r/Marathon_Training • u/Efficient-Lime-3009 • 3d ago
Other It is not poor fueling or dehydration.
More often than not it is not poor fueling or dehydration or lack of electrolytes if you bonk and run the 2nd half waaaaaay slower than the 1st half. A smaller positive split of 2-8 minutes could possibly be attributed to that, but anything more than that or where you have to walk, it is most likely you were simply running too fast for your fitness.
117
u/Silly-Resist8306 3d ago
It’s going to be very difficult to convince Reddit that you can’t fuel, hydrate, lift or carbo load your way to a faster time. And shoes, too.
33
u/WorkerAmbitious2072 3d ago
To be fair to people, I think a lot of runners would happily just run more, farther, longer, but we know the injury risks with that and have to hold back from running too much…feels more in control to just fuel more or get more sodium or play with your water cadence etc
Like when I’m sitting at home and it’s ill advised to just go run more than I have…let’s buy some gels
23
u/wittgenstein1312 3d ago
I think the bigger problem is that people CAN run more, farther, longer, as long as they’re building up to that appropriately. But most runners are very impatient, especially newer runners, and they get hooked on short-term PRs at the expense of sustainability, end up in a cycle of injury and recovery and internalize (wrongly) that they’re capped at 35mpw, and look to other solutions to help
8
u/WorkerAmbitious2072 3d ago
I’m sure that happens too, but there’s also a relatively hard cap that a lot of us are going to run into no matter how slowly we look up to it, or you have to work up to it so slowly that it takes years, and in the meantime you’re like, OK, but what else can I do and tweak and mess with
Like I averaged 45 miles a week in my marathon program recently, and I would’ve happily run 55 or 60 if I wasn’t worried about getting injured doing it, and I hope to work up to running 55 or 60, but it’s gonna take a while, and in the meantime, yeah, I’m all about that massive fueling and let’s find the perfect set of gels and fruit snacks lol
15
u/Aromatic_Union9246 3d ago
It really doesn’t take that long to go from 45 miles a week to 55 or 60.
1
u/WorkerAmbitious2072 3d ago
Hopefully not but I just went to the 45 in August lol
11
u/Aromatic_Union9246 3d ago
I’m a big fan of 3 weeks same mileage one week down 1 week 10% bump.
So like 45, 45, 45 35, 50, 50, 50 , 40, 55, 55, 55, 44, 60, 60, 60 etc
And basically just cut down intensity of your workouts on the first week and then build them back up until the third week.
Eventually you’ll hit a mileage where you don’t get used to it anymore and then that’s just where you sit until you get used to it. And then crank up intensity as much as you can handle and then drop down to like 45 for a couple weeeks to reset after you’ve done a goal race or whatever and get back to building back up until you’re in a spot where you wanna do a hard block of training for something. Obviously at lower mileage you may need to do more than 10% or at higher mileage way less than 10% but for people in the 20-40 mile range you’re probably fine using 10% for a while every 3 weeks. Or if you like variability you can play around with increasing 1 run by a little bit each week. I just like to keep it simple and it’s easier to plan out if you stay at same mileage for a bit before bumping.
5
u/bebefinale 3d ago
I think it’s odd that people want to do marathons before they have enough running history to safely and comfortably run 50-60 mpw. Not trying to gatekeep but it’s a demanding event that a lot of people try too soon to train for it properly.
3
u/Live_Stage3567 3d ago
Yes it's sensible to cap running millage to manage injury risk but a runner can still get bang for their buck cross training in less bearing cardio - cycling is probably the best way.
I use my turbo trainer more during winter because I don't like running on a treadmill, it compliments running very well.
1
u/Silly-Resist8306 3d ago
I don’t think I was exceptional, but from age 59-67, I averaged 2800 miles/year. Most miles were 10 minutes+/- 15 seconds with one day of speed work. My marathons were around a 9 minute pace, terrain and weather depending.
Most weeks were 60+ miles with race recovery and travel dragging down the average. I was careful to not ramp up too quickly. I honestly thing the whole injury concern is alleviated by pace and increase management.
0
u/WorkerAmbitious2072 3d ago
Statistically, from every metric or survey or data point that I have seen that was absolutely an exception to the rule, the vast majority of recreational runners are nowhere near averaging 60 miles a week, let alone as senior citizens
Best I can tell, looking everywhere, most runners are in the 20 to 30 miles a week range, and then will increase that to 35 to 45 for marathon training blocks
0
u/Silly-Resist8306 3d ago
I realize my mileage was higher than most. What I should have said is, I’m not a genetic freak. I don’t think higher mileages are difficult for most runners physically. They may not have this time or desire, but are not physically incapable.
4
u/Important_Cry5596 3d ago
just fuel more or get more sodium or play with your water cadence etc
How do I improve my water cadence? I am sort of new to this.
