Negative Splits in a race... (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2008-02-02 2:58 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Supersonicus Idioticus 2439 Thunder Bay, ON | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... -ve splitting your run is a good idea. The reason is because all races should start strong (b/c you're fresh) and finish hard, and since you've been racing for 1hr before the run, it is natural for your 1st half of the run to be a bit slower. To me, however, it's not like I'm TRYING to hold back on the first half, it's just that the 2nd half always involves a little bit more adrenaline. |
|
2008-02-02 4:14 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Just out of curiosity, does anyone have the pro men run splits from this years Kona? |
2008-02-03 11:27 AM in reply to: #1190856 |
Expert 1027 Zürich, Switzerland | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... amiine - 2008-02-01 3:30 PM I would apply it down to 20-30 mins event because below that, is very difficult to calibrate the speed: in a track and field, 5k, 1.5k, 3k, etc. are all anaerobic events and negative split looses his meaning. 10k is something in between and tipically I start to apply the concept on this length. >>> huh?!?!? You consider 5K, 3K or even a 1.5K anaerobic events? If you do you need to review your sport physiology text book because they aren’t Here the discussion can be long but you know very well that I am speaking about amateurs. PROs athletes have different performance in terms of anaerobic and aerobic efforts and, among them, the discussion should be split between different categories of running length. I would bet that 95% of the BT members still run MOSTLY anaerobic in 5k races. They are not optimized for running mostly aerobic in 5k as you assume from phisiology. Of course, here, another assumption is that those BT member should run at the max potential on 5k otherwise they will go again in aerobic effort. Officially, phisiology books state that up to 2 mins intense exercises are anaerobic so, for PRO, it means ca. 800meters. But with lactate test, you can see studies reporting that 30% of the effort is anaerobic in 1500meters too. This 30% dramatically goes down at 3k. For PRO... For you I do not know For me neither since I never did a lactate test. |
2008-02-03 1:26 PM in reply to: #1191999 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Plissken74 - 2008-02-03 11:27 AM amiine - 2008-02-01 3:30 PM I would apply it down to 20-30 mins event because below that, is very difficult to calibrate the speed: in a track and field, 5k, 1.5k, 3k, etc. are all anaerobic events and negative split looses his meaning. 10k is something in between and tipically I start to apply the concept on this length. >>> huh?!?!? You consider 5K, 3K or even a 1.5K anaerobic events? If you do you need to review your sport physiology text book because they aren’t Here the discussion can be long but you know very well that I am speaking about amateurs. PROs athletes have different performance in terms of anaerobic and aerobic efforts and, among them, the discussion should be split between different categories of running length. I would bet that 95% of the BT members still run MOSTLY anaerobic in 5k races. They are not optimized for running mostly aerobic in 5k as you assume from phisiology. Of course, here, another assumption is that those BT member should run at the max potential on 5k otherwise they will go again in aerobic effort. Officially, phisiology books state that up to 2 mins intense exercises are anaerobic so, for PRO, it means ca. 800meters. But with lactate test, you can see studies reporting that 30% of the effort is anaerobic in 1500meters too. This 30% dramatically goes down at 3k. For PRO... For you I do not know For me neither since I never did a lactate test. I take that bet! Bet me ANYTHING you want. I say that 100% BT members do NOT run anaerobically (as in relying exclusively on their anaerobic energy system) for a 5K just by the simple fact that any effort over 2-2:30 min rely on the aerobic energy system. (don't take my word for it, go a read the text books, but after we do the bet ) |
2008-02-03 3:04 PM in reply to: #1191267 |
