Road Marathon Pacing - The Positive Split Pacing Strategy - My Final Comment

Hi,

Yes, back again, and this time I promise that it will be my last post to do with pacing for road marathons.  I know that this UltraStu blog is meant to be about trail running, however, the underlying principles that I will try to explain for the last time here for road marathons do translate to the trails, but to a lesser extent, as there isn't the same 'obsession' with finish times when running on the trails.

Still Some Confusion Over the Likely Disappointment in Adopting an Even Paced Strategy
Why bother writing one last comment about road marathon pacing you may ask.  Well it is because the standard accepted pacing strategy for road marathons, i.e. an even paced strategy or a negative split strategy, is totally the wrong approach for marathon runners, unless you are one of the World's very best.  And the fact that this coming weekend at the London Marathon, thousands of runners will experience disappointment at not achieving their target marathon finish time, and for many, not because they are not capable, but simply due to them following the totally wrong standard accepted pacing strategy for road marathons, with the false belief that they are capable of achieving an even split marathon!

As I stated in my marathon pacing calculator post last week, the topic of pacing tends to be vigorously discussed, and as expected, my post last week generated some quite animated responses.  But rather than directly respond to the comments that have been made during the last week, (which varied from containing some worthy points, to others being totally misguided or confused), I will simply attempt to clarify the confusion that is still evident.

Typical Road Marathon Goals
Lets start with: What is the purpose of running a marathon?  Well, simple really, the number one priority is to get to the finish line.  Apart from something catastrophic happening, pretty well nearly everybody with modest levels of fitness can finish a marathon.  However, it could take a long time, perhaps up to nine hours if one walked at around 3 miles per hour, i.e. 20 minute mile pace.

Although most runners have their number one aim to finish, I have yet to meet a marathon runner who hasn't started the marathon without a thought, a guess at the time they think they can achieve.  Many runners will then convert this possible time idea into a target marathon finish time.  To start with for novice marathon runners, the target finish time may be to break six hours, therefore involving a mixture of walking and running.  And then the next target is often to break the five hour barrier, which requires significantly higher levels of running.  The targets then get quicker, typically to break 4 hours 30 minutes, then the magical four hour mark.  As the finish time gets quicker, the target finish goal barriers tend to get closer, with the next target finish times tending to be 3:45, 3:30, 3:15 and then the 'holy grail' the even more magical sub three hour barrier.  Other finish times between three and four hours are often targeted such as 'good for age' race places for various marathons, e.g. London Marathon, or BM times, i.e. Boston Marathon qualifier times.  Once the sub three hour barrier is accomplished, the targets tend to get very narrow, e.g. 2:55, 2:50, 2:45 (which is the UK Athletics Male Championship qualifier time, then 2:40, 2:35, and finally, only reserved for the very best of male club runners, the sub two hour thirty minute barrier.

So as you can see from the above paragraph, pretty well every runner starting a marathon will have either some vague idea of a time they think they might be able to achieve, or for most runners, they will have a target marathon finishing time that they would like to achieve.  Hence why it is so important that these runners have some form of pacing strategy to help them achieve their target goal finishing time, and hence why I published last week a marathon pacing calculator that will help them pace the marathon and thus help them achieve their target time.

My Marathon Journey
Before I spend a little bit of time explaining in a little bit more detail just why the marathon pacing calculator will dramatically increase the likelihood of the runner achieving their target finish time, I will briefly provide a background of my marathon journey.  Although this section provides some context regarding the importance of different target finish time barriers, skipping this section won't affect your understanding of the marathon pace calculator and why the positive split pacing strategy is more successful.

I mentioned above that in terms of target marathon times, runners may progressively move down the marathon goal time barriers, from five hours, next four hours, then eventually three hours  For me, at the age of seventeen, I set the target immediately at breaking three hours, and I was successful with 2:56:51 in April 1980.  Yes, 34 years ago!

Breaking the Three Hour Barrier - 2:56:51 - April 1980 - Rotorua, NZ

Having achieved the sub three hour goal, I left marathons aside for a few year before returning in 1984, now as a twenty one year old, with the sub two hour thirty minutes barrier as the target finish time.  I'm not sure what happened to the 2:45, or even the 2:50 and 2:40 target times, but as a youngster I was always in a rush to get things done!  Did I achieve my goal time.  No!  Unfortunately I missed the 'super magical' sub 2:30 by a mere forty seconds.

Failing to Break the Two Hour Thirty Minute Barrier - 2:30:39 - June 1984 - Christchurch, NZ

Yes, those forty seconds were massively meaningful.  It meant the difference between massive joy and massive disappointment.  I was so disappointed at not achieving my goal that I moved not only away from marathon running, but running full stop, for the next eight years or so, and ventured into multisport (i.e. kayaking triathlons), road cycling, triathlon, and then Ironman triathlon.  It was only when preparing for the Ironman that I returned to the road marathon in 1992.

So you can see from above, how in some ways road marathons are quite different to trail marathons or ultras.  On the trails, the finish time isn't really that relevant as no two trails are the same.  But on the road, every marathon should be 26.2 miles, and although road routes will vary a bit in terms of undulations and exposure to wind, on the whole, road marathons tend to be over reasonably flattish courses, so direct comparison of marathon times are possible.  So the consequences of running just forty seconds, yes just forty seconds slower that I hoped for changed my entire endurance athlete experiences.  For the better or for the worse, I don't know.  But I do recall that at the time I was very disappointed.  Bizarre really, considering it was such a quick time, especially for a twenty one year old.  But as I have found, runners tend to be very 'hung up' about their race goals, and often will be very despondent over a time only slightly slower than their target time, even though in reality it is a great achievement.  But that is just the nature of many runners!

Therefore being just a few minutes slower than target finish time, or even just a few seconds slower, isn't what one wants. The majority of runners want to achieve their target finish time for the marathon.  Hopefully most people will agree with this statement!

So back to my marathon journey through the years.  Yes, in 1992, I was a full-on Ironman triathlete.  I had successfully qualified for the Hawaii Ironman at the end of the year, by finishing in 13th place overall at the very first 1992 Lanzarote Ironman, running the marathon portion of the Ironman in three hours and seven minutes.  Wanting to perform to my best at Hawaii, I placed more emphasis on my road running and entered the Scottish Amateur Athletics Association Marathon Championship in August 1992, which were being held in Elgin, near the top of Scotland.  I had been living in Aberdeen, Scotland for nearly a year, and so according to the AAA rules I was therefore eligible for the Championship, which was a pleasant surprise when I was awarded the bronze medal for finishing third in an official time of two hours thirty minutes, and this time sixteen seconds (2:30:16).  Yes, the super magical sub 2:30 barrier was still beyond me.  But now only by seventeen seconds,  Yes a measly seventeen seconds!

 

Again Failing to Break the Two Hour Thirty Minute Barrier - 2:30:16 - August 1992 - Elgin, Scotland

For the next few years I continue with Ironmans, triathlons and then duathlons, and it was in 1995, in preparation for the prestigious Zofingen Powerman Duathlon consisting of 13km run, 150km bike, and 30km run, that I ran the 1995 London Marathon. And yes finally in April 1995, fifteen years to the month since I broke the sub three hour barrier, and eleven years after being so close (40 seconds), I finally manage to go sub two hours 30 minutes with 2:29:34!

Finally Breaking the Two Hour Thirty Minute Barrier - 2:29:34 - April 1995 - London

Yes finally, I had made it.  Only by twenty six seconds, but those twenty six seconds were HUGE!  Yes, I recall at the time that upon finishing I was a bit disappointed with my finish time, as I had been running really well and was expecting to finish up to five minutes quicker.  But looking back now, whether I had run 2:28, 2:27 or even 2:25, these times in essence are all the same, simply sub 2:30.  Yes, these barrier goal times are important, hence why just a few seconds either way can be so meaningful.

Having achieved my long term marathon goal, there wasn't really anything else to achieve marathon wise.  I didn't believe I had what it took to be a sub 2:20 marathoner, so I again drifted away from the marathon.  Then in 2003, now as a forty year old, the prospect of running a quick marathon as a 'veteran' was appealing.  Unfortunately I didn't believe I could run sub 2:30 at the 'old' age of forty, so a 'soft' target time of sub 2:40 was my goal finish time.  And as you would expect, achieving the soft time that I had set was pretty easy, although, I did make tough work of it due to the lowered expectations, so I ended up struggling to a finish time of 2:39:12.

Slowing Down But Breaking the Two Hour Forty Minute Barrier - 2:39:12 - April 2003 - London

Following 2003, I finally 'let go' of the stopwatch and headed to the trails.  To date I have now raced thirty one trail marathons, and without the 'restriction' of the stopwatch, my running has gone from strength to strength.  From those thirty one trail marathons, I have won nineteen of them, finished second on eight occasions, finished in fourth place once, fifth place twice, and finally my most recent trail marathon last month, a disappointing DNF! 

My First Ever Trail Marathon Did Not Finish (DNF) - 00:00:00 - March 2014 - Steyning

Please note that I have made reference to some of my successes I have achieved with regards to marathon running, not to 'blow my own trumpet', a saying that my mother would always criticise people for, but I guess partly in response to a comment left on last week's blog post that suggested that my performances have been "hit and miss" and that I have performed poorly due to poor pacing strategies! "To me your race success has been really hit and miss over the last few years. .... Personally I think a big part of the problem is your pacing strategy" Well I don't think in any of these thirty one marathon races (excluding the DNF due to injury) that I  had a "problem", as I didn't perform poorly.  Sure, in some races I didn't achieve the 'perfect performance', but to try to discredit the positive split pacing strategy, by classifying my performances as poor, I find a bit bizarre.  Especially with the criticism coming from a 3:30 marathoner who has "nailed" all of his recent races!  "How do I know.... well in all of my races in the last 9 months- four races, three ultras and one marathon I nailed them all, in the only two race that I had done before I did big PB's."

