"Your best race is NEVER one where your first mile is your fastest"

Obi-won wrote:

huhwhat wrote:

Your best race is NEVER one where your first mile is your fastest. NEVER!

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.

+1

put it to rest....... wrote:

Kenenisa Bekele world record 5k splits

2:33.24

2:32.23

2:31.87

2:30.59

2:29.42

The pacing of world records in distance events has a lot to do with the pacers. It's hard to hire guys to run world record 5k pace even for 3k but drafting is so helpful that the best strategy is to draft even when the pace is a little slow and then blast off with whatever is left for the last few k. That's the main reason distance record races show such pronounced negative splits.

There are lots of examples of 5,000m world records where the first kilometer was the fastest of the race. (The more common pattern, to be fair, is the first KM fast, middle KMs a bit slower, last KM fastest of the race.)

Here are some examples where the start was the fastest segment of the race:

Hannes Kolehmainen (1912)- 14:36.6 (2:45.5, 3:01.5, 2:59, 2:54, 2:56.6)

Paavo Nurmi (1924)- 14:28.2 (2:48.6, 2:54.6, 2:57.1, 2:56.7, 2:51.2)

Emil Zatopek (1942)- 13:58.2 (2:40.0, 2:47.0, 2:51.5, 2:50.5, 2:49.2)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:56.6 (2:44.0, 2:52.7, 2:47.2, 2:48.4, 2:44.3)

Chris Chataway (1954)- 13:51.6 (2:41.5, 2:50.1, 2:44.9, 2:53.4, 2:41.7)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:51.2 (2:38.4, 2:52.4, 2:51.8, 2:45.0, 2:43.6)

Gordon Pirie (1956)- 13:36.8 (2:36.0, 2:46.0, 2:47.0, 2:48.0, 2:39.8)

Vladimir Kuts (1957)- 13:35.0 (2:37.8, 2:46.5, 2:44.4, 2:44.2, 2:42.1)

Emiel Puttemans (1972)- 13:13.0 (2:33.7, 2:38.3, 2:39.2, 2:44.4, 2:37.4)

hold the phone wrote:

There are lots of examples of 5,000m world records where the first kilometer was the fastest of the race. (The more common pattern, to be fair, is the first KM fast, middle KMs a bit slower, last KM fastest of the race.)

Here are some examples where the start was the fastest segment of the race:

Hannes Kolehmainen (1912)- 14:36.6 (2:45.5, 3:01.5, 2:59, 2:54, 2:56.6)

Paavo Nurmi (1924)- 14:28.2 (2:48.6, 2:54.6, 2:57.1, 2:56.7, 2:51.2)

Emil Zatopek (1942)- 13:58.2 (2:40.0, 2:47.0, 2:51.5, 2:50.5, 2:49.2)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:56.6 (2:44.0, 2:52.7, 2:47.2, 2:48.4, 2:44.3)

Chris Chataway (1954)- 13:51.6 (2:41.5, 2:50.1, 2:44.9, 2:53.4, 2:41.7)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:51.2 (2:38.4, 2:52.4, 2:51.8, 2:45.0, 2:43.6)

Gordon Pirie (1956)- 13:36.8 (2:36.0, 2:46.0, 2:47.0, 2:48.0, 2:39.8)

Vladimir Kuts (1957)- 13:35.0 (2:37.8, 2:46.5, 2:44.4, 2:44.2, 2:42.1)

Emiel Puttemans (1972)- 13:13.0 (2:33.7, 2:38.3, 2:39.2, 2:44.4, 2:37.4)

Good stuff, but I'd point out that none of those examples are recent. Geb and Bekele's 5k records were done with negative splits because they stayed behind tiring pacers as long as they could then sped up when they took the lead.

Track and road pb's over 5km set with first mile as fastest. Road especially was fast

Maybe I would have run faster if evenly paced - which is a different question

My dads best run had a first mile of 5:19, but it was a 100 miler.

huhwhat wrote:

Talking 5ks

Thanks for clarifying. I was going to say for my best race, I never made it to the first mile. By best race was a 1500.

huhwhat wrote:

Is this true? Is this a known fact or is the crap?

CRAP!

I guess a lot depends on what distance you are referring to, but in general, when you are in good shape, feeling confident and going after a PR, you tend to hit it hard from the beginning. Running even splits are best, but I can't imagine feeling like you are ready to roll and getting out slow.

I think it's a very individual thing. Depends on the runner.

All my PRs are positive-split. 14:42 5K, first mile 4:35.

I never finished a negative-split race without feeling that I'd left something on the table, by not going out faster.

But again, I think it's an individual thing.

I doubt bekele thought 2:33 was "slow" considering he averaged ~2:31.5

But even splits are best, some people like to positive split a little and some like to negative split, but nobody runs their best when their splits are way different

put it to rest....... wrote:

[quote]Star wrote:

[quote]dothemanbrah wrote:

Kenenisa Bekele world record 5k splits

2:33.24

2:32.23

2:31.87

2:30.59

2:29.42

e.

