More on the Run-Walk Strategy

Check out these two races.  Although they are more than 6 months apart, and under quite disparate environmental conditions, let’s examine the two variations in strategy.  I like this comparison because it’s over a consistent distance and a very similar pace, overall.  The result may have been similar, but the process to get there couldn’t have been any more different.  You’ll notice that after about 30 minutes in Providence, I blew right through the AeT (Zone 3) right into the Sub-threshold where the accumulation of Lactic Acid becomes greater than the body’s ability to dissipate.  By definition, you should be capable of maintaining this for around an hour.  Despite short recovery attempts, far too late into the game, the HR could never recover enough to become aerobic again, thus creeping to a place where the pace was no longer sustainable – zone 5 or into LTHR (~185+).  Not only did this create much pain, but it also caused for a positive split because paces reduced on the back half and HR was completely decoupled (7+% HR:Pace) at that point.  The run-walk strategy was clearly a much more effective way at getting to the same result.  It was controlled and sustainable throughout.  The amount of effort and stress on the system was reduced by roughly 25% (as indicated by TSS) by utilizing this strategy.  

I definitely believe that dehydration and temperature played a big part in the decoupling in Providence, however, early recognition of this would indicate that it’s time to adjust pace and reduce HR AeT or below to optimize the experience.