Neg splitting

I ran a 2 mile today and i neg split it decently well. the race went out fast and my coach and I had a plan to run 73's. When the race goes out in 68 and u are running low 70's its tough to run confident in last place. I was able to slowly pick off kids while mainitnig my 73ish pace and eventually with 400 left I was within 5 secs of the leaders who were dying and I had energy since I ran smart. I was able to kick and open up a 2 sec gap on 2nd place and 4 secs on 3rd place. It was toguh as hell and I doubted myself numerous times but it worked.

Can anyone provide splits for the world records? If people are claiming they are all negative, we should see that.

Another thought on Negative Splitting. In Daniel's book he says that sometimes when you get tired the solution is to speed up. I've used it and found it to be effective.

I would like to see the splits of WRs to see if they are all neg split too.

higher than high wrote:

Can anyone provide splits for the world records? If people are claiming they are all negative, we should see that.

I posted some in this thread earlier but it's been removed for some reason.

Phil. wrote:

higher than high wrote:

Can anyone provide splits for the world records? If people are claiming they are all negative, we should see that.

I posted some in this thread earlier but it's been removed for some reason.

The ideal pace is said to be 51/49 for the half race times, some examples:

Of the last five men's world records in the 10,000 meter run, two were run with nearly identical splits for the first 5k and second 5k, and the other three were run with the second 5k being as much as 13 seconds faster than the first 5k. (Hissou: 13.25/13.13, Haile G.: 13.18/13.13) When Paul Tergat broke the marathon world record in 2003, he ran the first half of the race in 1:03:04, and the second half in 1:01:51. Radcliffe's first three marathons:

Location Finishing time First half Second half Difference

London 2002 2h18'56" 1h11'04" 1h07'52" - 3'12"

Chicago 2002 2h17'18" 1h09'05" 1h08'13" - 52"

London 2003 2h15'25" 1h08'02" 1h07'23" - 39"

Current 5km record splits

Kenenisa Bekele, 12:37:35: 2:33.24, 2:32:23, 2:31.47, 2:30.59, 2:29.42

Meseret Defar, 14:24.53: 2:55.0, 2:52.7, 2:55.1, 2:56.3, 2:45.43

higher than high wrote:

Can anyone provide splits for the world records? If people are claiming they are all negative, we should see that.

yes all records from the 1500 to the marathon have been neative splits, but I would also like to see what they are exactly

hs coach.. wrote:

Negative splitting is the most effective way to race.

For distance events yes. Mid distance no. If you are distance runner in 800m you need to get out an run the first 400m 2-3 sec faster than the last. If you are runnin the Mile you need to run even from the 1/2 perspective

High Schoolers -

64-66-66-64 - thats how its done.

try going 57-59 for the half.

High schoolers can negative split as well, just have to be prepared. That is why we have practice.

The better the runner the easier it is to get them to do it well. I have had success with it.

I agree with the negative split theory. I coached a HS girl who ran 70.5-71.2-69.0-66.5. Practiced it in dual meets with slower paces, and practiced it in workouts.

cmass coach wrote:

I agree with the negative split theory. I coached a HS girl who ran 70.5-71.2-69.0-66.5. Practiced it in dual meets with slower paces, and practiced it in workouts.

I think a more extreme neg. split may be better. example 74,71,67,65.

Look at Ryun's 3:51.1 WR. His first 440 was about 59.7. Last 1320y avg. 57.1.

In Peter Snell's WR 3:54.4 his first 220 was 34.1 !! His last 1540y @ 57.2/440. Which would have been a 3:48.7 for the full mile. Interesting!! Could he have run the first sub 3:50 or did he actually run the WR because of the slow start not inspite of it??

I have documentation of neg. split tests and will try to post them tomorrow if I remember. Interesting study.

Maine Mt. I guess you didn't get around to it. Whatever you have sounds interesting

cmass coach wrote:

I agree with the negative split theory. I coached a HS girl who ran 70.5-71.2-69.0-66.5. Practiced it in dual meets with slower paces, and practiced it in workouts.

Maine Mt. wrote:I think a more extreme neg. split may be better. example 74,71,67,65.

Actually the splits 'cmass coach' provided jibe pretty nicely with the 51/49 percentages I have read about. Great job, coach!

(BTW, I was at Norwell for that race and will never forget it.)

PR Machine wrote:Maine Mt. I guess you didn't get around to it. Whatever you have sounds interesting

Yeah I did, it just took me a little longer.

The below, actually begs more questions (like why only these speeds?) but it is a good primer to neg. split study. I've added the mile, 400m and meters/min. calulations myself for better understanding as the mph is hard to interpret. I also added the pct., which I state is about right. If you do an exact calc you'll see it's off a little but that's OK. Here it is:

Why do fast starts work rather abysmally? No one knows for certain, but a logical theory is that very intense running at the beginning of a race or workout - carried out before the cardiovascular system has a chance to flood the muscles with oxygen - enhances 'anaerobic' metabolism and may lower the pH inside leg muscle cells enough to heighten fatigue and harm performance. This early fatigue seems to have a lingering effect which persists into the final portion of a competition or workout, even if an athlete slows down appreciable. In contrast, slower beginnings allow muscle cells to warm up and take huge volumes of oxygen on board

before the really hard work begins, attenuating anaerobic metabolism and spiking fatigue- resisting aerobic energy production.

3 test were performed over 1245m at 3 different speeds with experienced runners to all finish in 3:20:

(1) 13.9 mph = 4:19.0 mile or 64.4sec/400m or 372.8m/min.

(2) 13.5 mph = 4:26.7 mile or 66.3sec/400m or 362.1m/min

(3) 14.9 mph = 4:01.6 mile or 60.1sec/400m or 399.7m/min

Test 1: Constant speed 1 for the whole distance.

Test 2: Starting at speed 2 and finishing at speed 3.

To finish in 3:20 this would be require about 70%-30% or about 860m-385m respectively.

Test 3: Starting at speed 3 and finishing at speed 2.

To finish in 3:20 this would be require about 30%-70% or about 385m-860m respectively.

Although the times were the same, the slower start strategy produced 2 key advantages - reduced average blood lactate levels and diminished total oxygen consumption (better economy). Had the runners been able to compete with themselves, using the slow vs. fast starts in races lasting

1500m to 3000m, the lower lactate and improved economy would have given the slow starters faster times (the reduced lactate and enhanced economy would have permitted them to continue running at a fast pace for a longer period of time).

The fast starting scheme (Test 3) led to real disaster, with oxygen consumption and lactic acid going through the roof and performances plummeting.

Why are fast starts so popular then? Endurance athletes lack confidence in themselves - and their abilities to sustain quality paces to the very ends of their races, so they try to save time at the beginnings of their competitions, when they are feeling fresh. It's an appealing way to race (you exercise very intensely while you're still feeling great), but it produces less-than-optimal performances. Fortunately, the ability to start a race moderately, move up to goal pace and hold it steadfastly and then surge at the finish can be effectively developed simply by carrying out the proper training. The results will be neatly negative split races and a collection of new PR's.

cmass coach wrote:

I agree with the negative split theory. I coached a HS girl who ran 70.5-71.2-69.0-66.5. Practiced it in dual meets with slower paces, and practiced it in workouts.

wow. 4:37. Who was this?

omurphy21 wrote:

wow. 4:37. Who was this?

Look here for your answer:

Coach K wrote: Actually the splits 'cmass coach' provided jibe pretty nicely with the 51/49 percentages I have read about. Great job, coach!

After doing the calculations. the above neg. split test study also comes out about 51/49. Pretty good rule of thumb.