Was my negative split during my marathon too big?

Post a race report on Reddit Running.

I'm honestly looking for advice because I want to be the best runner I can be. Should I post there because there are less insecure douches?

Being conservative in a race is not really a bad thing.

Now that you know that you can run 2:37, you probably should pace yourself a little more aggressively for the next Marathon if you want to get faster. But just a little bit.

Usually 10k or HM PRs are a very good indicator for what is possible in a Marathon race.

Since you are 39 I would think you should try to lower your Marathon PR in the next couple of years before you are getting too old. Maybe you can get a little closer to 2:30h.

Good luck.

I hear you. I appreciate the advice. I know that age will catch up sooner than later. I know that all signs point to a negative split (at least on a pretty even course) is always ideal. I just want to leave too much time on the course afraid that I can't sustain it.

I'd like to establish a lifetime PR in 2019. I might run both Boston and Berlin that year to split my chances of bad weather or a bad training cycle.

Thanks!

This is what happen when they shut the RW forums down.

OLD RW Guy wrote:

This is what happen when they shut the RW forums down.

How many LetsRunners can run a 2:37? This guy is probably faster than 99% of the posters on here.

The guy is asking a legitimate question. I guess it could be a humblebrag, but it gets to a key point in marathoning: is negative splitting a viable strategy or does it mean you ran the race too conservatively? Yes, we know WRs are almost always negative splits, but that doesn't mean it's the right strategy for everybody. Pftiz points to positive splitting, or even splitting at worst.

Over 2 minute negative split probably means you ran too conservatively. However, in a marathon, that's never a bad thing. Sure, maybe you could have run 1 minute faster in the race, but I bet you enjoyed those last 6 miles more than any other marathon you've run.

I'd say running a marathon with a +/- 1 minute split is perfect, but +/- 2 minute is okay. Over 2 minutes was not executed well.

The marathon is very much a mental game as much as it is physical. When you are picking up the pace and passing runners as they are starting to bonk, you get a lot of confidence and don't feel the miles take their toll. If you try to evenly split and see your splits start to slow, every aches and pain feels like it is the beginning of the end and you just want to get it over with. I see no problem at all with a 2-3 min negative split. In fact, that is probably ideal. 4-5 min on a 2:3X marathon does indicate going out a bit too conservatively. But I really would not worry about closing that gap down too much.

Of course it was too conservative in retrospect, but it was the absolute right decision at the start of the race.

You thought 2:40 was a reasonable goal, and you went out and ran at that pace. I am not a huge believer in trying to negative split races, particularly the marathon where anything can go wrong. Yes, many world records are set with negative splits, but you are also talking about a tiny cross section of the running world when you are talking about world record holders. Lots of factors play into how their races are run, and what types of efforts they can put forth at the end of a race.

I would be curious to see how even the splits of the top 10 all time 5000m races were if you excluded the first and last 400m of those races to do away with big, strong kicks.

For most runners, optimal times will come from even splits, and that's what you tried to do, so you made the right decision. The risk with that decision, of course, is that you misjudge your current fitness and end up ruing the fact that you left time on the table.

Well, that's why they make more races.

Heimes57 wrote:

I'm honestly looking for advice because I want to be the best runner I can be. Should I post there because there are less insecure douches?

Fewer. Fewer insecure douches, not less.

I think the marathon is uniquely generous to people who negative split. Although it's generally more efficient to have a perfectly even effort, the cause of fatigue in a marathon is primarily muscle damage (assuming you're able to manage your carbohydrate needs). I've seen many athletes who, if they can make it to the late stages of the race without having destroyed their legs, are able to accelerate to roughly lactate threshold pace for the closing miles of the race. It's essentially the equivalent of a last-lap kick in a 5000.

