Negative Splits in a race... (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2008-01-31 2:08 PM 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. Actually mile three was downhill and mile 10 uphill. 2 and 4 were fairly flat, just planned slower than the 2nd half. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Cycling Guru ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2008-01-31 2:08 PM 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. Exactly ...... my point in bringing up the topic is that to optimze your performance one should never "plan' on going for a neg. split. As we keep saying, knowing a pace that you can sustain and running that throughout is a better approach that will yield a better performance (once again in my opinion and experience). As I believe I mentioned before, i'm not advocating going out and running a 1/2 PR followed by a minute per mile drop in the second half, but that solid but smart pacing in the beginning will allow you to maximize your potential as opposed to intentionally (or even unintentionally) "holding back" that first portion. I guess that is where knowing your body well or using a HRM can be a benefit the runner tremendously. If you know your training MP was at say 7:45 then come race day you can click those off and have a good sense of what to expect come mile 18 - 20 (assuming you had successful training sessions at that distance without dramatic pace drops). Or that if you know your LT is about 170, then you will be able to semi-comfortably run 165-ish without blowing up. Then as the miles increase you may have to work harder on the RPE/HR scale to maintain the pace, but you should be able to. This is in contrast to the person planning on running 160/8:05 the first half and then trying to jump up to 170/7:45 in the second. Just not a good practice because at that point there are too many things that can go wrong and then your whole race is blown. |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2008-01-31 12:48 PM 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. Pretty much; see this link for Gebrselassie WR at Berlin last year. His 1st 20k was 59:10 while his next 20k was 58:56, a slight negative split but comparing the avg between 1st half (2:58 min/km) and 2nd half (2:57 min/km) indicates to me it was a very even paced race. On the link you'll see that his opening 10k pace and his closing 10k pace was within 1 second of each other. Again IMO an even pace race is the better way to race (as long as the course allows you to do so). Even a slight negative can be good as long as the race overall is pretty even paced, IOW the variability between the 1st and 2nd half is minimal. Otherwise I don't see how racing the 1st half considerably below your race pace is a good approach as you’ll have to make up that time in the 2nd half anyway. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am a noob compared to many on this site, so this is just my $.01 I have had bad races when I go out harder than my projected average pace and hope to hold on. I do best with an even pace focus often with negative splits when I am having a good race day. A virtual training partner on my Garmin has given me PR's in 5k (21:30) and 13.1 (1:48). That has taught me very well that staying even is best for me. Basically follow a plan until XX distance and then make a decision on cutting back or going harder. I ran a 13.1 last may that was my worst ever based on how I felt and compared to what I thought I could do. I went out and pushed more from the start . . . basically thinking I had a PR or close to PR day in me right from the beginning instead of my normal get a 10k in me before I make any decisions. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() On any given day, your performance will vary. Imagine now you had some magical test to determine what your maximum sustainable pace was on that day. Well, unfortunately such a test doesn't exist. So, the next best thing is to start at the maximum pace you are absolutely confident you could complete the entire race at. Gradually you increase your pace until you reach your maximum sustainable pace, and keep that pace for the rest of the race. If followed, this strategy will result in a negative split. The more experience you have, generally the more consistency you have, the better you can choose your starting pace and know when you're at your maximum sustainable pace. However, I've analyzed a number of races where a world record (WR) was set. For races where the completion time was under 4 minutes, the race winner usually had a positive split. I don't have my notes with me, but I think at one point when the 800m running WR was broken, it was done with a positive split of 10%. For longer races, the races were sometimes negative split and sometimes positive split. Typically, the difference was within +/- 3%. So, chances are if you are in the +/- 3% range, then your results will be pretty close to optimal (for that day). |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I also run negative splits. Mentally, its just easier for me. I know I have "some left in me" and I spend it the last couple miles of a race. Running, especially after the bike in a tri, I find that if I start too hard, my hammies will cramp. Just knowing this might occur, mentally slows me down. I take it semi-easy for a mile, then slowly drop the hammer. Last 2 miles, all out... goal has always been to finish on the verge of puking. I know, if I feel like that, I gave it all I have. