Pacing for Boston (Read 614 times)

Hard to say without looking being able to see your log. I plugged 1:50 hm into a few running calculators and got the following: McMillan: 3:52 Daniels: 3:48 multiple (average of 5 methods): 3:51 I don't know how well-trained your are for the full marathon, but these are decent approximations because they're based on a HM (as opposed to extrapolating from a 5k or 10k). Still, I'd be conservative and aim for 4 hours.

Why do you need a goal time? Why not just run it by feel and see what happens? Here's a hint: go out slowly.

The hint is golden, especially at Boston where it's down hill for so long at the start and really easy to sabotage your race. Not having a goal time is a horrible idea though, in my opinion. It gives you no way to really evaluate how you are doing and keeping yourself in check early in the race when you feel well, or encouraging you to speed up if you are going too slow. Getting to the 20 or 22 mile mark and not having any idea about how well you are running (good or bad) can be very demotivating and is more likely to lead to a DNF than actually having an idea of what kind of pace you are on compared to where you thought you should be.

Hey MArunner, I saw this MS-Excel spreadsheet that has an incredible amount of information about Boston such as how to adjust your pace at every mile based on the hills. This guy Greg made it and appears to do them for a number of different marathons (NYC too I think). The Boston one is here: http://www.box.net/shared/75o3rqgty9 I downloaded it and have McAfee viruscan software, so it looks safe/clean. It is really an incredible resource. On the actual question on a reasonable goal, the best way to avoid disappointment is to have a set of tiered goals. For example: 1. Easy goal: Run the race and be smart enough not to get injured. 2. Doable goal: Finish the marathon standing on your own two feet. 3. Quantitative goal: Finish in 4 hours or so. 4. Stretch goal: Finish under 4 hours. 5. Pie-in-the-sky goal: Finish in 3:40. That way no matter what, you will achieve some goals and have room for improvement for the ones you don't reach. Also, depending on your past running history and genetic talent, you may or may not find it easy to reach the equivalent times given by McMillan, Daniels, et al. To RTW and mm, I now know what it's like to find myself at mile 22 without any idea of my time because this past weekend my watch died just a mile into my race! There were only 2 clocks on the course at halfway and at 20 miles (well the finish too!). To me, it was somewhat liberating but also frustrating. It was liberating because whatever the finish time was, that would be it, because I couldn't tell whether to speed up, slow down, or stay the course. It was frustrating because I had very little control to adjust pace in relation to goal time.

I agree with Blaine that you have to have an "idea" "plan" "pace strategy" (since we've all been told dont have a GOAL for #1). I also agree it should be a conservative goal...4:00 sounds about right. Aim for 4 and reevaluate after at least the half, preferable after 15-16. If I went by feel in a marathon I would run a blazing half and then curl up in the fetal position and die at mile 22. Heck when I DID bonk in portland a mere 1/2 mile before I crashed and burned I felt FABULOUS and was considering picking up the pace....NOTE I did NOT stick to my plan, or rather I tried to stick to my plan to follow the $$%& pace team who went out with their pants on fire.

Not having a goal time is a horrible idea though, in my opinion.

The only marathon I ran without a goal time ... is my current PR. A PR by almost ten minutes. I just showed up for a fun jog, felt good, and decided to see what would happen. So it's not always a horrible idea. In fact, if I had the guts, I'd do it again, when I was really trying. And just leave the watch at home.