It may be theoretically possible that you could get a better time if you were able to run a race paced perfectly evenly, down to the last meter of the race, but there are a few reasons why it doesn't happen in practice. One is that such precise planning is both impossible in practice and risky to attempt--if you run out of gas even a tiny bit early, you'll crash. The other reason is psychological. So much of performance is the ability to tolerate pain. We have a limited capacity to disregard our body's demand to slow down, and a late race kick is a better way of gaming your body's pain response. Not only does it mean that you get through more of the race feeling okay (so you haven't drained your limited psychological reserves), but if you can accelerate at the end, then the excitement of a flying finish will actually dull your pain sensation, allowing you go go even faster.

So the question is how much of a negative split is too much. Personally, I don't think that 2 minutes is is too big for optimal finishing time, but 3 is clearly too much. Dropping the hammer at 20 is great, but the multiple accelerations before that mean that you were slightly too conservative. Of course, like Smoove said, that's only with the benefit of hindsight. It takes a lot of experience to know what you're true marathon pace is, and I think it's far better to run like you did, at least until you reach the point where it's a particular milestone or bust. (The trials for some, maybe breaking 2:30 for you in a year or two.) At that point, I think it makes sense to plan to hit the half 45 seconds behind pace.

That sounds like an awesome race.

Now, in my completely non-expert opinion, I think a 1-2 minute negative split is great, and a 3+ minute is really, really good. But yeah, maybe on the conservative side. But I would never say it was a bad move to race like that when you got a massive PR and came in 3 minutes under your goal time. That is super awesome.

If I were you, I would shoot for even pacing next time and see what happens. Maybe target 2:35 or 2:36 or whatever your training indicates in your build up. Then literally try to hit the half marathon right on pace. It would not be an aggressive strategy, but it would be more aggressive compared to your last race.

Or, just keep doing what you're doing. Why change what is working? Go through the half in 1:18 this time and then hammer to the end. You could end up with another great PR.

Your slpit was fine, but your shorts are not.

Well without knowing your makeup of fast-twitch and slow-twitch fibers its hard to know what the best split is for you. However, like most people, you probably would benefit from a small positive split, since your LT pace most likely decreases the longer you run. It's very rare that a negative split is the winning strategy if you want to achieve your fastest time, although that conservative approach is also less likely to backfire spectacularly.

If you really take this seriously, you might want to consider running a tune up 10-15K before your marathon to get a better idea of where your fitness is.

There is such thing as being more insecure and less insecure. What if I meant the insecure douches on another forum were LESS insecure vs MORE insecure? But then there are a variety of douches as well. Some are not insecure at all, just douches.

That's a great perspective. Honestly, my pace over the 2nd half is faster than I thought I could even run a half! Muscle fatigue was certainly catching up and over the fairly flat course, my hamstrings were the most affected. If breakdown occurred sooner, they may have caused a problem.

I only had 6 weeks between a trail 50k and this marathon, so there wasn't much of a feeling out process as far as my goal pace. MP relative runs went from goal times of 2:50 to thinking close to 2:40. Had I had another 4-6 weeks I may have realized sub-2:40 was a reasonable goal time.

I'm looking to 2019 as the year I can hopefully set a lifetime PR and will make at least two races (maybe Boston and Berlin) priorities that year with 3-4 month cycles and higher mileage than I did for this one.

Thanks for the advise!

Without a doubt, I am extremely happy. I was laughing uncontrollably in my hotel room after because I couldn't believe I did it. But without that little nagging thought of, "Did I do something wrong? Could I go faster?", the drive to improve might not be there. And I definitely feel like on a similarly cold and calm day, I could. I just ALWAYS have the mentality (especially in Ultras), that starting off with a respectable effort and making sure I can finish strong brings me the most success, and it has. I've moved up 2-4 places at several races this year.

Hopefully with a longer marathon-specific training cycle next time I'll have a better idea of what a good goal pace would be and be more confident at the start and try for a negative split of under a minute. It'll be tough on a course like Boston, but I know it can be done if I burn the soles off my shoes after the Newton Hills!

The Coach wrote:

Your slpit was fine, but your shorts are not.

My shorts were awesome. I can't fully blame them for me not being able to get my last gel out of one of the back pockets. My gloved fingers weren't working very well at that point.

If you're in that great shape why couldn't you close the last 5k in 13:10?