Negative Split Quandary

In article said:

I can do a 9 milr training run, feel warmed up at mile 6 and push it and do a negative split for
mile 7, 8, and 9. I'm feeling good about this. However one part of me is saying I'm only fooling
myself as when it comes to race day...I'm going to run my ass of from the start (thinking I'm
holding back in training) and not be able to pull off a negative split.

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm not proud of this and I'd
like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to "hold back" in a race
(adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride.
As a consequence of that mentality....my splits simply decend. In training and indeed pulling off
negative splits on a 9 mile training run....I credit this due to simply holding back and giving
85% or 90% in the initial miles.

If I were to do a negative split in a race?...I would always reflect and wonder if I could have
done better/faster on those preceeding miles framing context to the negative split (the quandary).

The solution to this dilemma is that if the splits are very close to even, that is, if you are close
to even all the way but with a fast surge at the end making for a negative splits average, you've
done your best.

BTW, the races that I felt best about were negative splits races. It always feels good.

The data overwhelmingly suggests that almost-even negative splits are the way to go in any distance
longer than the 800m. These splits are not necessarily uniformly negative, they're more like even
splits with a really fast finish. For example, a 5k where the last lap is under 54 seconds.

So I think the answer to your dilemma is actually to *NOT* go for negative splits. Instead, break up
your best performance into even splits, and try to dig down deep for that 400-800m at the end.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Globaldisc said:

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race.

When I first started I was thick headed, er, almost as type A as you. After about 3 or 4 Boston's I
decided to try a marathon with negative splits. It was vermont and six weeks after Boston and I
already had my qualifier and nothing to lose. Instead of going out at a 6:50-7:00 pace I strolled
through the half at 7:20's. yes, a very negative pace but I was not aiming for a PR but a strong
finish to prove/disprove the point. I picked it up a little until 18 and picked it up some more
through the finish. I remember running the last 10k in 43-44 minutes(6/7's), passing everyone in
sight and feeling fantastic. Some people thought I was running the relay.

It wasn't the ideal negative split but it proved to me that holding back early had some real value.
Thereafter I went out slower and did as well if mot better than the old balls to the wall technique.
I factored this back into my 5 and 10k times and started to run them even faster.

Once I got into ultras I appreciated negative pacing even more. In the longer stuff you DNF big
time, not just slow down, if you drop your wad too early with pace.

Quoted message said:

proud of this and I'd like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to
"hold back" in a race (adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort,
110% with every stride. As a consequence of that mentality....my splits simply decend. In training
and indeed pulling off negative splits on a 9 mile training run....I credit this due to simply
holding back and giving 85% or 90% in the initial miles.

You run too many damn home town races having big D contests with your buddies. If your ego is too
big get your ass out of town and sign up as Willie [censored] and try it. I'd try it with a 10k where
proper pacing is easier to massage.

Quoted message said:

If I were to do a negative split in a race?...I would always reflect and wonder if I could have
done better/faster on those preceeding miles framing context to the negative split (the quandary).
It strikes me that when someone produces negative splits in a race....the initial miles framing
context to the negative split go unquestioned/scrutinized/examined....and the negative split is
simply applauded.

Then I suggest you do some homework on negative splits where this has been heavily questioned,
evaluated and why even or slightly negative splits work. About 15 years ago I read a solid study on
pace which came up with some interesting ratios. It was something like:

5k - for every second you went out too fast it cost you three seconds 10k - cost you 7-10 etc.

As you might imagine it not a linear [censored] the bed but geometric with the marathon the most obvious.
This is why I suggest to most people that have never run a marathon to watch one first and stand at
mile 22 and see what under training and/or over zealousness does.

Anyway, this was the negative view of what happens when you push too hard. When you held back there
was postive ratio but takes some practice and is a moving pace with conditioning, temps, course
undulation, additional variables.

Good question, city boy. 🙂

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Globaldisc said:

For example IMO, a 5K is a "bat out of hell" race and I doubt the top finishers have neg.
splits....no? I don't know...just speculating. In a race, producing a neg. split only makes me
question the effot of the preceeding miles. If you produce a negative split...how do you measure
your effort in the preceeding miles? It may be simple thinking on my part...but it seems to me if
you give 100% in a race......every stride....you naturally won't produce a neg. split. And I don't
think that's necessarily a bad thing....no?