So, as my personal marathon journey above illustrates, I have had quite a long association with the marathon.  For the majority of my marathons, there has been joy and satisfaction, but intermingled in relation to road marathons, there has been disappointment, at times deep disappointment, which looking at it now seems rather pointless.  What do a few seconds matter?  Yes, I know to the 'outsider' a few seconds mean nothing, but to the road marathon runner, those few seconds can be very meaningful, and hence why with my marathon pace calculator, I am trying to help potentially thousands of marathon runners this weekend at London to avoid this disappointment of not achieving their target finish time, which may be missed by just a few seconds, and for many simply due to trying to adopt a a flawed even paced strategy!  That is my motivation, and why I am hopefully not wasting my time, trying to clarify the confusion that exists out there!  So please forward the following link to the Marathon Pace Calculator website to people you know running at London on Sunday. http://rsusmf.appspot.com/


The Marathon Pace Calculator
So lets look in detail at my marathon pace calculator.  The calculator was based on the data of the first twenty five thousand finishers at last year's London Marathon.  Yes, 25,000 runners finished before five hours and two minutes, so I did not include the data from runners slower than five hours and two minutes.  The blog post from May last year described the process in detail, but to summarise, I analysed the data of these 25,000 finishers in blocks of one thousand runners, except at the very top end of the field I analysed the data in blocks of one hundred runners.  I looked at the number of runners per thousand or hundred block that ran an even or negative split, and then looked at the average percentage slowdown that occurred for each block of runners.  It is this average slowdown percentage that is used within the marathon pace calculator to calculate the percentage slowdown.  Which is then used to give the most important information required by the marathon runner, being:  What pace should I go out at, should I run at during the first part of the marathon?  And also, what time should I aim to run through half way in?

Now if you follow the standard pacing advise that an even paced marathon strategy is best, then the answers to these two key questions are easy.  Simple, your time at half way is simply half of your target marathon finish time, and the pace to start at, is the same pace you aim to run for every one of all of the twenty six miles, which is simply your target marathon finish time, divided by 26.2 miles.  Straight forward really. No need for a marathon pace calculator.  Simple!

UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE.  IF RUNNERS TAKE THIS EVEN SPLIT APPROACH THEN THEY HAVE A NINETY FIVE PERCENT LIKELIHOOD OF NOT ACHIEVING THEIR TARGET MARATHON FINISH TIME. I will repeat, they have a 95% likelihood of NOT achieving their target marathon finish time!!!  It is as simple as that!  That is the data from the first 25,000 runners from last year's London Marathon.

Those of you may recall that last week I stated that they had a 96% likelihood of NOT achieving their target time, why now reduced to 95%.  Well the 96% refers to the entire field of 35,000 runners, having just re-checked my data.  When looking at only the first 25,000 finishers, i.e. quicker than 5:02, it becomes 95%.  Yes, only FIVE PERCENT, yes I will repeat!  Only 5% of these runners managed to run an even paced or negative split run.  That is they managed to run the second half of the marathon at the same pace or quicker that their first half of the marathon.  Now bearing in mind, if the runner has adopted the even paced strategy, they will pass through half way in exactly half of their target marathon finish time.  With 95% of the runners, running the second half of the marathon SLOWER, then this means that 95% of runners MUST THEREFORE NOT HAVE ACHIEVED THEIR TARGET MARATHON FINISH TIME!

Now I don't know how I can make this above point much clearer.  It is not me mis-using the statistics as accused by Thomas in a comment left on the linked blogpost "I used to read Stu's blog a lot but eventually gave up, and it was his (mis?)usage of statistics that finally made me take him off my reading list." The above is the correct interpretation of the data from last year's London Marathon.  If anyone is able to explain to me how I have got the above conclusion (That 95% of runners MUST THEREFORE NOT HAVE ACHIEVED THEIR TARGET MARATHON FINISH TIME) wrong then please leave a comment. below on this post.

Some people may suggest that running a positive split strategy, i.e. running the first half of the marathon quicker than the second half of the marathon will result in the first half being run far too quickly, and the runner will 'blow up'!  Now I don't want to get into a discussion here what 'blowing up' means, but if one simply looks at the data from the 2013 London Marathon, if runners don't adopt a positive split strategy then it is near guaranteed, well 95% certain, that they won't achieve their target finish time, as 95% of them will slow down during the second half of the marathon.  Considering that the even paced strategy is so widely recommended in pretty well all publicity mediums, such as magazines and podcasts, then even with this being the standard pacing message, 95% of runners quicker than five hours are still not managing to run an even paced marathon.

Now you may argue, that if the runner runs the first half of the marathon even quicker, then more runners will slow down during the second half of the marathon.  And yes, that is exactly what should happen.  Slowing down during the second half of the marathon is a reality, as demonstrated by the fact that 95% of the runners do slow down.  It is quite simple really.  Accept that slowing down during the second half of the marathon occurs, so take this slowing down into account when planning your pacing strategy, so one is still able to achieve their target marathon finishing time, even though they have slowed down.  If runners plan their pacing strategy, wishing, hoping, expecting not to slow down, so hoping that they are the one in twenty runners that don't slow down, then yes, they have a one in twenty chance of achieving their target marathon finishing time.  But odds of one in twenty don't sound too appealing to me!


The Under-Trained / Inexperienced / Foolish Argument
A frequent counter argument to the presentation of this very low percentage of runners that are actually able to run a marathon with an even split between their first and second half marathon split times, is that just because this is what occurs it doesn't mean that this is the best or the most efficient strategy.  Comments like the following are often left:

"How many runners are under-trained for the marathon, yet you happily include their stats? How many runners make *obvious* pacing or executional mistakes, yet you include their stats too?"

"Huge numbers of people running a big city marathon are inexperienced, and you can put money on them going off too quickly. Foolish, but predictably foolish."

So lets maybe restrict the data analysis to the first 11,000 runners that ran quicker than four hours.  Yes, there are more runners that do achieve an even paced or negative split, but this percentage is only increased up to eight percent for the quicker runners able to finish under four hours.  So even with the percentage of quicker runners being able to run an even split strategy only increasing up to 8%, there is still a massive 92% likelihood of failing to achieve the target marathon finishing time.  So to conclude; Adopting a pacing strategy that only has an eight percent (8%) likelihood of succeeding doesn't really seem to be the "best or most efficient" strategy.  Rather it seems a pretty poor strategy to adopt!

Okay maybe these sub four hour runners are simply under-trained, inexperienced and foolish.  So simple, lets move to the very top end of the massed start field.  So we are ignoring the elite start, as remember what the elite are able to achieve has absolutely no relevance to the non-elite runners.  (Note: Please refer to the bottom of this post for an explanation into why what elite marathon runners are able to achieve is not relevant to the non-elite runners.)  So if we look in detail at the first one hundred massed start finishers, so those runners that finished quicker than 2:36:53, then surely these runners would obviously demonstrate the even paced / negative split pacing strategy works.  What would you expect from these very best non-elite runners, maybe 80% of them achieving an even paced / negative split pacing strategy?  Or maybe these very best runners, which one surely couldn't argue as being under-trained, inexperienced or foolish, that maybe 90% of them would achieve an even paced / negative split pacing strategy, thus finally providing indisputable evidence that the even paced / negative split pacing strategy is the best, the most efficient pacing strategy.

So what percentage of these very best non-elite, well-trained, experienced and not foolish runners achieve an even paced / negative split pacing strategy?  The ANSWER, JUST ONE RUNNER.  I will repeat, yes JUST ONE RUNNER, therefore just ONE PERCENT of the very best non-elite runners achieved an even paced / negative split pacing strategy!  Does anyone really need any further evidence that running an even paced / negative split pacing strategy is NOT the sensible strategy to adopt.  Now if anyone is able to provide a counter argument to this amazingly clearly obvious data, then please leave a comment below.


How Much Slow Down During the Second Half of the Marathon?
So hopefully everyone should now fully understand and accept that adopting an even paced / negative split pacing strategy is reducing the likelihood of achieving ones target marathon finish time.  The very best non-elite road marathon runners, who are likely to be the best trained, the most experienced non-elite road marathon runners, DON'T DO IT, so why should other lesser trained, lesser experienced runners try to adopt an even paced / negative split pacing strategy?

So the immediate question that arises is then just how much should the marathon runner expect to slow down during the second half of the marathon?  This is where the marathon pacing calculator is so useful.  Yes, this is why I am spending time typing out this blog post, so potentially thousands of runners this coming Sunday are not disappointed, as they will therefore have some guidance on what pace to start out at, and what time they should pass through the half marathon mark.

As mentioned above, the marathon pace calculator uses the average percentage slowdown based on the data from the first 11,000 finishers, i.e. all runners that finish under four hours.  And the percentage slowdown used within the marathon pace formula varies for different finish times, with the very quickest runners, i.e. runners targeting a marathon finish time of sub 2:37 using a 5.06% slowdown, increasing for runners targeting a finish time slower than 3:17 using a 9.92% slowdown.

Now some people argue that adopting a positive split strategy, i.e. slowing down during the second half of the marathon can be "psychological demoralizing, as (the runner) is being passed by runners who are looking stronger and fresher".  However, the marathon pace calculator uses the average percentage slowdown, so if the runner completes the second half marathon with the exact percentage slowdown used within the marathon pacing formula, then they will overtake an equivalent number of runners during the second half of the marathon, equivalent to the number of runners that will overtake them during the second half of the marathon.  Which although slowing down and running the second half of the marathon slower, their actual race position will stay the same if the runner runs at the exact percentage slowdown used within the marathon pace calculator.

