Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Is an Ironman run fade inevitable?
Quote | Reply
I've heard the theory you're going to slow down on the run with a consistent effort unless you're among the elite. So, based on this you would start faster than goal pace, and end slower? If I want to run a 7:50 pace should I start off at 7:40 and end at 8:00 pace or should I try to hold 7:50's for the duration?

A bit of background in case you think experience/ability affects the answer: riding ~200miles/week, BBS estimates a 5 hour split. Have run a 3:05 open marathon and recently ran a 1:26 half. Last HIM run split was 1:31.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like a very sound theory...
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronStork wrote:
I've heard the theory you're going to slow down on the run with a consistent effort unless you're among the elite. So, based on this you would start faster than goal pace, and end slower? If I want to run a 7:50 pace should I start off at 7:40 and end at 8:00 pace or should I try to hold 7:50's for the duration?

A bit of background in case you think experience/ability affects the answer: riding ~200miles/week, BBS estimates a 5 hour split. Have run a 3:05 open marathon and recently ran a 1:26 half. Last HIM run split was 1:31.

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: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: $10 Rimless Aero Sunglasses | QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronStork wrote:
I've heard the theory you're going to slow down on the run with a consistent effort unless you're among the elite.


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.
Last edited by: longtrousers: Apr 14, 18 3:37
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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...
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronStork wrote:
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...


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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
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.

This is such good advice
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is a great thread. Thanks for asking the question...
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
Don't try to bank time. The bank charges interest.

Perfectly written!

---

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


Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronStork wrote:

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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JimVance] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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 ...
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [lakerfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [DesertTriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DesertTriGuy wrote:
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JimVance] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [lakerfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lakerfan wrote:
JoeO wrote:
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.


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.


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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IMStillTrying] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IMStillTrying wrote:
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

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IMStillTrying] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IMStillTrying wrote:
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

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://www.CoachVance.com/
Twitter @jimvance
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:

  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

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.
Last edited by: lakerfan: Apr 17, 18 11:35
Quote Reply

Prev Next