6 miles, dog jog. Recovery day (needed) … jogging with the dogs as the snow was starting to fly here lent well to such a day.
Apparently Viagra does not boost athletic performance at normal altitudes. But it could at higher altitudes. And (duh) with older men.
Yesterday I thought Rupp in the OT marathon was some gamemanship by Salazar. But the more I think about it, the more I think his racing this distance could be absolute brilliance.
I confess … I get wrapped in the drama of running, racing, ultras and the like more than I ought to. I talked with a couple of the guys about this on Saturday, and then I saw this timely post. Along the lines of the content this guy used to post. Good stuff. Frankly, the less I pay attention to it … the better. I guess I am better served if I am interested in it because someone I care about is impacted by it.
A very very long post on negative splitting in the marathon. I need to re-read it to get it all, but it does question the rationale of the negative split as a way to accomplish your fastest time. Also a timely article because it is assumed that you must negative split to get your best time at nearly all distance races above the 800 up to the marathon. But folks don’t assume that for the half mile or the 100. In fact, the opposite is assumed true. FWIW, my 5k PR is a big positive split (out in about 4:50 for the first mile, finishing in 15:55). Then again, my positive split at the Boulder 100 was pretty ridiculous. And thankfully I have yet to positive split at the Pikes Marathon.
So my priformis/psoas issues might be because I sit at a desk too much. But if I stand all the time, that could cause other problems.
KZ’s braces journey is expected to come to an end in the next few weeksor so. Yippeee!
I got this over here. A little cheesey but good. The part about sleep (or skipping it) sort of hit me because I wrestle a bit with that one.
In an effort to maybe see how nutty I am in changing my thinking about what I want to do in terms of racing and how frequently that seems to change … I am thinking of posting here what the “thought of the day” is in regards to all that. Today it was, drop mileage, 5k and nothing else. Just work my ass off to get back under 17 minute shape. Less mileage, more quality and strength work.
We’ll see tomorrow … I will listen to this though.
Go fast! I imagine it is really important up to Pikes-type distances. Something like a 100 leaves so much to chance, whereas getting in good 5k shape lets you race and win in pretty much anything.
ReplyDeleteNote: Legally, I get a cut of all your future master's prize money. Trust me, I am 1/2 of an environmental lawyer.
Holy crap, I just read the AJW thread/comments. Seems some folks in the ultra world need to get a life.
ReplyDeleteBut since we're name calling, Footfeathers is a big fat liar. I would never, ever carry a hiking pole. Luckily he has no pictures to prove his point.
Just to remind you, my 5K PR is faster.
I left a comment over there at the negative split post. I disagree with a lot of it.
ReplyDeleteYou have PRs at both the 5k and 100 miles from large positive splits. But as I put in my comments, if you wouldn't have negative split so bad, would your PR have been an even better PR? I would argue yes.
In a 5k race, if you averaged 5:05s (15:55) but started with a 4:50, what were your 3 miles? 4:50, 5:05, 5:20? I would argue you could have run a faster overall time if you would have come through the 2 mile mark in 10:10 (your average pace that day) versus what you did (9:55). Having an extra 15 seconds in your tank would have made it much easier to squeeze a few more seconds out at the end...in my unproveable opinion.
On the 100, I would argue if you had alternated running 8 minute miles and walking for a few minutes every mile that you could have done a lot better than 13 hour second 50 miles.
This is not meant to be personally critical, I am no talent to write home about...I'm just arguing about the theory of optimum pacing and using race examples to analyze the data.
On pacing, at least for ultras it seems like something like 10-15% slow down is near optimal. If you look at nearly all of the top performances (Sharman's RR100, Kouros's 24hr, 100mi WR) are near this. Since all of these show the same first half-second half differential, I think that it is fairly safe to say that that is the optimal pacing for ultras.
ReplyDeleteSo much to read here...thanks for all the links GZ. I am beyond excited for the marathon trials, to see how our ultra runners do and which men come out on top.
ReplyDeletewow on the AJW thread. But. it was more amusing than that other sitcom, Housewives of Orange County. Back to the news..
ReplyDeleteWith negative split re: Ultra's, I agree with NMP on the data. I've thought a few minutes on this in the past -- is a 10-15% positive split in ultras optimal or an artifact of how people run? -- but then realized the reasons for a negative split go completely out the window for 100 miles.
ReplyDeleteConsider a typical 100M that starts early in the morning, goes through some exposed sections of hot weather/canyons, then maybe an afternoon storm or two. And then, several hours, minimum, of nighttime running, when you're body might be so wrecked that you can't even regulate your own temperature if you stop too long. For as much as you want to slow down to save energy for a possible negative split, you're also exposing yourself more to the worst natural elements. Lastly, there's accumulated fatigue, and possible injury (even blisters and slightly torn muscles or ligaments can fit here). Hell, your shoes might even start falling apart.
