I think he is quite right about the even effort, but a big part of it is learning from experience how to set a realistic target pace based on feedback from your training and interim races. I often see people on forums saying that either negative splits are the 'best' way to run because they achieved their goal and felt great, or other people saying the opposite; that large positive splits are inevitable except for elites because they've always slowed down so it's 'best' to plan for that. I think in both cases those are people who've just picked a goal time they'd like to do, rather than working out seriously what's achievable for them at their current level of fitness. That's understandable if you haven't much experience and don't have the information to go on, but as you do more marathons you should get better at gauging what is possible for you and your strengths and weaknesses.

I like to plan for a time I think is realistic (based on how I feel during my training and how build-up races, especially a half marathon, have gone), then run the first half of the marathon about 1 or at the most two minutes faster than that pace. This is just in case I surprise myself by being slightly fitter, so that I can achieve a faster-than-target time, but not too fast that I destroy my chances of hitting the time I expect. In each of my last two marathons, I ran exactly the time I had told my coach I would a few weeks before, to the minute, and with a small positive split.

runbabarun wrote: »

"Don’t run slower to “save energy” for the final miles, because it’s very unlikely that you will be able to make up time at that point, and don’t run faster to “put time in the bank,” as this usually results in a precipitous decline in pace after 20 miles."

I just read this by Fitzgerald on how to pace yourself during a marathon, and I was surprised. As opposed to the save some energy and run strong in the second half approach, he is saying, an even effort approach works better.

You have to be aware of what you want out of the marathon. While I think Fitzgerald is correct, he is correct for an implied most important goal of finishing the marathon as fast as possible. If your most important goal is to finish in as good a physical shape as possible, the negative splits may be a better strategy.

THBS, I'm pondering exactly what type of strategy will produce the best balance between finishing fast and finishing in good physical shape. I ran Boston in 3:23:01, for an average pace of 7:45, and banged myself up pretty good. I had been trying to run a 3:15, hit the wall and had to take walking breaks, and lost 5 or 6 minutes to those breaks.

Got to thinking later, instead of running 7:10 and 7:15 early, if I'd just run 7:30 to 7:45 early I could have run a bit at 8:00 later on, got the same time result, and been in better physical shape. Yeah, 20-20 hindsight. There's a lot of stuff I think I see now that I couldn't see in real time.

Coming back to the strategy of running as even as possible for the best time, the problem is knowing exactly what pace you should be running to run even. For a first marathon, you may have a rough idea but you really don't know. After you run a couple of marathons, you may have a better idea. People who run many marathons may have a very good idea of what they can do. Elite marathon runners may be able to predict their finish times quite closely, based on how they feel, how well trained they are, what the weather is, and the nature of the course. But you will still see the occasional elite runner bonking a few hundred meters from the finish line, because he misjudged how much energy he had and went just a tiny bit too fast. (If he bonks just *after* crossing the line, that looks normal.)

I view the theory as informative for understanding, but of limited practical value in telling me what pace to set early in a marathon. I still have to figure that out based on my running experience and how well trained I am. I expect to get better at it as I run more marathons, but I wouldn't be shocked to make make a result-affecting mistake even after I run enough marathons to think I know what I'm doing.

I like to target a sensible 20 mile time and try to run even splits to get there. What happens in the last 10 km is where the magic happens.

Some of the best advice I ever got from an old timer was to hit 20 at 2:15 (if you're trying to break 3:00) That gives you 45 minutes to run a 10km. If you are doing well and can hold pace, you'll run 2:57. If you are fading a bit, you've got a little slack built in. If you can't get to 20 by 2:15, you're probably not going to break 3:00.

lporter229 wrote: »

Also, @Wendy98 is a beast!! LOL!

If by beast you mean sloth, then that describes my last few months perfectly.