Marathon Back Quarter Improvement

[Double Bellybuster]

Just posting a question in a more appropriate spot that I posted at the bottom of a recent race report:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=38219

After running my third marathon this weekend, I am thinking about my fourth marathon ths fall and I would like to know what experiened marathoners would recommend to eliminate the fade from the back quarter of my marathons. I know that increasing my longest training run from 32K will help but I am wondering what other tricks have worked for you Maniacs.

Some background on me:
- I have been running for two years;
- I have pushed my positive split in my marathons from 11:35 in Spring 2009 to 4:22 (would have been worse but a course with a downhill second half) in Fall 2009 to 3:30 this past weekend;
- mental fortitude has improved - I walked stretches of the Marathon beyond 28K in Spring 2009, ran straight through, though tough, in Fall 2009 and this weekend did not even think about walking a step at any point despite rain thoughout and an uphill stretch 38.5K thru 41K;
- splits have not been due to ridiculous paces - paces have been appropriate or somewhat conservative using the Macmillan calculator;
- I have gotten similar fades out of all races up to and including 30K;
- I have followed Higdon's Novice, Intermediate I and Intermediate II training for my first three marathons so I am up to 80K/week peak, with up to 16K pace runs the only speedwork aside from half marathons and 30K races that I plug into the schedule and race hard. I plan to utilise Higdon's Advanced I this fall, which will introduce 800s, hills and tempos.

Any help is appreciated. Please pass on your tricks. If I ever learn any, I'll reciprocate...

DB

[daddy_runner]

Your experience sounds a lot like mine. Anxious to see what others suggest.

The only suggestion I can make, and it's one that I just recently took myself, is to join a running group. Since I started doing my speedwork in a group, I feel much faster. As for helping your fade... I have no clue, since I've faded (horribly) in every long race I've been in.

[ian]

No tricks... All I can come up with is:
(1) Mileage - the accumulation of steps, no matter how slow and no matter how spread out over the week, will make your legs more resistant to fatigue in the later stages of marathons.
(2) Patience - endurance adaptations take place over months and years, not weeks, and the training you did for this last marathon will also pay dividends for the next one.
(3) Experience - every marathon will teach you something that can be useful in the future.
(4) Discipline - trust that you'll get a better result with a cautious start and a strong finish, even if the initial pace feels too comfortable.

[Double Bellybuster]

Thanks Ian. This is very helpful.

[eljeffe]

Agree with Ian.

One thing my coach got me doing last year which really put me on the path to improved running was 2 long runs per week. I've kind of expanded on this since then and now I'll do one long speed workout (something like 18-22k at the track, or 22k progression runs) during the week, and one longer easy run on the weekend of 30-35k. So 2 weekly long runs, and as many 30+k runs as possible. Of course that has to be balanced against diligent recovery...

[MichaelMc]

I think we're all on similar tracks here.

#1) I think the big issue is the mileage your body is adapted to and that happens with LONG TERM AVERAGE WEEKLY mileage, not longer long runs. Most Elites don't even run much beyond 32k in training (some don't run even that far), but they do run a lot of miles per week and have been doing so for a long time.

#2) A "reasonable" first half for most marathoners isn't chosen off of McMillan. McMillan is a mathematical formula based on runners with high LONG TERM AVERAGE weekly mileage: it ASSUMES you won't fade in the last quarter. Basing your race pace on this formula will inevitably result in a big fade if that doesn't apply to you. If you don't hold your pace as well as the people (elite runners) it was based on, it will choose too fast a "goal" and you won't be able to sustain it, even though it feels FINE in the first half. McMillan's paces are based on runners with >115km weekly AVERAGE training distance (not PEAK).

#3) Speedwork can make you FASTER, and somewhat STRONGER and a little more EFFICIENT all of which will help your time, however it may not help your fade nearly so much: that is ENDURANCE.

I think the best thing you can do to improve immediately is recognize McMillan's paces DON'T work for you. Your endurance does not match your speed, so your result will improve if you hold back a little more in the first half and use the energy saved in the late stages when you'll need it. Until you can have a nearly even split (on a 'normal' course), your pacing isn't right and you're losing time. We can argue "slightly negetive" or "slightly positive", but the big thing is being able to run WELL the whole way, and having to slow down significantly means you were no longer running well.

As far as training goes I would argue for concentrating on continuing to build mileage while doing some solid speedwork. Marathons reward Threshold running the most, but well-rounded training is best. I would suggest more rounded distance increases rather than trying to run longer long runs, and mid-week long runs suggested above are a good method.

[eljeffe]

I think we're all on similar tracks here.

