Race Strategy - 2 questions

[allie]

i am trying to devise a race strategy for the SLC marathon. so many different ideas are going through my mind, and i don't want to end up making stupid mistakes and decisions. i am also taking into consideration that i will be running ogden 4 weeks later. so, my thoughts:

my goal pace right now is 6:30. i THINK this is manageable, although i may be kidding myself considering the distance. i know i can run 6:15s for at least 15 miles, but right now i think that pace for a marathon is beyond my fitness level.

option a: start conservative. run 6:35-6:45s and if everything feels good, gradually drop it down to 6:15-6:20s in the later stages of the race. risky - NO GUARANTEE that i will be able to speed up. so if i start too slow and can't speed up later, i am off goal pace.

option b: aggressive. faster 6:15 -6:20s for the first 10K or so, then drop pace down to 6:30-6:40s. also risky

option c: 6:30s all the way. keep the pacing strategy simple - this seems like the best and obvious option to me but then i hesitate because i know i have some 6:15 miles in me...hence the "combination" options above.

option d: run 6:45 - 7+ pace and save the 6:15-6:30s for ogden.

option x:

another question about race strategy: i ran the strider's half yesterday and i think i made a bad decision at the end of the race. i caught up to the 2nd place runner and instead of making a strong move, i decided to run with her, hoping to out-kick her in the end (this was with less than a mile to go). i ended up being out-kicked. i originally didn't make a move because i was worried she had more left than she was letting on and she would pass me back. i was a coward. i think maybe if i would have just passed her, i may have been able to open up a big enough gap to where she couldn't catch me with her kick. but i will never know. so, in this situation, what is the best strategy???

[Paul Petersen]

In regards to the first question, I like option C. The optimal way to run a marathon is smooth and steady the whole way. Even pacing will help ensure you don't waste too much fuel, whereas surging can waste precious glycogen, kind of like accelerating too fast in a car. 6:15/mile is probably your half marathon pace, and there is no reason to hit HMP within a marathon (unless it's big downhill or something). Basically, a marathon should feel incredibly easy for the first 18 miles or so. Like, WAY too easy. But that is way so many people hit the Wall during the marathon, is they lack the discipline to run slow. (hitting the wall, by the way, indicates you did something wrong)

Regarding the 2nd question, unless you have a withering kick, or are mentally fatigued yourself, destroy your opponent at the first opportunity with one decisive stroke. For most races longer than an a 10K (ie - marathon or half marathon), if you pass someone at any point past the halfway mark, they will almost never pass you back. Psychologically, it is very hard to rally back when you are hurting and someone passes you late in the race. But if you see the finish line, you can find some magic and stage an upset. Don't even give your competitors that chance; bury them before they see the finish line and make them lose all hope...at least until you are out of striking range. Now, there are times where you are in the opposite scenario: you are hanging on to your opponent for dear life. They are in control, and you are just trying not to get dropped. In those situations, every step you get closer to the finish line, the better your chances are of winning if they don't make their move to finish you. Even if you are sapped, and the other is feeling good, you can always find that burst of adrenaline.

[Michelle Lowry]

I agree with an even pace, and with Paul's advice regarding passing.

However, I would perhaps take objection to your target paces.  Your last two races predict a 3:10 and a 3:02 in the Salt Lake Marathon.  While the predictor isn't 100% accurate, I've used it quite a bit to target paces and it's been quite close for alot of races.  You are on a positive trend with your training and your races show it, but I wouldn't start the race any faster than 6:40 pace, which is 2:55.  If you feel great after the half, you'll know what to do 

[allie]

thanks for your input. i knew the way i raced yesterday was probably a mistake...now i know for next time 

michelle - you are probably correct that my goal pace is overly optimistic. but the training runs i have done and the splits i ran yesterday made me think it was doable...it didn't feel hard (aside from the wind) and i think i could have continued those splits for another half on a good day. BUT, SLC is a different course, and i agree that the predictor is pretty accurate. i am just getting too excited...but i need to be smart (and realistic). 6:40-6:45s is probably more reasonable. thanks for your help!

[Eric Day]

Never run a Marathon yet, but I'll thrown in my cnet:

Michelle hit the mark predicting my HMP, so she's given good advice.