Master 1686 Royersford, PA | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Ask and ye shall recieve: Macca's splits back up Byran's Point. TOTAL SWIM 2.4 mi. (51:48) 1:21/100m 16 FIRST BIKE SEGMENT 5 mi. (1:06:13) 24.90 mph SECOND BIKE SEGMENT 28 mi. (2:03:45) 23.99 mph THIRD BIKE SEGMENT 59 mi. (3:23:16) 23.39 mph FOURTH BIKE SEGMENT 88 mi. (4:33:08) 24.90 mph FINAL BIKE SEGMENT 112 mi. (5:31:41) 24.59 mph TOTAL BIKE 112 mi. (4:37:31) 24.21 mph 4 FIRST RUN SEGMENT 5.2 mi. (6:04:07) 5:52/mile SECOND RUN SEGMENT 17.6 mi. (7:20:13) 6:08/mile RUN FINISH 26.2 mi. (8:15:34) 6:26/mile TOTAL RUN 26.2 mi. (2:42:02) 6:11/mile 1 TRANSITION TIME T1: SWIM-TO-BIKE 2:22 T2: BIKE-TO-RUN 1:51 |
2008-02-03 3:45 PM in reply to: #1192205 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Hey, thanks for finding that, southwestmba! So I was: Mile 5.2- 7:18 pace Mile 17.6- 7:57 pace Mile 26.2- 8:09 pace Macca was: Mile 5.2- 5:52 pace Mile 17.6- 6:08 pace Mile 26.2- 6:26 pace So over the course of the run, I fell off the pace by a total of :51 seconds, Macca fell of his pace by :34 seconds. Clearly I am no Macca, however I improved over my IMAZ differential which was 1:03. For the RnR that was only a :19 second degradation of pace. All done using HR and not pacing. So best in the world didn't negative split the same run I did on the same day. He saw less of it due to, well he's the best. |
|
2008-02-03 4:31 PM in reply to: #1191999 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Plissken74 - 2008-02-03 1:27 PM Here the discussion can be long but you know very well that I am speaking about amateurs. PROs athletes have different performance in terms of anaerobic and aerobic efforts and, among them, the discussion should be split between different categories of running length. I would bet that 95% of the BT members still run MOSTLY anaerobic in 5k races. They are not optimized for running mostly aerobic in 5k as you assume from phisiology. Of course, here, another assumption is that those BT member should run at the max potential on 5k otherwise they will go again in aerobic effort. Officially, phisiology books state that up to 2 mins intense exercises are anaerobic so, for PRO, it means ca. 800meters. But with lactate test, you can see studies reporting that 30% of the effort is anaerobic in 1500meters too. This 30% dramatically goes down at 3k. For PRO... For you I do not know For me neither since I never did a lactate test. Here's a decent website that has graphs of anaerobic/aerobic energy system contributions: http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/EnergyGraphs.html You are backwards on assuming that if a pro runs mostly aerobic for a 5k that a novice would run more anaerobic - the reliance on energy systems is almost entirely related to the length of an activity, so a pro would have a higher percentage of anaerobic energy system contribution for a given race distance since they are finished more quickly. For example, look at the graphs for 10 minutes of activity versus 30. A pro is going to race a 5k closer to 10 minutes and many novices would be closer to 30 minutes - what you are seeing is the pro would get about 85% of their energy from the aerobic system while the novice closer to 95%. Shane |
2008-02-03 5:17 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Guess what my strategy is. Here are my mile splits and HR from my 1:17:39 half marathon PR from this past June. I never, ever use HR to dictate my effort in stand alone running races. 1 5:36 160; 2 5:55 159; 3 5:39 162; 4 5:52 162; 5 6:01 161; 6 5:52 158; 7 6:03 164; 8 5:59 167; 9 6:01 170; 10 6:00 158; 11 6:03 166; 12 6:00 153; 13.1 6:35 176 |
2008-02-03 5:24 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... I'm confused, you did a positive split, yes? |
2008-02-03 7:01 PM in reply to: #1192373 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... bryancd - 2008-02-03 5:24 PM I'm confused, you did a positive split, yes? Disregard the inevitable adrenaline of the first mile, not sure what happened with mile 3...those are pretty darn even splits for the entire race...not sure what the 13th mile split was because I didn't hit the split button at mile 13 before starting the last 0.1 mile. |
2008-02-03 7:02 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... OK, but your pace still fell off, yes? Just say which camp you are in! |
|
