He says: “It doesn’t make a difference whether I run 4:15/KM or 4:30/KM – it’s all below the anaerobic threshold and the mechanical shocks will wear me out anyway after 7 hours into the race. So I try to go fast as long as the legs hold up.”
Is there any basis for this start out fast before inevitable fatigue sets in strategy? When I hit the slow miles of my IM marathon, I typically blame starting out too fast, but if the slowing is inevitable, maybe I should start the marathon out faster. It sounds crazy (I’m typically a negative splits kind of guy), but Rocco ain’t bad, so I figured I’d see what others thought.
He says: “It doesn’t make a difference whether I run 4:15/KM or 4:30/KM – it’s all below the anaerobic threshold and the mechanical shocks will wear me out anyway after 7 hours into the race. So I try to go fast as long as the legs hold up.”
Is there any basis for this start out fast before inevitable fatigue sets in strategy? When I hit the slow miles of my IM marathon, I typically blame starting out too fast, but if the slowing is inevitable, maybe I should start the marathon out faster. It sounds crazy (I’m typically a negative splits kind of guy), but Rocco ain’t bad, so I figured I’d see what others thought.
Interesting theory, but I don’t buy it. Pacing actually works, even during an IM.
I call BS and I think he’s rationalizing the way he likes to race…but he’s a lot faster than I. It doesn’t make any sense - as long as he’s below anaerobic threshold, it doesn’t matter??? So if he ran 8 min miles - he’d still get just as tired as 7 min miles??? Because the “mechanical shocks”???
He obviously doesn’t understand the physiological cost as pace/power increases. As Dave said, it’s amazing what people will say to convince themselves that the way they’re currently doing it is the best/fastest way.
Maybe he is talking the difference between easy and super duper easy. We aren’t in his body so don’t know the diff between 4:15 and 4:30 per K for him. It might be the same as the diff between 8:30 and 9:00 min miles for me. It would be pointless for me to run slower than my target IM run pace when I am feeling fine. When my Ironmans go reasonably well, I average 8:30. He’s talking about the diff between a 3 hour IM marathon and a 3:10 IM marathon. He did run 3:08, so 4:30 pace is SLOWER than his average pace, so I can see why he says that it makes no sense for him to run slower than his average pace while he is feeling fine. I’m guessing that he is trying to break 3 hours running 4:15’s so there is no point running 4:30’s cause that means he has to run a bunch of K’s at 4 flat coming out of the energy lab. The only one who can do that is Craig Alexander.
So I really think you guys are reading too much into the words in the interview. The guy is talking about running at his target average speed while he is feeling good. Maybe he’ll drop in here and amplify a bit, but its not like he is going out at blowup pace.
Here are his run splits off IM Tracker:
FIRST RUN SEGMENT 5.2 mi. (34:47) 6:41/mile SECOND RUN SEGMENT 10.3 mi. (35:41) 6:59/mile THIRD RUN SEGMENT 17.6 mi. (55:50) 7:38/mile FOURTH RUN SEGMENT 25.2 mi. (55:36) 7:18/mile FINAL RUN SEGMENT 26.2 mi. (6:34) 6:34/mile
Here are Craig Alexander’s who arguably ran a perfectly executed race:
FIRST RUN SEGMENT 5.2 mi. (31:38) 6:05/mile SECOND RUN SEGMENT 10.3 mi. (31:26) 6:09/mile THIRD RUN SEGMENT 17.6 mi. (49:14) 6:44/mile FOURTH RUN SEGMENT 25.2 mi. (49:30) 6:30/mile FINAL RUN SEGMENT 26.2 mi. (6:17) 6:17/mile
Looks like Rocco was running around 40-50 seconds slower per mile per segment than Craig (aside from number 3, but he recovers in number 4), aside from the finishing sprint 1.2 miles. I’d say he ran a reasonably paced race. Even Macca ran 7:32 pace on segment three and Rasmus Henning ran 7:13.
Yes, it is possible that I commented on a piece of text that was taken out of context but I do have a big problem with this specific part of his statement:
“…it’s all below the anaerobic threshold…”
The physiological cost of the two paces are certainly NOT equal just because they are both below AT.
I think you have to take his statement IN CONTEXT of his race. 4:30 is slower than his average pace, so he’s really commenting about running either at his target average or slower than his average. You can read all you want into his statement about both being below AT. 8.5 min miles and 10 min miles are both below AT for me, and I’m with Rocco on this. Sure, the impact of 10 min miles is less, but 20 miles later, I am 15 minutes behind where I would be if I ran 8.5 pace. I’m going to be done the race 20 minutes earlier too and yes, there is a higher cost, but at a faster finishing time.
I think what he is saying is that he is going to run at the fastest sub AT pace that he is trained for that gets him his target IM goal (as we all should). Rocco could also run 6 min per K (10 min miles) and that would be sub AT at lower cost, but also for a slower time (4:20 marathon split).
People see 4:15/4:30 and think that Rocco is talking about the “go till you blow plan” cause those times look fast, when in reality, for him they are both fairly pedestrian paces compared to his open run paces. I’m guessing that 4:15 is Rocco’s “all day, everyday, even when I’m blown” training pace.