I like the opcion C plan too. Used it on my HM, felt great throughout and even had energy left for the finish.

[Sasha Pachev]

Knowing Allie, I would recommend option c).  It has not yet been tried in the marathon, and during the 90s to failure experiment it produced a serious 5 K PR. Slower starts in shorter race, on the other hand, have produced disappointing times. Allie has never blown up in a marathon when running at least 40 miles a week. She strikes me as a runner that is naturally very good at metabolizing fats. Also, mentally, I have a feeling that Allie would handle being really tired and having to run 7:00s in the last 6 miles to hit the goal a lot better than if she is just tired at 20 and has to run faster than the average pace so far. With those factors in place, an aggressive start is something to explore, it might produce a breakthrough, and if it does not, their is a decent cushion against utter disaster.

Except I would ditch the pace goals, especially given the probability of bad weather. Position yourself in the top three and run with them until it is unbearable either way. Either the pace is unbearably too fast, or too slow. If it is too fast, ease off and tempo then jog in when really tired. If it is unbearably too slow, drop them and win the money.

As a side note, I would not recommend the same approach for Paul, Michelle, or Mary Ann. They are weak in the areas of Allie's strength, and strong in the areas of her weakness. They can close strong when properly trained. With Allie, the more she is trained, the slower her second half will get relative to the first.

[James Moore]

Given the wind in the last mile yesterday it was going to be tough to put someone away with a mile to go, especially as she still had some fight left. I think you should work on your finishing speed not only for these sorts of situations but also for improved running economy. I can't give you any advice on good marathon pacing, but starting off races slowly has worked for me in the past in longer races (see my Boston marathon).

[allie]

Position yourself in the top three and run with them until it is unbearable either way. Either the pace is unbearably too fast, or too slow. If it is too fast, ease off and tempo then jog in when really tired. If it is unbearably too slow, drop them and win the money.

times from previous years show SLC attracts a competitive field - the professional/elite runners from out of state produce winning times that are much, much faster than you would find at races with mostly local runners like ogden and TOU. 2:40:24 was the winning time from last year, and if my memory is correct, in 2007 is was in the 2:35:XX area. those times would kill me...do you really think it is wise to try and position myself in the top three? it may be suicide. ?!?

[Dallen]

This is the same problem most of us face in planning a marathon race pace.

Option 1: we go out conservatively and hope to hold on or speed up in the end. This gives a good chance of a decent race, but a low chance of a great race because very few of us can negative split a marathon. Most llikely this results in a nice run a few minutes slower than one's true potential.

Option 2: Put it all on the line and go out hard and hope to not die in the end. This gives a very high chance of drastic failure, but also gives a chance of everything going perfectly and having a great race.

My observation is that world records are usually set with option 1, but it requires a big negative split and perfect pace planning.

Big races are usually won with option 2. These races might start out slow for a few miles, but eventually the pace becomes brutal and only the select few survive. A couple big paychecks and a whole bunch of broken bodies and dreams along the way.

Pick your poison.

[Paul Petersen]

times from previous years show SLC attracts a competitive field - the professional/elite runners from out of state produce winning times that are much, much faster than you would find at races with mostly local runners like ogden and TOU. 2:40:24 was the winning time from last year, and if my memory is correct, in 2007 is was in the 2:35:XX area. those times would kill me...do you really think it is wise to try and position myself in the top three? it may be suicide. ?!?

Prize money is much less this year. There will be nobody running that fast.

[Matthew Rowley]

Allie I am glad you asked this question because it is the same question I have been debating for running the Ogden marathon.

I am sure we are the only ones trying to figure out the best race strategy.  (No I am not as fast as you)

My goal is to run a sub 3:20, and I believe I will try to run a consistant race (Try and run 7:30 the hollow way, I know I have a hard time speeding up mid race) 

You have run a number of marathon's, I would ask yourself do you get stronger as the marathon or have a tendency to hit the wall. 
Of course your training is better then it has ever been.  (Good luck)

[Paul (RivertonPaul)]

I know its late, but nobody suggested the "Course Tool."  With that you can put in your goal time and have splits adjusted for the conditions of the course.