Beginners and Beyond

123

Genuine question about "banking time" vs "blew up time".....it is okay to throw stuff at me! (Read 440 times)

Nakedbabytoes


levitation specialist

    Over the last year, I have read a ton of RRs. Both on forums and in magazines or on blogs.

    One thing always strikes me as an odd conundrum and it seems to matter how people choose to look at what happened, but is it really all the same?

    Banking time in the beginning so I can slow down the second half and still have good time vs going out faster than GP and then slowing down considerably because I went out too fast(blowing up/bonking).

    So is the difference that one is planned pre race and the other is accidental? And if you plan bank, as in, course is more favorable in the beginning for faster time, couldn't this also very well cause you to slow down even more than if you had ran GP through the whole thing?

     

    I guess basically I am asking what the difference is between a bank time vs a bonk time?

    And if you plan on banking time, how do you figure out how much to bank? Because then I would really think that bank could easily become bonk.

    sirdizzy


      Yep I have planned it and it actually worked and I got a pr.  But the reason I planned it was I wasn't feeling %100 that day and I knew that the first 8 miles were all downhill before going to rollers the last 5 miles.  I actually held pace until mile 10 before it caught up with me.  But I knew I needed to take advantage of the downhills if I had any chance at pring, my hope was to hang on even through the rollers but that didn't happen.


      Camp Muir

        I'll just chime in that I don't think it really works.  It just means you're not willing to go 100% at the end.  Otherwise it's just "blew up time".  I don't think you can really bank time if you want to go 100%.  Many don't so they can "bank time" if they want.  Yeah in special circumstances but that is all I can think of where it might work.


        I'm back!

          "Banking time" is almost always a bad, bad idea. Bank energy instead -- save enough for the second half.


          Trail Monster

            I've run 5 marathons. The first 4 I went out fast and died in the end. The 5th I went out slower than I thought I should and felt strong the whole time and set my current PR. Planning to bank time is planning to fail IME.

            2013 races:

            3/17 Shamrock Marathon

            4/20 North Coast 24 Hour

            7/27 Burning RIver 100M

            8/24 Baker 50M

            10/5 Oil Creek (distance to be determined)

             

            My Blog

             

            Brands I Heart:

            FitFluential

            INKnBURN

            Altra Zero Drop


            Dad of a real runner

              Well, many will tell you that you can't bank time - you will eventually give it all back.  And from a pure biomechanical point that is true.  But we are all unique animals and what is true for one is not true for all.  A lot has to do with your own physical makeup, and the training you’ve put in.  (OK – got rid of all the BS – now what I think I know about me).

               

              My experience is that the difference between bank and bonk is somewhere around 20 seconds per mile.  My marathon in August was a bonk.  I had a goal of 3:45 but went out about 20 to 25 seconds faster per mile for the first half than I should have – result was a painful bonk.  My second marathon, 9 weeks later, I set a more reasonable goal of 3:50 and hit the first half at 1:52:30 – bank of 2 ½ minutes or about 11 seconds per mile.  Ran the second half at exactly goal pace of 1:55 – result was I kept all my “banked” time.  But I still faded in the last three miles.

               

              The main point is you have to be realistic about your goal and the training that lead up to the marathon.  With my limited mileage (average about 42 mpw) I know that I will fade – even if I run slower than my goal pace, my endurance simply will not allow me to keep a constant pace for those last few miles – even if I run real slow, that extra time on my feet will cause the last few miles to be slower.  I feel that if I were to run 70 miles or more per week for a few months, that would make a difference, but mentally I would most likely still plan for that 2 minute fade at the end.

               

              Oh, and pay more attention to bhearn than me.  Lot's more experience.  My data points are few and only apply to me. 

              hugsy


                 

                 

                My experience is that the difference between bank and bonk is somewhere around 20 seconds per mile.  My marathon in August was a bonk.  I had a goal of 3:45 but went out about 20 to 25 seconds faster per mile for the first half than I should have – result was a painful bonk.

                 

                Going out 20-25 sec too fast would equate to almost HM pace. No wonder you bonked.

                 

                Try even effort or split for optimum performance. Up to a couple minutes positive split.


                Dad of a real runner

                  Going out 20-25 sec too fast would equate to almost HM pace. No wonder you bonked.

                   

                  Try even effort or split for optimum performance. Up to a couple minutes positive split.

                   

                  Yep I understand the mechanics, it's just so hard to stick to the plan when the gun goes off - at least until you've gone through a miserable experience. That's why the second one was much better - more discipline.

                    Honestly, it's not required to ever blow up in a race.  I have blown up more than a few times in training so I learned what it feels to go out too hard given the conditions.  A couple of times, I have tried to do tempo runs on 90+ degree days.  Sure enough, I ended up bonking and having to walk back to the car.  I learned from those bonks and didn't repeat those mistakes when I ran a marathon when it was 61 degrees with 100% humidity at the gun.  Instead, I pulled back my pace and ran well.  A couple of things should tell you how hard you can run.

