Neg splitting

well i went 69-68-67-61 and won my race so yes its effective and yes I pr'd by over 3 secs.

well i went 69-68-67-61 and won my race so yes its effective and yes I pr'd by over 3 secs

good to see someone actually follow up on an advice thread, and good work on the pr.

but i say 66's across the board is probably better

hs coach.. wrote:

Because, the longer yo can stay aerobic the stronger and faster you will be for the last half or 1/3 of the race.

If you go anaerobic too soon in a mile for example, you are toast, you will lose more time than you gained by the positive split.

If you can stay aerobic while still maintaining a fast 1st half then you can poor it on the second half and gain valuable time without the fall off of a fast early pace.

As soon as you wrote "stay aerobic" and "go anaerobic" I knew you didn't know enough about physiology for me to take you seriously. And if you are suggesting that the first 1/2 to 2/3 of a mile race should be run at below LT pace, then you need help.

I've yet to see any evidence that negative splitting is more efficient than even pacing. Can anyone offer any real help?

You are right i'm no exercise physiologist. As far as going anaerobic it doesn't happen in distance running anyways.

Was not suggesting that you run below LT for the first part of any race. Can't explain it well enough to satisfy you, but i do coach it and it works. The first time i broke 9:00 for 2 miles it was a negative split, not intentionally but it worked and felt great.

Seems that Wetmore has that type of philosophy with his runners, last half of the race is all out, first half sets it up.

I guess i'll have to go back and read Daniels so that i can put it into scientific enough terms to make sense to you.

I have heard that even splits are the best way to run a fast time but I think thats extremely hard to just run even. I know I have problems with it personally because you do not realize when you slow down. Also, some runners may just respond better to neg splitting. I know I do. I have a good kick and when I am able to use that kick my time drops drastically. my first three laps were putting me on a 4:32 pace but once i kicked I dropped down to a 4:26 mile. I think If i went out in 2:15 instead of 2:17 I couldve still be able to use the same kick and go 4:24. Anywyas, its something about knowing that you have already done 800 meters of the race and are not exhausted. As long as I am not over 5 seconds over my goal times pace than im not worried.

Negative splitting is the best way to get a pr at every distance over 800m. Every current world record was set this way. It is also the most physiologically sound way to race. General formula for every 1 second you are out ahead of your PR in a race you will be slower by 2 seconds in the second half. My guys who negative split win races and get to Nationals - they beat the guys who go out hard and either fade or just plain die.

Negative splitting has a lot of support, but it is not necessarily for everyong. Consider the Kenyans who historically positive split their way to victory. Of course, they train for this and are thus more adapted to the rigors of such a strategy. For the rest of us who don't train the Kenyan way, however, negative or even splitting makes more sense.

Even paced running is the best way to run. The kick is actually what makes it a negative split in the shorter distance races such as the mile. If it is hard for you to run even then it is because you do not practice enough. I realize when I slow down becuse I pay attension to my body. When it starts to hurt a little more it is obvious the body will naturally slow down even though the effort is the same the pace slows. so when I start to feel tired I push a little harder. The last time I ran the mile I ran 66 65 65 64. it was a 6 second PR. First 400 I went out quick and got settled into pace quick. 2nd 400 I consentrated on conserving energy and using good form. 3rd lap was where most people drastically slow without really noticing it. If you relize where you slow down you know where you need to really start pushing your effort. for me it was at the after the half. then with a 400 to go it is everything you got left. It takes pace work, displine, and some toughness to be able to do this. I bet you could run 66's 67's and finish with a 63 or 64.

The kenyans do it both ways. The win with surges and positive splits and set records with negative splits.

borzakovsky doesn't neg split he runs an even race

it just looks negative

Hey weeee doesn't that tell you something.

They win races by surging and tactics, But "they set records by negative splitting races"

The most efficient way to maximize performance.

if i'm not mistaken, isnt every world record from the 1500 meters and up, set in negative splits? just a thought

What is that supposed to tell me? They do it both ways I already said that.

Anonymous wrote:

if i'm not mistaken, isnt every world record from the 1500 meters and up, set in negative splits? just a thought

That was what I was wondering.

And thanks for sharing that video of Wottle, cool to see. Shades of Rui Silva. Guy in front really lost the race more than Wottle won it, but that was still quite a last 100.

I'm pretty sure his point is that in order to get the fastest times (world records if you will) they negative split. Therefore, negative splitting is the superior of the two means of performance when trying to run your fastest, or at the peak of your ability.

However, they run the other way with surges and positive splits in big championship meets because it is more effective at beating your opponents, leaves you with more energy for possible doubles, and doesn't have the inherent risk of going too hard.

There can always be another WR attempt this season but there is only one olympic final every 4 years.

Thanks pr machine. There are races and record attempts, not always the same, rarely in the important races are records set.

When racing for the win, tactics are important. When running for records, the most efficient use of energy is important.

I guess I don't know why the comment was directed at me since what you said was exactly what I was suggesting at the end of my thread...They Win one way and set records another.

my point was that the method of racing they use to set records might be an indication of the method that is most efficient.

Negative splitting is the way to race if time is important.

I was also thinking the same thing about the world records... seems like the smartest way to run a race to me.

To reply to the Anaerobic Theory, best easy example I can think of:

Think of this, you finish a race hard and how do you feel after? Tired. You finish a race easy and how do you feel? Not so bad. So if you start a race hard, how are you going to feel midway through? Tired. You start a race quick but easy, you'll be better off later on.

You don't necessarily start easy, but negative splitting is most effective on terms of confidence and lactic acid. Start a race off hard, there will be a 200 pound gorilla waiting to pounce on your back midway through the race.