I wouldn't base last years paces as normal. I think they jogged the first half because of the "scary" weather conditions. 2:14 was about 7 minutes slower than he ran in 2006. I think in 2006 they went something like 1:02/1:03 then 1:05/1:04 for the win... Most people I see in last years results who go out fast seem to blow up at the end. Doesn't seem to be too many negative splits...
That's what happens at Boston. People start fast. And often TOO fast. My only point is that if the best possible pace you can run (whether you are using a HRM or not) is (e.g.) a 7:00 pace, and you run that first 10k in (e.g) 6:45 pace, you will pay for it, and not achieve the 7:00 pace. Have a great race! Except for before the race (in that field they call a village) and after (getting out of Boston), it's a great race. I had a blast when I ran it. --Jimmy
I will shoot my self if I go through the 10k at 6:45/pace. I've done that already in better shape (at NYC 2006) and it doesn't make for a fun last 10k. In that race my 5k splits were (21:08, 21:03, 21:25, 21:33, 22:08, 21:57, 22:55, 23:44) as you can see the wheels came off some where between 30-35k. My only concerns are that for the beginning downhilll, I need to realize that it might take 6:40's to get my HR to MP HR, but not to run that fast as its probably not trashing my "heart" but my "quads".... So the village before the race isn't as nice as NYC which I thought wasn't that bad. Also, luckily I'm staying Boston til Wednesday and at the Hilton Back Bay so won't be a problem getting back. Also, seems like I'm fighting off a cold or allergies or something as don't feel 100% right now. Hopefully, this will be it before Boston. Still did my 15-miler this AM with 5 miles tempo but paces were slightly slower than expected and HR was elevated compared to Tuesday/Wednesday run...
Master of Inconsistency
Ain't Wastin' Time No More !
run-easy-race-hard
I would contend that anyone who blew out by going out too fast at the beginning of Boston: (1) does not train using a MAF approach and does not know his limits (2) did not do significant downhill training or (3) did not wear a heart rate monitor in the race. With that said, it is extremely difficult to keep any kind of a good pace going for the first 6 miles or more of Boston because most of the crowd is braking and holding up traffic. I was zigzagging back and forth for the first hour of the race, which wasted a lot of time and energy. If you follow a MAF approach strictly, then you train by effort and not by pace; hence your downhill paces will always be faster than your flat or uphill paces and that logic should transfer to the race. If you train by pace, then certainly it would be natural to recover/brake on the downs and race the heart rate on the ups and the flats.
Just running for the fun of it!
..Many also seem to be able to knock off a near peak 10k performance even after 20 miles...
Thanks Jimmy, certainly think your advice has a lot of merit. May look at incorporating a MRP session a week and do the rest at MAF, particularly keeping my long run MAF. My main aim has to be getting to the start line followed by getting to the finish line. The time that it takes is important but only relevant if the first two aims are achieved! I guess if all goes well and I notice that my times continue to drop at MAF, it may then be worth revising my MRP but until then will continue to build. Hank
Thanks DCV, i suppose in hindsight what I was really after was the way to incorporate some above MAF runs into my training sessions as opposed to genuine 'speed sessions' - your suggestions certainly look like a good way of doing that. I certainly plan to continue to increase my mileage in the build up to the marathon, at the moment my longest week planned is just over 50 miles, however I think as my pace continues to improve and I can do more in the same amount of time on the legs then I may be able to revise that. While I'm determined to not increase too rapidly and risk injury, would I be safe in assuming that if I am increasing the time on my legs by say 10 per cent, that I can have some flexibility in distance or is that flawed? Hank