|
Aug 2008
8:37pm, 10 Aug 2008
234 posts
|
Ex-pat Scot
That's a decent long run and fast too! Not surprised you got tired, even with gels.
|
|
Aug 2008
8:50pm, 10 Aug 2008
3 posts
|
Rather annoyed with the performance today for the Newark half as i was going for 1.20 as im sure thats i can run under that at the moment and not that much quicker than my pb.
Unfortunately today i ran 1.23.05 and felt like crap my legs felt fine throughout and now still feel like they havent done anything but my chest was very fluidy during the race and it has been very tight since so i think im coming out with a cold or something similar.
This was my last indicator race before september 14th for the full as i was going to go 5 minutes slower than my pb so i was planning to go around 1.25 for the first half and still feel fresh.
I now cant decide what time to go through the first half in.
|
|
Aug 2008
9:03pm, 10 Aug 2008
670 posts
|
NZC
My advice on how to break 3 hours, is to go for 2.48, then when you drop off, as it sounds like you do, two pies, you've got the buffer. I can only just break 4 hrs now, but in my hey day, that's how I did it, and I did it 6 times.
There are 2 types of runners, those that have the confidence of doing a negative split, but if I started slowly, I'd just run slower. I used to start fast and relaxed, not think about the finish, got into a good group running a good pace, and concentrated on relaxing.
Two pies - you have the speed, just don't thrash yourself too much in training. Yes, do 1 x 23, and as many 20 milers as you can, but if every run is a hard one, when it starts to get hard in the marathon, you just won't want to go there and drop your bundle. I found 10 weeks of 70 miles a week did it for me.
2.48 is also very easy to get your head around, 20 min 5ks, so you don't have to think a lot when you are getting tired.
|
|
Aug 2008
10:22pm, 10 Aug 2008
236 posts
|
Ex-pat Scot
NZC - I love the phrase "easy to get your head around, 20 min 5ks". You are technically correct, but in my opinion there is a huge difference between aiming for 3:00 and aiming for 2:48 - almost 30 secs per mile difference.
The advice I have seen (and I defer to your experience here, as I've not been sub-3 and doubt I'll be there in September- tantalisingly close, but not close enough) is that a perfect 3:00 marathon should equate to a 1:28:30 first half and an almost even second. That allows a little of the inevitable slowing due to tiredness, but doesn't take you off too fast too early. It really comes down to whether you want to beat 3:00 or smash it into oblivion.
I certainly agree with your sentiments about starting "relaxed", and finding a decent group running a good pace.
|
|
Aug 2008
10:32pm, 10 Aug 2008
14,232 posts
|
mxhornet
My best differentials were 90 seconds to 2 minutes slower for second half and came in my two fastest marathons. But in my third fastest I was on target with sixes until 18 then dropped to 6-30 for 19th mile and thought writing was on the wall but a quick bit of maths told me holding that pace for remainder would still bring be home inside 2-45 and that's what I did 2-43-43 to be exact so a lot can depend on the day but remaining focused and having a fall back target (even an inpromptu one) can help greatly.
|
|
Aug 2008
1:32am, 11 Aug 2008
675 posts
|
NZC
Expat - I know it kind of sounds crazy, but that's how it worked for me. I could run a 1.20 half marathon in those days. I saw lots of people who tried for the even splits and ended up with 3.00.. 3.01..etc. I just couldn't stand that. I'd rather have a really good first 16 miles then hang on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I think the other reason it worked for me is that you get away from all the people going for the 3 hour mark, and get in a space where you are running exactly how you want to run. In my best marathon though, I had someone catch me at 20 miles who said, "the race starts now". That was not what I wanted to hear, as I was racing from mile one. I forgot to add, although I had 6 sub 3hrs, I also have 7 dnfs! I have finished 28 marathons over a period of 30 years.
|
|
Aug 2008
1:37am, 11 Aug 2008
676 posts
|
NZC
mxhornet - I see you are another running "survivor", there's not many of us around!
|
|
Aug 2008
6:43am, 11 Aug 2008
14,235 posts
|
mxhornet
Yes I've raced every year since 1975 with the exception of 1982, so "survivor" would fit for me too.
|
|
Aug 2008
6:52am, 13 Aug 2008
52 posts
|
AlanO
Reaching the halfway point of my heaviest week to date. Still have the 2 long runs to go (an 11.5m marathon pace and a 2hr 45min LSR). On the plus side I got the hardest session out of the way yesterday which was a 5.5km tempo run on a hilly course. Big bonus to take 25 secs of my previous time to do it in 20.51. After years of intervals without any real results I think I'm swinging towards the tempo runs as they definitely toughen you up and give you that wee bit extra confidence during races.
|
|
Aug 2008
9:07am, 13 Aug 2008
14,291 posts
|
mxhornet
Suprised to hear you say intervals didn't give you any real results, only reason I would expect that to be would be too long for the recoveries.
|
RW sub3/3.15
Feb 2025