There's a difference between "giving 100% in a race every stride" and "using a strategy that
produces the fastest time."

World record 5k, 1998, 12:39.36 by Haile Gebrselassie.

3k split: 7:38.9 Remaining 2k: 5:00.46
seconds: 458.9 300.46

Pace/k: 152.96 seconds 150.23 seconds

Does that mean he couldn't have done it as even splits or even positive splits? No, but the fact
remains that most distance WRs have been set as negative splits. You decide.

Examining road races where it wasn't a determined WR effort is likely to reflect racing
tactics more than individual attempts to maximize their time, so the WRs provide some of the
best evidence.

These aren't _seriously_ negative splits, and they reflect two 59 second laps at the end. But
that's part of the point - you can afford to kick hard and go seriously anaerobic only at the end
of the race. If you do it at the start, you'll die. If you do it at the end, you'll die too, but
you'll die after you've passed the finish line. 🙂

It's even more apparent in the marathon, where every drop of lactic acid and burned glycogen hurts
you. As your body warms up, your metabolism shifts gradually over to using a higher percentage of
fat as fuel, so going out hard at first consumes proportionately more glycogen.

From a personal standpoint, I shaved 20 seconds off of my 5k PR by slowing down by 15 seconds on
the first mile. I had an "oops" once, hit the first mile in (yeah, I'm slow) 5:47, and had a
miserable rest of race. Couple of weeks later I hit the first mile in 6:05 or so, and more than
made up for that extra time. Anecdotes aren't evidence, but my experiences have convinced me. (And
some day, I promise, I'll manage a time that doesn't leave my track-running housemate laughing. 🙂

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

Truth is I've never pulled off

When I first started I was

Once again you've asked the right man (or did he have the surgery yet?) for advice on "pulling it
off", since nobody *pulls it* more than Doug.

Andrew said:

Folks...I'm just asking...what's neg split mean? IMO it means perhaps close examination of the
preceeding miles is warranted as I am not willing to assume those preceeding miles were maximized
properly. A neg. split's easy if I hold back just a little.....but impossible for me if I am going
all out every stride....(any distance). Just reflecting on how I feel about neg. splits.....I'm
just a neophyte in this particular arena....so enlighten
me....

Andrew,

"Miles in the bank" simply doesn't work. These days, people hold back a little at the start of even
100 meters: It's part of why people can run 9.7s these days instead of 9.9s. Coe's and Kipketer's
800 WRs were run with close to even splits. Ditto for distances.

If you literally go as fast as you can (sprint) from a standing start, you will begin producing
energy primarliy aerobically after 90 seconds. This isn't because your aerobic system suddenly
becomes more efficient: It's because your lactic system SHUTS DOWN. The same thing happens running
distances. Most people can run at their VO2max pace (10% slower than mile pace) for only 6-8
minutes, because you build up too much lactate too quickly. If you happen to be Geb, you can run
most of a 5K at this pace, then kick. But if you're more like an 18 minute 5K runner, you run the
first mile or so fast....and then you become acquainted with running with "the bear" on your back,
just like the last 300 of an 800. Your body cannot contiue producing lactate at the same rate
(you'll end up too far into oxygen debt), so you end up running the second half of your 5K at
roughly your LT (the point where lactate clearance equals lactate production), and your race is
SLOWER than if you ran the whole race at a slower pace. I don't care what distance you try: This
simply doesn't work.

There are some things you can do to allow you to push harder--up to a point. You can run 2000's at
roughly 10K pace with 2-3 minute rest to boost your lactate threshold early in the season (late in
the season if you're using a Daniels system). You can run 12 X 400 centered around your 5K pace to
boost your lactate buffering: 25% faster than 5K pace with 2 min rest (Brooks Johnson's way), or
slightly faster than 5K pace with more like 1 min rest (John McDonnell's way). You can run hill
repeats (hard) on a weekly basis, like the Africans.

But in the end you have to get your pacing right. You might try running a 5K in a track meet, or
running a 3K time trial. You might also try a race tempo workout like 5 X 1000 at 5K pace with just
60 second rest: If you go out too quickly, you will not complete the workout.