#1) I think the big issue is the mileage your body is adapted to and that happens with LONG TERM AVERAGE WEEKLY mileage, not longer long runs. Most Elites don't even run much beyond 32k in training (some don't run even that far), but they do run a lot of miles per week and have been doing so for a long time.

#2) A "reasonable" first half for most marathoners isn't chosen off of McMillan. McMillan is a mathematical formula based on runners with high LONG TERM AVERAGE weekly mileage: it ASSUMES you won't fade in the last quarter. Basing your race pace on this formula will inevitably result in a big fade if that doesn't apply to you. If you don't hold your pace as well as the people (elite runners) it was based on, it will choose too fast a "goal" and you won't be able to sustain it, even though it feels FINE in the first half. McMillan's paces are based on runners with >115km weekly AVERAGE training distance (not PEAK).

#3) Speedwork can make you FASTER, and somewhat STRONGER and a little more EFFICIENT all of which will help your time, however it may not help your fade nearly so much: that is ENDURANCE.

I think the best thing you can do to improve immediately is recognize McMillan's paces DON'T work for you. Your endurance does not match your speed, so your result will improve if you hold back a little more in the first half and use the energy saved in the late stages when you'll need it. Until you can have a nearly even split (on a 'normal' course), your pacing isn't right and you're losing time. We can argue "slightly negetive" or "slightly positive", but the big thing is being able to run WELL the whole way, and having to slow down significantly means you were no longer running well.

As far as training goes I would argue for concentrating on continuing to build mileage while doing some solid speedwork. Marathons reward Threshold running the most, but well-rounded training is best. I would suggest more rounded distance increases rather than trying to run longer long runs, and mid-week long runs suggested above are a good method.

All that sounds real complicated, and I don't know how the average, everyday "non-elite" runners are supposed to get anything out of knowing what elites are doing. Most of can't train like elites, so aside from the "oooh, aaah" factor, I don't really know if there's any tangeable info to be garnered there that could be put into practical use for most of us.

I have a real simple approach to my own training, it works for me, and I realise it's not how elites train. Training for my last race, I had an idea that I wanted to finish somewhere under 3 hours. So it made sense to me to occassionally bump up my weekend long run from 2.5 hours to 3 hours, just so I could get familiar with running for that long; the fueling/hydration requirements, etc., but usually I'd run in the 2h30 range. The arbitrary distances/paces are always irrelevant to me on my weekend long run, so long as I stay under my lactate threshold and never run at a pace I felt I wouldn't be able to sustain for the duration of the training run. The last few kms of my weekend long run are always the fastest. I had difficulty on some of the early runs in the cycle, particularly in real big mileage weeks, but towards the end (as I adapted) they were a breeze. I'd note my weekly 2h30-3h long run would go further and further each time, all while staying within the planned exertion levels. So in my case, running longer long runs helped me to adapt to them. The higher weekly mileage was a natural bi-product of just doing all my planned weekly workouts.

Probably the single most important thing a runner who is sufficiently trained can do is to avoid fading is to avoid falling dehydrated, into low blood/sugar, and into low sodium.

As far as how to train for a strong marathon finish in a practical way, one workout I found to be effective was descending progression runs… in my case: 5k warmup, 8k @ 4:00/km, 1k recovery, 8k @ 3:50/km, 5k cool down. This actually doubles as a lactate threshold training run.

[MichaelMc]

I think we're all on similar tracks here... (blah, blah, blah)....

All that sounds real complicated, and I don't know how the average, everyday "non-elite" runners are supposed to get anything out of knowing what elites are doing. Most of can't train like elites, so aside from the "oooh, aaah" factor, I don't really know if there's any tangeable info to be garnered there that could be put into practical use for most of us.....

Gee, thanks Jeff!

Lets see...

#1 don't run really long long runs (like the OP was thinking)

#2 Don't trust McMillan's prediction or you'll fade

#3 speedwork won't help you avoid fading but miles will, focus on that.

How that applies to Elites, but not "normal runners" escapes me. Not that complex either, IMO. Some people LIKE explanations of "why", others don't. Can't see how your post was all that much more relevant, or even that much shorter, but whatever works!

[eljeffe]

Hey I'm not disagreeing with your concepts or your intentions, but when you start advising new runners (like the vast majority of the people on RM) to adopt the training practises of elite runners (such as averaging over 115km/week) as the way to be successful, it might be a little counterproductive. For one thing they wouldn't have the experience to put the knowledge into the proper context. So when people smile politely, nod, and glaze over when you explain to them in great scientific detail "why they are slowing down at the last quarter of a marathon" like only you can, keep in mind they probably don't have your encyclopediac knowledge of every training philosophy ever forged, nor the street smarts to discern when you're giving great accessable insight, and when you're baffling the heck out of them with BS. The message can get lost in one's interpretation.