2008-02-03 7:07 PM in reply to: #1192436 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... bryancd - 2008-02-03 7:02 PM OK, but your pace still fell off, yes? Just say which camp you are in! Nope, in my race report I clearly stated my only intent for the race was to hit 6:00 miles. I think I came pretty damn close to doing that. When I saw those faster than desired miles at 1 and 3, I consciously said to myself to slow it down and hit those 6's. It clearly was not a case of going out too fast and doing positive splits (and please don't split hairs over a second or two one way or the other). Pretty clear what camp I'm in |
2008-02-03 7:20 PM in reply to: #1192324 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... gsmacleod - 2008-02-03 4:31 PM duuuuuuuuude, I was hoping to bet and win something cool! you are spoiling it Here's a decent website that has graphs of anaerobic/aerobic energy system contributions: http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/EnergyGraphs.html You are backwards on assuming that if a pro runs mostly aerobic for a 5k that a novice would run more anaerobic - the reliance on energy systems is almost entirely related to the length of an activity, so a pro would have a higher percentage of anaerobic energy system contribution for a given race distance since they are finished more quickly. For example, look at the graphs for 10 minutes of activity versus 30. A pro is going to race a 5k closer to 10 minutes and many novices would be closer to 30 minutes - what you are seeing is the pro would get about 85% of their energy from the aerobic system while the novice closer to 95%. Shane |
2008-02-03 8:15 PM in reply to: #1192443 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Birkierunner - 2008-02-03 7:07 PM bryancd - 2008-02-03 7:02 PM OK, but your pace still fell off, yes? Just say which camp you are in! Nope, in my race report I clearly stated my only intent for the race was to hit 6:00 miles. I think I came pretty damn close to doing that. When I saw those faster than desired miles at 1 and 3, I consciously said to myself to slow it down and hit those 6's. It clearly was not a case of going out too fast and doing positive splits (and please don't split hairs over a second or two one way or the other). Pretty clear what camp I'm in Not really, your pace was slower. Just say it! |
2008-02-04 12:33 AM in reply to: #1192324 |
Expert 1027 Zürich, Switzerland | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... gsmacleod - 2008-02-02 11:31 PM Here's a decent website that has graphs of anaerobic/aerobic energy system contributions: http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/EnergyGraphs.html You are backwards on assuming that if a pro runs mostly aerobic for a 5k that a novice would run more anaerobic - the reliance on energy systems is almost entirely related to the length of an activity, so a pro would have a higher percentage of anaerobic energy system contribution for a given race distance since they are finished more quickly. For example, look at the graphs for 10 minutes of activity versus 30. A pro is going to race a 5k closer to 10 minutes and many novices would be closer to 30 minutes - what you are seeing is the pro would get about 85% of their energy from the aerobic system while the novice closer to 95%. Shane Let's take an example so we can discuss better here. Mr.X who runs 800m in 2'06" has an anaerobic capacity of 10 mmol/l: this is quite low since the average is 12,5 (average based on PRO athletes of 800m, based on a statistics of Arcelli E., "Acido lattico e prestazione", 1995) This means that this performance is done in ANAEROBIC way. If Mr.X trains himself for a 5k race, instead of improving the anaerobic threshold, he should improve the anaerobic capacity! If indeed Mr.X has a capcity of 13,2 mmol/l, probably we are dealing with a fast track and field guy with an excellent anaerobic capacity. On the 5k he should improve the anaerobic threshold which is now probably worse than other athletes who can perform like him on the 5k: our Mr.X now run the 5k in an anaerobic way! This example to say that you should consider the anaerobic threshold and capacity of every subject and then you can make that table you reported (for each subject). |
2008-02-04 6:06 AM in reply to: #1182568 |
11 | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... I think having negative splits makes me feel confident during a race. I like to relax in the beginning anyways. |
|