Lyndon

"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

In article said:

Globaldisc <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

There's a difference between "giving 100% in a race every stride" and "using a strategy that
produces the fastest time."

World record 5k, 1998, 12:39.36 by Haile Gebrselassie.

3k split: 7:38.9 Remaining 2k: 5:00.46
seconds: 458.9 300.46

Pace/k: 152.96 seconds 150.23 seconds

Does that mean he couldn't have done it as even splits or even positive splits? No, but the fact
remains that most distance WRs have been set as negative splits. You decide. These aren't
_seriously_ negative splits, and they reflect two 59 second laps at the end.

That was my thought -- cruise-and-kick is the way to go, rather than the sort of gradual
acceleration that Global and many others do during long runs. There have been record times where the
last lap was in under 55 seconds, and in those efforts, the splits would look dead even if you
excluded the last lap.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

After the San Diego marathon last year, I downloaded all the results and did a little statistical
tinkering with them. I proved the obvious
- negative splits work. In particular, at any given average pace, those who went out fast in the
first 10k did worse than those who started at a below average pace for the first 10k. The slower
starters more than made up for their slower beginning during the third 10k which accounted for
most of the variance in finishing times. The effect wasn't linear - those who did best did not
start slow and gradually run faster. Rather, they seemed to get slightly faster during the second
10k, put on the gas during the third 10k and slow slightly for the last 10k.

___________________________

Charlie Schwartz

Andrew:

I would be interested to know what you mean by giving every step a 100% effort. Surely you don't
mean running as fast as you are able the whole way. This might work in shorter races. But I can't
really even say that, in running a 5K, anyone would be running his absolute fastest every second.

In the end, what matters in a race is getting across the line in the least possible time, and if
that means holding back a bit at first, then why not do that?

I think there are pysiological reasons (having to do with the rate at which you can replace your
spent fuel, and the rate at which you are depleting your stored fuel) that would argue in favor of
negative splits.

I have no doubt that you are a faster, better, more experienced distance runner than I, so I
hesitate to even respond, but it seems to me that knowing how to pace oneself is a real art/science.
And I find it hard to believe that you CANNOT hold yourself back at the start. You know how it goes:
Decide on your pace ahead of time, and train for
it. On race day, you do it (barring any disaster).

You have an incrideble amnount of discipline. We know this because we know how you train, and for
my money, that is mostly a matter of dicipline. So use that discipline and try some races with
negative splits. Maybe you will defy convention and you will actually run slower with negative
splits. But I doubt it.

I have to say that I am really interested in the experiment, so if you do it, please keep us posted.

Brian Jones

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I can do a 9 milr training run, feel warmed up at mile 6 and push it and do a negative split for
mile 7, 8, and 9. I'm feeling good about this. However one part of me is saying I'm only fooling
myself as when it comes to race day...I'm going to run my ass of from the start (thinking I'm
holding back in training) and not be able to pull off a negative split.

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm not proud of this and I'd
like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to "hold back" in a race
(adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride.
As a consequence of that mentality....my splits simply decend. In training and indeed pulling off
negative splits on a 9 mile training run....I credit this due to simply holding back and giving
85% or 90% in the initial miles.

If I were to do a negative split in a race?...I would always reflect and wonder if I could have
done better/faster on those preceeding miles framing context to the negative split (the quandary).
It strikes me that when someone produces negative splits in a race....the initial miles framing
context to the negative split go unquestioned/scrutinized/examined....and the negative split is
simply applauded. When the fact may be those initial miles were 85% or 90% effort running....and I
am not willing to say automatically that the end resulting time is always maximized, the best,
with accomplishing negative splits. I, and I'm sure all of us, have done some damn good racing
with no negative split in the equation.

For example IMO, a 5K is a "bat out of hell" race and I doubt the top finishers have neg.
splits....no? I don't know...just speculating. In a race, producing a neg. split only makes me
question the effot of the preceeding miles. If you produce a negative split...how do you measure
your effort in the preceeding miles? It may be simple thinking on my part...but it seems to me if
you give 100% in a race......every stride....you naturally won't produce a neg. split. And I don't
think that's necessarily a bad thing....no?

