Newbie XC coach insists that running negative splits is the best race strategy ("all world records are set with negative splits, blah, blah...").
He is telling every XC runner to go out slow, telling them to run in packs & expecting them to move up in mile 2&3, regardless of how hilly or narrow the course is.
He insists this strategy will work for all runners. So far it is NOT working.
Thoughts?
My coach always has us try to negative split during the race, or at the very least, feel like you;re getting faster. It really is a much better strategy that going out hard and dying. It's also the best way to pass people.
Negative splits are not the answer. When I run, I focus on coming out at 90% on my first mile and pushing as close as I can get to that number on the remaining distance. So far, it has seemed to work. At AAU Nationals, most of us young runners come out too fast and then lose quite a bit in second half (400, 800, mile, etc). I have really tried to keep my splits close to each other but at the same time, I don't want to hold back too much in the first part because if I do, my time is shot. So I think keeping splits close is important, but it is also important to start your race positively and not hold back. Trust your training is what my coach always says.
most successful (i.e., top finishers) run at the front after half mile or so and are not running neg splits in xc ... and pos/neg splits mean nothing with the variations within xc courses. Like comparing times across courses - means nothing.
Wow, I could have just yelled upstairs to you son, but I thought I would write back instead. As Leonardo the Great (wow Leo, nice name) said, his coach (me) agrees that unless you are running for fun, negative splits are very difficult to pull of against top ranking competition. Most of those runners are front runners and giving up that much time that quick is a recipe for disaster. Especially since Leonardo and his brother Michael are more sprinter types of middle distance runners, I know there is only so much even they can do if they gave up a big lead to start with. That is what training is for. You train to come out quick and stay quick. Now obviously that varies with each athlete, but telling kids to hold back at the beginning of races is very amateurish and shows most people a lack of preparation in that particular athlete. So I agree with my son (for once). p.s. Keep reading and posting Leo! There is a wealth of information on these boards and the discussions can be enlightening!!
I kind of goofed up what I was trying to say. We are discussing youth running and not elite running and I think negative splits for 99% of youth and high school runners is a dangerous game to play. At nationals, I kept track of almost every age groups winning times in most of the mid distance events and I don't think one came close to negatives. For the most part, they took commanding leads and then just held on with whatever was left. I know trying negative splits is what hurt us this year and that's why my son and I both posted. After the first lap of the 1500m, both of my boys were way behind the leaders (they were in final heat) and if they would have just ran their race, they would have finished with very close to or podium times but instead got way too nervous after giving up such a big lead and gave up. Since then we have been focusing on coming out a bit quicker and trying to train to hold as much as they can. I still wouldn't have them run the way most of those kids ran, but at the same time I didn't like them being in their heads that much either so I think a fair compromise is a slightly positive split system so that the youth runners do not get too discouraged and as they battle for a bit longer and see the leaders dying, they stick to their race plan and pick them off one by one. I just think it's too hard to teach youth runners to pace themselves that much and teach them not to get discouraged when they get way behind the first lap. I think the smarter approach is to train for even or slightly positive splits so that the young runners never feel completely out of it. Also I think it's important if you do teach negative splits to really explain to the runner that in big races they will not be front running and that they need to stick to their race plan until they cross the finish line. Unfortunately this didn't work for us so we went back to working on what does. Coming out really quick, but leaving enough in there to at least have even splits or slightly positive splits. Sorry for the long posts..
too long, didn't read entire post above me, but ill give my 2 cents
True negative splits are an almost impossible strategy in XC 5k races, but running based on effort should feel a bit like negative splits. In other words, you should not be breathing very hard after the first mile, and should just be cruising, the middle mile should have a surge in it which feels like you are picking up the pace when the reality is you are holding pace or returning to mile 1 pace, and the last mile should be a near all out effort, and even if it's 20 seconds off the first mile's pace, it will feel much harder and possibly as fast as the first mile.
+1
Your coach thinks that negative splitting a 5k works is because of the notion that the majority of runners run the beginning of a 5k too fast and cannot hang on.
Although there is truth to it, it's important to know that the best and most successful runners will slow down but it's negligible. What the best and most successful runners know is that your place changes very little after the 1st mile, meaning that it's almost always more important to start aggressive and hold on as long as possible.
Another issue with this strategy is that it allows your less experienced runners to think they can start slow which ultimately leads them to start too slow and immediately put themselves out of the race. That or they expend so much energy trying to pass people in the middle of the race they have nothing to finish the race.
As a weekend warrior who does local 5ks, I can get away with negative splits because I'm up against some inexperienced runners who don't know better and haven't trained to endure.
Now, having said all that, you can train to be strong at the end of races. For example, our athletes are currently training between their max-VO2 and threshold paces in race simulators. Our top guys are going 1200 at max-VO2 pace, followed by 2400 at threshold pace, then back to another 1200 at max-VO2.
Ultimately, instead of focusing on running faster at the end of a 5k (which is difficult and rarely done), make it a goal to have different "gears" that you can access at any point of a race.
RBurns wrote:
Newbie XC coach insists that running negative splits is the best race strategy ("all world records are set with negative splits, blah, blah...").
He is telling every XC runner to go out slow, telling them to run in packs & expecting them to move up in mile 2&3, regardless of how hilly or narrow the course is.
He insists this strategy will work for all runners. So far it is NOT working.
Thoughts?
Somehow I doubt that your "newbie" coach knows less about racing than you do.
Varying terrain and larger packs makes pacing in XC much less important than pacing in track. I hope your coach wouldn't recommend the same strategy when you get in a track race with 100 people on the line.
