Now that I have my tuneup race out of the way, here are my goals for Richmond:

A goal: sub-3

B goal: sub-3:05

C goal: sub-3:10

My overall goal is to get a solid BQ so that I can run Boston in '16, my BQ is 3:15, so barring catastrophic failure, I think I'm good to go.  But if the weather cooperates, I think I can pull off a sub-3.  My plan is to go out at around 2:58 pace (6:48-6:50), shoot for a 1:29 first half, then if I feel good at around mile 20, pick it up and see how much time I can shave off in the last 10k.  If I'm not feeling it, then I'll just try to hang on and squeak out a sub-3.

Oh, I know the guy lily mentioned from the RWBF thread, we're friends on FB.  He's a fast runner, but needs to train better for the marathon.  His longest run in training was only 15 miles, and he runs all of his daily training runs at sub-7 pace.  I think he gained a healthy respect for the distance today and with better training he'll be able to shave a huge chunk off of that 3:42.

 

Yep, all other numbers represent strategies and checkpoints for those final numbers. Strategies may differ as long as the final numbers are there.

 

Matt Fitzgerald opiniates that positive splits might be more effective for hobby marathon runners

 

http://running.competitor.com/2013/08/training/the-art-and-science-of-marathon-pacing_16984/3

Interesting article. Pfitz talks about a 2-3% positive split being fine for recreational runners. So, if I look at my last race, 3:30 goal time would mean 2x1:45:00 splits. 3% of 1:45:00 is 3:15 minutes. So first half 1:42 (which is what I ran), second half 1:48. Also, considering that the course for the first half was easier than that of the second one, my paces were not so out of whack. Goddammit.

 

I've read that a slight positive split will more likely yield your best time. But I think it's more a matter of running right on the edge of your maximum potential where you are barely hanging on at the end than a planned positive split.  I've run negative splits and wondered if I left time on the course and positive splits where it was just a struggle from early on.  The negative splits were definitely a better experience and less painful.  I have yet to perfectly pace one of these - I guess that is part of the appeal.

Reminds me of this video I just watched today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPadKgtYHw

speed it to the 57 second mark.

This was a really good bump.

I predicted he'd fade like that and yep, I can indeed predict the future.

 

Honest to goodness folks but there's no reason the first marathon has to be a crash and burn experience.  Mine wasn't.  I see lots of folks who don't crash and burn in their first marathons.  Why not?  They train smart and race intelligently.  In generations past, there may have been a reason to blow up in your first marathon.  Now, there is so much information available that blowing up like that simply evinces arrogance or deliberate ignorance.

Good, you're the master of the universe. Now I want you to congratulate me on my last race, because you forgot to do it when you wrote your comment and it sort of bothers me. Don't make me go down to Virginia to choke you. Because I will if I have to. 

 

Last week my plan was to run a negative split and I actually did just that through 22 miles but just could not seal the deal those last 4 miles. Mentally I was aware but physically my legs just would not turn over.

 

I do not know enough about the racing the distance or training for it to offer an opinion that has merit on the debate of running a positive vs a negative split, but I was so close to pulling it off that for me the desire to pace for a negative split still exists.

Do you think that maybe you missed it because your goal was not the right one for you?

 

Good, you're the master of the universe. Now I want you to congratulate me on my last race, because you forgot to do it when you wrote your comment and it sort of bothers me. Don't make me go down to West Virginia to choke you. Because I will if I have to. 

FYP. Don't want to mix those up. (Although plenty in the US do.)

I used to think even or negative splits were the Holy Grail. I was pretty happy in my previous marathon when I ended up with a positive split of "only" about 1:40, a big improvement vs. my previous efforts. But for some reason I was a bit less concerned about that last weekend. I knew I was going out aggressively and was taking a risk. And it showed, ending up with a ~6 min positive split, so I sort of went backwards in that department. But really, if I had paced it better, I'm guessing I would've only gained a couple minutes. So I decided I'm not going to worry about it too much. I still think it would be cool to even/negative split one, but then I would probably wonder if I left something on the course.

MTA: this is a look in the rear view mirror, I was kicking myself 7 days ago. Now maybe I'm rationalizing.

I predicted he'd fade like that and yep, I can indeed predict the future.

 

Honest to goodness folks but there's no reason the first marathon has to be a crash and burn experience.  Mine wasn't.  I see lots of folks who don't crash and burn in their first marathons.  Why not?  They train smart and race intelligently.  In generations past, there may have been a reason to blow up in your first marathon.  Now, there is so much information available that blowing up like that simply evinces arrogance or deliberate ignorance.

The poor guy in the RW thread just asked where he could get pace bands. LTH and others turned it into bashing his race goal which he wasn't asking help on.