Folks...I'm just asking...what's neg split mean? IMO it means perhaps close examination of the
preceeding miles is warranted as I am not willing to assume those preceeding miles were maximized
properly. A neg. split's easy if I hold back just a little.....but impossible for me if I am going
all out every stride....(any distance). Just reflecting on how I feel about neg. splits.....I'm
just a neophyte in this particular arena....so enlighten me....

Andrew....

In article said:

Andrew:

I would be interested to know what you mean by giving every step a 100% effort. Surely you don't
mean running as fast as you are able the whole way.

Right, I race with him and he typically does the first mile of a 5k about 30-40 seconds slower than
his 1 mile time. I think this in itself should be informative -- he's holding back, just less so
than a negative splits runner.

BTW, there was one guy here who really did run the first mile of a marathon at about PR pace(!)

Quoted message said:

me that knowing how to pace oneself is a real art/science. And I find it hard to believe that you
CANNOT hold yourself back at the start.

I think he can too. He doesn't want to.

Quoted message said:

You have an incrideble amnount of discipline. We know this because we know how you train, and for
my money, that is mostly a matter of dicipline.

No comment here.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

and if that means holding back a bit at first,

then why not do that?
__

easier said than done for me despite being discplined. with "intentionally holding back" my concern
then goes to the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a race. i suppose i stubbornly don't
want to grapple mastering the "art & science" of personal "throttling". my best races are those
wherein i feel my lungs & heart at some point in the race are about to explode , i'm just "dying"
and wondering why in the F am I here?....usually it's two-thirds through the race. it's at this
point where i feel i want to quit the race, simply stop right there out of exhaustion. i've only
gotten to this physiological crescendo moment by not intentionally "holding back" at any point and
giving 100% effort relative to my awareness of the distance of the race. it's in these races where I
experience all this where I've hit AG% ratings of
70.+% and only these races. whenever i've raced and never reached a point where i wanted to
quit?....those are the races where my performances are less, 66%, 67%, etc. AG. I don't know if I
could build to a crescendo moment of wanting to quit if I "hold back" earlier in a race.

I suppose I equate holding back with increasing the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a
race and I expect to be damn near dying at the end of a race. Also I think in terms of never being
able to recapture a moment once it has past. Thus in my thinking it's imparative to make the most of
every moment, in every race, to the best of my ability in that moment....and I'll worry about the
next moment when it comes....but here and now it's about this moment. Hey, I'm a simple person with
a simple mind...what can I say. And I just rely on being able to "string together" as series of full
effort total moments to hopefully equal a PR at the end of the day.

The whole notion of "holding back" is so very contrary to my thinking because it almost eliminates
the possibilty of "running over your head", pushing the envelope, and definining new boundaries for
yourself. One thing I love about racing is that with every race is the possibility that you just
might be better than you've ever been before, in that moment, the race. That's exciting to me and
"holding back" just strikes as not allowing for that possibility. I know I know I know.....lots of
wise people have pointed out lots of established wisdom on the merit/value/wisdom in "holding
back"....negative splits, etc....I don't question it one bit. I guess i'm getting tot he point as a
runner that if I want to get to the next level...I'm going to have to adopt and incorprorate some of
this wisdom in my approach to running/racing.

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those neg. splits...etc....despite
your final resulting time...don't you constantly still reflect back and speculate that you could
have done an even better time had you not held back so much?...do you ever have regret reflecting on
a race wherein you held back? Or do you just look a the final time...and if it's a PR....feel good
that you mastered the art and science of pacing for a race...are content with that...and don't
consider where you could have perhaps been even better? I never want to have regret or energy at the
end of a race...and want certainty that I left it all out there on the course. I get that and a
crescendo moment when I think of a race in terms of stringing together total effort moments.

Andrew...

In article <[email hidden]>, Globaldisc wrote:

Of course you're smart enough to know the theoretical benefits of negative splits, and you're not
disputing this, but getting into the psychological aspects of racing, which is really what's at the
heart of the matter. I think this is an interesting post, it made me think about why you -- and why
*I* -- feel drawn towards going out too hard at the start of a race.

Quoted message said:

easier said than done for me despite being discplined. with "intentionally holding back" my
concern then goes to the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a race.