                     

                    You should have at least one race of shorter distance in the 6-8 weeks leading up to your goal race.  Assuming you run it all out, and I mean really all out, you will have a good idea of your fitness.  Couple that with how your training goes in the next 6-8 weeks and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to predict your finish time within very close tolerance.  In my first marathon, I said I'd finish between 3:10 and 3:15.  I ran 3:11.  In my most recent 5K, I said I'd run about 18:45 and I ran 18:55.  It's just not that difficult to have a very good idea of how you will do if you have a race and you have trained well.  The only wild cards are weather, terrain and having a bad day.  Warm weather or windy conditions will obviously slow you down as will hilly terrain.  And, you can always just have an off day.  I ran a HM in the spring and thought I'd run about 1:26 and ran 1:29 instead just because it wasn't my day.

                     

                    I still don't understand how someone can run at their HM effort and think it feels like a marathon effort.  Those paces are radically different.  

                    Short term goal: 17:59 5K

                    Mid term goal:  2:54:59 marathon

                    Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life.  (I started running at age 45).

                    paulski66


                    miscreant

                      "Banking time" is almost always a bad, bad idea. Bank energy instead -- save enough for the second half.

                       

                      Agreed 100%.

                       

                      The only possible exception to this is in a scenario like that mentioned by Dizzy, where conditions early in the race dictate a different pacing strategy than conditions later in the race. And even then, the overall level of effort should be pretty near equal.

                       

                       

                      I'm happy, hope you're happy too...


                      I'm back!

                        I still don't understand how someone can run at their HM effort and think it feels like a marathon effort.  Those paces are radically different.  

                         

                        It happens to a lot of people at Boston. Fast first half, tons of energy, everyone around you is running a lot faster than the random crowd at your qualifier -- you just PRed the half! Yay!!! Oops.

                        happylily


                          I believe in the Pfitz' theory that slower runners should plan on a slower half. Slower by about 2 to 3%. In my case, that works to about 2 to 4 minutes slower in the second half. In the 2 marathons where I followed that pacing strategy carefully, I finished 2 minutes and one minute respectively ahead of my goal finish times. In both races, I gave my best effort, but finished with a smile (yes, it's possible). In my one marathon where I did not follow my plan and ran my first half at almost HM pace, I finished 2 minutes slower than goal finish time, walking parts of the last few miles and feeling like crap. Luckily, I still PRd and did pretty well considering I had just BQd 6 weeks before that. So, I don't dwell on my suicidal stunt too much. Each race is an experiment to me and I learned that it's possible to still PR with a bonk. But I really missed my big stupid grin on the finish line picture...

                          PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013

                                  Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013

                          4 years racing, 14 marathons, 14 BQs     


                          Dad of a real runner

                             

                            You should have at least one race of shorter distance in the 6-8 weeks leading up to your goal race.  Assuming you run it all out, and I mean really all out, you will have a good idea of your fitness.  Did that, 10K in 45:42 - gave me a Mcmillan predicted time (yeah, I know - stupid) of 3:34 couple that with how your training goes in the next 6-8 weeks Went great - resulting in high levels of confidence and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to predict your finish time within very close tolerance Goal was 3:40 or better  In my first marathon, I said I'd finish between 3:10 and 3:15.  I ran 3:11.  In my most recent 5K, I said I'd run about 18:45 and I ran 18:55.  It's just not that difficult to have a very good idea of how you will do if you have a race and you have trained well.  The only wild cards are weather  Ah, there was a problem - it was 87 in the shade - and no shade, terrain and having a bad day.  Warm weather or windy conditions will obviously slow you down as will hilly terrain.  And, you can always just have an off day.  I ran a HM in the spring and thought I'd run about 1:26 and ran 1:29 instead just because it wasn't my day.

                             

                            I still don't understand how someone can run at their HM effort and think it feels like a marathon effort.  Those paces are radically different.  Not if you're a novice and overconfident.

                             

                            LTH - see my answers above.   Mostly it was rookie error (it was my first marathon in 25 years), over confidence, and perhaps most importantly, not realizing just how critical the higher temp would impact me. But I learned from my mistakes and got my BQ nine weeks later.

                            daisymae25


                            Squidward Bike Rider

                              I agree that banking time is a bad idea...did it in my first marathon, crashed and burned in the last 9.2 miles.  Second marathon, I went out slow and steady, felt good the entire race, and set my current PR.  I even had a 36-second negative split in the second half.


                              Dad of a real runner

                                I agree that banking time is a bad idea...did it in my first marathon, crashed and burned in the last 9.2 miles.  Second marathon, I went out slow and steady, felt good the entire race, and set my current PR.  I even had a 36-second negative split in the second half.

                                 

                                I think of it more as "planning for a fade".  Big grin

                                 

                                Someone (maybe SRL?) commented that any splits within 90 seconds of each other should be considered virtually even pacing, meaning that you ran a great race.  My last marathon had a positive 2 1/2 minutes, so it was outside those parameters, but still close enough that I felt good about the race.  Could I have run a little faster overall if I had run the first half a little slower?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

                                123