By adopting the marathon pace calculator average percentage slowdown pacing strategy, the running pace up to the half way point in the marathon will be quicker than if adopted the flawed even pace strategy.  How much quicker will this pace be?  Well the amount the pace is quicker is dependent upon the target marathon finishing time, as not only does the percentage slowdown vary dependent upon the finish time, but because the slowdown is expressed as a percentage, having a slower target finish time actually results in the runner slowing down more minutes during the second half.  So slower finish time runners will have to run at a quicker pace, to gain more minutes quicker during the first half of the marathon, in comparison to the even paced strategy runner.  Faster finish time runners don't have to gain as many minutes by running quicker during the first half.  The idea of having to run so many minutes faster during the first of the marathon may sound a bit daunting.  But remember if you decide to run the first half of the marathon at the slower, even paced strategy running pace, then sure it will feel easier to half way, but this isn't much good, as you only have a one in twenty chance of achieving your target finishing time!  So lets look at some specific examples.

The Sub Four Hour Marathoner
Running a sub four hour marathon adopting an even paced strategy requires a minute mile pace for every one of the 26 miles to be run at 9:09.  The runner would pass through half way in 1:59:59.

Using the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator which incorporates a 9.92% slowdown during the second half of the marathon.  For the first 13 miles of the marathon, the calculator requires a 8:43 minute mile pace.  The runner would pass through half way in 1:54:19, which would be five minutes and forty seconds quicker, yes 5:40 quicker.  What is the likely impact of running 5:40 quicker to half way?  Well if running 5:40 quicker to half way results in the runner setting a half marathon personal best time, then there is obviously something wrong.  Not that the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator is wrong!  No, the runners target finish time is obviously too quick.  And in this instance, no matter what pacing strategy the runner adopted, it is most probable that they would not achieve their target finish time.  Target marathon finish times must be realistic and based on some evidence / data, rather than just 'guessing' a time.  But generating target marathon finish times is a totally different topic.  What the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator assumes is that the target marathon finish time is realistic.

So for the sub four hour target marathoner, the runner would pass through half way in 1:54:19, which would be five minutes and forty seconds quicker, yes 5:40 quicker.  However, for every mile after the half way point, the even paced strategy runner must maintain the same 9:09 minute mile pace, even though they will start to fatigue, which every marathon runner will tell you occurs!  Whereas the runner that has adopted the positive split strategy, using the pacing plan proposed by the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator, for every mile after half way they are allowed to gradually slow down, as the fatigue gradually builds up.  One doesn't get to the half way point in a marathon and instantly become fatigued!  No, the fatigue builds up gradually.  So to mimic this gradual build-up of fatigue during the second half of the marathon, the required minute mile pace to achieve the target finishing time gradually gets slower.  So for those really challenging last six miles of the marathon, the positive split strategy runner is able to run the last six miles at the pace of: 9:41, 9:48, 9:55, 10:02, 10:09, 10:17.  Yes, they are able to slow down to a minute mile pace of 10:17 and still achieve their target finish time.  Doesn't that sound more realistic than the even paced strategy runner, still trying to run a 9:09 minute mile, the same pace they ran at the start when totally fresh, now nearly four hours later when absolutely exhausted from running 25 previous miles.

Yes, I know that the runner is highly unlikely to run exactly to the minute mile pace times provided by the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator.  Whether they slowdown at the same rate that the calculator forecasts, or at a quicker rate, but they don't start fatiguing until say mile 18, it isn't really important.  What is important is that the runner is able to slow down and still achieve their target finishing time.  What is important is that the runner accepts that slowing down during the second half of the marathon is a reality, and therefore must plan for it!  To 'dream', to 'wish' that they won't slow down, and therefore not plan for any slowing down, even though the very best non-elite marathon runners slow down during the second half, is just total foolishness!


The Sub Three Hour Marathoner
Running a sub three hour marathon adopting an even paced strategy requires a minute mile pace for every one of the 26 miles to be run at 6:52. The runner would pass through half way in 1:29:59.

Using the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator which incorporates a 6.57% slowdown during the second half of the marathon. For the first 13 miles of the marathon requires a 6:39 minute mile pace. The runner would pass through half way in 1:27:07, which would be two minutes and fifty two seconds quicker, yes 2:52 quicker.  Okay it is 2:52 quicker than the even paced strategy at half way, but this isn't massively quicker, which many people seem to misinterpret from the idea of adopting a positive split strategy.  Many people seem to interpret the positive split pacing strategy as 'going out at suicide pace'.  As you can see from this sub three hour marathon target example, getting to the half way point 2:52 quicker, yes, requiring more effort and focus, but I don't think it could be classified as being ridiculously faster!

However, for every mile after the half way point, the even paced strategy runner must maintain the same 6:52 minute mile pace, even though they will start to fatigue, which every marathon runner will tell you occurs! Whereas the runner that has adopted the positive split strategy, using the pacing plan proposed by the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator, for every mile after half way they are allowed to gradually slow down, as the fatigue gradually builds up.  And for those really challenging last six miles of the marathon, the positive split strategy runner is able to run the last six miles at the pace of: 7:08, 7:12, 7:16, 7:20, 7:24, 7:30. Yes, they are able to slow down to a minute mile pace of 7:30 and still achieve their target finish time. Doesn't that sound more realistic than the even paced strategy runner, still trying to run a 6:52 minute mile, the same pace they ran at the start when totally fresh, now nearly three hours later when absolutely exhausted from running 25 previous miles.

Hopefully, the above two examples have helped illustrate how the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator works, and it is provides guidance on a pacing strategy that represents what is a reality, the marathon runner getting fatigued as they progress through the marathon.  Now I haven't ever met a marathon runner that didn't fatigue as they ran the marathon to the best of their ability.  Fatigue occurs, it is a reality, no argument!  So surely as one fatigues then one should expect to start to slow down.  Surely this must now make sense!

As usual my short blog post has ended up near ultra length.  Sorry about going on and on, and no doubt repeating myself above many times.  Hopefully my more detailed and lengthy explanation of how the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator works, has helped to clarify why the positive split pacing strategy is clearly the strategy to adopt to maximise the likelihood of achieving ones target marathon finishing time!

Please spread the word on the ReSUltS marathon pace calculator, and how it takes the guess work out of deciding how much one should expect to slow down during the second half of the marathon.  And to those of you after reading all of the above, that still think that you should NOT expect to slow down during the second half of the marathon, I am sorry but I am unable to help you.

Signing Off
I will sign off with a quote that I have signed off with previously when discussing the foolishness of the negative split pacing strategy.  The quote is from Tom Williams, one of the hosts of the excellent MarathonTalk podcast.  Yes, I am an avid listener of MarathonTalk and have been for the last three or so years.  Pretty well all of their advice on the show is sound quality advice, which assists thousands of runners to achieve their running goals, EXCEPT ONE, their celebration of the negative split.  For some unknown reason, they are just totally off the mark here!

It just so happened that last Sunday, Tom Williams ran the Greater Manchester Marathon and crossed the finish line in an excellent 104th place overall, with an official chip time of 2:53:04.  Did Tom, a massive supporter of the negative split, achieve a negative split in running 2:53:04.  Yes, indeed he did!  Using his chip time, he ran the first half marathon in 1:27:04, and then ran the second half marathon in 1:26:00.  So a negative split of 64 seconds!  Fantastic!  That is, if you believe that the negative split is the sign of a well run marathon.  And with MarathonTalk taking this view, no doubt there will be huge celebrations on MarathonTalk this week!

However, how did Tom manage to achieve this 64 second negative split?  Simple really, by running the first half marathon so slowly, which although he ran the second half marathon 64 seconds quicker, his overall finish time is quite a bit slower, (possibly up to four minutes slower), than the marathon time that one would expect that he should be able to achieve, based upon his recent 10 mile road race time of 60:54.  A ten mile road race finish time of 60:54 should definitely correspond to a quicker marathon time than 2:53:04.  How much quicker is debatable, and one could look at various marathon predictor websites, which produce a range of predicted marathon times from 2:49:03 to 2:51:19.  The precise likely marathon finish time isn't really that important.  The important 'take home' message is that Tom only managed to achieve a negative split by running slower than his true current marathon potential.

Listening to Tom on MarathonTalk, I know that he publicly stated that he wasn't going to race the Manchester Marathon to the best of his ability.  Yes, this is fine.  But hopefully Tom and his co host Martin will not massively celebrate his negative split achievement, as the negative split has only been achieved due to not running as quickly as he could.  And celebrating the negative split pacing strategy, will encourage the thousands of MarathonTalk listeners to adopt the totally wrong pacing strategy, if they wish to maximise their chances of achieving their target marathon finish time.

(Please Note:  I have just listened to the first portion of this week's MarathonTalk episode, and I would just like to congratulate Tom and Martin for not celebrating Tom's negative split.  No doubt with Tom in the past being such a supporter of the negative split, that it must have been so tempting to massively celebrate his negative split achievement.  Maybe Tom has changed his views since 2011, and now 'has his money on' the positive split.  Now accepting that the negative split is only achieved by running the first half of the marathon slower than ones ideal pace.  Anyway I just wanted to thank Martin and Tom for not encouraging their thousands of listeners to adopt a negative split pacing strategy for London Marathon. Stuart - 10th April, 2014)

So finally here is Tom's sign off quote from 2011.  And Tom, if you are reading this, please leave a comment below, letting us know what your 2014 views are on the ideal marathon pacing strategy.

“My money's still on the even / negative split but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. My quote for the day... I'd rather know I was wrong than think I was right ;)" Tom Williams, 2011.

All the best to everyone running this Sunday's London Marathon.

Stuart


PS  The Elite Marathoner World Record Argument
The following is a small section on why what elite marathon runners are able to achieve is not relevant to the non-elite runners.  Because as always when it comes to justifying the even paced / negative split pacing strategy argument, this is the one argument that is also provided, and as expected was included in comments that were left last week.

From Brett: "The point I was trying to make was to look at all the current records in distance running - if they all are even to slightly negative splits, that has to mean something.  For example, the current marathon world record is around 2:03 and was an even split to nearly the second."