Don't worry about that. You'll have plenty of opportunity to spend it all in the last 400-800m.

Quoted message said:

i suppose i stubbornly don't want to grapple mastering the "art & science" of personal
"throttling". my best races are those wherein i feel my lungs & heart at some point in the race
are about to explode , i'm just "dying" and wondering why in the F am I here?....usually it's
two-thirds through the race. it's at this point where i feel i want to quit the race, simply stop
right there out of exhaustion.

This is the way it is in any good race, even if it's an even or negative splits race. Far enough in
to hurt, far enough out for the finish to be daunting. The difference in an even or negative splits
race is that you're doing the passing. This helps with the psychological aspect of it (-;

You seem concerned that you're not going to get that big surge of pain towards the end of the race.
Don't worry, you'll get it alright. Sure, you didn't tire yourself out as much in the start of the
race -- but you're also running faster, and if it doesn't hurt, you increase your speed some more
until it does. Once you're at the 2/3 mark or so, just use your intuition and soak up the pain like
you would in a positive splits race. The difference is that the pain feels different psychologically
when you're going fast.

Quoted message said:

i've only gotten to this physiological crescendo moment by not intentionally "holding back" at any
point and giving 100% effort relative to my awareness of the distance of the race.

Not sure what you mean by "relative to my awareness of the distance of the race".

Quoted message said:

it's in these races where I experience all this where I've hit AG% ratings of 70.0+% and only
these races. whenever i've raced and never reached a point where i wanted to quit?....those are
the races where my performances are less, 66%, 67%, etc. AG. I don't know if I could build to a
crescendo moment of wanting to quit if I "hold back" earlier in a race.

If this concerns you, try running the last mile really hard, like a one mile race. This usually
solves the lack of pain problem.

Quoted message said:

I suppose I equate holding back with increasing the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a
race and I expect to be damn near dying at the end of a race.

Not a problem -- you can tire yourself out pretty badly over 1 mile, even over
400m. If you run hard enough! That's why these elites run the last lap of their 3-5k races in under
55 seconds -- they're also concerned that they'll have unspent energy.

Despite the humerous tone, I'm deadly serious about all this -- you can give everything you have in
the last 800m or so, and it will hurt like hell if you do it right.

Quoted message said:

Also I think in terms of never being able to recapture a moment once it has past. Thus in my
thinking it's imparative to make the most of every moment, in every race, to the best of my
ability in that moment....

The key phrase is "relative to my awareness of the distance of the race". You're aware that doing
the first mile at 5:40 or so is not optimal for a 5k. You could do that, but you don't. Because
you're aware that there will still be about 2 miles left after that, and you've internalised this
awareness to the extent that you don't have to *try* to hold back to the 6:10 or so pace you go out
at, you do it instinctively.

But what if you suddenly became aware that you were going too fast, like someone telling you
part way through the 5k race that you were actually doing the marathon or something ? You'd slow
down to adapt.

The problem -- and I understand it all too well, because I have not yet learned to consistently run
even/negative splits either -- is that deep down, you're anxious that if you hold back too much,
you'll lose valuable time, because you are not familiar enough with a more even paced style to be
completely comfortable with it.

Quoted message said:

The whole notion of "holding back" is so very contrary to my thinking because it almost eliminates
the possibilty of "running over your head", pushing the envelope, and definining new boundaries
for yourself.

It doesn't eliminate this at all. You get plenty of opportunity to do that in the last half of the
race. The first 2/3 are just like a tee-off in golf: you want to get to the right place and be in a
good strategic position for the finish.

Quoted message said:

One thing I love about racing is that with every race is the possibility that you just might be
better than you've ever been before, in that moment, the race. That's

Two responses to this:

(401) in your case, you won't. The reason is that you've already tried the same strategy several
times. You've got a better chance with a fresh approach.

(402) one of your strongest points, as a frequent racer, is that you have the ability to predict
your times in the middle distances very accurately, much like the more experienced runners
here can do. You're also pretty good at adjusting the estimates based on your general
condition. Given this level of self knowledge -- you'd be in an excellent position to set
yourself goal splits for the first few miles of a race. You'd just predict your time, break it
up into even splits, and try to run the first half of the race to those splits, and then go
with your gut feeling in the second half of the race.