Maybe it’s a commentary on predetermined pacing. Kind of parallel to what you were saying about his relative effort to run splits at a 30 second delta t. Many folks exit T2 with a target pace in mind, and execute accordingly with varying degrees of success. On the other hand, some people use their target pace for guidance, but if they feel equally comfortable at a slightly faster pace, then what are they going to save by sticking with a more conservative pace? You can make an argument on both sides, but I’m a proponent of running by feel rather than a semi-arbitrary stake in the ground.
I think what most of you guys are reading too much into is Rocco’s statements. I am sure the guy knows exactly what pace he can or cannot sustain for an Ironman. He ran sub 3:10 which is a fairly well executed race in the context of the Kona conditions this year, where EVERYONE slowed down substantially in the second half. I’m guessing that 4:15’s IS Rocco’s target IM pace and he tried going for that as long as he could. Its not like he was on the “go till you blow plan”. He never blew up. He closed with a fairly fast 4th segment.
…some people use their target pace for guidance, but if they feel equally comfortable at a slightly faster pace, then what are they going to save by sticking with a more conservative pace?..
I am not sure I understand this part. In order to run a pace I can maintain for an entire marathon, it has to feel painfully easy in the first 10K. There is then a progressive increase in the discomfort necessary to maintain that pace. If I am in shape to maintain 9min/mile for 26.2miles, then I will feel like I could comfortably maintain 8min/mile (or faster) in the first 5 or so miles.
Am I missing or misunderstanding something here?
I’m not explaining Rocco’s strategy, I’m simply explaining how I interpret his strategy in light of my own experience. If I train for 6 months to establish a race pace, then I will exit T2 with that pace in mind. But if I get a mile into it and my pace drifts slightly faster without any additional (perceived) effort, then I won’t intentionally dial it back just for the sake of adhering to a number that wasn’t even generated under comparable conditions. It sounds to me as though he runs in the moment (pardon the cliche), and doesn’t necessarily spare himself the effort knowing that he will inevitably feel like crap regardless of the pace.
Did it take you awhile to develop this? I have heard people use this approach but I personally have struggled trying to do this for longer races. What I perceive as easy in the beginning is often an unsustainable pace? I am curious how this works?
I won’t suggest that a faster pace is necessarily a sustainable one. In fact, I think this strategy is inherently flawed as a combination of poor planning and/or poorly focused training. It’s not flawed in the sense that you can’t predict all conditions on race day, much less the condition you’ll be in at T2, then at 10k, then at 20 miles, etc. So you need to be able to reach down at any given moment and lay down what you have available.
When running (especially in a tri) I always focus on the things I can control and try to forget everything else. I can control my form. I can control my nutrition. I can control my response to either an increase or decrease in grade. As far as pace/output … my body has to determine what I’m capable of. To me, personally, running slower with the intent of doing so is no more comfortable than running at the currently achievable pace.
I think the only flaw in your statement is that when Rocco is feeling good, he’s not blowing the doors off of his target pace (not that you said he is, but you did mention that the strategy might have inherent flaws). He’s pretty well running in a fairly tight window of pacing that is very likely in line with his capability.
FIRST RUN SEGMENT 5.2 mi. (6:04:01) 6:00/mile SECOND RUN SEGMENT 10.3 mi. (6:35:42) 6:12/mile THIRD RUN SEGMENT 17.6 mi. (7:23:32) 6:33/mile FINAL RUN SEGMENT 26.2 mi. (8:17:45) 6:18/mile
I belive in an interview he knocked out a few 5 somethings the first 2 miles.
That is <3.45/km - > 4/km a slightly larger spread on a faster split (higher%)
I guess the question for me is: should I have a different mindset in pacing my IM marathon than I do in a standalone marathon? I’m a master at even splits in a standalone marathon. So, even if, by perceived effort, 6:30/mile is going to be easy for 16 miles; I know that if I want to average 6:45, I shouldn’t go out at 6:30. I’ll blow up if I do.
So, in an IM, is there something different about the way you fatigue? If I want to average 8:00/mile, but by perceived effort and HR, 7:30/mile is well within my comfort zone for the first 10 miles, should I go out fast?
I think the money-in-the-bank strategy is a fool’s errand in the standalone marathon, but maybe the IM marathon is different?
The analysis of the Kona splits (and the dramatic slowdown later in the race) is pretty unique to the conditions there, right? At IMFL in a week, nothing about the conditions will make me slow down.
So if Lance, George, Hall Phelps, Cav, etc…at 24 told you their theories on cycling, swimming or running you would totally discount them? Not putting Rocco on their level, but dudes fast… Just sayin.
I don’t know if I fully understand exactly what Rocco is saying, and thus I don’t know if I totally agree with him, but I think there is something to it. For me, in an open mary, pacing is key b/c I can better forecast and simulate in training how I will feel in the later miles and devise a pacing strategy accordingly. You can’t really (unless you want to destroy yourself) simulate how you will feel in the late miles of a IM mary. I think the “I went out too fast” line is used too often as an excuse for a late mile slow down. So my theory is that a little margin for error is safe. If I plan to go out at 7s, and 6:50s feel just fine, I would do it so long as it keeps feeling that way. If I go out at 6:15s and it feels ok, I have almost certainly exceeded the margin (I learned it the hard way), and will PAY for it later. In an IM I know I am going to slow at the end, how much is just dependent on several factors, one of which, and not the least important, is if and how far I exceeded the pacing margin.