. So, my HR run profile does tend to be unique.

Really good stuff in this thread!

Could you expand on your comment, "You also need to get some (extra) calories into your system early in the run", in regards to timing and perhaps what specifically? Taking in calories is quite easy on the bike as one drinks from a straw. Running through an aid station and grabbing a cup of coke is not what you are referring to.

Correct.

As just one example that worked well for me, I ran out of T2 with a bottle of coke in my hand. I slowly sipped from it and I tried to drink the entire bottle in the first mile or two. Running with a bottle of coke also had the desired effect of slowing me down.

This is clearly an individual thing but if you like coke of the run then I would highly recommend it. I would also typically take pieces of banana at the first aid station. I had easily accessible pockets so I could stuff extra banana pieces and slowly eat them between mile 1 and 2. Try to avoid stuffing a bunch of food in you within a very short period of time.

Bottom line, I feel like I spent most of my time eating/drinking stuff during the first 2 - 3 miles of the run. It's a nice distraction too.

Sorry to hijack this thread but I have a question for Jim. how does using the Stryd change the equation for the IM run. I read your book and have been following your plans. It's been game changing for me as I don't know my body well enough on the run. Would you recommend starting the IM run at low Z2/high Z1 then reassessing at mile 16-18 before going to upper Z2?

thx

there were three really good points brought up in this thread:

1. Don't bank time, the bank charges interest :-) (not the perfect analogy, but it's more like the bank charges interest when you go to withdraw the banked time that you put in....bad deal)
2. Run by pace, not effort. To this day, I swear Andreas Ralaert let both the 2010 and 2011 IM World Championships get away running waaaaay sub 6 on Alii drive. In 2010 he was chasing Macca and caught him and ran out of gas. In 2011, he was chasing Crowie, and kept closing and closing and closing, but ran his fast miles in the wrong part of the race (see item 1 above). Honestly I swear that most pros on Alii drive are idiots in terms of how fast they run early. They got this thing Bassackwards. Today's pros need to watch Dave Scott and Mark Allen going head to head in 1989 out of T2. Those guys were masters. They were jogging. Mark ran a 2:39 a his times included T2.
3. I'm adding the third point which is what Coach Pat McCrann from EN brought up. If you think you went too easy for the first 130.6 mile, don't worry, you have a 10 mile full on foot race to make up for 130.6 miles of mistaken pacing....THIS ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS

To point three, to my athlete, I would say to treat the first 127.5 mile commute to an open half marathon. Imagine how you would treat a swim, bike and run commute to an open half marathon, knowing the only thing timed is the 13.1. We actually would practice this during a "C" event locally and ride 100K-120K on Saturday and then another 50-80K on Sunday morning before a local open half marathon. It was interesting how we all behaved ourselved for those rides knowing we had a timed half marathon at th end of it! Mainly this was an exercise in practicing the psychology for IM weekend.

Mark Allen and Dave Scott has this question in 1989 and never got an answer, so they just jogged slower than training pace for the first 10 miles. Seriously folks, it's not really that hard. You don't have to go nuts with gadgets. Just a stop watch and the first mile marker tells you everything. Those first 3 mile markers need to be run at a per mile pace SLOWER than your slowest training long run. Best would be to take the last 3 miles of that one training run that you bonked on and go slower than that pace and you're golden.....you have from mile 130.6 to 140.6 to make up for going too slow early.

Good question. I am still gathering data on this and learning, as it is based on the run skill in general that a runner has, the bike demands of the race, the conditions, and the difficulty of the run course. But as a general line of thinking, I would say you are at a good starting point. Another way to look at it may be as a percentage of 10K power, where we typically find athletes are running the marathon at about 89-90% of their 10K power. That's fresh tho, so collecting data from previous successful Ironman run are probably the best tools for determining a specific power range for an athlete to target in training and racing, based on the percentage of difference between their Ironman marathons and that predicted percentage for open marathons. (Yes, they can use an open marathon to compare as well, but many don't run open marathons in training, with good reason).

The Styrd changed the game for Kanute. Just look at Chattanooga. He wasn't to go over 340 watts on the run. His first mile on that hilly course was 5:44, he averaged 5:48.

