Negative Splits in a race... (Page 2)

You ran too fast at the start of your marathon.  You could have run faster.  Not that there's anything to be disappointed about with a sub-3. 

Edit:  I would argue that pace is an even better pacing tool for an experienced athlete.

Bryan - what distance are we talking? EVERY and I mean EVERY "WORLD RECORD" in swimming AND RUNNING is a negative split.

All of my PRs have been negative splits. In triathlon, I negative split or even split all the way up to HIM. In IM, a neg split is tough due to the muscular breakdown, but other wise I think you should ALWAYS neg split.

In training - for Chris M - you should do the same. I took a bunch of triathletes to the track this summer in Boulder. These are experienced racers who swim and bike well, but don't run very well. I had them run 800s to see how they would do. Not one could negative split throughout the workout. They weren't taught how to neg. split and they couldn't do it on the track. Neg. splitting is KEY to running well- it teaches you how to pace and teaches you to hold back when you are fresh.

**The reason I like neg splitting the most is that you teach your body AND mind to go faster the more tired you get. When you can do this in training, in racing it becomes 2nd nature.

bryancd - 2008-01-30 6:24 PM I'm just throwing it out there for discussion, Mike!

I know, but you didn't say what distance, so I wasn't sure if you were talking a 200m sprint or an ultra marathon.

Build into what pace?  You're slowing down. 

X 2

I have to go with Mike on this one. I think for the FOP age grouper as well as the elite athlete by negative splitting we are not talking about huge differences in splits. It's a matter of pacing yourself and knowing what is left in the tank. Psychologically, negative splitting is an advantage because it leaves you passing and not being passed.

The other term here that can be misleading is "holding back". When I hold back for the first say 300 or 400 m of a 1500 m swim I am not coasting. I holding back on my effort and swimming more efficiently but only losing a few seconds per 100 that I will make up for at the end of the swim. Being in "race mode" already has my HR up and it's easy to let go and go out hard. It's much more enjoyable to have the energy in the last 3rd of a race when everyone else is wearing down.

I am finding the same holds true in my limited running experience. Going hard the first mile of a 10K might give me 5 or 10 seconds but my legs are feeling like lead. Giving that 10 seconds up that first mile feels much more relaxed and my legs feel much stronger.

 Just another $.02

That is also what I've been saying.  Not talking about a 1 or 2 minute difference, I'm talking about those that go into a race thinking they can run 4 or 5 minutes better in the second leg by holding back in the first.  That is where you are not running to your potential.

Looking over P-D again last night before bed they also brought up that in the early part of the marathon you are relying on your slowtwitch fibers but as your body fatigues over the course of the run you start to really pull in and rely on your fastwtich A fibers to take up a lot more work, which are much more inefficient for endurance work.

You might want to say that more clearly next time then because that's not what you wrote. 

The basic idea is to aim for an even split and the course and your fatigue level can then assist/hinder the efforts you have to give you a slight negative (margin of difference relatively close) or a positive split.

Once again, this is to run the optimum race to reach your best performance.

Really though, it is all hypothetical since towards the end of any long race there is pain, fatigue, self-doubt and many other intangibles that make it hard to hold your pace.  This is where the mental really kicks in and you need probably just as much training in that as you do in the physical to perform at your best.

I was just thinking about it ...... I do not believe I have ever negative split a race ... even the ones where I've had great success ........

Not a lot of people do. 

But if you can manage it in tris, I guarantee you will do better than you expect since so many people are slowing down...a lot.  I neg. split my run at Timberman 2 years ago (my 1/4 splits were: 25:19, 25:27, 24:51, 24:25).  Again, I could probably have shaved some time off by running right at 25 flat for those first 3 splits and still held on to a decent finish.  But I finished 33/221 in my AG for the run.  In a straight up running race, I guarantee I wasn't 33/221 material.

Even if you don't actually neg. split, planning to do so is probably better for most than planning to go out hard and hope you don't slow down too much.

IMO it is which is why I earlier said: it is the SAFE way to approach a race if you are not sure about what pace you could hold based on your fitness level, but I don't believe it is the fastest way to complete a race. If the effort from the 1st half and second half are too variable I can't see how that can be a good tactic unless you are planning to win the race and you are racing based on the dynamics of the pack at an effort below your fitness level.

Pfitzinger on Racing HR vs. Training HR  (last section)

Regarding going out hard and hoping to hang on:  That's not a good strategy period.  Even pacing should be about control, especially at longer events.  A first-time marathoner is probably better served being conservative, even if that person is an experienced runner.  The goal of even splits is to be as close as possible to running the same pace throughout.  It takes practice, and it takes discipline.

I haven't done the research, but I'm pretty sure that most of the current WR were set with the strategy of of running even splits, especially the track ones.  There is going to be some variance up and down, but they are usually within a few seconds.  Road races you have to contend with terrain, so you're more likely to see splits with greater variance.

Now I am confused.  To me, for example, a 10K (for convenience) with a 25:00 first half and a 24:50 second half is a negative split.  A 24:55 is a negative split.  That's the kind of neg split I am talking about, anything where second half is < first half.  Clearly, if you run a 27:00 first half and 24:00 second half, that's a neg split but you are dogging the first (intentionally or otherwise).

Here is my last 1/2 marathon.  When I say neg split, I mean 2nd half SLIGHTLY faster than the 1st.  You can see the difference between miles 2-7 and 8-13 is 1:41.  Not huge.  For my next race(1/2M on 4/6) , I'm going to come up to that 167-168 HR (LT is 169) after 2 miles instead of waiting until mile 6.  I figure that would have taken maybe 1 minute off this race.  The tough part to determine is would I have enough kick to pull off the 7:20's down the stretch if I went out at 7:40 from the start.  I guess I'll find out on 4/6.

It really comes down to race experience at that distance.  For my 1st and only HIM I negative split the bike and run.  I had no idea how my body would respond to 5:46 of work.  For my 1st Oly the same story.  For my 2nd, a positive split on the bike but still had some gas in the tank to drill the 2nd half of the run.  As I get more experience, I imagine that I'll get closer and closer to even splits, but don't plan on blowing up the second half of any race.  This stuff is supposed to be fun.  By the way, it is a lot of fun picking off runner after runner in miles 12 and 13 of a 1/2 marathon.

There is a distinct difference between PLANNING on a negative split, and achieving one.  If you're planning on running a negative split, you are purposefully running at an easier pace than you can do for that given distance, with the intention of running faster in second half.  For those that are running close to even, chances are you're not going out with that intention, you're probably attempting to run even, and it seems you're coming close to it.  Keep in mind, it's almost never perfectly even.

For the person who posted the chart with mile splits...  Take out miles 2 and 4, and you're closer to even, anyway.  I'm guessing terrain played a factor in those two, and mile 10 as well.

I don't really think your pacing is bad at all Bryan, regardless of how you're establishing it.  HR, pace, RPE, watts are all measures that can be used to help establish a controlled, steady effort.  I prefer to use a combination (esp. over long distances), but the idea with any of them is to go at a pace that you can hold throughout the race without 'crashing' and preferably without leaving too much in the tank at the end.  Frankly, I think watts and pace are better for this purpose than HR.  But I find HR generally has value for me so I would factor it in if it were telling me something different than those other measures.