Negative Splits in a race...

I saw that advice, and it's the first I've seen it anywhere, at least here.

I am not a very experienced runner, even less experiened racer, I do not have the experience to know that I can run anything other than a 5K at a "fast as I can" pace and still make it to the finish line. 

5K - all out.

10K - start steady and negative each mile if possible.

half mary - for sure, I start steady for 8 miles or so, crank it up 9-10 and hammer the 5K.

Why?  Basically following advice given by Mike Ricci here.

This is going to be a good topic and I'm looking forward to reading the responses. I have been a distance swimmer all my life and never negative split a race in my swim career through college.

I have always gone out pretty fast, drifted in the middle and brought it back fast but always had the bell curve shape to my splits.  I think part of this was not wanting to hold back in the beginning of a race and part was being a bit bull headed and not wanting to listen to my coach who was telling me to hold back.

Now almost any distance race I do I negative split. If I do a 6000 yd strait swim I start off at a comfortable pace and get faster with each thousand, in my only marathon I was out in a 1:42 for the first 1/2 and back in a 1:40, in a recent 10K I was out in a 20:30 and back in a 19:31. (The last 5K I will ever do was the opposite, took it out in a 5:45 and my pace at the end was over 8:00!! PAIN!!!!)

I think that this comes from being a bit older and wiser when it comes to racing and having a little bit more experience behind me.  I'll have to put some more thought into this topic and chime back in after reading some responses.

Great topic Bryan!!  

I think Rick mentioned that in order to maximize performance, you want to even split or perhaps very slightly positive split.  The problem with this as a race presecription for most athletes, especially in endurance events, is that when you make a pacing error while trying to accomplish this the results can be painful (*cough, cough* see the other memeber's recent IM *cough, cough*).  That's OK if you're goal is to do your absolute best or crash, but most people have goals somewhere in bewteen. 

Most people are better off planning to try to get a modest negative split.  Very few actually do because most people still overestimate the pace they can maintain.  I know for my first marathon I ran conservatively and had a large negative split.  Could I have run faster?  Sure.  But I ran a solid time and enjoyed passing hordes of people over the second half of the race (a nice mental boost as well).  As I get better at knowing what paces I can generally maintain, I'm more comfortable pushing the envelope a bit (though moreso in shorter events for me).  But I'm also more comfortable in accepting the consequences of taking the risk.

I used to follow the negative split approach but as I've become more in tune with my body and get more racing experience I don't believe in it anymore. I think when I was getting to gain experience and learn my body I followed a negative split because: 1) I read it everywhere it was the way to go and 2) I didn’t have the experience/knowledge to know what sort of pace I would be able to hold for a given effort, hence it was always a good idea to start easier and close strong. (plus it feels good right?)

When I race sprints and Olys, I have no idea what my splits are (I don't wear my 625x, nor do I hit the lap button at each mile as I usually miss the mile markers). I just find a pace that seems like something I can hold for the 5K or 10K and just keep going. When I did my HIM, I approached the run with the mentality of going for a negative split. Now, deep down inside, I knew it wouldn't happen, but it allowed me to not start out the run too hard. I was going to take inventory half way through the run, and pick it up a bit if I could. My pace did drop a bit (our timing chip gave us splits 4 times on the run), but it probably would have dropped more if I had started out the run going harder. Not sure if the average pace would have been the same, but the last few miles probably would have been a much greater struggle.

I have a problem with losing my competitive edge when I get into a race, and definitely always go a little too conservative. It hurt me at Philly this past year. I am more focused on going long this year, but when I race short-course, I need to have a more competitive mentality on the run.

x2

Also, related to negative slits, what does everyone think about 'cut-downs'?  For example, let's say you want to average 6:00 miles for a marathon.  Some coaches will suggest a 3 mile, maybe even a 6 mile cut-down, where you start slower than your goal pace and cut-down to your goal pace.  It's got the spirt of negative splits about it, but it's not really the same thing in the longer races (the shorter ones there isn't time to cut-down, so essentially you're just negative splitting).  This is something I heard about through my running background, and the more I think about it, the less I think it's viable for triathlon, but anyways, thoughts?

Yes it is recommended because is the safest way to race for the inexperienced athlete. In fact for someone racing their 1st race I would suggest the same. Although through the training accomplish leading up to the race I should also have a pretty good idea of what sort of effort the athlete should be ale to post throughout the race and the athlete should have a better idea of what he/she can or can’t do, that’s why we do race rehearsal sessions. Base on that I would recommend a pacing strategy. But the better fitness level for the athlete the more I would push him/her to race an even pace race.