"In the USA, we also had the 100 mile track record broken a couple times in the last few months. The first time it was broken (Jon Olsen), he ran two 50 mile splits within 2 minutes of each other. The latest time the record was broken a few weeks ago (Zach Bitter), he ran a slight negative split of a few minutes in the second 50 mile section. So as best I can tell, this same behavior is seen across ultramarathons and down to half marathons and 10ks as well."

 In case you haven't seen my reply to these World record arguments, I will simply paste the comment I left in response to Brett's World's best approach below.

"When in any other situation does the club level athlete, the 'average' person (although I dislike the word average but I think it makes the point clear) try to mimic what the World's best can do. Whatever activity; e.g. scoring a maximum 147 break in snooker, cycle racing at top-end pace for hours every day for near 22 consecutive days around and over the alps of France, or managing to descend to an ocean depth of 214 metres on one single breath. Yes, regardless of the activity, 'average' people do not expect to be able to replicate these amazing feats. So please explain to me, why is it that when it comes to running road marathons, that it is assumed that the 'average' person, who is not a full-time athlete, who does not have the same opportunities to prepare, the same resources, the same environment, and dare I say, the same genes, that this 'average' person can then achieve the same as the World's best, I just don't understand! Could someone please explain this logic."  Stuart Mills, last week.

The most important thing to remember is that you, me, and pretty well every other reader of this blog post are not the World's elite, so what the World elite do is not relevant.  How the World elite manage to achieve what they do I just don't know, and to be honest, neither do the sports scientists really know.  What they can achieve is at times just unbelievable, e.g. often 'throwing' in a mega super quick 5km split shortly after halfway in a marathon.  But the key thing to take away from what these World elite do, is that they are so different to you and me, that it isn't worth trying to work out how they do it.  Trying to compare myself to them is just total foolishness, although some people do seem to want to do this when it does come to both running an even paced race or even better a negative split.  Yes, it is good for the ego to compare that you achieve the same pacing strategy as the World elite, but the fact that one is only able to achieve an even paced or negative split pacing strategy by running the first half of the race so slowly is just 'ego massaging'.  Many people can run the last mile or quarter mile of a marathon quickly if they run earlier portions of the race slowly.  The aim is to run the entire 26 miles as fast as possible not just the last mile!

The Negative Split - The Realisation that An Accepted Running Concept is Actually Flawed!

Hi,

Yes, a bold post title, but I feel that rather than delicately 'tip-toeing' around the subject, I perhaps need to be a bit more forceful in exposing the negative split myth, Why such an aggressive approach to this post? Well two reasons really: (i) in response to some challenging comments left on my blog "These aren't reasons that can be easily dismissed, I've loved to see you try to come up with some compelling reason why it's a good thing to go out hard and how this overcomes the well established reasons for an even split I mentioned above." So in response to challenging words like that, a changed response is obviously called for!


And (ii) listening to last weeks MarathonTalk, where even when Martin and Tom read out some data from the recent London Marathon, they failed to then explain to their audience what this data actually means, and even worse, throughout the show, as they have pretty well done in all of their MarathonTalk shows, they continued to 'celebrate' the negative spilt, as if achieving a negative split is a sign of a good performance. Whereas the data from the recent London Marathon clearly demonstrates that achieving a negative split more than likely represents a sign of a poor performance!

Now don't get me wrong. I really enjoy MarathonTalk, and what Martin and Tom have created in terms of the positive, supportive running community is absolutely fantastic. However, as mentioned in a previous post, way back in December 2011 when I first raised this 'negative split fallacy' with Martin and Tom, pretty well everything else on MarathonTalk is 'spot on', and is really excellent advice. It therefore does seem so strange that this one aspect, the over celebration of the negative split, is so in contrast to all of their other excellent messages.

So yes, tonight,s post may go against some people’s long help beliefs, but the main aim of the post is to challenge people to re-consider their ideas. Have they perhaps got it wrong? Is the commonly accepted concept that a negative split illustrates a good performance, actually wrong? We have seen it recently where commonly accepted concepts have been wrong. Best illustrated with the fallacy of the previous marathon hydration strategy message of "drink as much as possible, before you get thirsty" which was accepted wisdom for over twenty five years!!!

So, Tom from MarathonTalk, I am directing this blog post specifically to you in response to the comment that you left on my blog back in December 2011, "My money's still on the even / negative split but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. My quote for the day... I'd rather know I was wrong than think I was right ;)"

Hopefully, the data from the recent London Marathon will “delight you” and prove that the even / negative split is wrong. That is my challenge tonight. I am hoping that this post will attract the attention of some new readers from the MarathonTalk community, so rather that asking new readers to my blog, to search around and read some of my previous posts, I am going to repeat myself a little, so apologies to those of you that have already read some of the following material.

My intention with this post was to first present the statistical data from the London Marathon, and discuss what this data actually means in terms of pacing strategy, and the possible application of using these findings to improve performance. I was then going to follow up with the scientific evidence to explain why the London Marathon data, that clearly illustrates that the negative split isn’t a sign of good performance, actually is the reality and not because over 95% of the entire marathon field ran poorly! However, as is typical with my UltraStu blog posts, simply presenting and explaining the statistics has taken longer than expected, and the post has already reached an ultra length. So unfortunately the scientific evidence to explain why, will have to wait until part two, which should be posted by the end of the week.

I will first start with the statistics mentioned on last weeks MarathonTalk. Tom reported that from the thirty four thousand MASSED START finishers there were a total of 5 even splits, and 1369 negative splits. This gives a negative split percentage of 4.0%. You will note that I have highlighted that this data is for the massed start, so does not include the elite field data. The reason that it is important to exclude the elite filed data from this analysis, is that what the elite runners do, often does not directly correspond to what non-elite runners do. This is obvious in terms of their minute mile rates and their finish times. But often what elite runners do in other aspects, example the quantity and intensity of training, the recovery resources available to them, and their pacing strategies, also differ significantly.

An argument often used, in fact pretty well the only argument I have ever come across, in justifying that the negative split is the strategy that runners should use, i.e. that the negative split indicates a good performance, is that most of the marathon world records have been achieved on a negative split. Therefore, people often then conclude that because of this world record aspect, there is in fact no argument; the negative split must be the best approach for ALL runners! I state No! Why people believe that ALL runners can achieve the same as the elite runners, I do not know. We wouldn't expect an 'average' runner to train 100 - 150 miles per week, we wouldn't expect the 'average' runner to run at sub 2hour 10 pace, so why people think that a negative split is achievable by an 'average' runner, I just don't understand! But 1369 runners at the 2013 London Marathon, did achieve this negative split. Surely then, these runners achieved the best performances, and those that positive split, i.e. slowed down during the second half of the race, didn't perform so well.

Before I move on to explain what did actually happen within the massed start field. I will briefly provide the statistics for the men's and women's elite race. As mentioned above though, what the elite do, may not correspond to what the non-elite runner should do, as there are so many other factors that influence the elite race, their elite performances.

The London Marathon women's elite race was won with a negative split of 3:23, running 68:26, for a finish time of 2:20:15. The second placed women, also achieved a negative split of 2:06, but all of the other 15 elite women finishers positive split the race, with the largest positive split of 13:17 by the current Olympic champion, although she did get knocked down by a wheelchair racer! None of the entire men's elite field achieved a negative split. The winner ran a positive split of 2:52, and the largest positive split was 5:31 (8th place) and the smallest positive split was 0:19 (9th place).

One of the reasons that I state that we should perhaps not put too much focus on what the elite do, when comparing to the 'average' runners, is in relation to the perception of what is a long way! Looking at world records, as often pointed out, a negative split is typical for running distances of 5,000 metres, 10,000 metres and the marathon. However, for distances further than the marathon, e.g. 100km and 24 hour races, even the best in the world will positive split. Although I would like to provide evidence for all of my comments I state tonight, searching the literature to link the evidence takes time, and I do want to get some sleep tonight! So if there are some statements that I make, which I haven't provided any evidence link, please highlight by leaving a comment, and I will find the link and post it at a later date.

So even elite runners positive split a 100km. Just some quick data to illustrate this is from the recent UK 100km Championships that took place in Perth. The graph below clearly illustrates that all runners positive split the race. This positive split is also seen in all World and European 100km races, however, I haven't got to hand the data to confirm this, but I will try to search it out for those that aren't convinced.

The other interesting aspect in relation to being able to run an even pace/negative split, is that most good quality club runners are able to achieve an even pace for a 10km race, but not for the marathon.. So whereas for the elite runner the ability to hold an even pace seems to not be possible at a distance somewhere between a marathon and 100km. For the club runner, this even pace ability appears to stop somewhere between 10km and the marathon. Why the difference?

Well, I don't want to go into the role of familiarity, the impact of expectations on race performance just yet, but it does appear that perhaps ones perception of 'what is a long way', or simply the distances one has physically trained, may have an influence on the distance of the race, where the even pace is unable to be maintained. Elite marathon runners will typically cover the marathon distance in training, and typically cover weekly mileages of 125 - 150+ miles. Club runners are less likely to do these distances in training. Therefore perhaps this lack of familiarity with the distance contributes to the difference between elite and club level runners. Whatever the cause of the difference, I won't speculate any further now. But with only 4% of London Marathon finishers achieving an even pace / negative split, one cannot argue against the fact that on the whole, non-elite runners are NOT capable of running even paced for 26 miles!

Following on from this extremely low percentage of runners achieving a negative split, I thought it would be useful to see if the percentage of runners achieving the negative split varied throughout the field. Logically, due to the fact that those that run a positive split, are those runners that slow down the most during the second half of the race, one would expect that further down the field, there is an increase in runners that positive split. One would also expect the size of the positive split would increase, further down the field. The graphs below display the number of runners in each 1000 batch of finishers that achieved a negative split. What is really interesting here is that there appears to be a clearly distinctive finishing time, at 4 hours, where something interesting is happening.