---

Jim Vance
http://TodaysPlan.com.au (Disclosure: I am contracted with Today's Plan)
http://www.CoachVance.com/
Twitter @jimvance

if you want to run 7:50s, start out trying to run 8:00-8:05, you'll end up running 7:50-7:55s, but every time you notice you are running 7:50s, try to slow down and you'll get 7:50s feeling easy. If you try to run 7:50s, you're going to run 7:40s and blow up at the end. Do this for the first 8-9 miles, the next 8-9 miles run 7:50s, if you are trained correctly, it should feel comfortable, not easy, not hard. The last 8-9 miles it should feel somewhat uncomfortable to getting harder as you get closer to finish to run 7:50s, but you can do it. The last 5K will suck, but you're so close to the finish you can suck it up and keep pushing.

My opinion is that only the hour of an IM should be hard. The rest is pacing correctly so you can run the last hour hard at the pace you want not slower.

Also, run your own race. If someone passes you early that you think you run the same as, LET THEM GO. Either you can or can't run the same as them. If you can you'll catch them after they blow up. If you can't you'll blow up.

I've done this plan every IM and have even to slightly negative split and always hit my goal time.

I guess I don't even understand the analogy used in point #1 because I basically thought it was contradicting point #2. It seems like it was his way of saying "Don't use pace..." which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Note: This assumes you don't have some way to determine power like Stryd.

Dev, maybe your underlying point is really the following, which was typically used for the bike but clearly applies to the run too?

The physiological cost of power (or pace) increasing has an exponential impact. So, you don't get back later in the day (1:1) what you put in earlier on in the day.

We used this rule as we to teach people the importance of not going too hard uphills (or in the first 3 - 5 miles of the run) and keeping things steady, i.e., maintain low variability.

Dev I don't understand what point of mine exactly you are disagreeing with. Of course RPE can be off I don't mean "just run the whole thing by feel". The watch or the HR can be a great tool for keeping you from going too fast. My point is that it should never ever make you try to speed up when your body doesn't feel like it.

I think I made this pretty clear when I wrote the following in the post above

My only problem early it keeping those miles from being too fast

The only thing the watch ought to do is keep you from running faster than your goal pace in the early miles. It shouldn't keep you from running slower.

I thought the gold standard of slowtwitch IM pacing was already in this chart:

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=1062155;search_string=martinez%2520daniels;


So for example a VDOT of 57 (~1:22 Half Marathon test run) means a range of 3:22-3:35. That would probably translate into starting out around 8 min miles (~3:30) and building from there if possible. Is the chart still relevant?

---

Strava

It wasn't Dev, it was me. Just trying to create some interesting debate.

As I stated, your advice was confusing. To be frank, you contradicted yourself. How do you keep yourself from running those early miles too fast when you agree that PE can be off? And then you make the following claim:

"If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about starting off at a given pace as I would about starting at a given effort."

If PE is off (and it will definitely be off) then *effectively* pacing by effort doesn't work. Period.

Do you now see how you're contradicting yourself?

Awesome that you referenced this chart!! I completely forgot about it. I remember having long discussions/threads with Ale when he started building it.

Yes, I think it's still very relevant. I would just argue that someone doing their first IM should start more conservatively than 8:00 pace. Mind you, I'm assuming the OP is a VDOT 57. Again, 8:15 and maybe even 8:30s because Dev's point #3 is an important rule to remember.

Well, the 57 VDOT wasn't a random number, just happened to use that example because that is my current VDOT and could use some advice, as well (I am doing IMTX, my first, in 2 weeks). I guess my main follow up question to all this (good) discussion is that I should, on paper, run no slower than 3:35, IF

1) I am in good bike/swim/run shape
2) My bike leg TSS stays under 270
3) I replace fluids/sodium/calories according to nutrition plan (and that plan is a good one)

Now, you're saying that in order to go no slower than a 3:35, it would be ideal to start out at 8:15 pace. Would that ever put you in a position to go a 3:22? Or maybe you save that for subsequent IMs once you know how you react to the swim/bike stress?

---

Strava

Is it possible to still run a 3:22 with an initial pace of 8:15? Yes, it's certainly possible (assuming a flat run course) but very unlikely in your first IM.