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() amiine - 2008-01-31 11:32 AM Couldn't agree more! Scout7 - 2008-01-31 12:48 PM 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. Pretty much; see this link for Gebrselassie WR at Berlin last year. His 1st 20k was 59:10 while his next 20k was 58:56, a slight negative split but comparing the avg between 1st half (2:58 min/km) and 2nd half (2:57 min/km) indicates to me it was a very even paced race. On the link you'll see that his opening 10k pace and his closing 10k pace was within 1 second of each other. Again IMO an even pace race is the better way to race (as long as the course allows you to do so). Even a slight negative can be good as long as the race overall is pretty even paced, IOW the variability between the 1st and 2nd half is minimal. Otherwise I don't see how racing the 1st half considerably below your race pace is a good approach as you’ll have to make up that time in the 2nd half anyway. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() approach from a near rookie... Set even pace to hit goal. that is if I run x.xx mins / mile for the whole distance I'll hit my goal. I adjust this pace at about the 1/3 to 1/2 mark. If I can improve on the pace(usually holding on for dear life at the end), I'll beat my goal and have a neg split. If I fall off the pace, I'll miss my goal and have a positive split. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() amiine - 2008-01-30 7:09 PM 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. Jorge - what I haven been taught about endurance training is to try to run/swim/bike your fastest intervals at the end of a workout/race. In college, DII X-country, guys would go out at 5:10 and here I was pacing myself at 5:30, and by mile 5, I would catch them. That alone taught me to negative split. What I don't have in talent, I could make up in smarts. I think my PR marathon was a 2 min neg split - not much, but 10 seconds a mile is pretty good when you are running 26 miles. Look at what happens when you start out too fast - just from a physiological standpoint: So, wouldn't you rather run at a pace you can maintain, and then push hard at the end for a neg split, vs. starting out too hard and dying, recovering and then picking it up again. In the end, I think this is a good conversation, but a silly one. IF ALL the WRs are neg split - swimming and running - then why would you want to race any other way? I don't understand that. Edited by mikericci 2008-02-01 5:21 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mikericci - 2008-02-01 5:15 PM In the end, I think this is a good conversation, but a silly one. IF ALL the WRs are neg split - swimming and running - then why would you want to race any other way? I don't understand that. Because I am triathlete and I want to discuss the strategy in general and it's efficacy in triathlon. I know a lot of coaches who advocate it, mine isn't one of them. If this conversation was about setting world running or swimming record I could see that, but I am more interested in looking at it through our sport. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I haven't entered this conversation before but have been reading it. My coach has me try to negative split the runs in my tris for Olys. For my HIM that was the plan but wasn't going to happen with the weather situation and it was just about finishing. Sprints we do it but to a lesser degree since the run is short. I actually have done it my 1/2 Mary and that is the goal in 10K sort of distances running races. We set a point in which I just run as fast/hard as I can. Depends on my fitness and where I am training wise that point varies but normally about with 3 miles left to go in an Oly. I'm not really a strong runner and place back of MOP for my AG. I train to negative split my long runs when healthy where I'll run 50% at my aerobic pace then do the last 50% at a higher HR and RPE. It varies the distance I push depending how far out I am from my A race. It helps me to train the way I plan to race so I'm better able to do it come race day if possible. Last race Oly I did, I was behind a thin women in my AG for a couple of miles, but when I pushed at the end, I passed her which is a rarely do but it was great for me as I finished probably 1-2 minutes before her and I only pushed last 2 miles as it was hot. I had planned to push it at about half way point, but knew my body didn't have it in me. For you gifted runners may not get it, but for me being able to pass folks is amazing and hasn't been all that common. I learn pacing from trying it in races. One race I finished feeling really strong and knew I could have increased my pace sooner. It is all a learning process for me. It works for me as my hard effort, lactic acid, wheezing all are at the end when I know soon I'll get to stop. For me a pretty slow runner it rocks to pass a bunch of folks the last mile on a race...it makes me feel good and it will be how I continue to try and run races as it works for me.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-02-01 5:28 PM mikericci - 2008-02-01 5:15 PM Because I am triathlete and I want to discuss the strategy in general and it's efficacy in triathlon. I know a lot of coaches who advocate it, mine isn't one of them. If this conversation was about setting world running or swimming record I could see that, but I am more interested in looking at it through our sport.In the end, I think this is a good conversation, but a silly one. IF ALL the WRs are neg split - swimming and running - then why would you want to race any other way? I don't understand that. Why would it be any different? You want to race your best, close to even splits is the way to go (let's assume a flat, windless course so we don't have topography or anything to get in the way). The longer the race, the more negative splitting is likely to be better IMO because metering out perfectly even splits at your maximum is extremely difficult to execute. And the penalty for screwing it up on the front end is large.
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JohnnyKay - 2008-02-01 8:05 PM bryancd - 2008-02-01 5:28 PM mikericci - 2008-02-01 5:15 PM Because I am triathlete and I want to discuss the strategy in general and it's efficacy in triathlon. I know a lot of coaches who advocate it, mine isn't one of them. If this conversation was about setting world running or swimming record I could see that, but I am more interested in looking at it through our sport.In the end, I think this is a good conversation, but a silly one. IF ALL the WRs are neg split - swimming and running - then why would you want to race any other way? I don't understand that. Why would it be any different? You want to race your best, close to even splits is the way to go (let's assume a flat, windless course so we don't have topography or anything to get in the way). The longer the race, the more negative splitting is likely to be better IMO because metering out perfectly even splits at your maximum is extremely difficult to execute. And the penalty for screwing it up on the front end is large.  Johnny, listen very carefully. I am not saying any one way is better than another, I am simply saying there are different schools of though and what are the pro's and con's. OK? You can't assume a flat, windless course. There will always be variables and in my opinion, HR or PE represents a better way to gauge your race than trying to achieve a negative split. Simply my experience, my results are what they are, take it for what it's worth. To me, results are the ultimate indicator, or vindicator. And it IS different for a triathlon, again in my opinion. Edited by bryancd 2008-02-01 8:22 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-02-01 8:19 PM Johnny, listen very carefully. I am not saying any one way is better than another, I am simply saying there are different schools of though and what are the pro's and con's. OK? You can't assume a flat, windless course. There will always be variables and in my opinion, HR or PE represents a better way to gauge your race than trying to achieve a negative split. Simply my experience, my results are what they are, take it for what it's worth. And it IS different for a triathlon, again in my opinion. I'm listening. But I think you're confusing things. You have a way to pace yourself (HR) that you like and has been effective for you in leading to good results. But you have to take different "variables" into account no matter how you choose to do this. For example, you know that you have to account for HR drift as you pace yourself. I know that the watts I target on the bike is a function of how long I'm going to spend on the bike and so may have to be adjusted if it's very windy. If the course is net downhill for the first half, and uphill for the second then you wouldn't expect to achieve negative splits even in a well paced effort. But all that is "noise" in my view. Important noise to be sure for that day on that course. The basic concept stands that the fastest way to the finish is to hold very close to a steady effort from start to finish. You choose to measure that effort by monitoring HR. Others choose pace or power. Most all overlay PE onto those measures as well. Perhaps we're getting too hung up on "negative splts". The course & conditions will play a factor in whether you negative split by time. But your race execution will ideally produce nearly even splts, quite possible slightly negative ones, if you've maximized your performance on an "imaginary fair course". And, no, it's not different for a triathlon. Again, in my opinion.
I don't know if that's more or less confusing now, but it's all I've got for tonight. Enjoy the weekend--train well! |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Fair enough, but I do not think that is correct. My results and race execution had very variable courses and conditions and yet the results were were consistent. Using JUST HR I managed to finish RnR AZ almost at flat split and IM World Championships with a positive split that was still my max potential. It's not a debate, it's my fact. Edited by bryancd 2008-02-01 9:22 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Mike, Look at what happens when you start out too fast - just from a physiological standpoint: When racing a 10k or 5k that would normal. Talking about a marathon, I could be racing at my lactate threshold pace (defined as lactic acid increase of 1 mmol/liter above athlete’s baseline) for the entire race hence that won’t be the limiter for me achieving the best possible race goal or not. The limiter will be: what kind of pace/speed I have trained my body to endure the entire distance and spreading the effort over that (course dependant). I can certainly choose to go a tad slower and close a bit faster but as I said before if you are fit run a marathon at 7, 8, 9 min/mile then you