As an aside, I'm no superstar runner, but I've run 15 marathons now with 3 BQs and PB of 2h55, and I would still not feel comfortable running over 115km/week.

[babysteps]

I read it not as newbies should be running 115km weeks but that newbies shouldn't use calculators to predict their first marathon pace/time and then explained why. Which, I was also able to understand. (Grant it, I'm much more intelligent...also good looking and humble... than the average person)

I found this whole thread helpful and interesting.

[Jwolf]

I didn't think MIchael's post was confusing at all and no where was he advocating new runners to run 115K/week. The question was also not from a new runner but from someone who has done several marathon build-up seasons.

He's basically reinforcing the idea that consistency in mileage over weeks of training, not single isolated long runs of over 35K, are what will make the difference in building endurance. Ian basically said the same thing in number 1.

Thank you both for those summaries.

[ultraslacker]

Hey I'm not disagreeing with your concepts or your intentions, but when you start advising new runners (like the vast majority of the people on RM) to adopt the training practises of elite runners (such as averaging over 115km/week) as the way to be successful, it might be a little counterproductive.

That's not what he was doing. He was answering the OP (who is not a new runner) and I didn't find his post complicated at all, nor did I take it to mean that we should adopt the training practices of the elite.

I've learned a great deal from Michael's posts that explain these things, so I hope he doesn't stop explaining them. :)

[Double Bellybuster]

A "reasonable" first half for most marathoners isn't chosen off of McMillan. McMillan is a mathematical formula based on runners with high LONG TERM AVERAGE weekly mileage:

Thanks for all the great advice. On this one, I should clarify that much like I do 80K per week for a short span in peak marathon training versus 115K for a long period, I'll also do limited mileage and speedwork versus elites for the 21k and 30K race results I am extrapolating - so the I think MacMillan guidance is fairly sound for me. But as mentioned, I err on the conservative side of McMillan predictions - for example, in the race that led to my question, I was aiming for a 3:38:00 rather than the 3:29:16 my best 5K result would suggest I tackle. And with a 3:39:52 result, my result was not a disaster at all versus my pacing - I just want to improve the small details next time I am training to improve the overall picture and result.

I've learned a great deal from Michael's posts that explain these things, so I hope he doesn't stop explaining them.

+1, Agreed.

Thanks again to all, there is great advice in every post here.

[mcshame]

Thanks DB, I was looking for this kind of information, related to my thread on a higher mileage training plan. Great info guys, thx

[RayMan]

Very interesting thread! I have only done 4 marathons, but each time I knocked 10 minutes off my previous time (except Boston where I ran to finish with a smile!).

Much like the original poster, I faded after 30 kms on the first 2 marathons. My fastest marathon was the 3rd one, where I finally hit that goal of holding the same pace throughout the full 42.2 kms. To reach that goal I added a 5th day of running (I had only run 4 days training for the previous marathons) and the accumulation of those extra miles seemed to make the difference. The extra day was either speedwork or hill training, not just an Easy Run.

Extra mileage done as speedwork gave me no fade after 30 kms!

[West Grey Runner]

With Mississauga looming on Sunday this post has got me thinking!

One thing that wasn’t touched on was nutrition and hydration, skimp on either or and you will slow down!

I am by no means the voice of authority when it comes to Road Marathons. I ran my first two last year, neither one of them particularly well. I am quiet comfortable with the off road 50K Ultras. In 08 I did my first two 50kers, in 09 it was 7 and this year I already have two completed. I have learned allot about how I react going long. The biggest Road Marathon mistake I made last year was forgetting to add speed work. This winter all of my runs indoor runs under 20K have been at my Marathon 4:50 pace….I do this almost daily…I call it my cruise control! Did ATB with an avg 4:49 pace so I think my plan is working. Take away the ATB hills; add 12K and 60 minutes, a Sub 3:30 seems doable.

I think what it really comes down to is to know what you are capable of. Pick a sustainable pace and go for it. I expect to fade in Mississauga so my plan is to bank some time in preparation for the inevitable.


YTD month avg is 300K.

[MichaelMc]

With Mississauga looming on Sunday this post has got me thinking!

One thing that wasn’t touched on was nutrition and hydration, skimp on either or and you will slow down!

The biggest Road Marathon mistake I made last year was forgetting to add speed work. This winter all of my runs indoor runs under 20K have been at my Marathon 4:50 pace….I do this almost daily…I call it my cruise control! Did ATB with an avg 4:49 pace so I think my plan is working. Take away the ATB hills; add 12K and 60 minutes, a Sub 3:30 seems doable.