Quoted message said:

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those neg.
splits...etc....despite your final resulting time...don't you constantly still reflect back and
speculate that you could have done an even better time had you not held back so much?...

Not very experienced running negative splits, but it felt great every time. As long as the splits
are close to even, you know you did pretty close to your best. Also, there's something about surging
past all the other runners, and feeding off the feeling that you're blazing your way through the
pain instead of slugging it out -- that makes you feel good. There is a strange calmness in the pain
when you're finishing strongly. I often get this in my track workouts.

Question -- don't you constantly reflect back and speculate that you could have done an even better
time had you not gone out too hard ? I always have such thoughts/regrets when I run a positive
splits race.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

(Globaldisc) said:

Quoted message said:

and if that means holding back a bit at first,

then why not do that?

If you runners could learn to hold it back a bit, you wouldn't need football players to satisfy
your wives.

Quoted message said:

easier said than done for me despite being discplined. with "intentionally holding back" my concern
then goes to the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a race.

As Donovan points out, you can spend that energy in the last mile or 800m if you want to.

Quoted message said:

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those neg. splits...etc....despite
your final resulting time...don't you constantly still reflect back and speculate that you could
have done an even better time had you not held back so much?

Almost never.

I often run my workouts specifically with negative splits in mind -- whether I'm pushing a bit
harder in the second half of an aerobic workout or doing step intervals. My favorite interval
workout, which I have shelved for the moment while I concentrate on the upcoming marathon, is as
follows: 1 mile warmup, then 800m at 10K pace, followed by conditioning of some sort (squats, lunge
walking, step-ups, push-ups, ab work); then 800m a bit faster than 10K pace, then more conditioning,
mixing it up so I'm not doing the same thing each time; then 800m a bit faster yet, and so on; by
the end I'll have done 6x800m, progressing from 10K pace to 5K pace.

The main effect I've noticed in races is that with a mile to go I'll remember how tired I usually am
with two 800s left to go, and also remember that at that point I can SPEED UP. So I do it in the
race too. Most of my races in the past year have produced negative splits; the exceptions were on
hot days where I took too optimistic a view at the start, or where the first mile was downhill and
the last one uphill.

With somewhere between 1 and 2 miles to go in a race I generally check the fuel gauge, so to speak,
and decide whether I can pick up the pace to the finish. About half the time I can, and off I go,
passing people along the way; about half the time I can't, or not much anyway, so I finish with
fairly even splits.

In all these cases I feel as if I've left it all on the course.

--
Brian P. Baresch Fort Worth, Texas, USA Professional editing and proofreading

If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill

A little late to post to this thread, but my experience also reflects your comment. My best times
(performances) have followed a pattern exactly as you describe, with the final surge distance
depending on the over all race length.

Donovan Rebbechi wrote: (snip)

(So I think the answer to your dilemma is actually to *NOT* go for negative splits. Instead, break
up your best performance into even splits, and try to dig down deep for that 400-800m at the end.)

--
The generation of random numbers is too vital a task to be left to chance.

In article <[email hidden]>, Globaldisc <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm not proud of this and I'd
like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to "hold back" in a race
(adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride.

110% on every stride is an effective way at achieving 90% and less on the race. If you're racing a
10k, there is no award for the fastest first mile, remember. So, what is your real goal?

One fairly effective way to PR on your first negative split race is to take your (positively
split) PR and run the first 2/3rds of the race dead on that pace. Pick it up (progressively) in
the last 1/3rd. Trust me, you'll hit the finish line feeling quite spent and with no question
about there being fuel left in the tank.

The fact that it is a new PR should allay your fears some as well.

Quoted message said:

For example IMO, a 5K is a "bat out of hell" race and I doubt the top finishers have neg.
splits....no?

I think typically they do indeed have negative splits. Not that I'm a top finisher, but I set and
reset my 5k PR 3 times on a certain course. Every time, I ran the first mile slower. (The first
year, the first mile tied my then-PR for the mile. Ouch!)