can run the entire distance at that pace or with minor variances but if the difference You might be able to do so if you are not fit enough or run harder with poor pacing. So, wouldn't you rather run at a pace you can maintain, and then push hard at the end for a neg split, vs. starting out too hard and dying, recovering and then picking it up again. >>> I think we have similar opinions when it comes to pacing and I don’t think I’ve ever suggested running harder at the start and fading away in the end. I said IMO racing even splits or a slight negative split (low variance between 1st half and 2nd half) will yield a better finishing time than substantially holding back the 1st half and trying to make it up the 2nd half that to me indicates just a safe approach or even poor pacing. (Think of it like VI used for power analysis, you might not want a 1 result but you want it to be as close to it as possible) In the end, I think this is a good conversation, but a silly one. IF ALL the WRs are neg split - swimming and running - then why would you want to race any other way? I don't understand that. >> when the fastest marathon in history 1st 10K split was only 13 seconds slower than the last 10K and the avg pace every 5km was never over 3 seconds to me it indicates a pretty even split race. IOW I don’t think Haile Gebrselassie was holding much at beginning, he pretty much went fast at since mile 1 and as the race developed he adjusted properly (slowing down in the middle and speeding up at the end). Again I am not suggesting a positive split approach, but an even split or slight negative split one… |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I answered briefly to it in another post but, again, in a single sport event, negative split is the base of a solid performance. Let's get an example of a marathon, 42.2km: if at the starting line, that day, at that time, your body is able to run it at the best you can in 3hrs, so 4'15"/km you will see that you need to pass at the half marathon little bit slower than 4'15"/km, let's say in 1h31'. If then, you will notice a great solid performance in the last 3-5km, with an increasing speed and passing many dead runners at the end. NOt only that: you will cross the line without impacting too much your muscles since you minimized the usage of proteins as reserve for energy. When people finished the sugars as energy , since fats are too slow for producing energy, your body will tend to transform proteins in sugars which will result in a great great damage for your muscles, needing a long recovery after the race. That is the big pain that you will face on the legs the following days. Tipically people tend to stop when this process appear. Another reason to go for negative split is the motivation: looking at your watch, feling the good sensation of increasing speed give you another push to go till the end. It is always good to finish with increasing speed. Again for the marathon example, any minutes below the 1h30 on the half, will paid at least the same at the crossing line and the pay back is exponential. If you pass 20 secs less, I would say that you are still there with 20secs more but if you pass 1min less, you will see higher than 1h30 for sure. Imagine in a extreme case that you pass in 1h20: wht do you expect at the end? I would expect either a stop at the 32nd km or something like around 3h30'. Try to get whatever final result list of a marathon and take the first 100 and do a statistics over negative split and see. Then do the same for the last 100 people on the list: what do you notice? In general, your body has an energy budget at the starting line of a race (whatever sport apart golf...): if you start faster than your potential finish time pace, you are going to finish this energy too soon and, very important, at the beginning your body tend to burn much more sugar than what you burn after 20mins. That's why the strategy is much more importante for ENDURANCE than for short races. 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. I am not a swimmer and neither a cyclist so I can not tell you where to apply there the idea but I guess 30mins min is needed as well there. For multi sports events, the topic is more complicated but more or less you should try to apply it on each leg and I would say especially on the bike where you risk to burn the second part of your bike leg together with the full run leg. Look at this article http://www.active.com/story.cfm?CHECKSSO=1&STORY_ID=13212&RESET=0 |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() What a great topic. Love this discussion. I don't have enough experience, but definitely tried both ways. It seems the closer I get to even splits, the better my race (whether positive split or negative split). And I guess that is what most people are agreeing on. The bigger the variance between the two halves, probably means the result wasn't at maximum potential. Also, I did a quick google search, and not ALL World records are negative splits. Especially, in swimming (and especially with more difficult strokes like butterfly, backstroke). HOwever, there have been Marathon records, etc. that were/are positive splits. It does happen. Most are negative, from my limited research, but they do happen both ways. Heck, didn't macca go out doing his first 5K in 5:40s or something like that??? Great discussion....really. |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Let's get an example of a marathon, 42.2km: if at the