I think what it really comes down to is to know what you are capable of. Pick a sustainable pace and go for it. I expect to fade in Mississauga so my plan is to bank some time in preparation for the inevitable.

Agree that poor hydration and/or nutrition will wreck a good race.

Not sure I support your training plan, though. In my opinion you are making a poor choice in running all your shorter runs at "MP", and a tactical error in banking time. Marathon pace, if it really IS your marathon pace, is too slow to provide a stronger training stimulus than an easier pace but enough extra work to affect your other workouts. I prefer to see people run a bit (5-15%) of their mileage at significantly FASTER than MP, and the balance well below it. A bit of MP running toward race day can be somewhat helpful, but more as "icing" than "cake".

[West Grey Runner]

Thanks MichaelMc, 100% on not doing things as well as I could. I have never followed any sort of a training plan and always wondered what kind of results I would get if I did. Been running for 8 years now, first race, a 10K 5 years ago. I just figured that to run fast I well have to run fast , to run long I have to run long and surprise… to run long and fast I have to run long and fast. Along the way I discovered the importance of the LSD and I do realize that you can’t run at 100% effort all of the time. The one thing that my daily 5-6K 4:50 runs does give me is a feel for the pace, kind of an auto response to a flat run. I was really pleased with my 30K ATB 4:49 avg pace and I attribute the pace to all those short runs and the stamina to the weekly LSDs.

Running for me is more about participation then performance. I like to be competitive and its great when I have a good day bur the bottom line for me is I am happy just being there!

Good bad or just plain ugly I will post to this thread after Mississauga!

[West Grey Runner]

I played the Fade and it almost worked! One other variable that needs to be considered is the course! The first half of the Mississauga Marathon is a series of gentle downhill’s that really invite you to open up a bit.



I ran 30% of the first 21.1K at a 4:3X pace; my goal was a 4:50 pace. I passed 21.1K at the 1hrs40min mark slightly ahead of schedule. Had cramped in the mid 20’s , took care of it but this is where I started to slow down. Made it to 30K by 2hrs30min, slowing but still on course for a 3hrs30min finish. The last 12K was tough but I hung in there reasonably well. Passed the 38K matt 3hrs9min. 21 min and 4.2k to go… I hadn’t been doing any 5min Ks in sometime. Mentally I thought it was doable, physically it didn’t seem possible. I did the 39th K in 5min30sec. As I passed the 39K mark I knew its wasn’t going to be a Sub 3:30. About half way through the 40thK it happened, I blew up and had to walk. My vision narrowed like I was looking through a straw and I was quiet dizzy … 49th K was done on 7min 55sec my slowest of the day! Managed to pick it up a bit and completed the 41st and 42ndKs in 6min1sec and 5mi36 seconds… final time 3hrs35min21sec.

I have run 50K Ultras with negative splits. When I run with this sort of race plan I usually find myself finishing well behind folks I normally beat. Running a negative split is a race that is much less grueling then running a race with a fade.

My Mississauga Marathon ambition was probably a little too aggressive! A more realistic pace would have been around 5:00min/km not 4:50min/km. It would have made for a super easy first half, I would have been better off in the second half of the race but I can’t help but feel that I would have still ended up with a positive split! I know if I went out at a 5:30 pace I could hold it through the full 42.2K…but my time would be allot slower then I am capable of.

A positive spit isn’t the smartest way to run a Marathon but I know one thing for sure I left all out there…there was nothing left!

[Doonst]

I played the Fade and it almost worked! One other variable that needs to be considered is the course! The first half of the Mississauga Marathon is a series of gentle downhill’s that really invite you to open up a bit.



I ran 30% of the first 21.1K at a 4:3X pace; my goal was a 4:50 pace. I passed 21.1K at the 1hrs40min mark slightly ahead of schedule. Had cramped in the mid 20’s , took care of it but this is where I started to slow down. Made it to 30K by 2hrs30min, slowing but still on course for a 3hrs30min finish. The last 12K was tough but I hung in there reasonably well. Passed the 38K matt 3hrs9min. 21 min and 4.2k to go… I hadn’t been doing any 5min Ks in sometime. Mentally I thought it was doable, physically it didn’t seem possible. I did the 39th K in 5min30sec. As I passed the 39K mark I knew its wasn’t going to be a Sub 3:30. About half way through the 40thK it happened, I blew up and had to walk. My vision narrowed like I was looking through a straw and I was quiet dizzy … 49th K was done on 7min 55sec my slowest of the day! Managed to pick it up a bit and completed the 41st and 42ndKs in 6min1sec and 5mi36 seconds… final time 3hrs35min21sec.

I have run 50K Ultras with negative splits. When I run with this sort of race plan I usually find myself finishing well behind folks I normally beat. Running a negative split is a race that is much less grueling then running a race with a fade.

My Mississauga Marathon ambition was probably a little too aggressive! A more realistic pace would have been around 5:00min/km not 4:50min/km. It would have made for a super easy first half, I would have been better off in the second half of the race but I can’t help but feel that I would have still ended up with a positive split! I know if I went out at a 5:30 pace I could hold it through the full 42.2K…but my time would be allot slower then I am capable of.

A positive spit isn’t the smartest way to run a Marathon but I know one thing for sure I left all out there…there was nothing left!

A course like Mississauga with an easier first half can make it that much trickier to run a disciplined marathon. Still its so important not to go too hard in the first half. We know you have the stamina Ron, I can't help but wondering what the result might have been if you had stayed within a tighter pace variation, say aimed at 4:45-4:55 period, as long as you could. I've found that slight positive splits (say plus 2-5 minutes) really are attainable for us mortals with rigid discipline. Still a very nice PB!
Of course it is essential to have a realistic goal. Based on your 10 K times and multiple ultra performances I think 3:30 was very possible.
Your halfs were 100/115 minutes; I think you could been capable of 104/106 to meet your goal, or on that course 103/107.

[West Grey Runner]

Thanks Doonst , I agree 100% with what you are saying and I have a suspicion that you are probably right! This was the third road Marathon I have done, 1st last spring was OK, 2nd in the fall was horrible and I would have to classify Mississauga as Good not Great!

Better pacing would help , upping my monthly mileage from 300K to 400K would help, not doing so many Ultras would help and the we can’t forget more speed work. Then again I could erase the Race Calendar and do a 12 week program leading up to Scotia!

[Doonst]

Thanks Doonst , I agree 100% with what you are saying and I have a suspicion that you are probably right! This was the third road Marathon I have done, 1st last spring was OK, 2nd in the fall was horrible and I would have to classify Mississauga as Good not Great!

Better pacing would help , upping my monthly mileage from 300K to 400K would help, not doing so many Ultras would help and the we can’t forget more speed work. Then again I could erase the Race Calendar and do a 12 week program leading up to Scotia!

All true but better pacing is the only thing you can change on race day! (assuming that hydration and nutrition are sorted out).

As for your calendar, here's my 2 cents. No need to change your ultra summer to do a cookie cutter plan but. Your fall marathon is 2 weeks after a tough 50 miler? Yikes, I'd do Haliburton, then ease off for a month and do a later October full, like Toronto or Niagara. Only cost you VB.

[MichaelMc]

Well I admire your determination, but I can't help but think you're making this much harder than it has to be.

Every little bit faster (than required) you run takes a significantly higher toll in muscle power, glycogen and heat production. It is like trying to get as far as possible on a tank of gas in a car by going really fast and hoping you'll roll farther when you do run out if gas. Sounds good in theory, but in practice going slower wins. I honestly don't think it is disputable that a nearly even split is the fastest way to run a 'standard' marathon. We can argue 1 minute negative vs 1 minute positive, but world records are consistantly set with nearly even (slightly negative) splits, and I can't see why this would be unique to Elites.

None the less, great effort, and you should be pleased with the result. Getting the RIGHT pace for any race distance takes practice. I've learned that in my Cross country races. Last week I finally just followed one of my buddies for about 4.5km of a 5.3k race: the whole thing I was thinking "this is too fast..." but it was perfect. I felt a little bad out-running him for the line, mind you, since I wouldn't have been anywhere near him without his guidance but that is racing

[West Grey Runner]

Hydration was good, nutrition was maybe not so good ! 30 minutes between Gels was Ok but the last hour or so a 20 minute interval would have been better.

I did a total of 6 GU Roctains that’s 600 Calories. Assuming I am a normal person I have 2400 easy calories to access energy. I figure that I burned about 3800 calories in total so if I am anywhere near correct that an 800 calorie deficit! Drinking Water instead of the Gator Aid may not have been a fatal choice!

[West Grey Runner]

Thanks Michael

I did hold back in the first half , I could have easily shave 2-3 minutes off but I was really trying to recover the heart rate on the downhill’s. I thinks a more realistic approach would have been a disciplined 5:00 pace for the first ½ , going for a negative 1 minute split and a couple of more gels! Gee, I think I just laid out my Scotia Race Plan ….thanks MichaelMc and Doonst.