MarcYa hat geschrieben:
Insbesondere finde ich es gut, dass auch mal einer empfiehlt, sich auf der ersten Hälfte ein kleines Polster rauszulaufen. Wenn dann im Rennen alles passt und der erwartete Geschwindigkeitsverlust am Ende des Rennens ausbleibt, dann bekommt man halt einen negativen Split hin und hat eine für die persönlichen Verhältnisse herausragende Zeit gelaufen.
Das hört sich theoretisch gut an. Allerdings scheint man in der Praxis die eingesparten Sekunden doppelt und dreifach draufzulegen. Oder wie man in USA sagt : You cannot put time in the bank. Einige Auszüge:
Race Strategy for the Marathon
Putting “Time in the Bank” is Bad!
If the recent financial crisis has showed us anything, it’s that banks are evil. I’m just kidding, but in all seriousness, the theory of “putting time in the bank” during the first thirteen miles of a marathon race is critically flawed. The bank will take your money and leave you crashing the last 10k just as it did the stock market.
I’m not sure where the “time in the bank” theory came from, but the strategy has lead to the demise of more marathon runners than any other source. The proper race strategy that will give you the best chance to PR actually follows the exact opposite theory. For a successful marathon race, you should target a pace that is 10 to 15 seconds per mile slower than your goal marathon pace for the first 3 or 4 miles.
Don’t believe me? Here’s an interesting statistic: Every world record from 1500 meters to the marathon has been set running negative splits – running the first half of the race slightly slower than the second half. It’s true, l
ook it up if you have the time. This means that if you want to ensure that you run the fastest time possible, you have to be conservative during the early miles of the race. With the adrenaline and competition, this can be difficult and will require focus. As I discussed in my article on
practice makes perfect, you should practice this skill during your training runs. You can do this by entering tune-up races to simulate the adrenaline and fast pacing of early races. You can also accomplish this on training runs with strict adherence to pace, learning how these efforts feel, and by using cutdown tempo runs.
Hier noch ausführlicher:
Learn to Pace Like a Pro | Running Times
Marathon
Many marathoners are familiar with the term "putting time in the bank," which is a simple way of describing the strategy of running the first half of the race faster than goal pace to compensate for the time you'll lose on the second half. Unfortunately, this racing strategy couldn't be more wrong, both from the perspective of physiology and from what empirical evidence shows us.
World-record attempts are great examples to show how a negative-split strategy is optimal when seeking PRs. We can also look at other elite performances on challenging courses–the type you might be facing if not running a pancake-flat course like Berlin.
...
When it comes to how your body works, the main issue with the "time in the bank" strategy concerns the use of fuel–specifically, whether you burn glycogen or fat. As anyone who's hit the wall knows, one of the limiting factors in marathon performance is how efficiently you can burn fat instead of carbohydrates for energy. Once you burn through your available carbohydrate stores, your performance will suffer, most notably from "bonking" or running out of fuel.
Unfortunately, the faster you run, the greater the percentage of fuel and energy that comes from carbohydrates. Therefore, by starting faster than goal pace and putting "time in the bank," you're actually burning through your available carbohydrate stores faster, and you will almost certainly run out of fuel and crash.
.
(aber dafür beneidenswert schlank 
).
.
.
.