Although a line of best fit has been added to the data above, the line seems to reasonably follow the data points for finish times slower than 4 hours, but not at all for faster finishing times.

It therefore appears from the graph above that the number of runners per 1000 band of finishers, is not at all influenced by the finishing time, up to the four hour mark.  The highest percentage of negative split runners was in fact at 10.6%, at a mid finish time of 3hours 28 minutes.  With the fastest 1000 finishers only having 8.4% of negative split runners.

For a finishing time slower than four hours there does appear to be a relationship, with there being a smaller percentage of negative split runners, the slower, the further down the field.
So, what does the above data tell us. Firstly, the key message is that a very low number of runners achieve a negative split. It was reported at 4.0% overall on Marathon Talk, and the table below shows how this percentage varies throughout the field for each 1000 band of finishers, for the first 25,000 finishers, i.e. up to the five hour, two minute mark..

Now I wouldn't want to upset any runners reading this post, but achieving a four hour marathon time is often a huge goal for many marathon runners, as running a sub four hour time is possibly seen as a time that indicates that one is a 'good' marathon runner. Yes, simply finishing a marathon is quite an achievement, but to finish in a time less than four hours requires substantially more preparation. Therefore the fact that there appears to be no relationship between finishing time and the percentage of runners achieving a negative split , up to a four hour finish time, warrants further attention.

To those that belief that running a negative split illustrates a good performance, perhaps they would expect there to be more negative split runners further up the field. And for me, who believes the contrary, i.e. for non-elite runners, achieving a negative split is actually a sign of a poor performance, as the negative split has only been achieved by the runner running so slowly during the first half of the race, that their overall time is slower than what they could have achieved. So surely one would expect more negative splits, the slower the finish time. But the data up to four hours, i.e. for 'good' marathon runners, the first 11,000 finishers, neither of these trends are shown. There is neither of these relationships!

I then had to really think, why there is a a lack of a relationship, either way? Why no clear relationship to indicate that a negative split is a good performance or a poor performance? In terms of my belief, surely those that run a negative split, have only achieved this because they have run the first half of the race so slowly, so the data should illustrate this. I then realised why no relationships are apparent within the data. Yes, those that negative split may have performed poorly, but they just simply move lower down the finishing place list. Throughout the field people will finish with a certain time due to many factors, so there is a massive spread of finish times. Within this spread of finish times, some runners will perform well in relation to their fitness, ability, belief, whatever else, and hence move further up the field, finish faster. Whereas some runners will perform poorly, i.e. finish slower. But the good or poor performances will not stand out within the results, they simply move upwards or downwards amongst the finish results. Hence it is not possible to observe any relationship between negative/positive splitting and finish time.

I then decided to look at the 'very good' runners within the field. Now looking at the first 500 finishers, so the top 1.5% of the field. The two graphs below display this data, first comparing positive split ranking,( i.e. those runners that slow down the most in the second half of the race, having a positive split rank of one), with finishing place. Then comparing the amount of time slowed down, i.e. the size of the positive split time, with the finishing time. Again, both ways of analysing the data failed to illustrate a relationship of any strength.

One interesting aspect did 'jump out at me' though.  That being, just how few negative splits there were in the very fastest of the runners.  The graph directly above doesn't show many dots to the left of the vertical, which are near the horizontal axis, i.e. with the quickest times.  So again back to the database, and this time looking at to see where abouts did the 84 negative split runners within the first 1000 finishers place.  So I split the first 1000 finishers into place bands of 100 runners, and 200 runners.  The data is in the table below.

Now the data in the table directly above now tells the true story! As mentioned above, those runners that achieve a good performance, i.e. those that run quicker than what their 'ability' or 'fitness', or 'talent', or 'whatever' suggests they should achieve, simply move up into the higher placing band, and are therefore 'lost' within the data. Similarly those runners that run slower than what their form suggests, simply move down into a lower placing band, and again it is not possible to identify these poor performances. However, if you move to the very top placing band, because all of the poor performers who should have finished within the top band move down to the second band, and all of the good performers move up into the top band from the second band, the top band therefore represents the qualities of the good performers, and doesn't include the qualities of any poor performers, as they have moved down to the lower band. (There is no higher band from which poor performers will move down from.) Once we move down below the top band, then one would expect that the number of negative split runners within each band would again be similar, i.e. no relationship between the number of negative split runners and finish time/place.

So if we have the place bands set at 100 places, within the top band, i.e. that band that truly represents the characteristics of a good performance, i.e. running quicker than what would be expected, then we clearly see that the negative split runner does represent a poor performance, as there is only ONE negative split runner within the top 100 place band. This has occurred, as those runners that have run a negative split, have moved out of this top band, down to the next band, as expected when achieving a poor performance. There is no longer the standard 8.4% of runners (the average for the first 100 finishers) being a negative split runner within the top band, It has dropped to only ONE percent! Hopefully, the above two paragraphs make sense. It is quite a hard concept to explain, but hopefully it is semi clear.

Having now identified that running a negative split is an indication of a poor performance, is it possible to identify how much slower have these negative split runners ran, by starting out too slowly? Asking the following question may help. How much slower does the negative split runner have to run their first half of the race in order to achieve a negative split. This answer can possibly be answered by looking at runners of similar finishing times, in this instance, for runners at the very top end of the field. How much of a positive split time, do these good performing runners on average slow down during the second half. This average positive split slow down time, would then be a close approximation of how much slower the negative split runners must have ran their first half in order to achieve an even/negative split. The average positive split time for the first 100 positive split finishes is 3 minutes 46 seconds. And for the first 916 positive split runners within the first 1000 finishes, they slowed down on average 4 minutes and 57 seconds, which for their average half marathon time of 1:21:12, corresponds to a slowing down of 6.1% of the half marathon time.

This percentage represents the average slowing down of the best performing 2.9% of the field. It is an average, some slowed down more, some slowed down less. Actually to get the true slowdown average of the best 1000 runners in the massed start field, one should also include the influence of the 84 negative split runners that sped up. Their average negative split was 1 minute 23 seconds, which in relation to their average half marathon time of 1:25:17, results in an average speed up of 1.6%. So overall the average slowdown for the first 1000 finishers is 4 minutes and 26 seconds, which in relation to the average half marathon time of 1:21:33, corresponds to a percentage slowdown of 5.4%.

This percentage slowdown value is actually quite an interesting figure. However, I mentioned above that perhaps the amount of positive split may vary across the field, hence why one should look at the value of slowdown of runners in a similar finish time to oneself. The fact that the percentage slowdown is only 5.1% for the first 100 finishers, in comparison to 5.4% being the average for the first 1000 finishers suggests that perhaps not only the actual amount of slowdown time will vary through the field, but there may also be some variation in the percentage slowdown throughout the field.

I therefore split the first 11000 finishers, those that finished under 4 hours, into bands of 1000 runners, which equated to typically a finish time band of around five minutes, except towards the top end of the field. To account for the wider finish time band near the front, I split the first 1000 place band into 0 – 100, 101 – 500, and 501 – 1000 place bands. This analysis produced some interesting results, which are displayed in the following table.

 

As indicated within the table above, it does appear that only at the very top end of the field is the percentage slowdown affected by finishing time. For runners finishing in a time between 3:17 and 4:00, the percentage slow down appears pretty consistent, and averages 9.9%. At the very top of the field whether finishing in the top 100, or between 101 – 500 there is a slow down percentage of 5.1%. This percentage slowdown therefore appears to represent the very least amount of time that the very best runners, i.e. the top 1.5% of the field., will slow down during the second half of the race. For finishing times, between 2:49 and 3:17 the slowdown percentage progressing rises up from 5.1% to 9.9%. I have identified three intermediate bands within the table. I guess with further analysis more bands could be added, but I will leave it at three bands, which therefore results in a total of five slowdown percentage bands. I haven’t carried out the analysis for finish times greater than 4 hours. However, I think the best proposal is that runners who plan to finish in a time slower that 4 hours should aim to maintain a slowdown percentage of 9.9%, i.e. the same percentage as for those runners between 3:17 and 4:00. With a slower planned finishing time even with the runner aiming for the same slowdown percentage, it would actually result in an increased slowdown amount of time, as their half marathon split time will be longer.

These average slowdown percentages are therefore very useful. In the future, hopefully now realising that trying to run an even pace for the entire 26 miles is not the strategy to use, resulting in a slower performance than one is capable of, it is quite easy to calculate what runner's half marathon split time should be in order to achieve a certain finishing time.

For example if a runner wants to run a 2:36 marathon time, they would simply divide this time (156 minutes) by 2.051. This represents a slow down of 5.1% on their half marathon time. So to obtain a 2:36 marathon finish time, with the average percentage slowdown, the half marathon split would be 76:04 (76.06 minutes), and then running the second half in a time of 79:56, results in the time of 2:36:00. So running a positive split of 3:52.

Interestingly, last month I was giving some pacing strategy advice to a friend that was wanting to achieve a PB at the London Marathon. His current PB was 2:38, but I felt that he could achieve a time of 2:36 if he adopted a positive split strategy. This predicted possible time was based on his recent half marathon race time, and also him getting wiser, gaining more experience as a runner over the last year. However, I hadn't carried out the detailed analysis of previous London Marathon data like I have recently carried out and illustrated above. I therefore went with my 'gut feeling', in terms of what positive split he should try to achieve, based on my 35 years of endurance running. I proposed to him that he should aim to go through half way in a time of 76:30 and then positive split by 3 minutes, i.e. 79:30 for the second half, resulting in a finish time of 2:36:00. Knowing what I know now, I would have realised that only positive splitting by three minutes (3.9%), compared to the average positive split of 5.1%, for that region of the field, is a bit ambitious. Based on his recent half marathon performances, running a time of half marathon split of 76:04 would have been most likely a wee bit beyond him. So in reality a finish time of 2:36:00 was really a wee bit beyond him. Applying a 5.1% slowdown to a 76:30 half marathon split results in an 80:24 second half time, so a total finish time of 2:36:54 was more likely for a 76:30 half marathon split that was decided upon.