There is nothing more irrelevant than the pace of KB in a paced 12:37 5k.

The only thing most readers here have in common with him is being skinny and emaciated.

Otherwise he is playing chess and you checkers.

Not to mention, his splits are practically even. Its splitting hairs to say he negatively split the race. Yes he did. But in any meaningful way?

put it to rest....... wrote:

Kenenisa Bekele world record 5k splits

2:33.24

2:32.23

2:31.87

2:30.59

2:29.42

Don't confuse running the fastest with trying to win a race. Sometimes it is better for a runner to use tactics against other runners to try and gain an advantage.

Komen did it the other way in the 3000 of the ages.

you're running your best time for the race and so you are not running at a pace that you could hold for a longer race. Of course, you may or may not be properly warmed up so that you feel good the first mile, but otherwise it stands to reason that you are going to be closer to your maximum on every succeeding mile so that you would have the most in the tank in mile one, the least in the tank in the last mile. But also psychologically, you hold back enough to know that you can finish and not totally tank so you may run the fastest in your last mile. If you do that, then you could have run faster before that--you held back too much. So, your best possible race is probably always one where your first mile is the fastest (where you are freshest) and each successive mile a bit slower (as you go more and more to the well), such that at the end you have nothing more to give.

test2 wrote:

hold the phone wrote:

There are lots of examples of 5,000m world records where the first kilometer was the fastest of the race. (The more common pattern, to be fair, is the first KM fast, middle KMs a bit slower, last KM fastest of the race.)

Here are some examples where the start was the fastest segment of the race:

Hannes Kolehmainen (1912)- 14:36.6 (2:45.5, 3:01.5, 2:59, 2:54, 2:56.6)

Paavo Nurmi (1924)- 14:28.2 (2:48.6, 2:54.6, 2:57.1, 2:56.7, 2:51.2)

Emil Zatopek (1942)- 13:58.2 (2:40.0, 2:47.0, 2:51.5, 2:50.5, 2:49.2)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:56.6 (2:44.0, 2:52.7, 2:47.2, 2:48.4, 2:44.3)

Chris Chataway (1954)- 13:51.6 (2:41.5, 2:50.1, 2:44.9, 2:53.4, 2:41.7)

Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:51.2 (2:38.4, 2:52.4, 2:51.8, 2:45.0, 2:43.6)

Gordon Pirie (1956)- 13:36.8 (2:36.0, 2:46.0, 2:47.0, 2:48.0, 2:39.8)

Vladimir Kuts (1957)- 13:35.0 (2:37.8, 2:46.5, 2:44.4, 2:44.2, 2:42.1)

Emiel Puttemans (1972)- 13:13.0 (2:33.7, 2:38.3, 2:39.2, 2:44.4, 2:37.4)

Good stuff, but I'd point out that none of those examples are recent. Geb and Bekele's 5k records were done with negative splits because they stayed behind tiring pacers as long as they could then sped up when they took the lead.

I believe in Bekele's 10,000 the pacers were only in the race for 6 laps so they weren't really a factor. I know you mentioned his 5000m but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I was taught that theoretically you run a distance race fastest with a slight negative split."the realist" was correct, tactics dictate how to race and a best race isn't always the fastest race.

I'd say false. Almost always your best race will be with your first mile as your fastest. If we are talking 5k I'd guess a more even pace would be the best even though mile one is still the quickest.

Example, My son is new to the sport. 3 miles he was running splits of 5:25,6:10,5:55 for 17:30. Sure his first mile was the quickest but it ruined him going out that fast. I talked him in to racing the last 2 miles and do the first mile slower. He ran splits of 5:35,5:45,5:35 for 16:55.

I'm not sure if most inexperienced runners can handle this but it is worth a try if your splits are so far apart.

huhwhat wrote:

Is this true? Is this a known fact or is the crap?

Your best race is NEVER one where your first mile is your fastest. NEVER!

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7747637&page=1#ixzz4MgHgF9gB

My experience has been that I have gotten PRs by running a crazy fast mile, making a big jump. Then I will run another 5k during the same cycle more sensibly, and run a better one than that. You tend to find out that you are in a new league by going out fast, then fine tune by being more sensible.

dothemanbrah wrote:

You have to be WAY more specific. In the 200, yes, the first 100 is slower b/c of the start. In the 400, your first 200 is ALWAYS faster for PR. In the 800, same deal. As you climb the ladder in distance, you MUST go out faster. In the 5K, it's physiologically impossible to run your maximum by going out slower the first half. The best pace is to go out 2-3% faster. If you go out in your first mile 7-10% faster, you won't get the best out of yourself. Do the math with 2-3%...works every time!

PREACH

Lots of interesting stuff in here. Thanks to all.

I did mean 5k, but other responses were interesting.

By best race, I mean fastest.

Seems like its different for everyone, and I guess there isn't a clear answer. We should survey 1000 people who know their 5k (Track) PR mile splits.