A better strategy would be to tell the kids to get up with the pack you want to finish with, but stay relaxed and wait to make your move when the opportunity presents itself (others fading or too locked into the pace, going up or down a hill, coming off a sharp turn, heading into a narrow part of the course, or until it's just getting too late into the race for you to wait any longer).
Either that, or just the simple strategy of finding a runner you want to beat and stick with them.
I love how everyone says you have to go out FAST because it is really hard to pass in XC. A few years ago we had a sophomore that should have run around 16:45 LEADING at 300 meters. It OBVIOUSLY wasn't too difficult for 61 runners to pass him over the next 4,700 meters. He ran 17:32. By his senior year he was pacing his races great, was more consistent and ran 16:06 at the state.
The problem I see here is that people are only looking at the handful of runners who have a chance to win the race. Most of your runners are going to be in the "pack". That's why it is important to run your own race and to pace yourself properly. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHAT YOUR SKILL LEVEL IS, if you go out faster than you should in a race, you are going to run a time SLOWER than if you paced yourself properly. Most of the time running a SLOWER time means you will place LOWER. Just because the winner ran a big positive split in a race where EVERY runner ran a big positive split proves nothing.
What most runners do is concentrate what they can run the first mile in. They should be concentrating on what they can run the LAST mile in. That is far more important.
Another point that hasn't been mentioned is the difference between leading and tucking in behind other runners to save energy. You can successfully do this and only be 3 or 4 seconds behind the leader. That little time can be made up very quickly during the 3rd mile when you are less fatigued than the leader.
As for negative splitting being rare, that is NOT the case in the large division at my state meet. Most years they go through the mile slower than the smaller divisions and finish with much faster times.
One point above that shows an obvious lack of knowledge is considering 400,800,1,500 and above races to be the same.
A POSITIVE split should be run in races 800 or shorter. Negative or even splits should be run in races 1,500 or longer.
Of course in XC with varied terrain, you can't always tell by time if a runner is pacing properly. You have to go by place in the race at different points. If they are losing positions, they went out too fast. It they are holding position, they probably still went out too fast. If they are slowly moving up through the field after the first half mile, then they are pacing correctly.
Here are splits from one of our runners today: 4:58, 10:56, 16:41 and finished the 5k in 17:16.
Yes neg split may not be ideal but neither is this kind of pacing. Running under control would be more ideal but then you are off the back and you feel out of it. You need to be mentally strong, most HSers are weak.
I'll share my two cents.
My strategy was a weird one. Go out hard the first mile. Get passed by 10 people during the 2nd mile, then push hard the third mile and make up those spots.
quote]race pace guru wrote:
One point above that shows an obvious lack of knowledge is considering 400,800,1,500 and above races to be the same.
A POSITIVE split should be run in races 800 or shorter. Negative or even splits should be run in races 1,500 or longer.
If you were referring to my post. Please try reading a bit better. Also you may want to look at the results from the 2014 (or any year) usatf nationals for youth runners. You will notice that every 1500 m runner in the top twenty of almost every age group runs positive splits
Youth running is about front running not trying to pace yourself. Of course you don't give it all in the first part, but you certainly don't try and go out slow so you can purposely run faster at the closing stages. You train and try to keep splits close. But facts are facts and even in the 3000m at usatf Jo you will see mostly all positive splits from the top runners. Youth running is very very different than elite running. Even though most elite youth runners run positives on all events ranging from the 400 up to the 3000m. Runners run, losers pace
I always liked to use dual meets to experiment with pacing. We might have one meet where we would tell the team that no one is allowed to go through 800m faster than 2:40. Another meet, we might have the team get out hard and hold on.
This allows kids to a) practice different strategies so that they are ready for races that play out differently, and b) find the strategy that works best for them. A kid who is used to getting out hard might suddenly realize that he runs way better when he gets out a little easier, and he can use that strategy going forward.
Grant Fisher doesn't lose much, and he almost never runs a positive split even when he PRs.
But arguing about what the best runners in the country do is irrelevant to the OP's situation. His coach probably knows that being "in the race" at the mile doesn't mean anything if you have no chance of being at the front of the race at the end. Negative splits may not be the answer to running their best race, but running a sensible first mile, and especially not racing the first mile, is.
My most recent 5k:
5:15, 10:53, then finished in 17:01
I was passing people up until the last mile, when I started getting passed all over. Could I have paced this better?
On a course that allows for passing, I recommend even pacing. Its amazing how the wind comes out of the sails for most runners when they hit the mile too fast and the runners that paced well eat them up over the rest of the race.
On a course that has hills or narrows, you do what you have to do. Van Cortland is perfect example of this kind of course. When you leave the open fields you get both narrow trails and rolling hills. If you are a runner that is going to place in the top 10 you have to get out fast...train for it.
Also, if you are a runner that needs to work into the race pace...you need to do a better warmup so you are ready to go at the start.
I agree that there are always exceptions to the rule, but based on the stats, most youth elite runners run positive splits. There is no debate, it is just fact. Other than that, I agree whole heartedly with your response. I think in youth running, coaches are worrying about progression and want their runners coming out fast so that in the years to come those runners can train to get their back end as close to the front end as possible. I think pacing is too hard of a concept for youth runners to do while still developing and trying to optimizing their performances. Like I said, I am a recent convert. My kids/runners (two of the top middle distance runners in their region and nationally ranked in top 30 in USA in the 400, 800, and 1500) were really trying hard to run negative splits and at Nationals where the final group are beasts, they lost their desire when they saw how fast these guys come out. If they would have stuck with the plan, they would have been fine, but that is hard to do when out of the top twenty runners in USA, you are basically in the last part of the group. As soon as I let them run a bit faster to start, they would still run basically the same last split as they ran when trying to hold back. Mental side is huge in youth running (and all running for that matter, but adults have a better time sticking to a plan even if it's not going great at first).