starting line, that day, at that time, your body is able to run it at the best you can in 3hrs, so 4'15"/km you will see that you need to pass at the half marathon little bit slower than 4'15"/km, let's say in 1h31'. If then, you will notice a great solid performance in the last 3-5km, with an increasing speed and passing many dead runners at the end. NOt only that: you will cross the line without impacting too much your muscles since you minimized the usage of proteins as reserve for energy. When people finished the sugars as energy , since fats are too slow for producing energy, your body will tend to transform proteins in sugars which will result in a great great damage for your muscles, needing a long recovery after the race. That is the big pain that you will face on the legs the following days. Tipically people tend to stop when this process appear. For a marathon the chances you race intense or long enough for your muscles to rely more on protein for ATP production are lower hence is not the major limiter when it comes down to pacing strategy unless you grossly overestimate your pace/speed potential. Since the amounts of CHO and fat used for ATP production can be influenced by: training, fitness level, training intensity, exercise duration, diet, fatigue onset, economy of movement and fueling before and while exercising, hence stating that your body will rely on a bigger % of protein for ATP production my be an overstatement. If an athlete start out too fast during a marathon, most likley the natural body response will be to slow down as fatigue sets in (before getting to the point you suggest). An athlete properly trained and aware of his/her ability to complete the race distance at certain speed can expect racing at that intensity covering the distance as fast as possible while spreading the effort. Via testing throughout the training leading up to the race one can make better predictions and pacing strategies based on current fitness level. The fact that many people blow up their racing by poor pacing it is a results of improper training, poor pacing strategy and overestimation for current fitness. BTW, I've done short intense training (20 min) sessions and still I have muscle soreness and fatigue days follwoing the session. How can that be if I couldn't possibly get glycogen depleted on that time and relied on protein for ATP production? Try to get whatever final result list of a marathon and take the first 100 and do a statistics over negative split and see. Then do the same for the last 100 people on the list: what do you notice? >>> the reason why so many people blow up in races is because IMO the majority do not have th fitness necessary to go the distance and the experience to pace properly. The reason why the FOP show a bigger realtion betwen even or sligght negative split pacing is because they are in better tune with their bodies and know what sort of effort/pace they can sustain. In general, your body has an energy budget at the starting line of a race (whatever sport apart golf...): if you start faster than your potential finish time pace, you are going to finish this energy too soon and, very important, at the beginning your body tend to burn much more sugar than what you burn after 20mins. That's why the strategy is much more importante for ENDURANCE than for short races. >>> see my response above. For multi sports events, the topic is more complicated but more or less you should try to apply it on each leg and I would say especially on the bike where you risk to burn the second part of your bike leg together with the full run leg. >>> not really. Proper pacing follows the same principle for triathlons, if you race faster than what you trained for you’ll blow up eventually either on the bike or the run. You can choose the safe approach and go easy and build up your effort until you push the higher intensity during the run. (good for beginners and/or inexperienced athletes) or you can choose to spread your effort among all 3 events based on your current fitness level and strive for a even pacing or a slight negative split but racing 1st half substantially slow vs the 2nd half is the safe way to complete your event but a miss opportunity to race near your potential. What’s so difficult to understand about following an even or slight positive splits strategy??? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Wow, stop the presses! I think this is the most I have ever agreed with Jorge...ever! Great response! And not say that Plisskin is wrong in anyway, both posts really moved this conversation forward. Edited by bryancd 2008-02-02 8:37 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-02-01 9:19 PM Fair enough, but I do not think that is correct. My results and race execution had very variable courses and conditions and yet the results were were consistent. Using JUST HR I managed to finish RnR AZ almost at flat split and IM World Championships with a positive split that was still my max potential. It's not a debate, it's my fact. I'm not sure what you don't agree with. I think you exhibited pretty good pacing in your races, but certainly not "flat". And while I'm in no way saying you didn't have an awesome race at Kona (you did), I'm not sure how you would know for sure that it was your "max potential". Honestly, I would bet money that it wasn't. That's intended as both a compliment and push to do even better next time you go. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() RnR had a positive split of about 1min. I would say that's pretty flat. IMAZ certainly wasn't, Kona wasn't quit as bad. I can assure you that I was done at mile 24 at RnR and barely was able to hang on. So on that day, in my condition at that time, that was the best I could do. My max potential for the day was pretty much what you saw, I may improve in time, but that was the balance I could bring. Where I completely disagree with your contention is that running based on pace in an effort to achieve a negative split is open to variables you seem to dismiss, the primary one being the course itself. Kona was a good example of this. The first 8 miles was very flat, so my pace was faster. The middle section until mile 17 had a lot of climbing and long rollers on the Queen K and Energy Lab. My pace was slower through there. The one thing that was constant was my HR as I was adjusting my pace to stayy within a zone I new I could hold until the finish. Had I simply adhered to a pacing strategy, I could have very easily blown myself up once I hit those hills. Power is such a great tool on the bike as it force you to hold a steady out put regardless of the course. If you ride at 275 watts, you keep that going up hill, down hill, into the wind, ect. There's no way to do that on the run except through either HR, pace, or PE. If the second half of a course has more climbing, you very well can't expect to hold the same pace going up without pushing too hard. HR at least will provide you with feedback to slow down or speed up, just like a power meter. And just for the record, didn't start this thread to try and disprove negative split plans, it's just something I have never done and was wondering why and how people did it. I still prefer my approach, but I am awlays willing to learn ![]() Edited by bryancd 2008-02-02 2:12 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I believe you left everything out on the course. The question is if you had 'held back' some earlier would you have gone faster later and netted a faster time. I think you're misunderstanding me on the rest. I dismissed course conditions earlier just to simplify the discussion. Absolutely conditions and topography have to be considered. But just like you can 'adjust' what you expect your HR to show at different points in the race or under different conditions, you can do the same with pace and power. I don't hold '275' watts all day. That's not the fastest way around the course. As an example, you work harder (but go slower) up hills while you work easier (but go faster) down them. This is true for power on the bike or pace on the run. I do think power and pace are better metrics to use to pace yourself, but HR is also a reasonable alternative (you're very comfortable and it seems to work reasonably well for you so I wouldn't push you too hard to change just for the sake of it). I've used it as both a primary and secondary 'pacer' before. I'm very much in the camp that near-even splits while completely spending your energy is likely to produce maximal results (yes, you have to adjust this if the course is set-up to be faster in some sections versus others). I'm not sure we realyy differ much, you just think about things from an HR-perspective and let pace fall out of that. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Yeah, unless they invent a time machine, no one can say with absolute certainty that had they done something different it would have changed the outcome. I think what you and others are saying makes perfect sense, but I still not clear as to how you can look a t a course, divide it in two and be able to establish 2 time intervals as a goal when the course may be very different. That sounds like a lot of work, especially on the back half when you are really starting to hurt. Instead, if I know I can just hold a specific heart rate for the duration of the event, I can simply use that. The result will most likely not be a negative split, it will be a positive, but if my body can't continue to operate efficiently to finish the race, I'm walking it in. |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bryancd - 2008-02-02 2:47 PM Yeah, unless they invent a time machine, no one can say with absolute certainty that had they done something different it would have changed the outcome. I think what you and others are saying makes perfect sense, but I still not clear as to how you can look a t a course, divide it in two and be able to establish 2 time intervals as a goal when the course may be very different. That sounds like a lot of work, especially on the back half when you are really starting to hurt. Instead, if I know I can just hold a specific heart rate for the duration of the event, I can simply use that. The result will most likely not be a negative split, it will be a positive, but if my body can't continue to operate efficiently to finish the race, I'm walking it in. I don't divide a course in 2. I pick a pace that I believe I can hold for the duration of the event. Depending on how aggressive I want to be, I will pick a pace that I am 'very', 'reasonably' or 'somewhat' confident in holding. If I've planned well, it will get harder but not slower. If not, first I'm struggling not to slow down too much. If that fails, I'm walking it in too. But I'd submit that if your pacing will always produce a positive split, then it will be very difficult to maximize your performance. This is different than saying you'll have a poor result. |
|