2
u/WorkerAmbitious2072 3d ago
I probably should not have used the word cadence for any context other than the number of steps you take pardon minute
I should have said water timing or strategy and just trying to figure out exactly how much water to consume after you wake up, when to stop consuming water before the race starts, how much water to consume in terms of ounces per hour during a run depending on how hard, hard or how hot the run is, etc
that perfect mark where you’re completely hydrated, yet you don’t have to pee
It’s a matter of experience and trial and error. You can read what works for other people and like how many ounces to consume per unit of time, etc,, but there’s definitely personalization to it and it varies considerably with weather. It’s just one of the things that runners will hyperfixate on when they’re out of other things, I think
1
u/InboxMeYourSpacePics 3d ago
I mean my 4 bathroom stops added 10 minutes to my time so I need to work on hydration lol.
-1
9
u/EpicCyclops 3d ago
All of those things do help you run a faster time, but it's tiny optimization and gains compared to the massive gains from running training. Those gains land in the 1 to 4% range, while training is an order of magnitude larger influence.
However, once you have properly set a target goal and maxed out on training time, so you're getting into diminishing returns, optimizing all this other stuff is a great route to go down to get some gains, but early on in their marathon career a lot of people overthink it, like you're saying, because they see all the pros and influencers playing with it and the experienced runners talking about it that are at that point where their training gains are plateauing.
2
u/definitelyainoreally 3d ago
you can definitely under-fuel and under-hydrate though
6
u/wittgenstein1312 3d ago
No one’s saying otherwise. Can you buy better fuel for your car? Sure. Know what it’ll impact your car’s performance, longevity, and fuel efficiency the most though? How you drive
1
u/Important_Cry5596 3d ago
Under-fueling and buying better fuel is not really the same is it?
Can you under-fuel your car? You can.
1
u/definitelyainoreally 3d ago
sure. you have a maximum potential though and anything that you don't do right will take away from it
1
53
u/Mysterious_Spring242 3d ago
Agree
37
u/Putrid_Indication971 3d ago
The kicker is when you run the bleeding edge of your fitness and the wheels come off at mile 25. Happened to me last year. I think it would have hurt less if it would have been the mile 18-20 bonk. That last mile took 15 minutes (I was holding an 8:00).
58
u/Mysterious_Spring242 3d ago
Silver lining you know you gave it everything you had
13
u/Putrid_Indication971 3d ago
You nailed it. I did walk away from it knowing that there was nothing left in the tank. I just wish it would have happened a mile or so later.
3
u/Vandermilf 3d ago
I didn’t even get a pain cave my legs just turned to lead and told me that’s it you’re walking
3
u/SunsingerAsh 3d ago
I've only just thought of it like this but basically a perfect marathon is bonking as you cross the finish line isn't it?
If you don't bonk at all, you could have given more. If you bonk early, you're race is screwed.
No wonder it's such a tough race to master
4
u/Silly-Resist8306 3d ago
It isn’t bonking that defines the perfect marathon. The last guy to get it 100% right was Pheidippides. I think I might settle for 99%.
2
u/Putrid_Indication971 2d ago
I'll take my 25th mile seizing hamstring over anything Pheidippides related. I've seen collapsed runners that look that way and it's NOT pretty.
24
u/bestmaokaina 3d ago
Lack of long runs with fast segments for the last KMs
5
u/hinault81 3d ago
I just did my marathon last weekend, followed a plan, it went well, really no complaints, but that last 6k or so were tough, and I was about 20 seconds a km slower for those km. And 4 mins slower 2nd half vs first. There are so many different things one could look at: fueling, going out to fast, carb loading, etc.
But I think it's exactly what you say: not enough long runs with fast (and rolling hills for me) finishes. I looked back through my plan and there are only 7 runs 30k & over. And 3 of those were only either 30 or 31k. And (again, you don't know what you don't know), but usually the last 8km of my long runs are flat, just due to the surrounding area of my house.
And I think it's just not enough time in that space, and come race day it feels like unknown territory for my legs the last 5-8k. And I think to do it again, I should've put the long run as my focus and even added some length to other runs to spend more time in that 2hr - 2.30hr space.2
u/bestmaokaina 3d ago
my plans always have something like 16km - 20km easy pace warm up and then some 3 - 4 KMs at MP or faster depending on the workout.
its brutal but helps in the long term
15
13
12
u/itstoocrazy 3d ago
Do you think this even with regards to weather? Starting in 60 degrees ending in 85 for example? That naturally slows me down.
-1
u/Accurate_Prompt_8800 3d ago edited 3d ago
I have run marathons in 18-22 degrees when typical weather for the region at the time is more like 8-15 degrees. And this is coming out of winter conditions (0-12 degrees). Despite that, I’ve never had a positive split more than 1-2 mins in those marathons.
You have to be sensible and manage expectations. Don’t go out at the pace you trained in the colder weather at - it’s just common sense.
If you slow down significantly as the race goes on that means you overcooked it the first half. Things like heat acclimatation take time, not something you can gain materially in the week of the race.
Even if it’s hot you shouldn’t be 8-10+ mins slower in the second half. It’s either you go out more conservatively and perhaps you run a slower race overall but for most people it will still be faster than had they gone out at the pace they trained at. Or you go out at your desired pace and take the risk of blowing up.
11
u/itstoocrazy 3d ago
Respectfully, I train in tropical conditions with high temps and high humidity. It seems you are accustomed to the opposite. There are times when high temps and humidity will slow any runner down, elites included.