Quoted message said:

Folks...I'm just asking...what's neg split mean? IMO it means perhaps close examination of the
preceeding miles is warranted as I am not willing to assume those preceeding miles were maximized
properly. A neg. split's easy if I hold back just a little.....but impossible for me if I am going
all out every stride....(any distance). Just reflecting on how I feel about neg. splits.....I'm
just a neophyte in this particular arena....so enlighten me....

If it's important for you to feel trashed by the end of the first mile ('all out'😉, then run that
way. Not the way to the best possible times, so you have to pick your goals -- is it times (AG %
rated), or feeling trashed on the first mile of a 10k? They're not mutually compatible so you have
to choose.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article said:

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those neg. splits...etc....despite
your final resulting time...don't you constantly still reflect back and speculate that you could
have done an even better time had you not held back so much?...do you ever have regret reflecting
on a race wherein you held back? Or do you just look a the final time...and if it's a PR....feel
good that you mastered the art and science of pacing for a race...are content with that...and don't
consider where you could have perhaps been even better? I never want to have regret or energy at
the end of a race...and want certainty that I left it all out there on the course. I get that and a
crescendo moment when I think of a race in terms of stringing together total effort moments.

I just don't see the merit in leaving it all out on the course by mile 2 of a 10k. I'm racing a
10k, not a 2 miler.

Nor is it a matter of 'holding back', which is part of your stumbling block. What I'm doing is
_controlling_ my pace so as to get the best possible time for the entire race. I think being in
control is a good thing, so there's no mental barrier for me.

Suppose that I do, as you say, go out and set a PR at my 10k, having successfully controlled the
first mile to be my slowest. I've done this several times, in fact, with the first mile only 10-30
seconds off the average pace. So there I am, having the encouraging result of a PR. You're
concerned (so much so that you won't even try it) that the negative split route leaves me at the
finish line feeling down because of that slow first mile (?). Hardly. If I've finished feeling
strong (unusual, because I accelerate over the last 2 miles; no way I accelerate for 2 miles and
leave anything in the tank.), that just means that I can set an even more agressive goal, and
train for it with the positive feedback that my last round of training produced a PR. Makes it
easier to go out and hit the training hard, as I'm confident that if I train well, I get PRs.

The 'running over your head', I do in training (rarely, but I do it). That's part of how I decide
what the race day's goals are going to be. If I try to run over my head and flame out a training
run or track practice, ok, so I blew that workout. On the other hand, I've also learned an upper
bound to my (current) plausible race paces. I hurt, but I've learned something; that's good. And,
though I hurt, it hasn't cost me a race, a PR, and I probably don't hurt as much as running a
too-fast first mile on a 10k. That makes it a lot easier, physically and mentally, to recover.

Side note: Cross your fingers for me tomorrow, folks. I'll be running for the first time since
Marine Corps -- an 8k race. The only thing I know about my pace is that it's unlikely to be a PR,
but I'll probably finish.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

For what its worth, my best race involved not negative splits but close to. The key is that you will
FEEL like you are holding back, and in fact your are holding back by going out at around an even
pace. For example, this race
(5k) I went out in 5:55 then my second mile was 6:15, then 5:58. The first mile involved a conscious
effort to slow down - that is, not running at the speed that I naturally fell into. Then, the
second mile involved a conscious effort to speed up - i.e., an increase in perceived effort.
Even though it was slower, it felt harder (and was closer in time that my splits usually are.)
Then, for the third mile you obviously give everything. This strategy can be slightly risky in
the sense that you may slow down more that you need to and have a hard time picking the pace
back up to where you need to be. However, if you're feeling good and you control your pace well
the first mile (or first few miles for longer races) It really, really pays off in the end. I
think one of the greatest benefits is the psychological aspect - most people go out way to fast
and you will pass incredible amounts of runners in the later parts of the race. You will be
stronger and faster just at the point other people are failing. if someone has been ahead of
you the whole race and you pass them near the end, chances are you will stay ahead of them.
"Globaldisc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I can do a 9 milr training run, feel warmed up at mile 6 and push it and

do a

Quoted message said:

negative split for mile 7, 8, and 9. I'm feeling good about this.

However

Quoted message said:

one part of me is saying I'm only fooling myself as when it comes to race day...I'm going to run
my ass of from the start (thinking I'm holding back

in

Quoted message said:

training) and not be able to pull off a negative split.

