I have the advantage that I have done the "Fling" before. Twice. Still, I do not know what my finishing time will be. To tell you the truth: The optimist in me is expecting a huge massive juicy PB. But the more pessimistic part of my personality does not even finish the race. Frankly I have experiences with both: massive PB's and DNF's. And I can live with that.
Back to my previous post. As a reference point to measure my race pace during the coming event I choose Rowardennan. It it almost half way and there are splits which can be used and abused for comparison.
That "half way" point is a very important milestone in Marathon Races for example. And I found it always useful first of all to "be there". That is half the work is done - phew!!
Secondly I can check how I feel, and how fast I am. Measured from that data both the subjective feeling and the objective time I can make a prediction about the second part of the race.
If I reach half way point in a fast time, but feel exhausted then I know I am in trouble! So I do work towards half way point with the objective to feel OK when I get there.
For the Fling that means to find a half way point. I would not take that from the actual horizontal distance. Rowardennan is not that half way point. Don't get me wrong, there are drop bags and support and there are useful splits taken which is all important. But it is not the half way point. The second half of the race is harder than the first half. So I would go for another few miles before I allow myself to think that the first half is done.
There is an inspiring discussion initiated by Hardmoors 55 winner Stuart Mills.
His Slightly provocative motto "Run as fast as you can, while you can!" Stuart Mills (2010) sparked fierce discussions amongst ultra runners.
If that motto would come from a 100 meter runner, a 200 meter runner or even a 10k runner, no one would actually bother commenting on that.
But as far as the ultra running community is concerned the opposition seems to fear for the lives of the innocent inexperienced runner who would pick up that motto and ran straight into hell and never come back. But let's be honest, what's the worst what could happen?
But the male species in particular has that motto in its genes and bloodstream anyway. Starting slow is not sexy. It's boring, almost embarrassing. No one has to tell the young inspired male first time marathoner to start fast. He will start fast anyway. And so will the novice ultra distance runner.
I would still plead for the evenly paced run. Let's have another look at the "elite" runners. Due to the lack of decent half way splits in ultra races let's take Berlin 2009:
What does that tell us?
Firstly a group of six runners passed half way in almost the same time (that group was actually much bigger than that but many of those runners had to drop that pace). And guess what, in that group all of them went too fast apart from Francis Kiprop. This is just how races go. You do not follow your splits. You follow a group of runners. As simple as that.
Furthermore Haile Gebrselassie slowed down significantly in the second half. But he still won the race. So what does that tell us? Should he have started slower? No. Because he was going for the World Record. And he knew (trust me on that) that he had to start that fast if he wanted to maintain a chance to break the WR.
All that does not tell us too much about the right pacing, does it? Some slow down and win, some speed up in the second half and only come in second. Confused?
What is obvious however if you look at the overall common relation between first and second half of the race for all those runners is the fact that we are not looking at almost randomly scattered dots requiring computers of the size the Met Office is using to analyse that mess.
We can see CLEARLY that the pace gradient for all those runners is an almost straight line. And even with some runners running the second half faster than the first the overall conclusion must be that the first and the second half is evenly paced.
There are ten thousands of runners starting the first half slower. And there is big money to win! So why did no one catch up? So much for the theory of starting slow.
Evidently the ratio between first and second half is between 48 and 50%. Which is, lets be honest. Half/half.
I am convinced that running an even pace MUST be the answer to long distance races. Muscle efficiency, breathing, blood flow, organs, stomach, brain, why should that complex system work better when it has to serve both a slow and then a fast moving body?
That applies for a fast start and slow finish (Stuart Mills) as much as for a slow start and a fast finish (Peter D.).
Still, what is that ideal pace then? On race day that is? For me? What are my splits?
Frankly the trouth could be in both theories. My subjective feeling could tell me I am going slow (but in fact I am not). Or I feel to go too fast, but in fact don't.
I just don't know...
;-)
12 comments:
Thomas, you think too much. ;-)
Actually, I like it when you have a go at "conventional wisdom" as I think these things really do need to be challenged.
The ideal of running "negative splits" has a lot of support but I think all it means is that you probably could have run a bit faster. Setting off way too fast is probably a disaster for most runners and I think the ideally we should be aiming, like you say, for a steady pace that results in just a slight slow down. We should be aiming not to "over cook it" in the first half but finish knowing that we've got nothing left.
Getting it right is easier said than done though, particularly on a hilly route. Good luck on Saturday!
But, Thomas, I don't think I've ever advocated 'a slow start and a fast finish'... my whole philosophy is based on aiming as closely as possible for even pace (or, more significantly on these varied courses, even effort). It's just that folk seem to see the starting pace I regard as belonging to that strategy as 'slow'!
Peter,
I admit I was using slight exaggeration to make my point.
How else can I differentiate between the two types?
I am sure the "fast" starter also aims for an even pace. That is there is a full conscious intention to maintain that pace to the finish.
But looking at your 4 hour to Balamaha mantra in that WHW Race you did, to me that looked like you started deliberatly (provokatively?) slow. To prove your point. And you actually succeeded!
I was never saying that your approach was actually wrong. And I much admired it. As much as I admired the "opposite" approach (Stuart Mills').
However I believe there is one flaw in your approach. Starting slow (or "slowish") will potentially kick of your fat burning too early. And that makes you tired! And that would explain why you actually fall asleep during the early stages of the race. A faster (or quicker) runner would not be tired really (to that extend of falling asleep - well apart from having eaten too much)
Does that make any sense?
Hey Thomas,
A very good post. I enjoyed reading it.
