Running on Ice

When watching elite athletes run I am keenly aware of how similar they are.  This video is about efficiency.  Run as if you are running on ice.  Near the end of the clip, the author, Dr. Nicholas Rominov actually runs on ice.  Rominov, is the founder of the pose method of running.  When we think about how we run and try to minimize the forces that slow us down we also may be avoiding unnecessary forces that cause injury.  When you run, envision you are running on ice.  It might prevent you from overstriding or leaning too far back.  Watch the video and comment as you see fit.

Here's another:  Haile Running in Slow Motion (Beautiful)

-Rob

They ran like this....

This is a terrific slide show of Greg White (Big Dog), Glenn Latimer, Phil Lockwood, Mike Sonnemaker, Steve Shostrom and the rest of the gang. I can only imagine what it must have been like to be around that many great runners. In one shot, taken at Sheridan Village, Greg notes that he ran a 32:22 10k and came in 9th! Talk about a tough crowd! I would say they wrote the book on tough!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot :-). So I asked Greg about that hat...He says:

"In those days it was a painters hat made of paper or the early Tyvex. I found that hats worked great as both an insulator to keep heat in and out by soaking it with water at aid station to go as far as throwing ice in the hat and letting it melt. also great in the rain and on sunny days I could turn it around and protect my neck. Also kept my Perm in place. Hat also I thought kept me from squinting and adding tension to my face which I thought would progress down into my shoulders. also at times it made me look Cool in pictures."

I agree Greg, way COOL!



Celebrating on a bus bench in Chicago. "We could party anywhere"

Enjoy
Rob

Not having a good day? How bout you try being more negative! - By Glenn Latimer

(Glenn Latimer tells Rob what it takes to be faster than Schroff!)

Rob

 

Greg asked me to comment - see his post below

 

Depending on the marathon race course, even splits or negative splits are the way to go in a marathon - otherwise you feel you are "hanging on" and trying to survive/get through the last third of the race.

 

As Blair and Greg have correctly identified, it is training and simulation which allows one to do this type of racing.  I always preach "have your wheels under you at 30k"  - i.e. you can still control your pace when the race comes to the tough part.

 

Liken it to driving your car - you either control the accelerator pedal, or the car controls you.  Most people running a marathon do not have control of the accelerator pedal, and therefore the race is controlling them.

 

Elites train to run different paces, make injections of pace, and recover.  Most elites and sub-elites know exactly what pace they are on by experience and by feel.  There is no reason why everyone can't get the feel for pace, whatever speed they intend to run.

 

Age brings wisdom (maybe?) - when I ran another marathon when I reached 50, I ran the first 10M at a controlled pace, the next 10M at about 15 seconds per mile faster, and the last 10k was the fastest per mile pace of all. Wish I had practiced that when I was racing with Greg!!

 

Elites run within themselves through the first half of the race. Then the race really starts between 25k and 30k.  The fittest, well-trained guys run even or negative splits usually. 

 

The guys in Chicago last weekend got a crazy idea about 15k and ran a couple of miles at 4:36 and 4:38. As predicted it buried most of them, and lost the winner the chance of a course record. Too much too soon.

 

Next April in London we are planning a first half of the race in 62:00  - that is not too fast if you can run 59:00 for a half marathon.  Extrapolate accordingly to whichever level you run at, as the same principles apply.

 

Consult with the experts like Greg and Blair on how to do this sort of training simulation.  Greg correctly identifies that most people in training don't simulate, and therein lies the key. Put yourself under stress to learn to simulate and "control" of the pace.  Remember this is complex because you need to be able to control the pace (maintain or pick it up) just at the time when you body is "changing tanks."   Consult with the experts in Greg and Blair - they can help you.

 

Hope these comments help.