-5
u/Accurate_Prompt_8800 3d ago edited 3d ago
OP’s post is about running marathons with massive positive splits of 8+ mins, not having a slower OVERALL time. Can you read?
Elites are racing on the knife edge where every 1% makes a difference, respectfully most of us here are not and a lot of issues can be down to simple things like lack of training.
And part of that training is gaining / having the knowledge to adjust pace when it’s too hot, HR is too high, feeling the onset of cramps etc. This might not be training in the traditional sense but you gain all this experience through going out and doing longer runs and runs with stints at marathon pace. That will give you the data.
3
u/itstoocrazy 3d ago
Ops post is about running too fast for your fitness not about training and gaining knowledge on adjusting pace for conditions. The question here is
Can you read?
0
u/Apprehensive_Pace_9 3d ago
Depends. Last year I set out at goal pace on race day that was way hotter than expected. I took the risk. If you set off slowly you might run a better race, but you would still be outside your target time anyway.
-8
u/Accurate_Prompt_8800 3d ago edited 3d ago
OP’s post is about massive positive splits of 8+ mins, not having a slower OVERALL time. Can you read?
The science says temps over 15 degrees start to exponentially have a negative effect on your pace, and add in lack of heat acclimatation and you’re in for a rough ride. The decision to take a ‘risk’ was on you.
For the vast majority of people, not adjusting your goal time and pace when faced with materially hotter conditions than the ones you are used to / train in will result in a huge positive split. But none of that is the point of OP’s post.
2
1
13
u/atoponce 3d ago
100%. Not properly training your marathon pace in your long runs means overcooking it at the race, 9 times out of 10.
1
u/ParticleHustler2 3d ago
What is the best way to do this? For my first marathon, I most often did things like, for an 18 mile run, 2 sets of 6 miles @ easy pace and 3 miles at marathon or faster pace. So, I was running at MP for miles 7-9 and 16-18. It seemed to work since I hit my goal, but I'm about to start training for a second marathon and curious how others work marathon pace into long runs.
2
u/msarcop 3d ago
Check out some of the more popular plans. Pfitz plans require MP runs to be continuous and not intervals. I did the 18/55 plan, and the peak was 18 mi w/ 14 mi at MP. It was a beast but good idea of where you land on race day
1
u/_runner_rob 3d ago
I'm doing 12/70 and I am not looking forward to the 18 mi w/ 12mi at MP this week. It's a lot of effort when you've already run 50 miles that week.
But I hit a PR by 7 minutes doing the MP workouts with the 18/55 plan.
1
u/atoponce 3d ago
I wouldn't do intervals in your long run. I'd save those for the midweek sessions. The marathon is a long, hard, durability beast, so you're better off practicing long, hard, steady tempos IMO. Something like:
- 10' warm up
- 80'-90' steady
- 50'-60' marathon pace
- 10' cool down
If you can sustain that marathon pace after a long steady tempo, you should have a very good idea of what that pace is for race day.
1
u/F737NG 3d ago
Don't race your training. Despite what others are suggesting, your long slow runs should be exactly that.
If you really want, you can either incorporate a 3- to 4-mile pickup or 5- to 6- miles at goal pace as part of your longest runs.
Most of my goal pace running in my latest training plan was during a once a week tempo session.
The result was I ran my 3rd fastest marathon time in a warm Chicago at an average pace that was only a few seconds per mile off goal pace.
11
u/2022reboot 3d ago
Reminds me of people blaming their hangover on literally anything besides “I drank too much alcohol.”
2
u/swahappycat 3d ago
Its just dehydration
0
u/2022reboot 3d ago
I have to hope that you’re joking…
2
u/2022reboot 2d ago
I’m being downvoted? Do you people really believe that a hangover is just caused by dehydration? Not acetaldehyde toxicity? Not inflammation and metabolic disturbances? Not gastrointestinal irritation, sleep disruption, etc.?
Fucking hell, the irony of needing this debate on this thread…
2
u/ThrowRA152638 2d ago
100% not just dehydration. I'm a water FIEND but that does not stop me from feeling like shit after drinking
2
u/2022reboot 2d ago
Right? You don’t need to have a degree in biochemistry to know this. Anyone who has been seriously hungover and seriously dehydrated knows that many of the symptoms are quite different.
6
u/weed_cutter 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's complicated. ... For an individual runner, it can be anything.
Running too fast for your fitness is kinda overly broad -- it's like saying the main cause of plane crashes is gravity.
For me personally, I experienced massive cramps (charlie horses) on hamstrings starting at mile 23.
Ended up splitting 1.29.30 // 1.35.15 (almost +6?)
Was it carb load/ fueling? No I averaged 90g/ hour and then some, salt and electrolytes out the wazoo and a 10g/kg carb load prior 2 days.
Long runs? I mean prob five 20 milers, one 22 miler -- averaged 55m/w entire year with peak in 80s/ low 90s/ 101 miles. ... So volume was there.
Was it aerobic? No ... heart rate was looking fantastic the entire race. Until the legs blew up.