It does highlight the issues that everyone is facing with an event like the Fling. It is easy to judge your pace in a road marathon but the Fling with it's mixture of different terrain it is much harder. Throw in on top of that that the easiest section is the first 12 miles and you get people going off far too fast.
We have all done it Thomas and you and I are the worst at times.
In the end no-one can help with your final pace. It is a personal thing that you have to work out on your road to the race. Whether it is fast or slow or a negative split we have to be at the start line with the confidence that it is 100% correct. The worst thing we can do is get there and then adrenaline takes over and it all goes out of the window and you get to Rowardennan wishing that you hadn't just ran the last 27 miles at your marathon pace. It is a long way to go to the end when you are gubbed. Take it from me.
Take care Thomas and I will see you at the pub at the end on Saturday... :-) With PB's for us both... :-D
Marco
Interesting thread / debate, as is the Stuart Mills philosophy on it all. Surely, though, marathons are basically flat, and similar underfoot terrain pretty much throughout. So 13.1 miles is the halfway point full stop. In theory Rowardennan is the half way point distance-wise in the Fling, almost but not quite exactly. But the underfoot terrain is very different on the "half" to Rowardennan than on the half after Row. And the amount of up 'n down is also different. I'm probably generalising here, but marathon runners may prefer (and do better on) the first 12 miles to Drymen, while hill / trail runners may do better on the rougher / hillier sections later on.
So maybe the halfway point in the Fling is not necessarily the halfway point distance-wise (Rowardennan), but simply the halfway point time-wise for each person. So, for the sake of argument, let's say you finished the Fling in 10:00 hours last year with it taking 5 hours to get to the forest road end (c 3 miles beyond Rowardennan), and 5 hours to get from there to the end. For YOU the halfway point is that road end point. All you need to do to improve on last year's time is to get to that road end point in sub 5hours, and you have spare time to play with for the second half.
I guess that most folk's half way (time) points will be somewhere between Rowardennan and that forest road end. So rather than a blanket 13.1 miles marathon halfway point, it is up to each person to work out his/her own half way point in the Fling (and WHW, UTMB, whatever) then calculate their target times / splits from there.
I personally am not really into such calculations / detail at all myself, so I am speaking as something of an outsider to this approach; and my comments are probably not at all clear. But I think I know what I am getting at, just not very well expressed!
Enjoy the day!!
Murdo
Just one thought on the splits for the marathon, I think if you were to look at mile/km splits you would see a much larger difference. I haven't watched too many marathons on TV but when I have I have often been astonished to see the pace these guys can do when they 'inject' some pace, very close to 4 minute miles for 3 or 4 miles even up to the last few miles of the event. Another way of looing at it is say that just breaking a race in to 2 halves is too simplistic.
My own thoughts are that if you trully wish to test yourself then go off at a fast pace (not a stupid one though). That is, a pace you are unlikely to be able to carry throughtout the race but you know you can keep aspiring to and pushing yourself towards even as you slow.
If you want to race then you need to follow the leader(s) and be ready to respond and change pace when necessary. Most marathons seem to be won/lost in the middle or final third in my experience following an injection of pace over several miles.
If you are there just to get round then set a steady pace that allows you a margin in case things are worse than you expected. You can always use that 'saved' effort over the last few miles.
For personal bests you will already have an idea where and when you can pick up extra time. Essentially you are racing against the clock so be ready when you need to respond. Just a few ideas from a running novice :)
Interesting stuff here, and I think the arguments work wherever you are in the race, winner or back-of-pack. I am naturally a slow starter, my best marathon times have been slightly negative splits, but I think there is also a danger of overdoing this. I've run races with really big negative splits, enjoyed them tremendously, but also come away with the feeling I didn't actually get near my potential on the day. I sort of feel that in the Fling, if it isn't starting to hurt a bit by Rowardennan you're not going to get your best time - probably left too much in the tank.
Now I'm worried because I haven't put that much thought into it. I did the same for the Devil's and felt more comfortable just running to how I felt. Think I'll stick to that on Saturday. No time splits for me. Marco has given me some ideas of time for my goal times, but I'm not going to carry them.
@Thomas, well, 3:56 into Balmaha and 4:08 out is about 18% of my total time (including all those ghastly stops) and 20% of my running time for about 20% of the distance, so I dunno that I'd describe it as provocatively slow. But I know I hit Loch Lomondside too hard (paying for that later) because I felt so good at Balmaha and should actually have kept a tighter rein on my pace for longer!
@Marco, exactly... it's a long way from N end of Loch Lomond to the Fort (remember I'm talking WHW rather than Fling) and I'd far rather get to that point feeling like I'm just getting going than already gubbed (the former being a good start and the latter an irretrievable mess!).
@Murdo, of course I prefer the rougher/hillier sections later on, having no flat speed to speak of but not being at all bothered by a few wee hills! So, while recognising that they'll still take me a little longer to climb than descend (hence my preference for 'effort' over 'pace' in this discussion), don't see them having a major impact on my strategy. What I need to do is to cut down on the stops, and the way I'll do that is by judging the pace/effort right the whole way instead of overcooking it at any point.
So simple... now wait for me to mess it up on 19 June! ;-)
Regarding fat burning, I think that when it kicks in you start running faster, not slower. So many whw race runners describe going through a really rough patch after Balmaha and I think that is because they've run their easily accessible glycogen reserves down and haven't yet got their fat metabolism up to speed.
The sooner fat metabolism starts the better as far as I'm concerned! (Just my theory of course).
Thanks a lot Thomas, I don't know what to do now, and it's less that 24 hours to the start of the race !!
Thankfully genetics / fitness will play a part as I don't have the ability to play around with my pace, I'll just plod along and hope for a stronger second half.
Good luck tomorrow.
Gav
Post a Comment