15 replies to this topic

[mytym]

Many runners, including myself, have the underlying on-going goal to finish their runs stronger than they start.  It doesn't really matter what distance the run is, the goal, apart from a time target, is usually always to finish strong.  I suppose it's a good indication that you have developed a sufficient base for the distance covered.  It's rare, if ever, that I run negative splits, but they are one my goals never-the-less and my pursuit continues.  However, just running a negative split, is not necessarily satisfactory.  To really mean something, a negative split needs to involve the achievement of one of the following:

1. Ideally, a PB in the 1st half of the run.
2. In lieu of (1), a PB for the full run.
3. At the very least, a PB in the 2nd half of the run.

Without one of these pre-requisites, the significance of a negative split is greatly diminished.  Perhaps running a PB and then breaking it in the second half of the run is asking a bit much, but starting out really slow purposely to virtually ensure a stronger finish is not really accomplishing anything.

[SpecBGT]

While it might be nice to do a negative split (I don't think I have ever bothered to check) I would imagine that it is very much dependent on the layout of the course. A flat out and back maybe so, however a circuitous course with hills and flats might make it hard to determine one way or the other.

[Colin]

mytym, on 10 July 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

1. Ideally, a PB in the 1st half of the run.
2. In lieu of (1), a PB for the full run.
3. At the very least, a PB in the 2nd half of the run.

I don't get it. How do you run a negative split (faster second half) run a PB in half of it and a PB in the full distance. For that to occur you must start with a very very soft PB in half distance, run faster than that but not all out, then even faster the second half.
Now try it the next race , and the next race and so on...

[eoin]

I wouldn't attempt that myself. I tend to try and run an even pace and then bump it up in the final 800m or so (in a 5k-10k race). That alone would give an overall neg split.

[mytym]

Colin, on 11 July 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

I don't get it. How do you run a negative split (faster second half) run a PB in half of it and a PB in the full distance. For that to occur you must start with a very very soft PB in half distance, run faster than that but not all out, then even faster the second half.
Now try it the next race , and the next race and so on...

Not necessarily.  To run a PB in the 1st half of the run, you would just need to beat your best 1st half time on the same course.  For example, your best 10.5km time achieved along the way to a 21.1km time, not a stand alone 10.5km run.  However, you can't just take it easy on the 1st half because you would not be able to run a PB for the full distance even if you did run a negative split.

[tonedbutt]

I'm currently doing the half training for Blackmores with Can Too and we are being trained to run with the goal of a negative split of in other words, to not go out to hard and fast and keep something in the tank for the second half.

[GrantWholey]

I did a 141/137 splits at Melbourne marathon for an overall PB of 3.18. First half I lost 2 mins in the toilet so it was more like 139/137 actual running time. 19 marathons completed to date and only 3 have been negative splits. not something I aim for, but nice when it happens.

[mytym]

Great effort Grant! I wish I could say the same.  The best I could come up with so far was 89/91 for a marathon distance run (not MM unfortunately) and 47.45/47.35 for a 22k run from work to home.  The pursuit continues.

Recently I've been thinking that the ideal scenario would be to run the last section of the run with the same effort you would normally use if that distance was a stand alone distance.  For example:

Marathon - last 21.1k like a half, last 10k like a 10k run, last 400m like a 400m run, last 100m like a 100m sprint, etc.

Obviously it's not possible to run the same time as a stand alone run, but no reason why the same effort cannot be exerted is there?

[slow]

mytym, on 26 October 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Recently I've been thinking that the ideal scenario would be to run the last section of the run with the same effort you would normally use if that distance was a stand alone distance.  For example:

Marathon - last 21.1k like a half, last 10k like a 10k run, last 400m like a 400m run, last 100m like a 100m sprint, etc.

Obviously it's not possible to run the same time as a stand alone run, but no reason why the same effort cannot be exerted is there?

