I just did my first 70.3 last weekend (Oceanside), and I’m curious about my run pacing. Since it was my first 70.3 race, I was guesstimating my goal “race pace” based on my training.
On race day, I was feeling good after the bike and did what I’m sure a lot of first-timers do: Went out faster than I’d planned. I ran the first 6 miles faster than my planned race pace, then miles 7 and 8 right on race pace. Miles 9-12 were slower than race pace as I got a bit tired. Picked it up for the last mile back to race pace.
Overall, I averaged exactly what I had planned my “race pace” to be.
So my questions is, would there have been any advantage if I had paced it more evenly rather than running some faster and some slower miles?
The best tri races and open running races I’ve done have always been nearly even splits or slight negative splits. You need to know your pacing very well to get it right. It’s even harder in an IM. I’m one for eight in having a good IM run!
Yeah, even or negative splits get the best results. With the drop off from 9-12, you likely could have gone faster by rolling a touch slower in the 1st half of the run & maintaining better in the 2nd half. It just means you have a little more in the tank & can aim for something a touch quicker the next time around.
Half marathons are tough, in general, because you’re basically red lining for 13.1 miles. When you’re trying to do that at the end of a 70.3, you’re walking a really fine line. I would take the 1st 5k of any half marathon maybe 5-10s/mile slower than goal pace and then settle in. If you can pick it up after 15k that’s where you get that time back. But you won’t bank time by going out 5-10s/mile faster. If you do that, you’ll probably end up slower overall. Also triathletes are notorious for hammering out of T2 at 5k pace for the first 400-800m of a half marathon. Make sure you’re not moving any faster than goal pace from the jump.
It’s definitely a risk/reward proposition, which is what I’m curious about I guess. Different people approach it different ways, although the conventional wisdom is to pace it evenly or try to negative split.
The first part of the race, when I was running faster than my guessed race pace, I was still running slower than my Olympic tri pace (I had run 20-30 sec per mile faster for a 9K tri run a few weeks prior). So I wasn’t going full gas.
Hard to predict if I *had *slowed it down in the first half, how much I would have had left in the tank to speed up at the end. Any time I negative split something, in the back of my mind I wonder if I left time on the table by going too slow at the start.
Train A leaves the station traveling a steady 80mph, taking 1 hour to arrive at the next station 80 miles away. Train B leaves the station traveling 100mph. After 40 miles, it slows to 60mph. Which train arrives first?
Answer: train A (it averages 80mph vs 75mph for train B)
Steady is best. Your elapsed time decreases more if you speed up your slowest segments than if you speed up your fastest segments a corresponding amount.
Train A leaves the station traveling a steady 80mph, taking 1 hour to arrive at the next station 80 miles away. Train B leaves the station traveling 100mph. After 40 miles, it slows to 60mph. Which train arrives first?
Answer: train A (it averages 80mph vs 75mph for train B)
Steady is best. Your elapsed time decreases more if you speed up your slowest segments than if you speed up your fastest segments a corresponding amount.
If we’re talking equal parts “slower” and “faster”, then it’s definitely more advantageous to speed up the slower segments rather than the faster ones.
But what if Train A leaves the station traveling a steady 80mph, taking 1 hour to arrive at the next station 80 miles away. Train B leaves the station traveling 100mph. After 50 miles, it slows to 60mph. Which train arrives first?
They arrive together, both averaging 80 mph. Was there any advantage to making that journey Train A’s way vs. Train B’s?
It’s faster to have a good pace the entire race with a touch left in the tank than it is to empty the tank and slow down.
My ultimate goal is have the tank hit “E” as I cross the finish line, then collapse in glory.
I decided earlier this year to stop using a watch for 70.3 and below racing. As I get older, I am a tad slower than I was (right now…hahaha) and found that it was super easy to quit when I was behind “schedule” during a race. So Oregon I ran with the idea of knowing what it took to run 90 minutes or so and just ran that - walking aid stations. Positive split it but at least going in the right direction.