That said, your primary goal is just NOT run too fast early on which is so incredibly easy to do in the first 3 or so miles. Everyone obviously wants to run as fast possible but focus on executing a plan that will yield the highest probability of success and ignore any goal of achieving something like a 3:2x run time. Possibly setting a goal of running sub-3:40 is more desirable from my perspective. Those early miles are super important. Run at a conservative pace, watch your HR and get some calories in you.

I promise, you will not finish the race feeling like you could have run faster in the first 3 or so miles.

By looking at the watch, seeing it's too fast and slowing down. That's the third time I've said that. Running by PE doesn't mean ignoring the obvious.

Yea, I keep hearing this, which probably means it is good advice.

There HAS to be a point, though, where you would look back and say, "I went out too slow". For the 57 VDOT example, maybe that's 8:45 or slower, for example. It just sounds like that never really happens in practice.

---

Strava

Just remember, the operative word in my advice above is *probability*. Like many decisions in life, IM execution is all about making high-probability decisions. Seeking so-called perfection is a horrible strategy because there are enough variables that are too hard to control and it's inevitable one or two of those variables are going to bite you in the ass (or certainly make your day more difficult). By targeting a conservative pace early on, you increase the probability of dealing with those challenges. If you have that perfect race for 18 miles, trust me, whatever time you lost in the first 3 - 5 miles can be made up in the last 8.

WTF, are you serious???


If you're looking at your watch, i.e., tracking your pace, then you're definitely not running by PE. This is not a grey discussion. It's very black and white.


The inability for people to admit they're wrong or say something like, "Yes, I see how my past advice might sound confusing" is staggering to me at times.

Of course I am serious. Your inability to take a simple declarative statement as anything other black-and-white rule-of-law is equally staggering and is the source of your confusion.

I run with a watch. I run by effort. Those statements are not contradictory.

The watch is a sanity check. To make sure in mile 1 (maybe even mile 2) that my perceptions haven't gone off the deep end and that "easy" effort is not something that is clearly mathematically impossible for me. So if I get off the bike and my goal first mile is 7:00 but "easy" pace yields a 6:30, OK, I slow down.

Now at this point I can almost hear you typing, "No. It's black and white! you are not running by RPE!". But then again if the watch says I ran 30 seconds too slow, then I must pick up the pace. Because it's all black and white, right? But of course I don't. Because I'm running by effort.

Now most of the time, my sanity check shows that my perceptions were correct for mile 1. Either way I almost never bother checking for the remaining 25 miles because there is no need

I call that running by effort. But then again I never saw this as some as a purity test.

The only reason I didn't bother write this boring, pedantic explanation when I first posted is because it is completely fucking obvious.

The only reason why I'm bothering to respond is because you're deceiving the rookies. This advice is being directed specifically to people who are doing their first IM but it still applies to basically everyone. Pros are actually some of the worst at IM execution. They just happen to have the genetics to make big mistakes appear much less significant.

In my 16 Ironmans, watching a few others, coaching a few people and analyzing a countless amount of athlete race data, I have very rarely ever seen anyone run the early miles at an appropriate (slow enough) pace.

The problem is twofold:

1. Your PE coming off the bike will be completely off. It is always inaccurate in this situation and this is why you completely ignore it unless you are in obvious distress. The base assumption here is that you're feeling reasonably good.

2. The psychology behind the acceptance of #1 is critical here. Men specifically are the biggest challenge because of their inherit egos. I call it the "superman effect." If you don't completely ignore your PE then the likelihood of the superman effect kicking in is relatively high. Nothing good will happen when the superman effect kicks in. Interesting how (most) women seem to have more self-awareness when it comes to pacing and admitting/accepting potential mistakes.

An example of my point in #2: I have heard every excuse from a male as to why they fell apart later in the run and not once have they ever admitted what the truth was, i.e., they simply ran those early miles too fast.

I think your mistake is that you're giving them advice based on what you do vs giving them advice based on what a first-time IMer should do.

Btw, regarding your statement about a point where you would look back and say "I went too slow," bike and run split data used to exist back in the day. For whatever incredibly insane reason, we've gone backwards even though technology should have launched us forward and it no longer exists as far as I can tell. WTC has completely screwed the pouch on this one.

