negative split marathon

You did the right thing. 1:29:xx for the 2nd half indicates that you would not have been able to run two 1:29s after another, so it was a good idea to play it safe. After all, what's the difference between 3:04 and 3:01?

2:59 is where it's at. Good luck.

I have had similar negative splits before and have thought the same as you. Ideally, I thing a 1 or 2 minutes split would be best but I'm not sure if the overall time would be much different. If you had split 1:31 for the first half you probably would not have split 1:29 for the second.

And as you said, it does feel really good to be flying past people in the second half of the race. It sounds like you got everything out of your body that you could so chalk it up to a very good effort, especially for your first marathon. That was smart running.

You went 1:34:xx/1:29:xx --> 3:03-3:04

Of course, with splits like this we'd all like to think that with ideal pacing we could have gone. 1:30:xx/1:30:xx --> 3:00-3:01

And maybe that's what you're ability is right now.

But maybe your ability right now is 3:02, and you would have gone 1:30:xx/1:35:xx --> 3:05=3:06. Or maybe you would have gone 1:30:xx/1:40+ and had a miserable experience out there, right?

It's good to look for ways to improve, and sure pacing could have been one way here. But especially in your half marathon don't beat yourself up too much! You showed good judgment and discipline to keep from overcooking the first 20, and it sounds like you had a great debut. Enjoy your reward and look forward to training for your next marathon. The second time around you'll be better able to determine your ideal pace through your workouts, and dial that in on race day.

GOOD LUCK!

I was 1:28:00 / 1:27:45 At Grandmas - With a 10+ MPH tailwind for 25 miles and a headwind for 1 mile - Its likely the best weather you will ever see. 54F at start and 48F at finish - cloudy.

The negative split is a tricky thing. You always wonder if you coulda shaved off some time by going out a little faster, but then could you have closed as fast if you had?

I ran a similar marathon as yours this Spring and I have to say the negative split was the way to go. Mentally I finished the marathon feeling good about my run, I was passing gobs of runners, and my time was a little faster than I thought Id run. I know that I sure as hell didnt want my splits flip flopped. Been there done that and it suks.

Negative splits are the way to go when running a marathon. I ran perfectly even splits in my first marathon which was not planned. 1:31:32/1:31:32 for a 2:43:04. The second half of the marathon had three major hills, one of them the famous Easeley Hill along the MO river outside of Columbia, MO. I did not plan to run even, but I did. That is the only marathon that I ran for total fun without any sort of goal or pressure. It WAS fun.

Most marathoners go out too fast and "hit the wall". My best marathon, 2:33:39, in St. Louis, I went out too fast in 5:20, slammed on the brakes and finally began running smart after a few miles. Ended up running the last mile in 5:46 so I could pass a guy who I spotted on the horizon at the 24 mile mark. I ended up placing third after being 9th at the 20 mile mark.

Good friend of mine is a 2:25 marathoner and he always runs even or negative splits. He usually does really well in marathons and wins the thons like St. Louis.

I think it is always better to go out too slow than too fast in a marathon. It takes a lot of self discipline, though, cause the first mile feels like a walk!

Two 1:31:xx halves for a 2:43 marathon? Kip Littonish! I kid.

Either way if you're competitive, you are going to leave it all out there. To me, if you aren't absolutely relaxed and feel like you are still somewhat shuffling at mile 15 you're in trouble.

The most negative I've ever run was 1:13 high and then 1:10, with a much hillier second half. The reason I was able to close so hard is because I didn't leave much out there early. I've gone from over three minutes down at halway to winning by over a minute running big negative splits; you'll feel better about your race and also end up running faster if you're patient.

Sorry, I meant to say 1:21:32. Thanks for catching my flub.

AquaFina wrote:

I know that I sure as hell didnt want my splits flip flopped. Been there done that and it suks.

+1

My first few marathons included a 1:31/1:29 and a 1:29/1:35. No prizes for guessing which I enjoyed more. The old saying that a minute too fast in the first 13 will cost you double in the end is no lie. In fact, if you're near a maximal effort it will come back to you much worse than that.

Just want to echo what others have said. You did great, and you did it the right way. I've negative split twice and positive split once, and the positive split was terrible. I totally overshot in the first half. Your pacing was great.

My second of 12 marathons was my only super cruddy one. I went out in 5:18 first mile, felt good and kept running fast. Went through half in 1:14 and kept going at same pace. Started feeling crappy at 16 or so and walked, jogged, drank water, ran the last 10 to end up with 2:51. Not a good way to run a marathon. But, I learned a lot and my next ten were all in 2:33 - 2:43 range. Still went out too fast on all of them, though. My first thon, in 2:43:04 on a hilly course and my last. 20 years later, my last thon was in 2:43.xx. Nice little graph shows a steady improvement from 27 to 37 and a steady decline from 37- 47. The 2:51 is the only glitch in the graph.

Yeah I agree that you did it the right way, although Pfitzinger seems to think that if you really want a specific time you should account for a slightly positive split in your pacing, simply because you will inevitably fade if you are pushing the pace the whole way . that being said, I recently split 1:23/1:29 and it was BRUTAL. Also, most recent marathon world records have been ran in negative splits, so I am not sure if Pfitzinger's pacing policy is necessarily correct.