The other race distances are just over with too quickly for much or all of the above to begin coming into play.
Some of those records (24 hr & 100 mile) are on the track. So environmental variables are essentially absent for these but they still show a 10-15% slowdown. I would argue that this is the optimal split regardless of some of the other factors (lighting, heat, terrain, etc.) that come more into play for dictating pace in a trail race.
ReplyDeleteBrownie actually USED my z-pole trekking up along bridal falls out of telluride. I had to beg him to give it back.
ReplyDeleteTim, is it against the rules to mule and provide assistance to your pacer? :)
ReplyDeleteI can't believe this hasn't come up yet, maybe no one really did see us. But, you know, when Nick caught Kilian at WS100 in 2010, it was only because I towed him from mile 80-95. Thank God we weren't the subject of the film.
ReplyDeleteNot sure the study in the link is worth much. No one is suggesting that negative splits are strongly correlated to one's final position in a marathon, which is the only thing his study shows (the graph is percentage of negative split vs. time). The question is whether negative or near-even splits are optimal for any given runner at any given distance. To demonstrate that conclusively would require a wholly different type of analysis.
ReplyDeleteMatt only slowed down 7% the second half of his CR run at Pb. I think this supports my suspicion that 15:42:59 wasn't his limit on that course and that his first half was too conservative for a fast-as-possible finish.
ReplyDeleteWith a 7:24 run to Winfield (vs his 7:34) and the same 8:09 back half you have a 15:33 with a 10% slow down. A 15% slowdown (say, 7:06/8:09) results in a 15:15. Damn.
I only slowed down 10% when I ran 16:14 (7:43/8:31), which fits with my felt experience of a non-risky first half and an issue-less second half that day.
Granted, there are so many other factors in ultras, but Leadville is a nice mountain course to test this theory on because it is out-n-back with the turn-around point being nearly the same altitude as the starting line.
Great stuff in this comment thread on MANY fronts. I will start with the 100, other distances and negative split thing.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that all the points of that post are absolutely on the mark, or even scientific ... but I think - and my reason for posting it, is that there is a damn good question to be asked if the negative split is absolutely undoubtedly don't question it the best way to drive to a PR.
Really, there are two reasons why I ask this ... first, at our bookend distances (the 800 and the 100 mile) we don't even consider that as an appropriate question. We expect a slow down of 10-15% in the 100.
(side note on this point, great insights all, and Tony - I was specifically wondering about MC's Pb. Good stuff there)
In the 800, the current WR is a positive split too: 49, 52 (or very approximately a 6 or 7 % slowdown).
And reason two as to why I question it ... we see a lot of performances in those other distances that are not negative splits and are still great. Maybe hearing Jonesy's recent interview (where he WR'd off of some ridiculous positive splits) helped me get to this question. That, and subjectively, I see a lot of guys who have their best performances off of positive splits.
Now, that said - I get the even split - or even the HUGE mental benefit of the negative split in the marathon. When you are passing a TON of folks in the latter half of a race, it is a huge mental boost - and as we all know that is MOST of the battle. If things start to go south, we all tend to start to cave a bit and then things REALLY go bad. When ramping it up against those who are imploding, we get a lot of positive feedback that - despite how crappy we may be feeling - suddenly has us feeling even better.
(side note 2, maybe these are less factors in those bookend distances since in the 800, everyone goes out for a positive split, and in the 100 every one is worked at that point)
Anyway, I am not sure it is a answerable question ... but I question this supposed law of running that the equal or negative split is a MUST for the best physiological performance in most races.
Eh - the AJW thread - I think a post about muling, pacers, rules could have been made without calling into question what happened at prior races.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that everyone is different and their body will respond to what they mentally think is best. I know when I ran the mile in college, our coach was a pretty firm believer in repeatedly testing our ability to perform best. I was never a good negative splitter in the mile, the 3rd lap was always my slowest, no matter how slow I started the first two laps - I'd just hit that 3rd lap with dread every single time. But the marathons I have performed the best (and not finish line time, but overall performance), I have negative split. I just think it's all just a personal favorite....somehow, I think you wouldn't do as well negativing splitting a 5k because you love the power and speed of that first mile...as I used to in my first quarter when I ran the mile.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought. Regardless, I'm REALLY excited to "watch" you race next year, will definitely be exciting so watch someone so freaking fast :). I am going to work on my 5k times, the speedwork will help my overall fitness. I might just complain a little about them ;).
Jill - you are way too kind on the compliments to my speed. The bigger issue here for me will be whether I am gonna go all in on going after that sort of training ... or if I will continue to hedge around 5k, trail marathon, ultra-esque sort of training.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on the 5k and mile, re: negative splitting ... I have thought similar. Although in the mile, I had to be really careful with that one when I was fit. I could easily easily (and often did) bury myself in that first quarter (leading with a 62 when you are targeting 69 seconds a lap ain't smart ... for what it is worth, it averaged out about the same anyway).