Anyway, it's clearly a single data point but if I can find Fred's Haubensak's run split data from IMC '07 (40 - 44AG) then I'll post it. The dude ran a 3:06 but he ran the first 13 miles about 1min/mile slower than the second 13 miles. It was truly impressive. Best IM run I have ever seen in my life. As you can imagine, it was the fastest amateur run split of the day. I think he was 42 at the time.

https://www.athlinks.com/event/35778/results/Event/32961/Course/49809/Entry/24543339

Running 1 min/mile faster the second half is definitely not how you should run any race! He would have finished several minutes faster if he paced it better.
Imo their is a place for both pe, hr and pace to be used as metrics, but in combination with each other. If i plan to run 6 min miles throughout, i will start running no faster than 6 min miles, seeing how that feels, then after half the race I would reassess my goals based on how I am feeling.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Two things:

1. You probably don't know Fred and therefore are completely unaware of his past and future results. Nothing came close to that performance on that day. It's probably about 10min faster than any of his previous or future IM runs. So, arguably, he more than likely paced it exceptionally well based on existing evidence, ie., race data.

2. More importantly, I obviously posted it to specifically address sch340's question and to make a point about whether you can run too slow in those early miles. Sure, there's a theory and therefore a point where you can run too slow but when nobody and their mother has really ever done that then why are we discussing this ridiculous strawman? Let's focus on the most probable outcomes because it leads to more constructive debates. I'm not really interested in addressing the rare exceptions that clearly exist in this world.

Ah but you see, I think that what I do is exactly what a first time IMer should do. Which is sorta why I wrote it on a thread where someone was asking.

Because it is what I did my first IM. And every one thereafter. And it turned out to be the right thing to do.

The only thing I would caution the first timer against is the mindset that would have them run faster even if they feel badly because a watch says they should. The "black and white" mindset.

That way, madness lies

Is running the first few miles too fast the biggest factor in blowing up? Or is it overbiking? And how do you tell the difference in order to diagnose the problem when it happens?

I get what you are trying to say, and I'll also add that there is a layer of strategy to it. In a very theoretical scenario where my coach yells at me in T2, telling me I have to run a 3:30 to KQ (and my VDOT is 57), then I might have to take a calculated risk and start out in the low 8 minute range. Otherwise, it might be more prudent to start out a little slower to have a higher probability of going under 3:40.

In other words, I take a (almost) guaranteed 3:40 or have a 50/50 shot of going 3:30 or 3:50.

---

Strava

In other words, I take a (almost) guaranteed 3:40 or have a 50/50 shot of going 3:30 or 3:50. //

You are understating the downside of this strategy. It's more like... 25/75 shot of going 3:30 or 4:25. When the wheels fall off during an IM marathon, they are OFF.

my latest IM marathon was like 1st half = 1:45, 2nd half = 1:51; not a big pace drop, but longer walks through aid stations in the 2nd half for increased fluid intake necessity

Point taken. I guess the need to take a calculated risk is based on where you stand at the end of the bike and what your goals are. If you need to run a 3:30 to KQ for example, a 3:40 and 4:25 are the same result (no KQ) albeit with more suffering during the latter.

---

Strava

A few things:
In your earlier post you questioned if you could run too slowly for those first 3 miles. I think it would be almost impossible. In the heat of the race moment to run so slowly that your still fresh at the end of a 140.6 day is kind of a fantasy. If you are in fact still running at mile 22, run harder. I'll bet you'll be able to make up those lost few seconds.

In reply to this post:
Blowing up or melting down I would guess is most often a combination of the 2, over biking and running too fast early on. 3 watts to much on the bike and 20" per mile faster than should be will put an end to your AWESOME day at mile 16.

If your coach is in T2 yelling at you to push to run a 3:30 because he knows that that will be what gets you a kq slot, please name him/her so I know who to never sign on with.

Gauranteed? Nothing in an IM is ever gauranteed.

Thanks, great advice and makes sense. The coach thing was just a theoretical example; maybe it is a friend telling me that I am 30 minutes ahead of a known 3 hour IM marathoner at T2 and we are the only two competing for the last slot; it would stand to reason that I would need to shoot for 3:30, re calibrating along the way. But that doesn't mean I start out faster in the first 3 miles; it just means I execute the optimal strategy that would lead to the highest probability of running a 3:30.