Fast forward a couple months - Washington I had a best ever swim (from an effort and execution standpoint) Not a great ride but fueled well and then ran and fueled (new fueling plan $$$) and by the time I got to 10 miles, I was ready AND ABLE to give it for the last 3.1. That was the most fun run I have had in a while - left it all out there - and solidified my theory. What did I run? Fastest 70.3 run I’ve had in 5 years and it wasn’t fitness, but rather fueling and pacing and not worrying about numbers.
Flash forward to Oceanside - one of my athletes puts the watch in his pocket, follows the fueling plan, runs steady between aid stations, and gets within a minute of his open HM time. Again - concentrated on running steady and doing his best the last 5k.
I know you can run to numbers but I can’t tell you how freeing it was to run without a clock and just put the best effort out there. I ran at least 3 minutes faster than my best case and just went out there and believed that I could do it.
Moral of the story - I don’t know. But I will say that finishing strong is the best way to get to the point of hitting E and having a good time doing it!
Train A leaves the station traveling a steady 80mph, taking 1 hour to arrive at the next station 80 miles away. Train B leaves the station traveling 100mph. After 40 miles, it slows to 60mph. Which train arrives first?
Answer: train A (it averages 80mph vs 75mph for train B)
Steady is best. Your elapsed time decreases more if you speed up your slowest segments than if you speed up your fastest segments a corresponding amount.
If we’re talking equal parts “slower” and “faster”, then it’s definitely more advantageous to speed up the slower segments rather than the faster ones.
But what if Train A leaves the station traveling a steady 80mph, taking 1 hour to arrive at the next station 80 miles away. Train B leaves the station traveling 100mph. After 50 miles, it slows to 60mph. Which train arrives first?
They arrive together, both averaging 80 mph. Was there any advantage to making that journey Train A’s way vs. Train B’s?
In your example both trains will arrive at the same time, but train A will expend less energy in the process. This is largely due to the exponential effect of aerodynamic drag (which admittedly won’t be as big of an issue at running speeds).
None of this analogy is remotely relevant to running…
Btw, mechanical devices (and biological ones) can expend less energy per distance if the engine is operating more efficiently. Drive your car 5mph for 10 miles and then 40mph for 10 miles. The latter will use less fuel despite the added wind resistance.
None of this analogy is remotely relevant to running…
Btw, mechanical devices (and biological ones) can expend less energy per distance if the engine is operating more efficiently. Drive your car 5mph for 10 miles and then 40mph for 10 miles. The latter will use less fuel despite the added wind resistance.
That can be true for cars with internal combustion engines which have variable brake specific fuel consumption curves and engines generally sized to optimize highway cruising. It isn’t the case for electric or hybrids.
But I can’t imagine how this would apply to running - at least not without a switch in gaits. On the other hand, data from published METS tables makes it seems plausible (the following assumes a 2400 calorie/day BMR):
Flash forward to Oceanside - one of my athletes puts the watch in his pocket, follows the fueling plan, runs steady between aid stations, and gets within a minute of his open HM time. Again - concentrated on running steady and doing his best the last 5k.
I know you can run to numbers but I can’t tell you how freeing it was to run without a clock and just put the best effort out there. I ran at least 3 minutes faster than my best case and just went out there and believed that I could do it.
Moral of the story - I don’t know. But I will say that finishing strong is the best way to get to the point of hitting E and having a good time doing it!
It’s interesting, because I would say I run more by feel than by the watch. Especially in Oceanside, since I was just guessing my “race pace” anyway, I was running what felt good, and really only checking my watch when it beeped every mile. Plus a couple of times in between, just to check “this is how I’m feeling…what pace is this feeling giving me right now?” Admittedly, I don’t have a good feel for the appropriate effort level for a 70.3 run yet (Oceanside being my first one). I had done enough training that I knew I was fit enough, but doing it all together on race day is something that can’t be totally replicated in training.
When those first 6 miles or so were showing up fast, I wasn’t sure whether I had guessed my projected pace wrong, or was pacing my run wrong…but I found out the answer as lap 2 dragged on and feeling good turned into not good.