... So what was it really? For me, durability ... lifetime miles -- never put in serious, serious volume until Jan 1 of this year. .... Lackluster strength training -- posterior chain was super weak especially the hamstrings. ... And probably not enough marathon-pace workouts within long runs (only about 3 the whole block, mostly did NSM).
My training block looked like it had no holes during ... but then ... that pace, that distance = boom.
2
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago
Not sure if you read my post closely. I a referring to huge blowups. Your positive split of 6+ minutes could possibly be explained by other factors other than you were not fit enough to run sub 3.
Yes, saying running too fast for your fitness doesn't address the factors that influence fitness, but I am addressing the claim that I could have run the marathon 30 mins faster if I had simply fueled properly, which has nothing to do with your raw fitness and would not be a likely cause for a 30 minute positive split.
2
u/kdmfa 3d ago
I didn't eat anything my first marathon and had a HUGE blow up way more than 10+ mins. So it is definitely possible the blow up can be caused by nutrition vs lack of fitness.. that said, in most cases I do agree with you, especially if person drank water from most aid stations and/or had at least 30-60g carbs/hour.
1
u/weed_cutter 3d ago
Hmmm true. ... I mean no one takes "could have run it faster" seriously at any race ... just hypotheticals. Your time is your time lol.
Whether you really were glycogen depleted or not -- well, that could be explained by their fueling strategy but also ... check their watch ... if the heart-rate was redlined (90% max let's say conservatively) at some point or was looking ugly at the half (87%?) then yes, they over-estimated their fitness most likely. Though not exactly sure how glycogen depletion would show up per se.
1
u/hinault81 3d ago
I could've wrote this exact same thing, almost to a T, from my marathon. Only I didn't do NSM, but a different plan. And I do go to the gym as well. And of course trying to figure out what happened (though I'm completely happy with my result), for a plan next year. And I've come mostly to the same conclusion: better long runs.
I was cruising the marathon, never felt like I was even pushing, good until about 37/38km, and then legs just didn't have it. And very similar to training runs ramping up mileage, I'd get to a point and the legs were done, because they weren't used to that distance. And those training runs were slower, I dont think it was a pace thing. I find the same with biking, ramping up from nothing to do a fondo that's 150k - 200k, takes time, and that dead leg feeling when you've over shot your distance ability, you can still go, but the pop is gone.
HR was consistent entire marathon.But looking back on my plan I had only 7 runs over 30k, and 3 of those were only 30-31k. That's very little time spent in that 32k-42k space. And I know people aren't doing over 35k or 2.5hrs, I get it, but I think I really needed more time in that 30-36k even 37k space, with speed and rolling hills towards the end. I did my 34k long run 3 weeks before the marathon, and it felt great, felt good the next day too, I just stopped because that was the number on the plan, but I could've run another few km's easy, and I think for future, I need a handful more of those runs, and even just take them a little further. So that 34k - 42k isn't completely unknown come race day.
1
u/weed_cutter 3d ago
Well I think speed is more of a beating. Most of my long runs were easy pace + the fast stuff was done M/W/F on shorter overall runs.
Never had a cramp on a 20-22 mile easy run, there's just not the same stress involved.
I did do a 20 with 14 at MP and an 18 with 13 at MP, but that was just like 2-3 workouts at the end. But ... who knows! Ha. ... I'm just thinking -- the 'hamstring explode' thing means something went wrong.
1
u/terriblegrammar 3d ago
My training block looked like it had no holes during ... but then ... that pace, that distance = boom.
This is the part that really sucks. You can do everything perfectly for the block, hit all your long runs, crush every T interval, sprinkle in hill strides for efficiency and still cramp 90% of the way through a race. Some people are just prone to cramping and those people need to go above and beyond (adding substantial deadlifts, calf raises, squats, etc) or just pull back slightly on pacing during the race even if the body feels great because you know the legs can go from 100% to hobbling cramps in the blink of an eye.
5
u/Effective-Umpire-155 3d ago
This seems correct but it always makes me wonder how to determine what pace your fitness can allow from the get go? Like I understand the wisdom is to start out slower than goal pace but what if that is even too fast? Especially if you’re running your first or second marathon.
0
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago
There are many ways to determine the correct pace. Shorter races building up to a half marathon. Do threshold workouts, and build up to enough volume to really figure out if your pace is actually threshold or not. Do long fast runs at 5 to 10% slower than your Marathon pace. Do long runs with significant chunks of marathon pace built in. Mix in moderate pace runs instead of straight easy. Learn how to run by feel and know what certain intensities feel like rather than relying on heart rate which can be influenced by other factors besides just your pace on a run.
3
u/sleephowl 3d ago
In the last two marathons, the cramps started around mile 22. Fueling was dialed in, so I know neuromuscular fatigue was the culprit. Managed much better the second go around as I was able to finish without stopping, albeit 30 seconds off pace. Increased volume (4 70 plus mile weeks) and included more late GMP (6:40) later in long runs, but still fell a little short. Trusting the process and the accumulated miles over multple builds until it eventually clicks.
3
u/Not_A_Comeback 3d ago
Agree.
I think one thing that’s difficult to accept is that various watches and things capture your cardiovascular fitness but little about neuromuscular fatigue nor your musculoskeletal durability, and those are big, race limiting factors.