---

Strava

OP here -

I'm not sure why you made the assumption that I was a first timer. I've done 6 IM's and about 12 halfs so while not a veteran I am certainly not a rookie either. This topic is clearly relevant for a lot of people, not just first timers. In your first post you said hitting the wall was inevitable, which is completely not true and awful advice for anyone. In fact, the whole point of this is to help people find their right pace so they don't 1) hit the wall and 2) develop a plan that will get them to the finish line the fastest.

I understand that the vast majority of people likely hit those first miles too early, and go out too hard. With that known there is still an optimal way to attack the run. This is what we're trying to get at here. To those who are saying run the first 20 miles easy then give it everything you have to the finish, this is not good advice. If you run the first 20 miles at 8:00 pace then run the final 6 at 7:30 I don't think you paced it well. As Dev noted, running faster is exponentially more taxing so if you can drop your pace by that much you likely left some time on the table in those first 20. You can't always just "make up time" due to faster miles taking a higher toll. So is a fade inevitable, no. But I would also suggest that negative splitting isn't necessarily the fastest way to get you to the finish line.

On the bike we use a power meter to have a consistent measured output as this is most effective. Why would the run be any different? The more I think about it I think a fade would be preferable. Not hitting the wall or a dramatic drop off, but a delta of 10-20seconds/mile between your first and last. Sure, this increases the risk of a blowup but in theory it should get you to the line faster.

I say go for it bro. Kona or bust. You'll learn something either way. Please bump this back up with your result.

I actually didn't make that assumption at all.The post I replied to was the one to bring first timers into the discussion. I just replied to it.

Frankly for what I suggested, it shouldn't matter if you are a first timer or a veteran. Running a smart marathon isn't some complicated plan that differs with your experience.



If you feel that way, you should try for that. Maybe it will work. All I'm doing is reporting what I've seen and what I've experienced first hand. I find that marathon "fades" don't really tend to work out that way. They progress into blowups, often with a lot of walking. The wall is not gentle.

And certainly running isn't cycling. I think you are very likely get burned if you try to treat it that way. Some days, goal pace X is the way to go. Other days it's just too hard, no matter what the watch says. When your body is telling you the latter, I think you ignore it at your peril.

My very best IM marathon had the most effortless first half of all of them. I certainly wasn't in my best running shape for it but that day I did the best job of letting the pace come to me. My best open marathon had a similar story: Easily the most effortless first half I've ever had. Not coincidentally, it is also my only negative split marathon in 25 or so that I've run. I ran my final mile that day in 5:40. When I contrast that with some of the 9:00 + final miles I've had, well it's no contest

Probably both (equally). The only way to tell the difference is in post-hoc analysis. But it's your first IM and there are other (mental) factors to consider here. Nutrition will obviously be a factor too unless you have a well-developed iron stomach. Usually that takes time to develop.



To be frank (and overly redundant), the whole idea of worrying about running too slow in those early miles where it truly impacts your overall run time is just beyond ridiculous in my 15 years of doing/coaching/watching this sport. It just doesn't happen.

Personally, mental preparation is really important, imo. I would avoid the use of words like "guaranteed" and establish goals like, "Don't run the first 3 miles faster than 8:15." Focus on everything you can control and ignore everything you cannot control. You have no idea whether a 3:30 run is going to be required to KQ or not. One example: I ran 3:23 (9:41 OA) at IMAZ '09 and was 16th in my AG but ran a 3:39 (10:11 OA) at IMC '11 and was 2nd in my AG. Who knows who's going to show up and what the conditions might be...

SCH was a (really fast) swimmer. We read heat sheets and we know that we need to take our first 50 out in to the tenth of a second. As they say old dogs have trouble with new tricks!

I do mostly agree with you, though. We might have a pretty decent idea of where we will be off the bike and we can use past results to have a decent idea to know what it will take to KQ, but this isn't swimming!

SCH: I am going to swim 53-54 (I really doubt it will be wetsuit legal) and bike 4:50-55 and I am 3:05 open marathoner. So we will probably see each other out there a lot? I *think* I know what you are going through because I have a tendency to analyze this the way I would a swim meet. It really gets to be overwhelming with an IM because there is so much you cannot control. But for what it is worth, what someone said - no one has ever said that going to easy the opening miles cost them time at the finish line - is 100% truth. I won't presume to tell you what to do but do keep that in mind!

