2013 was a pivotal year in my quest to get BC Endurance athletes through the marathon without crashing. By 2013, I knew how to develop a mile-by-mile pacing plan, but the goal that still eluded me was to accurately estimate an athlete’s ability pace.
For a mile-by-mile pacing plan is only as good as the ability pace upon which it is based. If a coach overestimates the athlete’s marathon ability, the plan will be too fast, notably during the crucial first 10K. And once this discrepancy is discovered, it’s usually too late to make up the running energy that was lost by starting the race too fast.
This ability estimation problem was exacerbated by human psychology, as most athletes want to be faster than they actually are. A study of 124 BC Endurance athletes during the 2012 marathon, for instance, showed that only six were faster than their goal time, while 86 finished slower or lots slower (see the following table).
Goal Time and Actual Time
Lots Faster (More than 6% faster than goal time) …………. 0
Faster (Between 6% and 2% faster…) ………………………. 6
On Target (Between 2% faster and 2% slower…) ………….. 32
Slower (Between 2% and 6% slower…) ……………………… 28
Lots Slower (More than 6% slower than goal time) ………… 58
“If an athlete chooses a 42K goal pace that’s, say, 5% slower than his/her recent 30K pace—absent a strong case to the contrary—the athlete is warned of impending doom.”
So, short of a recent marathon performance, how could we estimate an athlete’s ability in minutes per mile (mpm)? One already developed and fruitful method added 10% to an athlete’s recently finished 30K time to estimate a coming 42K finish time.
10% added to an average 42K pace of 12 mpm bumps average marathon pace to 13.2 mpm. A coach must make a strong case to convince skeptical athletes to adopt such a radically slower pacing goal. They may have gotten stronger in the seven weeks since their 30K, but a 10% slowdown is still a statistically valid relationship.
Thus, if an athlete chooses a 42K goal pace that’s, say, 5% slower than his/her recent 30K pace—absent a strong case to the contrary—the athlete is warned of impending doom. Usually, when pressed, most athletes opt for a slower goal pace, especially when multiple objective indicators strengthen the case for a slower goal time.
This problem was addressed by adopting a questionnaire that weighed athlete answers to arrive at the risks associated with a specific goal pace. Besides a recent 30K performance, we looked at recent 25K race results, and average tempo training pace. Lacking that information, we used comparable training partners to estimate 42K ability.
Our athletes were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaire, digest the results, and negotiate a consensus with the coach and group leader. Then they could coordinate race-day logistics with pacing buddies who had the same plan. Factors that affect actual race performance are myriad, but in 2013 we had a handle on race ability.