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm

not

Quoted message said:

proud of this and I'd like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to
"hold back" in a race (adrenaline,

whatever)....I

Quoted message said:

just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride. As

a

Quoted message said:

consequence of that mentality....my splits simply decend. In training and indeed pulling off
negative splits on a 9 mile training run....I credit

this

Quoted message said:

due to simply holding back and giving 85% or 90% in the initial miles.

If I were to do a negative split in a race?...I would always reflect and

wonder

Quoted message said:

if I could have done better/faster on those preceeding miles framing

context to

Quoted message said:

the negative split (the quandary). It strikes me that when someone

produces

Quoted message said:

negative splits in a race....the initial miles framing context to the

negative

Quoted message said:

split go unquestioned/scrutinized/examined....and the negative split is

simply

Quoted message said:

applauded. When the fact may be those initial miles were 85% or 90%

effort

Quoted message said:

running....and I am not willing to say automatically that the end

resulting

Quoted message said:

time is always maximized, the best, with accomplishing negative splits.

I,

Quoted message said:

and I'm sure all of us, have done some damn good racing with no negative

split

Quoted message said:

in the equation.

For example IMO, a 5K is a "bat out of hell" race and I doubt the top

finishers

Quoted message said:

have neg. splits....no? I don't know...just speculating. In a race, producing a neg. split only
makes me question the effot of the preceeding miles. If you produce a negative split...how do you
measure your effort

in the

Quoted message said:

preceeding miles? It may be simple thinking on my part...but it seems

to me

Quoted message said:

if you give 100% in a race......every stride....you naturally won't

produce a

Quoted message said:

neg. split. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing....no?

Folks...I'm just asking...what's neg split mean? IMO it means perhaps

close

Quoted message said:

examination of the preceeding miles is warranted as I am not willing to

assume

Quoted message said:

those preceeding miles were maximized properly. A neg. split's easy if I

hold

Quoted message said:

back just a little.....but impossible for me if I am going all out every stride....(any distance).
Just reflecting on how I feel about neg. splits.....I'm just a neophyte in this particular
arena....so enlighten

me....

Quoted message said:

Andrew....

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote:
. i've only gotten to this

Quoted message said:

physiological crescendo moment by not intentionally "holding back" at any point and giving 100%
effort relative to my awareness of the distance of the race.

Andrew: I think you are really agreeing with those of us who are suggesting that sometimes making
the most out of the moment means to not run as fast as you can in that moment. If your goal is the
crecendo moment, then have at it. I can see where it would be satisfying in some sense to just kill
yourself in every race. But when I race at my best, I'm not looking for anything but the best
possible finishing time. To heck with the individual moments.

In your comment above, you suggest that you do not run flat-out all the way in every race. You pace
yoursef "relative to [your] awareness of the distance of the race." That is all we are
suggesting--that you take into account that this 10K is not a 100m race, and pace yourself
accordingly.

I agree with you that it is frustrating to finish a race and feel that you could have done better.
But that is something you just salt away for another day, so you remember to maybe kick harder or
sooner next time.

I really want to know how this all goes with you, so I hope you will keep us informed.

Brian Jones

Quoted message said:

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those

neg.

Quoted message said:

splits...etc....despite your final resulting time...don't you constantly

still

Quoted message said:

reflect back and speculate that you could have done an even better time

had you

Quoted message said:

not held back so much?...do you ever have regret reflecting on a race

wherein

Quoted message said:

you held back? Or do you just look a the final time...and if it's a PR....feel good that you
mastered the art and science of pacing for a race...are content with that...and don't consider
where you could have

perhaps

Quoted message said:

been even better? I never want to have regret or energy at the end of a race...and want certainty
that I left it all out there on the course. I

get

Quoted message said:

that and a crescendo moment when I think of a race in terms of stringing together total effort
moments.

No. You don't feel that you have unspent energy. If you go out moderately and keep ramping it up, by
2/3 through the race you feel dead. You just keep going. The only times i feel bad about races is
when I mess up pacing, and this usually happens when I go out too fast. If you do "negative
split"-pacing right, you know at the finish you have given everything, and you feel even better
because you know that your pacing strategy actually gave you the best time possible - not only did
you give everything but you GOT everything you could from your effort.