 

Regards

 

Glenn

 

Greg and Blair Weigh-In on Negative Splits

Rob,

 

Negative splits...what a question!  I've been trying to figure that one out for over twenty years without an answer but I do have some thoughts about why the elites can do it and we can't. First we don't practice it enough. Everyone is afraid to run fast in training, then run faster in training. We do a lot of GP running, but at maybe too short of distances and with too many rest intervals.  It may be best to alternate doing a 3 miler at goal pace followed immediately by a 3 miler at faster than goal pace.  Then recover to your resting pulse rate and repeat again. This may be a better way of doing a 12 mile run than a continouse 12 miler where we start slow and try to pick it up throughout with just the last 1/3 at MGP.

 

We also don't race at distances long enough to practice negative splits for a marathon.  Today we race too many 5K's and don't have the oportunity to RACE (I MEAN RACE !!!) a 10 miler, 20K, 1/2 or even a 30K.  Without these races, it's impossible to figure out a goal pace should be let alone determine negative split paces.  The charts out there for interpolating what you can run a marathon in rarely work unless you have 10 milers through 30k races to plug in.  For instance, using my 5K to 10K PR's showed I could have run 2:32:00.   I ran 2:23:00.  But by plugging in my best 10 miler or my best 1/2 marathon time theprediction table more accurately showed I could run a 2:21:00.  This is much closer to reality but i never did that either. In other words we either need to race more at longer distances, or do more test runs to determine our ideal paces for the marathon.   One problem runers make is to set up a 10 to 16 week training cycle yet not adjust our goal paces (either up or down) for where we are in the cycle.  Test runs of 15 to 16 miles could do this as long as you duplicate the lead up days and you do your test on the same loop each time with weather being the only variable.

 

Looking at elite performances and compairing how fast these runners can race a 1/2 vs what they can run for their marathons we see they are much closer than non-elites.  When they do the first half at 2 to 3 mins slower than their PR's they are to a lesser degree resting at closer to thier training pace. Then they race the second half at close to their 1/2 marathon race pace!  We most often do it the oposite way because we don't know how fast we can actualy race the 1st half in before we are forced to drop back to training pace.  If you look at splits in marathons for most of us, the first thing that happens before we crash is that we slow down to the training pace of our long runs.  Then we crash.  If we knew the correct pace using a series of test runs or longer races (not past Marathon pace) we could possibly use this as an opening pace then speed up the 2nd half.  This would be a closer mimic to what the elites  do.

 

I did test runs without knowing it because I ran all my long runs on the same course, Boredom, adding the 4 mile Grand View loop to get to 20 miles.  So I guess I knew where I was in my cycle.  I was always able to race 30'sec faster per mile in the marathon than my 20 milers on Boredom and my 2:23 pace was my normal pace.  It was usually around 5:20 for my 12 milers on Boredom and around 5:50 for my 20 milers. I can't say this works for everyone but it's been the same for a lot of runners I worked with.  I'm not saying to use Boredom for your long runs exclusively, but I do believe in running somewhere that gives you regular test runs.

 

I'm going to quit now because I need to do my workout.  I think better on the move so maybe I will come up with more thoughts.  You  know me I like to talk about training the OLD WAY!!

 

Greg White

Rob:

When I swam competitively, distance was my specialty. We constantly worked on even pacing or negative splitting our races. The coaches felt by doing this one would conserve carbohydrates for later in the race, delay lactic acid build-up or reaching (or crossing) your anaerobic threshold too early in the race, and that you would be more efficient overall. You had to learn not to start out too hard/fast and settle in a pace you could maintain for the race, maintaining dead even splits or coming back a little faster than you went out.

Running is the same way. Look at the world records in the distance events. They were all done with even or negative splits. The front half is never more than 2-3% off the back half (e.g., out in 1:32, and back in 1:28 or vice versa for a 3 hour race). The hardest thing is to hold back in the early part of a race. You need to be cautious about not starting out too fast (Danimal) and cause the body to produce more lactic acid than it can handle. Once that reaches a critical point...the runner/swimmer will slow down or stop....it's the only way to clear it...

Greg and I worked and worked with Peggy Joseph on this type of pacing...wanting her to try and run even splits in the 15K at Steamboat. She was one who always went out way too fast regardless of distance, and tried to keep from slowing down toward the end and being passed. She hadn't won the 15K to this point in time. We worked with her a full year to where she could run even splits....not going out too fast...running somewhat conservatively early on....letting people go....only to keep her pace even and reeling in these runners as they slowed later in the race. She won Steamboat that year by running the second half of the 15k slightly faster than the first.

