Boston Strategies and how to train for it.

[Jeff Linger]

I'm turning to you Boston Vets for this one. I've spoken with a few people who believe that Boston is a tough marathon in terms of having a good time or a PR. My only marathon was St Louis last April. I thought that the 2.5 miles of steady uphill from 14-16.5, combined with 2 miles downhill from 17.5 - 19.5 with rolling hills of no small magnitude, but not large, in miles 7-10 and 21-24 (out and back course) made it a very tough marathon. Those I have spoken to have essentially said that Boston is tough because of so much downhill trashing on your quads and then catching up to you in the end is what makes it tough. Is this the case, or is it something else? And how should I best train for Boston. I believe that I can run a sub 3:00 at Boston. I dropped my 1/2M from a 1:30:35 to a 1:24:55 in 1 year on the same course. My 1:24:55 was in November. I've only been running for about 18 months. Although I've been sloppy in the last month about getting in 6 days a week, I still believe I can hit this sub 3 mark (did nearly 17 on Sat. at 7:11 ave pace and the run felt very aroebic -- meaning, I certainly wasn't running near what I think M-race-pace should be). But what little things can I do in my training to train specifically for Boston?

[Kory Wheatley]

Hill intervals is something I would definitely do.  I've ran Boston and the hill training and running on rolling hills was a good way to prepare.  But really Boston's hills are not that difficult.  If you implement hill training in your schedule you won't have a problem.

[dave rockness]

I'll tell you...it's crazy trying to get out and run hills in with this winter weather!

[Jeff Linger]

But what sort of hill training? Should I be doing downhill repeats? I'm not worried about any uphill stuff that comes in Boston. I'm strong on hills. No worries there. But I've heard that the continuous downhill begins to wear on you and catch up to you. Am I out in left field here? My Boston elevation chart shows miles about 5.8 miles of net downhill and less than 2 miles of uphill, with the rest being mostly flat. When I ran St Louis there was easily double that uphill, with about half of the downhill. Rolling hills (with the uphills equivalent to the series of hills at Boston's 16-20 mark) from miles 7-9 and repeated again at 22-24, and a 2.5 mile climb from 14-16.5 followed by 2 miles of downhill at 17.5-19.5. I just can't imagine that Boston's terrain is harder than St Louis. http://www.marathonguide.com/coursemaps/elevationchart.cfm?MIDD=1192080406 is an elevation chart for 2007 St Louis (same course as 2008). So what is it about Boston that makes it tough for PR and is there a way to prepare for that?

[Jon Allen]

Jeff- I did not think Boston was particularly hard.  People who train only on flat and want a super flat, fast course (i.e. Chicago) are probably the vocal ones claiming it is hard.  I think the trick is that the gradual downhill at the start doesn't pound your quads so much as it lures you into running faster than you should without noticing (having continual cheering from huge crowds adds to this)... with expected results at the end.  The hills towards the end just compound any pacing mistakes from the start.  I don't think any big training changes are needed- practice running on some downhill, and practice running on some uphills at the end of long runs.  But mainly practice not starting out too fast- just ask Walter what happens if you go out hard and bonk