BTW, why it is ok to emulate what Pros do in some cases but not ok on others? I've seen AGers execute well pace races following an even split strategy; the only difference vs Pros is that they do it at a different speed...

Not sure why the same principles aren't involved.  I believe best results are likely to come from a mostly evenly paced race.  I'm pretty sure most WR races are achieved in this manner. 

This depends on who you are and how fast you are running a marathon or half-marathon.  I'll wager that most runners should stay WELL below your HR guidance above.  But I'll grant you that it's fairly accurate for the more competitive runners.

It's harder to guage pacing for IMs because the event duration is so long.  Small pacing errors get magnified and all of that magnification is evidenced in the marathon (the second half of it if you're lucky).  But 'perfect' pacing would still probably have you doing even splits throughout the day (terrain and conditions held constant of course).

I think this very much depends upon how you choose your pacing.  I ran my only marathon as 1:49/1:41.  Had I run a 1:41 opening half, I can guarantee you that I would have been slower than 3:31.  Now perhaps if I had run 1:43 or 1:44, I could have gone 3:28 or something and maximized my potential that day.  But I would have been happy at 1:49/1:55 and was far more concerned about something like 1:45/2:30. 

     All of this really does hinge on the understanding of what sort of pace you intend to run and your training.  You cannot expect to go out and run 7:15’s when all your training has been in the 8:30’s.  And there is no way in hell you are going to be able to suddenly turn on the juice and drop 20 – 30 seconds a mile in the second half.  After 5 completed stand alone marathons I can definitely say that ain’t gonna happen …….

It absolutely hinges on understanding your pace which you should know pretty well from training.  But you can drop 20-30sec (or more) in the second half.  I can definitely say it can happen......

But not by running at your potential it won't ......

Once again, the discussion is really about maximizing your race potential and your abilities.  Sounds like you held back in your mary., which then leaves the nagging question of what COULD you have done if you hadn't.

I would argue that you did not run your best race.  Still a great result, and it was your first, but you could have definitely done better.

I'm not advocating going out there and setting a 1/2 mary. PR in the first half and then just holding on to see what happens in the end, just that if you have a reasonable sense of what pacing you can run and a goal in mind that you will be far more likely to be able to hit that goal with even pacing or a little extra effort in the beginning when you are fresh then trying to 'make it up" on the back end.

In both my BQ's that is what I did ...... ran smart and even the first 18 or so and then steadily watched my HR drift upwards without the pace dropping off that much.  Tim (Scout7) negative split at Baltimore because while we were running even through 20, the only chance he would have had of getting his BQ would be to really push the last 10k, which he tried to do and came really close to getting the time he needed.  But course conditions also permit that with much of the last 4 downhill.

It does boil down to experience and knowing what you are capable of, but even a beginner can benefit from a bit of understanding of smart pacing.  If someone is training well and consistent to run a 3:30, then the best chance they have of that (or better) in my opinion is to not plan on making time up on the back end.

If they are running 10 - 15 beats below their LT the first half and then bump it up to 5 below LT on the seconds half, they definitely held off too much and did not optimize their performance.  They may still have a good time in their eyes and "happy' with their negative split but I can safely say that had they run the proper pace/HR in the beginning (still within the proper range so as not to blow up later) that they would have a faster time ......

Absolutely!  (Although the question doesn't 'nag' me at all...I was quite happy and frankly surprised with the result at the time.)

A big negative split is no way to optimize performance.  Then, of course, neither is a big positive split. 

You have to get very close to that jagged edge if you want to see 'what you've got'.  But then you have to be willing to live with the downside of the risk you are taking as well (a performance WELL below potential).  If you're truly talking about competitive racing then the answer is easy...roll 'dem bones. 

Sorry, missed this in my first response.  While it's true that they could have had a faster time, I'm not sure I agree that it's very easy to identify that 'safe' zone without having much racing experience. 

FWIW, I was training to run a 3:40.  While I believed I had the capability to go a bit faster, I did not have the confidence to decide whether that meant 3:35, 3:30, 3:25, or some other number.  And I would have been happy with a 3:45.  So I choose the less risky way and tried to execute a strategy that would end up with a (reasonable) worst case of meeting my more conservative goal.  And, also FWIW, I was actually a bit concerned I might have gone out a bit too fast in the first half (said as much to my wife when I saw her just past half-way).  Just didn't have the experience to know where I was, especially over a distance like that.  Today, I would have a much better idea even though that's still my only stand-alone marry.