2
u/Rjd2680 3d ago
Absolutely. My last long run (20) I had my racers on to break them in and I did the first 16 at 30 seconds faster then my marathon pace. The wheels came off at mile 17 because my legs couldn't keep up with my aerobic fitness anymore. I should have known better than trusting the ease of running in plated racers. Live and learn.
1
u/Vandermilf 3d ago
Exact same happened to me but I knew I was cooked when I got through the first loop 10 mins early
2
u/OrinCordus 3d ago
Agree. Even more so when the first half is within a couple of minutes of your half marathon PB.
2
u/Eastern_Tomato6690 3d ago
Hydration and fueling has always been my issue.
0
u/xxamkt 3d ago
I’ll bet good money it isn’t.
1
u/Eastern_Tomato6690 2d ago
Cool - so when I ran my marathon fasted and cramped up it was a fitness issue and not a fueling/being an idiot issue?
2
u/syphax 3d ago
I agree with "More often than not...". I disagree with the rage-bait title, as there are plenty of times when it is fueling and/or dehydration. Esp. warm temps that lead to dehydration that leads to nausea that leads to underfueling.
E.g. Boston 2016. It was a bit warm. I trained with a coach (a good one). I had crushed my training runs and a 30k tune-up race. Went for sub-3 (as I had when qualifying in 2014). Went well for 18 miles (~6:45 pace), wheels then gradually fell off and slowest mile was mile 22, 11 minutes. Gathered myself, drank some water, sped up and closed the last mile+ at 7 min pace. Legs were A-OK. It was a ~ + 20 min positive split.
3
u/ralphtheanimal 3d ago
Right. There's a lot of negativity here.
Marathoning in complicated and performance on race day, especially for those new to the sport, is a balance of fitness, preparedness, weather, fuel, hydration, gear, mood, course, crowd, and a lot of things. Some of these are within the athlete's control, and some aren't.
If someone bonks, it means they went too fast for their fitness level in those conditions on that course with their fuel/hydration plan.
Geez, I used to run races on two gels and sometimes I'd skip the 2nd one. I'm faster now. Am I more fit? yes. Do I take 5 gels instead of 1? Also yes. Do I wear better race shoes? Also yes.3
u/jobadiah08 3d ago edited 3d ago
I had the same thoughts towards OP. Ran my first this year and blew up with crippling calf cramps at mile 21.5. had to walk/jog the final miles. Was a lack of fitness a factor, probably. But my previous half and my training runs said I was targeting a pace well within my fitness, probably 5-10 minutes slower than a perfect day race based on those predictions. However, I knew about a mile in my pre race fueling was lacking compared to my training runs. I had an extra gel, which I used, but my plan for 60g/hr with getting about 20g/hr from the Gatorade at the aid stationa was flawed. Retrospective math says I would likely be low on gycogen around 3 hours, around the time I cramped up. I was definitely dehydrated and short fueled then. Wasn't a factor in training because my longest training run was 21 miles/3 hours, and I think I started those off better fueled
So I took a couple lessons from it.
1) bring snacks with me to the start so I am not waiting around for 1+ hours not eating/drinking before the race
2) up my fueling and train to the higher fueling
3) add some actual dedicated MP blocks to my long runs instead of just a final 3-5 mile progression to finish at MP
2
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago
I hear what you are saying, but when you say your previous half and training runs said the pace you were targeting was well within your fitness. Is that actually true? Do you know exactly what zone of intensity your training runs were at and in the half marathon? Many new and inexperienced runners have not developed their LT and CV to a point where they can sustain a pace they run at shorter distances for a full marathon. So they think they can run a certain pace for a marathon, but in reality they need to run at a slower pace than they think. Bonking is more about what intensity you are running relative to your fitness/endurance. CV and LT2 are good intensity zones, that if you know yours, combined with enough mileage, can predict what pace you should run. Developing and improving these takes years of running not months.
1
u/jobadiah08 3d ago
I think I have a good idea of my zones since I had been racing halves for 2 years by that point, and running 15ish miles per week for years prior to that. Once I got into distance events my average mileage increased to 25, then 30, and I held at 30+ mpw for 8 months before the race, with the final 3 months being over 40 mpw. Was easily in the best running shape I had been in since HS XC (granted that was 18 years ago), and probably had more weekly mileage
In fairness to your point, I think the bigger factor was coming down with a bad cold at the start of taper which turned into a sinus infection. Fine, losing the week 2 weeks from race isn't a big deal, but the antibiotics for the sinus infection destroyed my gut. I had trouble feeling fueled those whole two weeks because stuff just seemed to go right through.
Hence why I think my 12 minutes split was a fueling rather than fitness issue. Guess you could say it was a sickness recovery issue. For reference, my half the block prior was 1:36. I was targeting 3:40. Up until I got sick I was thinking I was probably in 3:35 shape, I forget what Runalyze was predicting at that point, but it was somewhere in that area. I had a lot of trust since it said I could do a 1:38 half when I ran the 1:36
1
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 2d ago
40+mpw is not enough mileage. It is near the bare minimum to just finish a marathon.