What did he run? He went through half way in a time of 76:47 (76.78 minutes), a little slower (17 secs) than planned. With an average slowdown percentage of 5.1%, he should, following the 76:47 split time, therefore run the second half in a time of 80:42 (80.70 minutes), so a predicted slowing of 3 mins 55 secs, resulting in an overall predicted finish time of 2:37:29. What time did he run? He ran the second half in a time of 80:20, and finished in 2:37:07, so 22 seconds quicker than the average slowdown prediction. But still 13 seconds slower than the predicted finish time of 2:36:54, if he had ran 76:30 for the first half. Whereas in the past he would have considered running a positive split of 3:33 as a poor performance, having been 'brainwashed' with the myth that an even split is what one should achieve. He was therefore able to truly celebrate his good performance, as in the second half of the race he run 22 seconds quicker than expected.

Looking at the above one can quite clearly see the potential of this analysis. Runners can now calculate what pace they should go out at, i.e. what time they should pass halfway in, based on what finish time they are planning, specifically up to the four hour finish time. Please note that for runners that finish slower than four hours, I haven’t extended the above analysis as I feel that basing what one should aim to achieve on what the average of these 4 hours plus runners achieve, i.e. on the average slowdown of these runners, probably isn't ideal. As for these runners, their more substantial slowing down is likely to be a result of less than ideal preparation, and therefore capable of changing if the preparation had been better. This level of slowdown is therefore not as a consequence of the actual reality that for a non-elite runner, one MUST slow down. As mentioned above, I think that for runners planning to finish in more that four hours, they should plan for a slowdown percentage of 9.9%, which is quite different to the typically message given out, especially by MarathonTalk, in that one should aim for an even paced marathon, so a slowdown percentage of 0.0%!

As the statistics have clearly shown above, slowing down during the second half of the marathon is a reality. It is NOT an indication of a poor performance. Yes, if a runner slowed down by a percentage substantially more than the average slowdown percentage, for their finishing time, then this would be a poor performance. If a runner was hoping to finish in a time of 4 hours, applying the MarathonTalk strategy of running an even pace, they would then plan to go through halfway in 2 hours. With a 9.9% slowdown percentage, they would typically slowdown 11 minutes 53 seconds, so typically not achieving what they felt they were capable of. Not because they ran poorly. No, because they were given the wrong advice, and started out far too slow!
In order to achieve a 4 hour finishing time, the runner needs to divide 4 hours by 2.099, NOT by 2.000 as suggested by Marathon Talk. Dividing 4 hours by 2.099 generates the half marathon split time of 1:54:20. Slowing down during the second half by 9.9% (on 114.34 minutes) results in the second half marathon being run in a time of 2:05:40, so a positive split, i.e. slowing down of 11 minutes and 20 secs. Producing a finish marathon time of 4:00:00. Achieving what the runner set out to achieve.

As you can see, taking on board the data from the thousands of runners that successfully completed the 2013 London Marathon, and not implying that a massive 96% of them have performed poorly because that didn't run an even paced race, one is able to provide a realistic pacing strategy, which doesn't actually vary that much from the even split pacing strategy. But the difference is sufficient enough for many many runners to not achieve their goal, simply as a consequence of listening to poor pacing strategy advice. In the 4 hour marathon example above, if the runner simply went out at a half marathon pace of only 5 minutes 40 seconds quicker, based on the data from thousands of runners, the likelihood of achieving their goal is massively enhanced. Running the first half marathon split 5 minutes 40 seconds quicker, means running the first 13 miles at 8:43 second minute mile pace and then slowing for the second half of the race to an average minute mile pace of 9:35. This pacing strategy which takes into account the typical slowing down percentage of 9.9% , which is in contrast to maintaining a 9:09 minute mile pace for the entire 26 miles!

Remember this slowing down is a reality, which I will hopefully be able to show why it happens with some scientific evidence within my next blog post.

As illustrated with two examples above, the application of this slowdown percentage is really exciting. The potential benefits of this percentage slowdown is huge! Marathon runners by applying the percentage relevant for their finishing position within the field, will then know how much time they should expect to slow down, rather than trying to achieve an even pace or even worse, a negative split result!

Just one last useful bit of information before finally finishing part one of this negative split myth post. With regards to the pacing strategy, the intention is that runners should be able to run at a pretty consistent even pace for the first 13 miles. However, for the 14th mile, they shouldn't instantly slow their pace to the average minute mile pace they are scheduled to run for the last 13 miles. What tends to happen is that the slowing down begins to start not too far after half way. One could calculate an accelerated rate of slowing down, where the slowdown starts of slowly for the first few miles after 13 miles, and then the slow increase accelerates, however, for ease of application, and which probably isn't too far of what happens, one should apply a linear increase in the slowing sown for the second half of the race. The best way to illustrate this linear increase in slowing down is for the 4 hour marathon example above.

The first half is run in 1:54:20 which is 8:43 minute mile pace. The second half marathon is planned to be run at an average of 9:35 minute mile pace, so an average slow down of 52 seconds per mile. This minute mile pace should then be divided by 6.5. This value, in this example 8 secs, is then the amount the running pace slows per minute mile, every mile.

The split times for mile 14 would then be 8:51, mile 15 = 8:59, mile16=9:07, mile17=9:15, mile18=9:23, mile19=9:31, mile20=9:39, mile21=9:47, mile22=9:55, mile23=10:03, mile24=10:11, mile25=10:19, mile26=10:27. Running each mile 8 seconds slower from half way will result in running the second half at an average minute mile pace 52 seconds slower. So just with this 4 hour marathon finishing time example, where the average percentage slowdown of 9.9% has been applied, hopefully it is easy to see the benefits. When one gets absolutely shattered during the last few miles, instead on having to maintain the same pace, that was achieved during the first few miles when the runner was totally fresh. Remember this is what is proposed with the even pace strategy! (Whoever thought that this is a good approach to take, really needs to reconsider!) With an application of the 9.9% average slowdown percentage, for the last mile one is able to slow down to a 10:27 minute mile, and still achieve the 4 hour marathon goal, simply by running just that little bit faster over the first half marathon, when feeling fresh and easy. Why not run that 26 seconds per mile faster during the first half when feeling great!

Finally lets apply the same formulae to our 2:36:54 marathon example runner from above. Going through the half marathon split in a time of 76:30 is a minute mile pace of 5:50. The slowing for the second half split time of 80:24, this being the 5.1% slowdown percentage, is a minute mile pace of 6:08. The minute mile pace therefore slows by 18 seconds per mile. Divide this 18seconds by 6.5 gives a minute mile pace slowing adjustment of 2.75 seconds. The easiest approach in this situation is to round the the mile splits up or down, so rather than the following mile pace for each mile from mile 14miles=5:52.75, 5:55.50, 5:58.25, 6:01.00, 6:03.75, 6:06.50, 6:09.25, 6:12.00, 6:14.75, 6:17.50, 6:20.25, 6:23.00, 6:25.75, simply round up or down so you would then get the following mile splits from mile 14=5:53, 5:55, 5:58, 6:01, 6:04, 6:07, 6:09, 6:12, 6:15, 6:17, 6:20, 6:23, 6:26 Resulting in the required average minute mile pace of 6:08 for the second half. I guess a little bit ‘fiddly’, but I would suggest worth the effort, as at least the runner would then have realistic mile splits to aim for, rather than trying to achieve the constant running pace approach which is 96% guaranteed to fail!

I will sign off tonight with two quotes. Firstly a repeat of the quote from Tom from Marathon Talk:

“My money's still on the even / negative split but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. My quote for the day... I'd rather know I was wrong than think I was right ;)" Tom Williams, 2011.

And the second quote from the example 2:36:54 marathon runner, who listened to the wisdom of a positive split pacing strategy, and had the humility to accept that in the past his views on the even paced strategy may perhaps have been wrong, so he took a gamble and changed his pacing strategy.

“I was delighted when I came round on to the Mall and saw the time (a PB). I think that undoubtedly your (positive split) strategy paid off and thank you so much for taking the time to advise me. It is a challenge to go in to a race with a mindset that assumes slowing down, which seems on the face of it to be a negative thing. But in reality I think that acknowledging the slow down and embracing the fact that it will require extra effort to minimise the decrease in pace is actually very positive.” Simon, 2013

Keep an eye out for part two, where the science behind why slowing down in a marathon is a reality will be explained.

All the best with your next marathon,

Stuart

Endurancelife Dorset Coastal Trail Marathon - Race Report - Self Expectations Influence Performance

Hi,

If you have come to my blog for the first time to read my Endurancelife Dorset Coastal Trail Marathon race report, welcome, I hope you find your visit to my blog worthwhile. You will see from the length of my posts that they reflect the running that I do, i.e. marathon and ultra distance durations. So you will require reasonably high levels of endurance to manage to reach the end of each and every post!

One of the key benefits I get from writing my blog posts is that it provides quality time to reflect on my training and racing, in order to improve in subsequent races. I feel my performance in last weekend’s Dorset trail marathon, which I was pretty pleased with, was largely a consequence of the time I spent reflecting on my performance in my last race, the Beachy Head Marathon. It was in the process of analysing my performance in the Beachy Head Marathon, where I finished in 2nd place, but in a time 30 seconds slower than the year before, combined with the development of my Race Focus Energy Fatigue Model, where I identified what was required in order to produce a successful performance down in Dorset. With success being defined as a performance I am happy with, i.e. where I feel as if I have run as well as I can (yes, a rather vague criteria, which I will hopefully expand upon).