You need to establish a goal and your training should be geared toward reaching that goal. Run against the clock, not other runners. This will require you to hold back and follow your plan. Train at the pace you want to race at....tempo runs are great for this, or repeat miles done with very short recovery periods. Using a Garmin will help monitor pace for the miles and make sure you're on track.

I read one article on negative splits where it does state that it's very difficult to run even splits in a marathon, so it's usually better to err slightly to the conservative side than to be a little overly aggressive. Not by much...like an average of 5-10sec/mile over the first half...which is 1-2% for most runners. Another states that if you've accurately pegged your race goal, then it doesn't matter if your splits are positive or negative as long as they are no more than 2-3% apart...that close is essentially even splits. Terrain, weather, etc....all play a part in your plan as well.....

Running and swimming even/negative splits takes time, practice, and patience to the point where it becomes second nature. I practiced this in both my swimming and running (even in my 5K's) and felt that it made me faster overall in both disciplines. It was always nice speeding up in the second half when others were slowing down...it would give me such a mental boost passing people....

Hope this helps, Blair

Over 40, under 3? Determine the pace!

I am 43 years old.  A johnny come lately, I've been attempting to run a sub 3 hour marathon for a couple of years now.  I am making progress although it's been a journey of many dead end paths.  In Chicago, I was very close and feel had I had cooler temps a 1% increase in pace could have been realistic.  That would have allowed me to obtain my goal.  Regardless, the fact remains I didn't do it. Now, my friends who also ran the race chose what they deemed to be the "correct" pace to run the race. Some ran into unexpected difficulties. Some in aticipation, chose to fight another day. Here are our splits for each 5k segment (click on the graph to enlarge):



I started thinking about why we determine our paces in the first place.  The three hour marathon is a lofty goal for many of my running friends.  Some have smashed through this objective while others struggle with me.  Despite our varied talents and fitness, the goal remains one of the most sought after for my group.   Matt Fitzgerald wrote an interesting artical about marathon pacing where he speaks of the difficulty of determining an accurate pace given all the uncertainties of the marathon.  He writes:

"Can we even assume that even pacing is the best marathon pacing strategy? 

The fact that most of the fastest men’s and women’s marathon times ever recorded involved negative splits would seem to be strong evidence that negative splitting, or at least even pacing, is the optimal marathon pacing strategy. One of the world’s top experts on pacing strategies, Ross Tucker, Ph.D., finds this logical irrefutable. “I'm a big believer that there is such a thing as ‘natural selection’ when it comes to performance,” he wrote in an email. “In other words, if the very best athlete runs a negative split, then that is most likely the optimal way [for everyone] to go about it. Because given that hundreds of world-class athletes are racing, time will eventually ensure that the optimal strategy is settled upon. If a positive split were better, I have no doubt that all the great athletes would be going out and doing it, simply because it works.” 

The big problem I have here is the anectdotal evidence does not support even splits for the non-elite athlete.  There are two problems with the supposistion that it's best, first does the non-elite runner really know what the correct pace should be and is the pace for them at which a negative split becomes possible as fast for the entire marathon as the pace they might pick were they to run a positive split?

Fitzgerald continues....

"However, just because even pacing seems to be the optimal pacing strategy for the world’s best runners doesn’t mean it’s automatically the best pacing strategy for you and me. There’s a large and possibly crucial difference in the fitness levels that elite and non-elite runners bring to the marathon event. It’s plausible to me that the more modest a runner’s fitness level is, the more likely it is that he will achieve his fastest time by running somewhat aggressively in the first half and then “hanging on” in the second half. Put another way, it’s plausible to me that the smaller the difference between the most comfortable pace a runner could sustain for 26.2 miles and the fastest pace he could sustain for the same distance, the more likely it is that a slightly positive pacing pattern would produce the best overall result. "

From talking with even our very best runners seems to support this argument.  Do you agree?  Please weigh in on this if you have a moment?