You may have been in good shape for half and shorter, but not necessarily for a marathon at your goal pace. Your endurance was probably not developed well enough. Critical velocity (CV) is a boundary between intensities that are sustainable for a longer duration and over that boundary a runner will definitively progress towards exhaustion no matter how well they fuel. For low mileage runners with a likely lower CV, they need to run a marathon at a smaller percentage of their CV, since the closer you get to CV the harder it is to sustain that pace for a longer duration. Runners with a lower CV are more susceptible to small changes in pace because their CV is so low small changes might bring them close or over that boundary. So you may have felt good at half marathon and below. Your half marathon times may be misleading if you are using apps such a VDOT or Runalyze to project marathon pace. You were likely running very close to your CV in your half marathon and so you were able to finish because you were under CV but you were probably running near the higher end of your ability to finish the race. It is likely if you increased your pace just even a little bit more you might have bonked in the half marathon as well. so even though you ran a 136 half with a low CV, you probably have a slower marathon pace relative to your half pace than someone who has a high CV.
1
u/syphax 2d ago
40+mpw is not enough mileage. It is near the bare minimum to just finish a marathon.
Different guy than you are responding to, but it's my thread, so...
I take issue with your blanket generalizations on this post. E.g. I've run sub 3 on <35 mpw. With a painful but modest positive split. I'm not saying mileage doesn't help- my most even marathon (+2 mins) came off >50 mpw- but I am saying that your blanket generalizations aren't universally applicable.
1
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 2d ago edited 2d ago
Of course not universally applicable. But generally yes. It is scientifically supported and the more likely cause. I'd also say I prefaced what I said with likely, more susceptible, etc. Not definitive statements.
Natural ability and genetics are a significant factor for marathon times. This sets floor and ceiling. Some people will never break 3 no matter how many miles they run and some as in your case can do it with low mileage.
Smoking is bad for you, but some people smoke their entire lives and live to 90 and never get lung cancer.
2
u/afterthedenim2 3d ago
I would lean more towards your argument, but I think fuelling, hydration, warm conditions and other factors can also have a big effect
2
u/maporita 3d ago
Fueling during a marathon will give you a few percent improvement in performance. Energy return shoes (aka Supershoes) will do the same. So they may improve your time slightly but they aren't a magic bullet. If you go out too fast you'll hit the wall.
2
u/floppyfloopy 3d ago
So often the wrong causes and wrong solutions are proposed in running:
- Hit the wall/cramps? -->must need more electrolytes
- Tendonitis in feet or legs? -->must need new shoes
When in reality both of these and many other issues are solved by increased muscular strength and endurance. But these things take time and no one wants to hear it. Imagine being an influencer and telling people they need to build these things slowly and deliberately over months and years. Nope! Take my branded supplements instead and buy my high-carb gels and electrolytes with this 10% off code.
2
u/ddbbaarrtt 3d ago
People don’t like to hear that though
They have a goal in mind and admitting ‘I wasn’t strong enough’ or ‘I wasn’t fit enough’ feels more like a personal failure than ‘I was under fuelled’
I have a similar but different take to this on running marathons in general which is that most people who run regularly would be able to put themselves in a position to finish a marathon with a small amount of training, particularly with how prevalent run-walk-run strategies are now. But there’s a massive step up from that to then running it at a target pace
2
u/LizzyDragon84 3d ago
Absolutely my issue. I don’t so much bonk as I slowly lose speed somewhere in the second half, like a wind-up toy that’s almost played out. I’ve been getting better, but so much of this comes back to training for me.
2
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago
Following up.
Again, I am talking about the scenario of a big blowup or bonk where you positive split like 10-40 minutes.
- Heat and humidity can definitely be a factor, probably more significant than fueling if it is warm and humid enough. But then you should adjust your pace since the metabolic cost of running your "marathon pace" is higher.
- The NUMBER ONE factor that will best help most new and less experienced runners run faster is simply MORE MILEAGE. Yes improving your fueling, doing strength training, adding speed workouts, all help you run faster, but more mileage (if you are able to do it safely) will yield the biggest gains initially for newer and less experienced runners.
- Of course you have to build up to higher mileage and you can't just jump into it. There is a higher risk of injury, fatigue, and overtraining. You might say, I am running my first marathon and I can only run 35-45 miles per week safely. That is fine, but if you want to run a fast time maybe you should consider waiting to run your 1st marathon. Run shorter races, a half marathon and then run a marathon 1.5-2 years out from when you first start training for one. Nothing wrong with running one sooner if you want to, but temper your expectations then.
1
u/nquesada92 3d ago edited 3d ago
This past weekend in chicago I felt really good at mile 20 and said final 10k lets full send and misjudged what was left in the tank and bonked in the final 5k. ended up splitting mile 23-26.2 half jog half walk. Granted the last 5k was tough being fairly warm and having the least amount of tree coverage. I would attribute it to lack of fitness not nutrition at all, it was verymuch a brain/body disconnect heart rate was good and the final 5k my hr dropped from middle of zone 3 to solid zone 2, so my aerobic capacity seemed ok seemed like a strength/durability thing. Definitely could have done more volume and more strength training, was also coming off an injury and physical therapy throughout the training block.