2008-02-04 8:28 AM in reply to: #1192734 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Plissken74 - 2008-02-04 12:33 AM Let's take an example so we can discuss better here. Mr.X who runs 800m in 2'06" has an anaerobic capacity of 10 mmol/l: this is quite low since the average is 12,5 (average based on PRO athletes of 800m, based on a statistics of Arcelli E., "Acido lattico e prestazione", 1995) This means that this performance is done in ANAEROBIC way. If Mr.X trains himself for a 5k race, instead of improving the anaerobic threshold, he should improve the anaerobic capacity! If indeed Mr.X has a capcity of 13,2 mmol/l, probably we are dealing with a fast track and field guy with an excellent anaerobic capacity. On the 5k he should improve the anaerobic threshold which is now probably worse than other athletes who can perform like him on the 5k: our Mr.X now run the 5k in an anaerobic way! This example to say that you should consider the anaerobic threshold and capacity of every subject and then you can make that table you reported (for each subject). I don't know what the 800m example has anything to do with your original statement: 95% of BTers will run a 5K anaerobically... does that mean that you still want to bet? I have the feeling that you are using anaerobic threshold to describe the lactate threshold; in which case it will make more sense, but still it is the incorrect term to describe it. If you grab any basic sports physiology book you will understand why using that term to describe a specific intensity such as LT is incorrect and causes confusion. Unfortunately AT was a popular term (still is with many coaches) and people would use it interchangeably with LT, OBLA, etc. but since nowadays there is better a understating of the way this processes occur it became obvious the use of the term AT was inaccurate. Anyway, unless we are on the same page about what are we talking about on this thread, this discussion will just go around in circles. |
2008-02-04 8:34 AM in reply to: #1192464 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... amiine - 2008-02-03 9:20 PM duuuuuuuuude, I was hoping to bet and win something cool! you are spoiling it
Sorry - however it looks like you may still be able to make the bet |
2008-02-04 8:55 AM in reply to: #1192734 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... Plissken74 - 2008-02-04 2:33 AM Let's take an example so we can discuss better here. Mr.X who runs 800m in 2'06" has an anaerobic capacity of 10 mmol/l: this is quite low since the average is 12,5 (average based on PRO athletes of 800m, based on a statistics of Arcelli E., "Acido lattico e prestazione", 1995) This means that this performance is done in ANAEROBIC way. If Mr.X trains himself for a 5k race, instead of improving the anaerobic threshold, he should improve the anaerobic capacity! If indeed Mr.X has a capcity of 13,2 mmol/l, probably we are dealing with a fast track and field guy with an excellent anaerobic capacity. On the 5k he should improve the anaerobic threshold which is now probably worse than other athletes who can perform like him on the 5k: our Mr.X now run the 5k in an anaerobic way! This example to say that you should consider the anaerobic threshold and capacity of every subject and then you can make that table you reported (for each subject). I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to say (I also tried to read your article but translators are blocked at work so I'll need to wait to read it). For the 800m, while a well trained athlete will complete the event based primarily on energy from the anerobic energy systems, that is about the extent of a running event that relies on these systems. Anything longer and the aerobic system will start to become the primary energy provider. Just because your Mr. X runs the 800 with a primary reliance on the anaerobic system doesn't mean that he can extend this out to the 5k - if that were possible, we would predict that this athlete could run about a 13:15 5k instead of a more realistic prediction of 16:15. To extend this, if running a 5k anaerobically were possible, we would expect a 5k WR of 10:40 - or about 3:30/mile pace! Shane |
2008-02-15 4:02 PM in reply to: #1193029 |
8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... |
2008-02-15 4:09 PM in reply to: #1182568 |
Elite 3658 Roswell, GA | Subject: RE: Negative Splits in a race... I think he explains it the best. The goal is to have a very small negative split. Great link! |
|
|