In JoeO's defense, I believe it was me who made that assumption and I apologize for doing so. That said, I wouldn't take it too personally.

As far as the rest of your post, I would comments as follows:

1. Nobody is saying "run the first 20 miles easy" so possibly there's some confusion there. Clearly, I referred to (multiple times) "those early miles" or "first 3 or so miles" or "3 - 5 miles."

2. I was actually the one who mentioned that running faster has an exponential physiological cost and it seems to me that you clearly misunderstand how that exponential factor plays into the equation. It's not that you can leave time on table by running too slow in those early miles. It's almost the exact opposite. Here's a somewhat oversimplified analogy:

You have a finite amount of running resources. You *ideally* want those to be zero at the end of the race. When you run faster than your ideal goal pace, you are consuming those resources at an exponential rate so the resources you need to run well (i.e., the same pace or faster) won't be there when you need them later in the race. In fact, they will be severely depleted, relatively speaking. Running slightly slower than goal pace early on puts you in a much better position to now consume those resources in an exponential manner by running faster later in the face because in those early miles you are running at a pace that does NOT correspond to the steep part of the curve.

The problem is that you're thinking about this problem as if it's more like a linear thing.

Lastly, my observation here is that people will do everything in their power to convince themselves that slowing down in the IM run is inevitable because that's what almost always happens. I wholeheartedly disagree. I just find that those people to tend to struggle with a strong sense of self-awareness. Again, this always seems to be a much more difficult conversation with men than with women. Possibly something to do with patience, or the lack thereof. ;-)

Dude, I love the (over?) analysis! My mantra:

It's much better to overthink it than underthink it.

Good luck to SCH! Now I'm really curious to find out who this dude is and track him on race day.

"Gauranteed? Nothing in an IM is ever gauranteed."

Going to correct you on this...not entirely true.

1) Guaranteed you WILL hurt when it is done.
2) You will pay a LOT for entry fee.

Ha! Thank you, but I am just a lowly AGer trying to split a 3:30 on the run and over-analyzing every bit of it. Something has to fill my time vacuum now that volume is coming down. My bib # is 562 though if you want to see how your advice plays out.


In all seriousness, I already have a plan and I'm sticking too it - it is pretty similar to the advice here (and it's all good advice). Thanks for humoring me.

---

Strava

I will probably be with you most of the way, at least on the swim/bike (until my 4:25 marathon split, of course)! Look for an orange suit with a blue PR6... can't miss that combo...

BBS shows my bike split a tiny bit faster than that, but I have only had this bike since the fall, so my CdA input is pretty much a wild guess. I'll just have to stick to my power plan and take the result.

Completely agree with you on the over analysis and that is great advice. I think the one thing that most of us DO have is family/friends with the IM tracker that can give us information about our AG position. We may have a vague idea of who will show up before the race, and anything can happen, but if I am 4 miles ahead of a guy (at mile 4) that is known to split a 3:05, then it's pretty easy to figure out that I'll have to run a 3:30 to finish ahead of him. And the result become more and more certain as the race progresses.

---

Strava

Not to change the subject or further hyjack the thread, but I am 45 minutes from the course right now. I came here from Wisconsin. I got here today and did a run this evening. The heat and humidity are for real here. Have you made adjustment in you power targets and running paces to reflect the heat and humidity?

Yea.. that is another big factor. Waiting for the final forecast and will make a decision later in the week as to how much to back off. I am coming from NY so in the same boat. Regardless, i have been inhaling fluids and sodium in training to push the limits on what i can comfortably consume.

---

Strava

Have you made adjustment in you power targets and running paces to reflect the heat and humidity? //

THat's what heart rate monitors are for. Oh forgot, no one uses them anymore...(-;

What heat and humidity? Today was a beautiful spring day - if you live here.

Don’t use AC except at night. Try to stay away from it. Should help you acclimate a little. Advice a friend gave me at Chattanooga last year when it was low 90s. Seemed to help. No clue how humidity would change this equation though. Good luck

There are so many people planning trying for that 330 run. In most IM less than 5 % of people achieve that time. Fade is sort of inevitable as we are doing the physically most demanding thing when we are the most fatigued.