So as I prepared for the race, the key aim was to run hard and focused for the entire 26.6 miles (the distance advertised on the Endurancelife website and what my Garmin 305 watch indicated on the day). This desire to remain focused the entire way was in direct response to how I raced at the Beachy Head marathon, where I eased of the pace in order to unsuccessfully prepare for a tactical battle with the eventual winner. On reflection, easing off the pace between miles 19 – 23 resulted in me not able to feel totally satisfied with my performance. I guess if I had won the race I would have traded the easing off the pace, with the satisfaction of winning. Well that was the rationale I accepted, as I ‘gave in’ to the messages ‘bombarding’ me to slow down during the race.

Leading up to the Dorset race extensive time was spent firstly clearly establishing answers to the initial three questions one has to answer when preparing for a race; What do I want? Why do I want it? How much do I want it? In order to answer these questions I had to be totally aware of what the race would entail, so then I would be able to determine / visualise how I would respond to the demands of the race. I therefore purchased an Ordinance Survey map, and transferred the course from the map downloaded from the website, onto the larger scaled map. The time spent doing this is a critical component of my preparation. It allows me to get ingrained into my subconscious the overall plan of the course, as if looking from above. I am therefore aware in what direction I should be heading, whether there are any 90degree turns, any out and backs, parts where we retrace the same path, etc. It basically gives me an overall feel of the route, at a deep level. During the race, just having this plan view of the course firmly ingrained, totally eliminated any doubt there could have been, just after the turnaround point where there was some confusion over which way to go. I simply referred to the visual image I had of the route map within my head, and was able to progress along the correct route, without there being any doubt at all, so thereby avoiding any upward swing of the RPE – RFE arrow (see previous Race Focus Energy posts).

In addition to marking the route on the map, I also carefully observe the number of contour lines I cross and the closeness of the lines, hence the steepness of the climbs. I also note the height at the peak of the climbs, so therefore get a feel for the elevation demands of the course. Further time is also spent trying to find photos of the area, which is combined with viewing the map, and a fly over the course on Google Earth, using the GPS file provided by the Endurancelife organisers on the website. The hours I spend doing this research / preparation, I consider are as beneficial, if not more beneficial to my performance than spending the same time running.  The graph below clearly shows the rather demanding elevation profile!

Based on all of the above research, I was then able to have a rough prediction that I would be running for around 3 hours 40 minutes. Having a reasonable calculated idea of the time duration of the race is important, as the time duration expectation controls the pace you are able to run at. If there is doubt over the expected race duration, then this uncertainty increases the level of the reserve portion of the RFE tank, as well as swinging the RPE – RFE arrow upwards. Both of these aspects reduce your performance.

Race day arrived and I felt confident that my preparation had gone well, so I was therefore expecting a strong performance. In terms of my physical training, well I hadn’t actually done that much since UTMB way back in August - checking the training diary, only 453 miles at an average of 32.4 miles per week. However, having close to 40,000 miles of running within my legs, I knew my recent physical training wasn’t really going to limit my performance, and with this belief, my confidence and race expectations were high come race day. One of the key messages I try to get across within my talks is that one of the main purposes of physical training is simply to create confidence that one’s preparation has gone well, the physiological benefits of additional/high levels of physical training are probably secondary in comparison to the confidence benefits.

Over the last year I have been listening to the MarathonTalk Podcasts http://www.marathontalk.com/ If you haven’t come across MarathonTalk, then you really should give their website a visit. The podcasts consist of two guys, Martin Yelling and Tom Williams chatting about running, combined with a great interview each week. This week was the 100th edition, so there is loads of really excellent material within the podcasts. Well anyway, over the last few weeks there had been a bit of talk about Martin Yelling racing the Endurancelife Dorset Coastal Trail Marathon. Now Martin is an elite athlete, I think a sub 30 minute 10km runner, as well as I think a double National Duathlon Champion. However, listening to him and Tom chat, it appears that they place far too much emphasis on one’s recent levels of physical training. Therefore leading up to the race, one could sense that Martin no longer considered himself as an elite athlete, even though he had just completed a 5km Park Run in close to 16 minutes, whereas I would be struggling to get close to 17 minutes based on my current physical preparation! So as the race got closer my village training partner Kev, who got me into listening to MarathonTalk , every Saturday morning would ask me “Are you going to take down Martin Yelling?” In most instances when people ask me am I going to win a race, I always reply that I cannot control how other runners perform, so unable to answer. But to Kev’s question, I was able to answer, yes, no problem, should do. This response was nothing to do with Martin’s physical capabilities, which on paper were superior than mine, but by listening to his self expectations. It appeared that he no longer considered himself as an elite athlete, he felt that he had under prepared, and therefore as one performs to their expectations, there was no way he was going to beat me, as his belief in his under preparations would most likely result in him under performing! I had felt my preparation had gone well, my confidence was high, and knowing that race performance in trail marathons and ultras is determined by more than the physical, I had a strong feeling that it wasn’t going to be a close contest!

Well, I did warn you at the start of this post that you would need marathon endurance to get through my blog posts! One reason my posts are so long is that I log all the time I spend typing up the posts as training. So the more I type, the more training I have completed, so therefore increased confidence leading into a race, due to extensive time conducting TOTAL preparation!

There are around 150 starters gathered at the start line near Osmington, not far from Weymouth. The course heads east, along the coast, with a strong tailwind for around 14 miles, before coming back on a less undulating route, slightly in from the coast. As the course within 100 metres from the start crosses a style and then shortly after goes onto single track, Endurancelife opt for a dibber start, where as you cross the start line you have to dib your dibber. This prevents the frustration of getting stuck in a ‘traffic jam’ as it takes around two minutes for all runners to start, thereby spacing the runners out. At the front of the field it makes the start of the race have a different feel, as immediately the lead bunch is down to less than ten runners. I cross the first stile after 100 metres of uphill leading the small bunch, and then decide to stretch the legs out a bit.

If you have looked at my two previous posts http://ultrastu.blogspot.com/2011/10/beachy-head-marathon-illustration-of.htmland http://ultrastu.blogspot.com/2011/11/delamere-spartans-weekend-bit-more-on.html on my Race Focus Energy (RFE) Fatigue Model then hopefully you have an understanding that I believe that performance in trail marathons and ultra trail races is determined by the rate of usage of RFE during the race, in relation to the size of the RFE tank. There are different strategies runners adopt when running marathons, and most of them are based on the outdated model of fatigue in endurance events, i.e. fatigue is due to depletion of carbohydrate/glycogen, or due to lactic acid! The latest research has clearly shown that this concept in most cases is incorrect (unless you don’t take on carbohydrate during racing). It is now widely accepted (initially proposed by Professor Tim Noakes) that fatigue in endurance events is a consequence of a decrease in muscle activation, controlled by the brain, which is strongly influenced by one’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE). My RFE model has this latest research, i.e. RPE, at its core, however, it also takes into account all of the other factors that influence performance such as confidence, self belief, positivity, negativity, excitement, enjoyment, encouragement etc.

I therefore run hard right from the very start of the race, working at a high level, not directly monitoring my physical intensity (RPE), but monitoring the current usage of RFE. The two are related, but it is the RFE that is most important. My aim is to try to maintain a constant level of RFE usage throughout the race, so this means that my mental effort/focus is identical in the first mile to what it is during the last mile. This is a totally different concept to the typical advice one reads within running magazines, and even the advice that Martin and Tom give out on Marathon Talk, i.e. to run at an easy pace to half way, so at half way you feel comfortable so able to ‘handle’ the second half of the race when things get ‘tough’. It is interesting, that in all of the MarathonTalk podcasts I have listened to, which are quite a few now, this one concept on marathon pacing, is pretty well the only bit of advice Martin and Tom have given that I don’t agree with. I just can’t understand how they can have such good ideas on all other aspects of running, training, nutrition, preparation etc. but yet get this concept, in my opinion, so, so wrong! The idea of a negative split that they frequently highlight and encourage, appears to me to be unattainable if running to your true capabilities by runners apart from the very, very elite. Yes, there are ‘middle of the pack’ runners that achieve a negative split in a marathon, but rather than celebrating this, I think one should question how have they achieved it. Most likely due to running so slowly in the first half of the race, resulting in their overall time being significantly slower than it would have been if they had attempted to focus for the entire duration of the race. In essence, I see the negative split argument, i.e. take it easy to halfway, As an acknowledging that one’s preparation has not been adequate, in that one doesn’t have the confidence to focus for the whole race, so they are turning the marathon into a half marathon. The unconfident runner runs at training pace for the first half, and then starts to race, starts to focus after half way, due to only having the confidence that one is able to race/focus for half the distance!

