Negative Splits in a race... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() See now here again is where knowing what you can do based on HR can be a great benefit IF used properly, understanding that external variables come into play, ect. I knew from training that the highest HR I could hold for a 3 hour marathon was 162 bpm, so I went camped out there. It was all I could do to hold on, so I know I was at my maximum effort and the course was very flat, so there wasn't a lot of terrain issue's to knock me off that. My splits were: 13.1 in 1:28:22, average 6:45 pace Mile 20 in 2:14:41, average for those 7.1 miles had fallen to 6:53 Mile's 20-26.2, average pace for the final 10K was 7:04 Finish time of 2:59:33 @ 6:53 average I finished that race with an average HR of EXACTLY 162 For IMAZ, it was much more pronounced, my HR cap was 148 for the first 13.1 and then prayer for the last half. 8.8 mile mark- 7:32 pace 17.6 mile mark- 8:01 26.2 mile mark- 8:35 For a 3:30:50 and average pace of 8:02. I lost 30 seconds per mile over each 8 mile segment. I finished with an average HR of EXACTLY 148 I did better in Kona, but the course was much different than IMAZ or Phoenix RnR. Using the same 148 HR strategy. Mile 5.2- 7:18 pace Mile 17.6- 7:57 pace Mile 26.2- 8:09 pace For a 3:26:44 run split, averaging 7:53, average HR was 146. Funny side story, after I got back home, I looked at the BT thread following the race and saw a post by Rick after my first split was in saying if I held on I would run a 3:11! LOL! My point is that HR can provide an excellent pacing tool and remove a lot of the second guessing many go through in trying to determine their pacing. It certainly has worked for me. Edited by bryancd 2008-01-30 6:47 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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. Edited by JohnnyKay 2008-01-30 7:03 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:02 PM 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. But wouldn't HR for be a better tool in order to build into that pace effectively? |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:02 PM me too. HR in particular in a IM run could be misleading, plus if you are fit to run the IM marathon on 'x' pace then you are fit do so at that pace since mile one (assuming you paced the bike correclty). your pace might vary but it should be even for most of the run...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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-01-29 5:27 PM This was brought up in another thread by another member who shall remain nameless...cough, cough, Rick, cough , cough.... but I thought it would make a great topic. In a race, who here actually tries to make it a goal of negative splitting the run and why? I don't, my run is at the maximum effort I can manage for the distance and I just try and hold on. My second half times are always slower. I have no idea if I conserve more if I could finish the entire event faster. maybe, but that's not how I race. So, for all you negative splitters out there, why and how and do you think it's an advantage or disadvantage? 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.
Edited by mikericci 2008-01-30 7:19 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm just throwing it out there for discussion, Mike! ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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.
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mikericci - 2008-01-30 7:26 PM 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.
Let's say longer than a 10K. If you read the thread, that's the general consensus. Edited by bryancd 2008-01-30 7:38 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-01-30 7:07 PM JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:02 PM But wouldn't HR for be a better tool in order to build into that pace effectively?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. Build into what pace? You're slowing down.
|
![]() ![]() |
Bob ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mikericci - 2008-01-30 8:19 PM bryancd - 2008-01-29 5:27 PM This was brought up in another thread by another member who shall remain nameless...cough, cough, Rick, cough , cough.... but I thought it would make a great topic. In a race, who here actually tries to make it a goal of negative splitting the run and why? I don't, my run is at the maximum effort I can manage for the distance and I just try and hold on. My second half times are always slower. I have no idea if I conserve more if I could finish the entire event faster. maybe, but that's not how I race. So, for all you negative splitters out there, why and how and do you think it's an advantage or disadvantage? 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. 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 |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Mike – when you say negative split; is it more like shooting for even splits since mile one and try to push a bit harder the 2nd part finishing strong making it slightly faster than the 1st? i.e. 1st half for ½ marathon 45 min and 2nd half 44:30 min? Or more like, take it easy(ier) the 1st half and gun it the 2nd half. i.e. 1st half 48 min, 2nd half 44 min. If the former then I agree if the latter I am not sure… For instance, when Haile Gebrselassie posted the world record for a marathon last year at Berlin marathon, his time for the 1st 20 Km was 59:10 min, and for the next 20 Km was 58:56, yes a slight negative split but it really was more even pace. Further more his pace per km/min was always around the same within 3 seconds, and his opening 10 Km were almost as fast as the last 10 Km. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I've been running for 15-16 years and have never been too caught up in negative split. For me it's always been trying to get a even split - within a certain range. It means your effort level goes up slightly the whole race. To get a "pure" negative split, you'd have to run relatively easy in the beginning - NOT something I can do in a race!! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Cycling Guru ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Daremo - 2008-01-31 6:21 AM That is also what I've been saying. You might want to say that more clearly next time then because that's not what you wrote. |
![]() ![]() |
Cycling Guru ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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 ........ |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well being a noob, and not knowing exactly how to pace for races, I always attempt the negative split, Only because my first sprint I overestimated the pace I could keep on the run and ended up almost having to walk the last part. My second try at the same course I paced myself better the first half then picked it up and finished strong in a much better time. But like someone said before the psyhcological benefits of passing people the last half opposed to being passed by everybody is a great reason for most beginners. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Daremo - 2008-01-31 9:07 AM 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Doesn't it seem that neg splitting is bigger for those who don't know what kind of pace they can hold for the whole race? People who know their bodies and their abilities seem to have closer to even splits. That's what I gather anyways. |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() VanCityJ - 2008-01-31 10:42 AM Doesn't it seem that neg splitting is bigger for those who don't know what kind of pace they can hold for the whole race? People who know their bodies and their abilities seem to have closer to even splits. That's what I gather anyways. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:56 PM bryancd - 2008-01-30 7:07 PM JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:02 PM But wouldn't HR for be a better tool in order to build into that pace effectively?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. Build into what pace? You're slowing down.
LOL! OK, well you got me there! But still, in my open Marathon I only slowed down by 1 min. for the second half. Now I did that purely on HR as per my coaches instructions. IMAZ saw 1:30 degredation in pace but by Kona, I had, through better conditioning, brought that down to about 1min. from start to finish based on the splits. Again by HR. I think, again for me, that was a very effective strategy and my coach never once set up any of my races based on negative splits. I'm not saying it's the way top go for everyone, just adding to the conversation and anectodale experiences of individuals. No one is speaking in absoluts. Edited by bryancd 2008-01-31 12:13 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() 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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Daremo - 2008-01-31 4:21 AM 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. 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). |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-01-31 12:09 PM JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:56 PM LOL! OK, well you got me there! But still, in my open Marathon I only slowed down by 1 min. for the second half. Now I did that purely on HR as per my coaches instructions. IMAZ saw 1:30 degredation in pace but by Kona, I had, through better conditioning, brought that down to about 1min. from start to finish based on the splits. Again by HR. I think, again for me, that was a very effective strategy and my coach never once set up any of my races based on negative splits. I'm not saying it's the way top go for everyone, just adding to the conversation and anectodale experiences of individuals. No one is speaking in absoluts. bryancd - 2008-01-30 7:07 PM JohnnyKay - 2008-01-30 7:02 PM But wouldn't HR for be a better tool in order to build into that pace effectively?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. Build into what pace? You're slowing down.
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. |
|