For all the aspiring 330, check before you start that run and say would I be happy with 350. That 330 we all calculate in a boring work meeting seems easy at 5 K mark even 10, then by 15 its starting to slow down, we say ah sub 4 then it is a battle from the 30 K mark.

Going out at 530 might not seem as cool, though its different for everyone, If I could take all my IM marathons back I would run slower in the first 10 K

I would agree with this. Obviously, marathon and the marathon at the end of an Ironman are different beasts but all of my PRs have been negative splits from the 1500 to the 10k. I think the same can be applied to the longer races.

---

USAT Level II- Ironman U Certified Coach

I thought I would reply to this post with a very small race report since my result doesn't deserve its own thread:

8th place 35-39, 57th overall and a KQ

Overall time of 8:46: 0:53 swim, 4:30 bike, 3:15 run (bike/run files on strava)

Swim - 53 - Pretty smooth and easy. Let a faster pack go, did not want to expend the energy.

Bike - 4:30 on 263 NP (0.75 IF) and a dropped chain that cost me about 1-2 minutes. BBS had me at 4:28 for 110.3 miles at this exact IF, and my garmin had 109.5 miles for the course, so my CdA was even worse than my estimated 0.26. It's sad that I have to make a disclaimer that I didn't draft, but I was pretty much all alone for most of the leg given my swim split. However, I realize everyone is suspect at this race no matter what you say/post. I was passed by one group that I let go after I slowed down for an aid station.

Run - 3:15 The first 3-4 miles I ran soooo easy (about 8 min/mile), because 1) I thought 9 hours would be good enough for a KQ (it definitely wasn't - it took 8:48), and 2) I kept thinking of this thread! I saw my coach at miles 4 and 8. He told me that I was in 9th at mile 4 and then eventually slipped to 14th at mile 8. I thought my KQ was gone.

Since I was feeling good I gradually picked it up to see if I could make up some ground and finish strong - 7:40's and eventually down to 7:30's at about the halfway point. Then at mile 16 - all of a sudden, my coach told me I was back in 11th and I was only 4 minutes out of 5th place and gaining. I was hurting at this point, but was still maintaining pace. At about mile 22 I was back into 9th. This is when I started to hurt pretty bad - the faster pace was taking its toll. Tunnel vision set in but just continued to put one foot in front of another. I knew I had to catch the guy in 8th place and both my friends and coach told me what his kit looked like. When I rounded the corner at around mile 24.5 on Timberloch I finally saw him - my Kona slot, about 100 yards ahead. I couldn't really pick up the pace but ignored my body's commands to slow down. I kept running forward but only looked at him.

Finally, on the out and back near the mall with a little less than a mile to go, I caught up to him. I knew my age was on my calf (no one does this anymore but me, do they??) so I waited for about 10 seconds until we caught some slower runners, and then passed him on the right using them as a visual shield. I used my last match passing him. The last 3/4 of a mile I felt like Lionel looked at Kona - ugly (and a lot slower), but I managed to finish in 8th by about 45 seconds and then collapsed after the finish.

Turns out that Juan Valencia (1st place) already took a slot at an earlier race (what a beast - I guess he just goes around and crushes IMs for fun after he's KQd), and my AG got 9 slots, not 8 as we thought, so I actually had the slot by about 2 minutes.

So that's it - the one other thing I will add is nutrition execution - that was EXTREMELY important and has derailed me before in hot races - I took in >40 oz of fluids per hour and more than 1000 mg of sodium per hour on the bike, and probably at least 3/4 of that total on the run. Didn't pee once, so needed every single drop.

---

Strava

Congratulations! How do you think you would have finished if you started off running 7:30s (or faster)?

Yep, I followed you the whole day. I didn't know if you KQed or not. Pretty awesome -- I was damn excited. On the surface, it looked like near-perfect execution to me so I'm glad to hear that it played out accordingly from your perspective played.

The one thing that certainly blew me away were the times. Just crazy fast.

Btw, one thing I never mentioned but is important to point out (since you likely had this experience):

One of the other reasons why I so strongly emphasize the "slow" run start is to put yourself in a position where you are passing people in the last 4 miles as opposed to having that sole focus of just hanging on for dear life. Given how mental those last miles are, passing people provides that extra level of confidence and somehow has this effect of dulling the pain which allows you to run slightly faster as a result. I've also found that you will likely feel much better about your performance when you finish so strong.