Sorry about the previous paragraph. I just had to get that ‘off my chest’, as it really bugs me that so many runners believe the equal running pace concept for marathon running, and therefore I feel perform at a level so much lower than what they could be capable of, if they had used a different pacing strategy! Anyway back to last weekend’s race. So I leave the stile running on my own. Whilst racing I have now mastered the need to look behind to see how close the following runners are. I simply now focus on what I am doing, not on what others are doing. Remember you can’t control what they do! I am running on my own, monitoring the level of race focus energy (mental effort) I am using, checking that I am not using it up too quickly for a 3 hour 40 minute duration race. I guess after around 10 minutes of running I am rapidly joined by another runner. I couldn’t feel that there was anyone close behind, so it was a bit of shock when he seemed to rapidly join me. We run along with him directly behind me for a few minutes, and then he starts chatting. Now, there are times when to chat, and times when not to chat. Typically one chats in a race, when the intensity is down a bit, so therefore race focus energy isn’t in high demand to maintain the solid running pace. We were moving along at quite a rapid pace for a start of a marathon, especially when most people like to run conservatively at the start. So this wasn’t really the chatting time. So I reply with one word answers. The following runner continues to chat as I slightly up the intensity. I weigh up the options.  Is he finding the pace really easy, or hopefully more likely, it is that he is adopting the strategy that I sometimes use in a race when I sense that the other runner is possibly stronger than me. This strategy involves trying to create the illusion that I am finding the pace really easy, like a training pace, no focus needed, hence able to chat away freely. I decide on the latter and experience an immediate swing down of the RPE – RFE arrow as my confidence grows as I conclude that he is concerned about my capabilities and he likely perceives himself as the weaker of the two of us. He asks where I am from, I reply from Brighton, which he comments “Your accent doesn’t sound like it’s from Brighton”. I decide that here is the golden opportunity to ‘throw a killer punch’! I therefore respond with a comment like “I can’t call myself a Kiwi anymore now that I race for the Great Britain elite trail running team!” He asks for further explanation, so I eagerly tell him about my racing at the World Champs earlier in the year in Connemara, Ireland. I then ask for his credentials. His name is Vince Kamp and his reply is that he is just getting into trail marathon running, although successfully winning the previous months Endurancelife Coastal Trail Marathon in Gower. He then concludes that he is a novice, and even comments out loud “Maybe I am going a bit too hard. I shouldn’t be running up here at the front with you, a GB International runner”. And at that instant, even with more than 24 miles of running to go, the winner of the race was pretty well determined, barring injury/cramp, or getting lost.

We run together for I guess another 15 – 20 minutes. I test him out on a few occasions by slowly/subtly increasing the intensity for a minute or two, just to try to get him to reconfirm his belief that I am much stronger that him. We then have a long descent where for the first time he runs to the front. Shortly after this descent we start climbing a steepish hill. To my surprise, he starts walking, even though the hill wasn’t a ‘walking’ hill, well not at this early stage of the marathon. I continue to run, and slowly overtake him. As I hadn’t put in an attack to drop Vince, I decide to simply keep the intensity constant, rather than up it. The last thing you want to do is to give the other runner a confidence boost by them seeing you significantly increase the pace to attempt to drop them, and for them to counter this attack and to reattach to you. So I am waiting for him to rejoin me, he doesn’t, so after a few minutes more of ‘waiting’, I then decide that now is the appropriate time to significantly increase the intensity for the next 10 – 15 minutes or so, in order to establish a larger gap.

At around the nine mile mark - A bit close to the cliff edge!

An illustration of Race Focus

As I don’t look behind while racing, there are only brief instances, as the course sharply turns, when I actually get an approximation on just how far behind he is. It isn’t until shortly after the turnaround point when we cross paths that the size of the gap is more accurately confirmed. I usually note the exact time it takes me to meet the following runner when on an out and back section of the course. On this occasion, probably as a result of the conversation we had had earlier, I didn’t feel the need to check the time gap. However, I did make sure that as we got close to each other and passed each other, I made sure that I looked as if I was just out for a cruisey Sunday training run. Chatting to Vince after the race, this was one thing he highlighted. Upon seeing me cruise past just after the turnaround point, he comments that it simply confirmed that I was in a “different league” to him. Remember the latest research on endurance fatigue mentioned in previous blog posts, based on muscle activation from the brain. Well self expectations play a large role in determining the amount of motor output/muscle activation. His self expectations therefore allowed him to accept me running away from him, and for his running pace to decrease. When I further questioned Vince about why he thought I was clearly going to beat him. It appeared that his reasoning was based on his assessment of his physical preparation. He hadn’t been doing as many miles training as he would want to, being significantly less than the mileage that he used to do in the past, and with him not realising that probably the most important benefit from physical training is actually the confidence it develops, it appears that he allowed this decrease in his physical training to lower his confidence levels.

The remaining 12 miles are back into a head wind. With around 7 miles to go I join into the half marathon field. The last time I experienced this was back in March in the Endurancelife Sussex Coastal Trail marathon. I recall during that race, that joining the half-marathon field really interrupted my race focus, and I significantly slowed. Having reflected on how I ran back in March, I had extensively prepared for this moment within my visualisations. I therefore managed to maintain a good pace last weekend, and slowly worked my way through the half marathon field. On this occasion I therefore used the half marathon runners as a positive, to swing the RPE - RFE arrow downwards as I passed each additional runner. Take a look at my Sussex marathon race report back in March, where on that occasion, joining the half marathon race caused an upward swing of the RPE - RFE arrow. Yes the importance of race reflection. The benefits of writing this blog!

Before I know it I am making my way up the last tough muddy climb with less than a mile to go, and shortly afterwards dib my dibber at the finish line in a time of 3 hours 47 minutes and 54 seconds. I am rather pleased with my performance, in terms of maintaining a pretty constant level of RFE usage throughout the entire duration of the race. The following link shows the data on the GarminConnect website: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/132621869, The graph below illustrates only a slight dropping of my heart rate. Even though, one would expect an increase in heart rate during an endurance event as a result of cardiac drift, (a rise in heart rate occurs when maintaining a constant running pace). During an endurance event, the amount of race focus energy required to maintain the same running pace increases as the race progresses. Therefore in order to maintain constant RFE usage, one’s running pace has to decline, and hence the slight decline in heart rate as the drop in running pace is more than the rise in heart rate due to cardiac drift.

Just a slight detour back to my negative split pacing strategy ‘rant’ earlier. In order to achieve a negative time split, actually requires quite a massive disproportional balance in terms of race focus, i.e. mental effort. To run at a constant running pace throughout a marathon actually means at the start, and for the early few miles the pace just typically feels so easy. However, to maintain that same pace near the end of the race requires massively higher levels of RFE, mental effort whatever you want to call it. This uneven distribution of RFE is in my view a totally flawed concept! It is RFE that needs to be constant during a marathon, not running minute mile pace, or even heart rate! The only exception is if you are one of the best of the elite. Remember though they the very top elite are a totally different ‘breed’ of runner. It seems strange that in terms of what elite runners are able to achieve, in no other way do ‘middle of the pack’ runners try to replicate what they do. They don’t try to run at 4:45 minute mile pace. They don’t try to train 150 - 200 miles per week. They don’t try to do 20 mile tempo runs. They don’t live and train at altitude. So why is it that many people have the idea that a middle of the pack runner can run at a constant pace throughout a marathon, or even produce a negative split, just because the best elite runners can achieve it!

Vince Kamp finishes in second place twelve minutes behind me, and wins the ‘smack down’ (MarathonTalk terminology) with Martin Yelling, as Martin finishes in a time of 4 hours 27 minutes. Click this link to listen to a three minute snippet from this week’s MarathonTalk podcast where Martin retells his experiences at the Endurancelife Dorset Coastal Trail Marathon. or click here to listen to the entire podcast. Third finisher in the marathon was Nick Wright in 4 hours 15 minutes.  The first three women marathon finishers were really close: Jay Hairsine 5:04, Candice Mcdonald 5:05 and Alice Constance 5:06.  For the remainder of the afternoon, around 800 runners in total cross the finish line, at the end of either; a 10km, half marathon, marathon or 34 mile ultra trail race. All finishers appear to be on a real ‘high’ experiencing a huge sense of achievement, having completed such a demanding but extremely scenic course. Take a look at a short video of the race to get a feel of the day on the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-UOP1zJDs4&list=UUqUCO1VyUz2wgNpHTZH0AmA&feature=plcp
There is a great atmosphere within the large hall at the finish line, as I start my second marathon effort of the day, i.e. non-stop talking for a few hours. Late in the afternoon I take a short break, and then at around 6:30pm, I kick off the first of the Live More Lecture Series for the season with a 40 minute talk titled “The Ultra Trail Mont Blanc: A Tale of Two Races – Preparation, Positivity, Performance”. The 40 minutes absolutely ‘flies by’ and I manage to get through most of my planned material, although unfortunately wasn’t able to fully explain my RFE Fatigue Model, which I introduce to the audience of around 70 runners during the 15 minutes of questions. The audience seem to take on board my ‘out of the box’ ideas, with the only heckling I receive being from my two sons, who were quite amazed that there were so many runners who actually paid money to hear me talk! There are then two really interesting talk by Tobias Mews and Phil Davis on The Marathon Des Sables, and by Andrew Barker, from Endurancelife, on the Norseman Xtreme Triathlon in Norway

So to summarise it was a really enjoyable day. From running strong during the marathon, to meeting loads of other runners, then to cap it off, for my presentation to be so well received. Thanks to Endurancelife for all their efforts in putting on such a great event. Thanks to all of the other runners for sharing such a challenging and enjoyable race.

To finish off this post, two signing off quotes which add a little bit more to some of the concepts I have raised above:

“The medals do not necessarily go to the fastest, strongest and fittest, but to the one with not only high emotional-mental intensity, but also the ability to focus it into performance.”

“The lead pack dwindled and swelled and dwindled again, as runners wrestled with their limitations and sorted themselves into the positions befitting of their mindsets.”

Lorraine Moller, New Zealand Marathon Runner, Bronze Medallist 1992 Barcelona Olympic Marathon, from her autobiography “On the Wings of Mercury – The Lorraine Moller Story”, Longacre Press, 2007.

Lorraine Moller’s book is probably the best running book I have read, even better than Ryan Hall’s “Running with Joy”, Harvest House Publishers, 2011, and Charlie Spedding’s “From Last to First”, CS Books, 2009. Both Ryan’s and Charlie’s books are excellent, so probably a good time to mention/hint to your partner/family when they are searching for ideas for Christmas presents. (I doubt you will find Lorraine Moller’s book available in the UK, but could be available to order on the web somewhere!)

Well if you managed to get to the finish line of this blog post then you truly do have endurance abilities. So you just need to work on that self-belief! All the best with your TOTAL preparations.

Stuart

PS Don’t forget to check out MarathonTalk. Both Ryan Hall and Charlie Spedding have been interviewed by Martin and Tom, and both are excellent interviews.