1
1
1
u/onlyontuesdays77 3d ago
It's not that I disagree, more that I dislike the overused phrasing "too fast for your fitness."
I think that phrasing suggests that it's a race-day problem; you did a poor job of pacing in the first half and you're paying for it in the second half.
It's not a race-day problem at all, nor is it even necessarily a pacing problem. It's an endurance problem. If you "bonk" (and it's not clearly due to a poor fueling & hydration approach), it means your legs weren't prepared to go that far. It's quite likely that slowing down would not have gotten you much further at a consistent pace, either - maybe a mile or two, but you'd still end up struggling sooner or later, and the result on the clock would probably be about the same.
Speed & endurance are two different disciplines; improving in one area does not have an equal effect on the other. That's why training is broken up into different effort levels - some days you're training to be faster, and some days you're training to go further.
So, if your goal pace is 7:30s, it's absolutely possible that you are in great shape to reliably run 20 miles at 7:30 pace. The vast majority of marathoners don't do a run longer than 20 miles until race day, and if you're meeting all of your long run goals then all the evidence you're seeing says that you'll be able to run 7:30s on race day. But in this case let's say you skipped a lot of your easy mileage runs - usually only one per week, but then there was also that week you were sick, and the week your friend was in town...but that's normal, you have a busy life which doesn't go on hold when youre marathon training. Come race day, you run 7:30s...for 20 miles. And then you hit the wall. You couldn't have known the wall was there - like I said, all the evidence you were seeing was that you were meeting your goals all the way up to 20 miles. You ran the exact pace that you were supposed to run. But your legs just weren't ready for that extra 10k, because you needed more easy mileage to build capacity, and in hindsight any experienced runner or coach can diagnose that problem.
And to boot, not all folks get the same benefit from the same training. Some folks have the natural talent and physiology to build capacity on a lower mileage total, and some folks don't. And if the latter try to follow the training plans of the former, they could do everything to the letter and still hit the wall - a lesson they could not have learned without that experience.
Too fast for your fitness? Not really. Too far for your fitness, I suppose, would be better phrasing.
2
u/GoldZookeepergame111 3d ago
No, it's both too fast x too far for your fitness -- but since the marathon distance is fixed we say "too fast." The classic "hitting the wall" experience is running out of glycogen. Glycogen gets tapped at increasingly high rates relative to fat at *faster speeds*. Everyone has enough fat to fuel a marathon, but most do not have enough glycogen to exclusively fuel a marathon. Therefore if you go too fast you run out of fuel (aka bonk, hit the wall), whereas if you slow down you do not.
If you get carried away and go out too fast on race day, you run out of fuel and bonk. Fueling can avoid this to a certain degree, but not unlimitedly so.
1
u/onlyontuesdays77 3d ago
Obviously, you didn't read my entire comment, as my comment wasn't about insufficient fuel at all.
You can run the exact pace you're supposed to be running and still bonk. Sure, there are some one-and-done marathon runners who go out fast and finish slow and it's not a big deal because the goal was to finish. But not everyone who bonks is making a mistake.
As I explained in my original comment, you don't know for sure how well prepared your body is to run 26.2 until you run 26.2. To reuse the example that you didn't read, suppose you are a distance runner whose race history says you should be able to run a marathon in 7:20s, but perhaps you set a goal of 7:30s just to be a little conservative for the first marathon. You find a proven training plan and follow it; maybe you miss some runs here and there because you're a busy person with other hobbies and commitments, but for the most part you're following the plan. You finish all of your workouts at the right pace. You finish all of your long runs at the right pace. Everything is on target for you to run 7:30s. So on race day, you go out and you run 7:30s, just like you planned. But when you hit 20 miles, you hit the wall. Because you were very well trained to run 7:30s for 20 miles, but you weren't trained to run it for 26.2.
Aside from the one-and-done folks, this scenario applies to most marathoners who bonk. You do everything you're supposed to, but something goes wrong. Maybe you missed too many easy runs and didn't build the capacity for that extra 10k. Maybe the training plan you used didn't fit your physiology. Maybe you didn't recover enough, so your legs weren't 100% on race day. Whatever the case, you were right to run the pace you did for as long as you could. You aren't getting "carried away," your body simply wasn't as ready to run a marathon as it seemed to be, and it's perfectly okay and completely normal that you didn't realize it until you found the wall.
1
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago edited 3d ago
With your example of running 7:30s when your history says you can run 7:20s, it is important to know what criteria you are using to say 7:20s are reasonable. There are ways to reliably know what you can run on race day for a full 26.2 miles. Most new runners probably don't have that more reliable data, so they are guessing and end up running too fast. When I say too fast. I mean wrong intensity. Physiological intensities such as LT2 and CV come into play for less experienced runners. That can't run the right intensity by feel. For example, if a runner runs a significant portion of their race above CV doesn't matter how many carbs you take, you are going to fatigue to exhaustion.
I am an experienced high mileage runner and I would never and have never come close to bonking to the degree where I had to walk or had a positive split more than 5-6 minutes.