Good stuff! Love to hear success stories like this. Big congrats!!

Thanks! That's a really good question and one I am not sure I have the answer to. The "easy" part for me only lasted 3-4 miles until I started to put in a little bit more effort, so it may not have affected me that much. But I think that it helped me calm down after the bike and allowed me to be mentally refreshed for the remainder of the run. If I were to do it again, knowing that I had to run a 3:17 or under, I probably would have maybe started 5-10 seconds per mile faster; 7:30 might have been a little too risky.

---

Strava

Awesome, congrats! And that bike file definitely shows you did not draft. Well done. I'd say your run strategy played out perfectly! And yeah, you might want to work on your CdA for Kona!!

Did you feel like you finished with something left in the tank? I'm going to guess not.

Remember, when you start to slow down, it almost never occurs as a small incremental (linear) drop in pace.

Haha, yeah... it might be worthwhile to visit the wind tunnel at some point. I have boxy swimmer shoulders and weigh 175 so it may be a futile effort but worth the try nonetheless.

---

Strava

Now that the race is done, I completely understand this statement. I think I got lucky with my pacing and how it turned out. My coach and I had a plan for 3:30 and I forced myself to slow down at the beginning, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you I'm a genius and figured it all out on my first try. I just took input from a lot of experienced folks and happened to find the right pace. When I heard that I was catching the guys in front of me, mentally that was invigorating, despite the fact that I was hurting pretty bad.


I'm not going to say I couldn't run another half mile, or mile at that pace, but I was pretty close to 100% spent. Right before I saw 8th place (maybe mile 24.5) I had this wave of despair wash over me - that feeling you get when you know your body is about to revolt on you and shut down - and I honestly don't know why it didn't, other than the fact that I saw my (perceived) slot right in front of me. I had trouble standing up after I crossed the finish line,and I think the last bit was run on pure adrenaline. I was lucky to have some competitive intelligence on the course though - I probably would not have pushed it to 99.9% had I not had that information.

---

Strava

what wetsuit were you wearing. We came out close together (less than 15 seconds I think). Roka? The two guys I was with had ROKAs on. One ditched his cap.

I think I may have run into you coming up the waterway. If it WAS you, I did apologize then and I am doing it again. Moments before I completely lost concentration when I realized I put my prescription sun glasses (IE I had to have them to ride) in my T2 bag.

Oh wow - yea, I was wearing a Roka, but no one ran into me - did you end up getting your prescription glasses? I actually had trouble getting out of the water, apparently there were some "fake" stairs in the middle (i.e. just some railings, no steps) that I was idiotically trying to climb up at first and a volunteer had to pull me over to the real stairs. How did you feel about your race?

---

Strava

I had an okay swim and solid run. My quik tally shows it was 18th fastest in my age group. So I have work to do. I have a KQ in me, just not there yet.

I had 246 people pass me on the bike.

My teammate also split a 54 low.

I then pulled away from him:

@ mile 3.8 on bike: ME 1:09:05 HIM 1:10:25
@ mile 16.2 on bike: ME 1:43:51 HIM 1:44:51

Until suddenly I saw him with a bunch of other around mile 35. Then at the next split:

@mile 37.1 on bike: ME 2:38:31 HIM 2:38:13

He ended up out splitting me by 18 minutes. And I am a better rider than him. ANd I proved it for about an hour.

So how am I doing. I am fucking pissed for not drafting.

sleeveless? If so I definitely followed your toes for a while. You kind of dropped me in the canal.

not sure what you consider elite but i've had a number of ~10 hour folks negative split their OTB marys. Part of it is because of the warning i give them "dont start running hard till 16". Super ideal pacing possibly is a positive split but for new folks always better to err on the conservative side for the first half.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

No, I have a sleeved Roka. Honestly sighting is not my strength, and I would say it was average in this race, so I found myself off to the side of the main pack a bunch. My stroke has been lopsided since I smacked my head on a bulkhead in college (no joke) doing butterfly sprints, so if I don't sight every 10-15 strokes or so I tend to veer off course. Something to work on.

---

Strava

That's brilliant. Well done and well earned. Takes a lot of fortitude to hold back early like that.