My best hm time - I put in my third best 10km time (stand alone) to finish and with a negative split.  If to use pace (as opposed to effort) I have often wondered if you could run last 10km like hm, last 5km like 10km.  I haven't had enough races recently with sufficient fitness and conditions to give it a go.  Consequently regardless of distance focusing on running even splits.

[Quinkin]

Negative splits are rare for me.

I did a slight negative split in my 5km track PB care of fast final lap.

I also did a negative in the Macleay Half Marathon in 2010.

[danish]

I've never seen the point in negative splits personally. In every run I've entered I simply set a goal time for myself, calculate the pace and try and get through each km in even time. Generally my fastest km in most runs is my first due to nerves, before settling down into an even pace for the rest of the event

Assuming each half of a course is even in terms of hills etc then I would think that have a big split difference (be it negative or positive) probably means you haven't run as fast as you could have.

[tyotfo]

I think a negative split is indicative of a good run but i wouldnt ever go out with that as my primary aim. At my level (pretty average), i dont want to go out too slow (especially in a marathon) because i know once i hit 35km's, my form is going to drop anyway, whether ive been running fast or slow up to that point. Therefore, i aim to run a smooth pace for aslong as possible and if i feel ok towards the end of my run, ramp it up. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. I remember one half marathon where i virtually sprinted the last 2k's as i had so much left. That was definately a negative split but not a PB.

[John Dawlings]

I often do negative splits.  I am a pretty good judge of pace and if I am in (say) 40 minute shape for a 10 kms, will go through half way in close to 20 minutes.  If I am feeling good, then a sub 20 happens in the second half.  If not, it is over 20.  So I negative split very often simply because I go out at the right pace.

Also, because most people go out too hard, you will find in the second half that most people are slowing down. Psychologically it is much easier to be keeping up the same steady pace in the second half and overtaking people than slowing down and being overtaken.

So my advice is to do the first half at your planned pace and the second half at the speed you feel you are up to.

There are millions of variations to this of couse.  Someimes you are just feeling awful and you know after 1 km that the battle is lost - just slow down and accept it.  Occasionally, if you are really set for a PB, go that little bit faster in the first half etc etc.

[BOD]

This article in a recent edition of Running Times looks at pacing and negative splits in races from 5K to the Marathon.

[mytym]

I only really have two different efforts available to me that I'm able to maintain for more than a minute or two.  There's an 80% max effort (80% is very subjective) which I seem to be able to maintain for about 3km's and possibly I could string it out up to 10km, and marathon effort which can last indefinitely (relatively speaking).  In theory, distances up to 10kms I feel my best bet is to use 80% max which means negative splits are out because I gradually get slower and slower.  Distances beyond this, I feel my best bet is  a combination of the two, so negative splits are on the cards.  Although I do slow down even using marathon effort, I feel I can minimise the fade substantially and then when the time comes to shift to 80% max I should be able to cover any time the fade to that point, has cost me.  That's my theory.  It doesn't quite go to plan in practice.

Too true John Dawlings.  Sometimes you know almost immediately that it's not going to happen.  No matter how hard you try, the pace just doesn't speed up.  Personally I go for more of a 67/33 split but your 50/50 advice is excellent.

[KevM]

BOD, on 10 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

This article in a recent edition of Running Times looks at pacing and negative splits in races from 5K to the Marathon.

Thanks BOD, that's a good read - especially for those who still try to 'bank' time in marathons.
Only my experience but my slowest marathon (out of 9) was my biggest positive split 1:29/1:34 and my fastest was my largest negative split - this year 124:29/123:32

In marathons - best way to know how to negative split (and run a PB with it) is know your ability and possible pace per k going into the event as accurately as possible. Then on event day sticking to your aim pace per k till at least the mid 20k's.
Of course the more experience you have through races and training the better you can predict.......and obviously being anal with recording all your times is a big help.
Also, the last kilometre although brutal can often be squeezed out faster due to the adrenalin, vacuum and promise of the finish line (if you haven't blown up with a positive split that is) .