Neg splitting

bad idea! Wont let you run your potentional time. But looks a good idea if its a tactical race e.g. championship race

If the race is going to be won in 4:24, running a 69 second first lap might leave you 5-6 seconds back from the lead. If you are all by yourself at that point, it might be harder to really shift gears.

If you run it like this don't expect to pr. I like to negative split by throwing in a big surge at the half or by kicking hard with 600 to go.

what's the infatuation with negative splitting? i don't get it.

This thread is not an example of an infatuation with negative splitting. It is an effective racing strategy, and the OP was simply asking for advice on how to best to do it.

I understand the intention of the thread, thank you. I was merely asking why so many think negative splitting is such a wonderful thing. Yes, it can be an effective racing strategy, but this guy is aiming for a time and not necessarily a win. Why does someone think negative splitting can be effective when your aim is a particular time?

Negative splitting is the most effective way to race.

wondering wrote:

but this guy is aiming for a time and not necessarily a win.

where did you read that?

Can anyone really kick hard with 600 to go?

Sometimes I wonder if it's just the mentality. In XC I'd be one of our more even paced runners but still go out a little fast. The coach would say to go out faster, surge a couple times, have a faster last mile and kick from further out. Ya can't do everything.

maybe "hard" was the wrong adjective, but you definitely can kick with 600 to go, or 800 to go for that matter. It's obviously not the same as a shorter kick, and it won't be a sprint, but you can definitely do it

hs coach.. wrote:

Negative splitting is the most effective way to race.

Please explain why you believe this to be true. Thanks!

wondering wrote:

but this guy is aiming for a time and not necessarily a win.

khkkklkl wrote:

where did you read that?

in the OP

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.

wondering wrote:

I understand the intention of the thread, thank you. I was merely asking why so many think negative splitting is such a wonderful thing. Yes, it can be an effective racing strategy, but this guy is aiming for a time and not necessarily a win. Why does someone think negative splitting can be effective when your aim is a particular time?

Because it's the most efficient way to run.

Does anyone have any statistics on WRs / negative splits?

For the 800m, isn't Borzakovsky the only one to have success with the negative split?

contradictory wrote:

Does anyone have any statistics on WRs / negative splits?

For the 800m, isn't Borzakovsky the only one to have success with the negative split?

I don't think you're trying to compare them, but I'll say this anyways in case someone else tries to use the 800 as evidence against negative splitting. The 800 is more like the 400 than the 1600 in terms of race strategy: go out fast, hold on the second half. I think 99/100 people would agree that you want to positive split in an 800. Once you kick it up to the 1500 and up though you can get away with more even paced efforts, and in some cases negative splits.

atrrunner wrote: Can anyone really kick hard with 600 to go?

Does this qualify?

contradictory wrote: For the 800m, isn't Borzakovsky the only one to have success with the negative split?

How about this?

contradictory wrote:

Does anyone have any statistics on WRs / negative splits?

For the 800m, isn't Borzakovsky the only one to have success with the negative split?

Heard of someone named Dave Wottle?

nattering nabob of neg-split wrote:

atrrunner wrote: Can anyone really kick hard with 600 to go?

Does this qualify?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ev5vqqs6MEE

contradictory wrote: For the 800m, isn't Borzakovsky the only one to have success with the negative split?

How about this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cwGxLfWSnEM

Touche. I was about to respond about Stember to the other guy.