I would say if you have reliable criteria as to what pace you are capable of running you would not likely bonk and have a positive split of 10+ minutes. Not out of the question, but it would be the exception.
-1
u/GoldZookeepergame111 3d ago
I did read your comment. I just think the more common experience of hitting the wall is that runners go out too fast for their fitness. It’s not muscular endurance that’s limiting, but rather fuel.
2
u/terriblegrammar 3d ago
And to boot, not all folks get the same benefit from the same training. Some folks have the natural talent and physiology to build capacity on a lower mileage total, and some folks don't.
This gets overlooked I think and the only way to really learn what you specifically need is to race. If you are hitting your training blocks down to the T and still blowing up in a race when you know your LT1/2, then chances are you need to add additional stimulus that most others might not need. Maybe you need more long run emphasis to build that neuromuscular strength or maybe compound lifts at the gym will get you through.
But you likely are not going to find these things out doing an 18 mile LSD or 20 min T session. You gotta sign up for those races to go see god and see what he has to say.
1
u/Efficient-Lime-3009 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes my phrasing is too simplistic. Whether a bonk is due to running too fast for your fitness or too far depends on the situation. I am merely addressing the seemingly endless amount of posts blaming fueling for blow ups.
For less experienced runners, or even more experienced runners that have never put in the mileage or run longer than a 10k. yes, too far for your fitness is definitely major factor to consider.
But if you have been able to run easy long runs consistently at 7:30 pace and building up to 20 miles. That is a good indicator that you can finish a marathon if you run the correct pace/effort. BUT feeling good at 7:30 pace for your easy long runs does NOT mean you can run a full marathon at 7:30 pace since that is your easy pace. So running too fast for your fitness is a significant factor. In most situations brought up on reddit it is both too far and too fast.
Someone else asked how do you know the correct pace to run on race day? I said it's important that you do more than just easy long runs. have quality in your long runs such as significant chunks of marathon pace, do long runs at 5 to 10% slower than MP, do threshold workouts and do them with enough volume where you can actually determine if your pace is true threshold. People fall in love with "speed" workouts, which as you said is a totally different thing than endurance, when they should be focusing more on endurance related workouts.
1
u/RunThenBeer 3d ago
Yeah, but admitting to myself that I just ran faster than my fitness and blew up is incredibly unflattering and does not offer an easy solution for next time.
1
u/Fun-Falcon-8708 3d ago
My wheels came off at km 41 for my Marathon on Sunday. Had a couple minute cushion to get my sub four and ended up with a 4:04 and three hours in the medical tent. That 2-3 minute cushion killed me in the end. Some fuelling mistakes involved too - couldn’t handle my last gel or bottle of electrolytes.
1
u/Popular-Definition-5 3d ago
I don’t cramp but my legs (quads) are turning to lead sometimes causing me to fail on long runs over 20km. Is it just a case of keep training or am I missing something else?
1
u/bigbari 3d ago
Totally get for leg cramping. What about side stitches? Is that also generally due to lack of fitness? Been struggling with these during MP efforts and races despite everything else holding up great.
2
u/hellzscream 3d ago
I can only speak from my anecdotal experience. My first year of getting into long distance running I had side stiches all the time especially past 12km or so. Years later I haven't gotten a side stitch at all and I frequently run 30+km runs weekly. Not sure if it was over time becoming more efficient breathing, posture, etc
1
u/Steve_Palladino 3d ago
it is most likely you were simply running too fast for your fitness
Bingo! I like how "too fast for your fitness" incorporates two elements: a) fitness (including fatigue resistance), and b) execution decisions. ... These factors do /should interact with each other.
Most ill-advised execution decisions arise from a) having a "goal time" (instead of evidence-based race planning), b) trying to make a qualifying time or bust, c) using evidence-based race planning, but lacking "target discipline", and/or c) being male (as demonstrated in more than one research paper).
Most fitness deficits arise from a) missed training ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367012563_Estimating_the_cost_of_training_disruptions_on_marathon_performance ), b) insufficient volume or LRs, c) insufficient years of training experience, d) too long of a taper, e) illness during the taper period.
1
u/Opposite_Suit_25 3d ago
Hmm…also could be the race shoe. I averaged 93 miles a week for a marathon block. Did a 26 mile long run and probably 9 over of at least 22 miles. Hot days, chilly days, late nights. Race day began cramping on mile 16. Never once cramped before. If it wasn’t that I’d forgotten my sodium tablets it was that I was racing in the vaporfly and I only worn it once on an 18-miler and then during the runs of the taper. The science does not allow for conclusive statements about why we cramp. But I think experience tells us all that the causes are multiple.
1
u/stufferonald 2d ago
Just did my first marathon. Aiming for sub 3:30 and was a minute ahead at half way, maintained it until 35km and got a 3:47.
I didn’t train enough to keep it up for any longer. Had nothing left. No salts or electrolytes could’ve saved me.
1
1
1
u/WMTRobots 2d ago
Agree re: electrolytes and dehydration, and in general, but I've definitely also brutally (and dangerously) bonked for low blood sugar.
246
u/jorsiem 3d ago
It is a known fact that neuromuscular fatigue is the main culprit for cramps and not electrolyte imbalance