Negative splits .... are they the magic elixir everyone makes out??

41 to 46 of 46 messages
16/11/2012 at 14:21
Jamie Newton 2 wrote (see)
A 5:31 first mile split on an eventual 1:19.50 half marathon is nearly 35 seconds too fast when you consider that he averaged in the region of 6:06 per mile over the distance. In itself a 5:31 mile is not to be sniffed at.

 

Interestingly enough (possibly) there is one pacing theory that suggests it's (physiologically) optimal to start at slightly faster than race pace before settling into even splits.  I think the idea is that whilst the heart and lungs are still working below optimum level, i.e. heart rate still rising, you effectively get some "free" speed, so if your optimum pace is, say, 6:00/m, you can benefit from running the first few hundred yards/half a mile (??) at closer to something like 5:40/m (?) before settling into 6:00/m, which obvioulsy results in a quicker first mile split and a few seconds in the bank.  If you run like a metronome for the rest of the race this may result in a small positive split.

But yes, if you're talking more than 30secs/mile over optimum pace for a whole mile, that's probably pushing the concept of time in the bank a bit too far.

16/11/2012 at 21:27

I really don't get the negative split thing, it just seems like the worst way possible to run a race. Why not run at a harder effort early on, when you have far more energy and adreniline? You'd end up going way faster overall for the same effort, just at different points in the race. The reason people don't do this is because it strts urting earlier.

16/11/2012 at 22:08

Clearly you've never had the restricting qualities of lactic acid working you over. 

Its not just about pain, busting your arse from the word go simply means your muscles never get the chance to work at optimum.

Those of us who have run great races off negative splits, never claimed that we actually planned to run that way.

What happens is we set off at a pace we believe we can sustain for the entire distance and then discover 10 mins down the road that we can actually go a bit faster. But may choose not to.

The splits on the watch, if pleasing, tend to make you think,'if I'm going this fast for this effort, why kill myself?. In the latter stages, a final blast to the line when feeling good can also gain many seconds.

Edited: 16/11/2012 at 22:15
17/11/2012 at 01:55
PhilPub wrote (see)
Jamie Newton 2 wrote (see)
A 5:31 first mile split on an eventual 1:19.50 half marathon is nearly 35 seconds too fast when you consider that he averaged in the region of 6:06 per mile over the distance. In itself a 5:31 mile is not to be sniffed at.

 

Interestingly enough (possibly) there is one pacing theory that suggests it's (physiologically) optimal to start at slightly faster than race pace before settling into even splits.  I think the idea is that whilst the heart and lungs are still working below optimum level, i.e. heart rate still rising, you effectively get some "free" speed, so if your optimum pace is, say, 6:00/m, you can benefit from running the first few hundred yards/half a mile (??) at closer to something like 5:40/m (?) before settling into 6:00/m, which obvioulsy results in a quicker first mile split and a few seconds in the bank.  If you run like a metronome for the rest of the race this may result in a small positive split.

But yes, if you're talking more than 30secs/mile over optimum pace for a whole mile, that's probably pushing the concept of time in the bank a bit too far.


I'm a notorious fast starter myself, but as you say......30 secs per mile faster than eventual race pace (and in a half marathon! rather than a 5 or 10K) is a little overkill.

The difference between running a 6:06 mile and a 5:30 mile feels like a huge change in pace when you're actually running these paces.

A 5:50 start may have been fine....

17/11/2012 at 05:43

If you start at level pace, you feel as if you are jogging. 

19/11/2012 at 11:49

...reporting back after my 10M race yesterday
targetting sub 1:20, i.e. sub-8min/miling, so hoping for 7:55ish miles with increasing effort:

7:36, 7:56, 8:03, 8:19, 7:59 for 39:53 at halfway
8:00, 8:14, 8:14, 8:06, 7:32 for 1:19:59

first mile bit too quick, but felt very easy, but eased off in response
mile 4 had v.small amount uphill, so basically on track up to mile 6
miles 7&8 were the problem - didn't increase the effort enough to compensate for the decreasing efficiency of the muscles/lungs - left a lot to do over the last 2 miles, but just about managed it!
better finish would've been 8:10, 8:05, 8:05, 7:45
still a big PB (nearly 5min improvement)
now completely convinced about even/slight neg-splitting

 


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
41 to 46 of 46 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums