Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
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.

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.

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

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?
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
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?


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.
Last edited by: lakerfan: Apr 17, 18 11:30
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [lakerfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lakerfan wrote:

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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
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?

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

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

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

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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
lakerfan wrote:


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


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.

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


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


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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sch340 wrote:
lakerfan wrote:


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


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.


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


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

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

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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [MadTownTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [Ktri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ktri wrote:
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
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [sch340] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I say go for it bro. Kona or bust. You'll learn something either way. Please bump this back up with your result.
Quote Reply
Re: Is an Ironman run fade inevitable? [IronStork] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronStork wrote:
OP here -

I'm not sure why you made the assumption that I was a first timer.

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.


Quote:
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.

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
Quote Reply

Prev Next