negative split

marko said:

That's how I came to realize, that negative split is not about
/accelerating/ per se in the second half, but more a question of a
/natural/ increase in pace, due to warm-up, lower weight, and what not.

The lower weight also comes with less hydration. It doesn't necessarily make
you run faster. You should be sufficiently warmed up before the race. For a
marathon, most runners won't need any warm up.

Quoted message said:

In my view, these are 2 misconceptions as negative split should
precisely be the consequences of a good "pace by even effort" race.

Um ... no. In a negative split run, or an even split run, the first half feels
much easier.

I think you're overthinking marathon-specific factors (dehydration, glycogen,
etc) which leads you to ignore the fact that in the second half of any race
(with reasonably symmetric pacing), you are exerting yourself very hard and in
the first half, you probably are not.

Quoted message said:

If one is *well* prepared, both physically and mentally, _and_ one knows
the precise pace one _is able to sustain_ for the distance, one should
be able to reap all the benefits of good glycogene stores towards the
end of the race _and_ lower weight, due to water losses, that should
yield a faster pace on the same effort level which should in turn yield
a "negative split"

What about the effects of fatigue ? Do you think being dehydrated actually
compensates for fatigue (instead of exacerbating it) ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

The lower weight also comes with less hydration. It doesn't necessarily make
you run faster. You should be sufficiently warmed up before the race. For a
marathon, most runners won't need any warm up.

in my view, you may lose some weight due to water loss, and still be
well hydrated during a long run.
what you say about warm up for a marathon, which is true for most
runners running in big-city marathons (standing in the crowd for more
than 30' at the start line) does give even more credit to the weight factor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my view, these are 2 misconceptions as negative split should
precisely be the consequences of a good "pace by even effort" race.

Um ... no. In a negative split run, or an even split run, the first half feels
much easier.

I was talking of even *effort* not feel. of course you'll get tired
towards the end of a race, but the same effort for a 6' pace at the
start would make it a 5'55" pace at the end, even if you'll be more
fatigued.

Quoted message said:

I think you're overthinking marathon-specific factors (dehydration, glycogen,
etc) which leads you to ignore the fact that in the second half of any race
(with reasonably symmetric pacing), you are exerting yourself very hard and in
the first half, you probably are not.

I was indeed talking of races from HM to marathon, I'm not sure this
could apply to a 15k or 10k but who knows, with sufficient warm up?

Quoted message said:

What about the effects of fatigue ? Do you think being dehydrated actually
compensates for fatigue (instead of exacerbating it) ?

I think we do not have the same view of "dehydration". I'm talking of
water loss, independently of the water that you might drink during the
run, which shouldn't make your body dehydrated in a 3h span. I'm not
sure that one is, so to speak, "dehydrated" in the end of a marathon.
One would be, if one wouldn't drink sufficient fluids not only _during_
the race, but also _after_ the run!
and yes, I think that weight loss largely compensate for fatigue during
mostly aerobic events.

m

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

marko said:

I was talking of even *effort* not feel.

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not sure
how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

Quoted message said:

of course you'll get tired
towards the end of a race, but the same effort for a 6' pace at the
start would make it a 5'55" pace at the end, even if you'll be more
fatigued.

If by effort, you mean intensity or percent VO2 max or whatever, I don't think
this is correct. I believe there are studies that show that fatigue affects
running economy, for example. There was a VO2 study of a couple of experienced
marathoners (in the sub 2:40 range) where one of them had oxygen uptake
approaching VO2 max near the end of the race, but there's no way his speed
would have been anything like vVO2max.

Quoted message said:

I think we do not have the same view of "dehydration". I'm talking of
water loss, independently of the water that you might drink during the
run, which shouldn't make your body dehydrated in a 3h span. I'm not

So are you saying that you should "put water in the bank" before the race ?

That is, are you arguing that you need to be substantially more hydrated at
the start of a marathon than at the start of a 10k or a 5k ? Should a 5k
runner aim to be at the same hydration state that a marathoner experiences at
the end of a race ? I've never heard this before, that's why I ask. My
understanding has always been that being well hydrated will not slow you down
even if your weight is slightly greater.

Quoted message said:

and yes, I think that weight loss largely compensate for fatigue during
mostly aerobic events.

OK, I suppose everyone can have an opinion -- but do you have any sources that
agree with you ? I don't have a strong opinion on this either way but I'm
pretty sceptical. Obviously there's some sort of 'J' curve, but I suspect
that in the normal range of "well hydrated", you won't see a notable effect
on pace (otherwise, why don't 5k runners and milers worry themselves about
this ?)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

marko said:

In my view, these are 2 misconceptions as negative split should
precisely be the consequences of a good "pace by even effort" race.

For easy to moderate training runs, yes. That's been discussed here
under the heading of "warmup". Dan's had some good observations
wherein pace increases with no extra effort, around 40:00 I think.
I've always been more attuned to the initial 10-15 min warmup, but just
this last week I've been able to catch the 40:00 thing as well.

For a race - well, IMO you're a very lucky and unusual man if your
second half is easier than your first, or faster at the same effort!

Let's look at this from another angle: will you agree that if you've
run your best race, you will finish fairly exhausted? I mean, if
you're fresh as a daisy at the finish line, you didn't give your
maximum effort. That exhaustion probably didn't strike suddenly in the
last 20 metres, it presumably grew over some significant portion of the
distance. And this increasing exhaustion for the latter half of the
race would seem to directly contradict the notion of an easier or a
faster-at-same-effort second half.

Of course that's in non-scientific terms. Feel free to sprinkle some
"oxygen debt", "lactic acid accumulation", "muscular exhaustion",
"dehydration" etc. to taste.

Or, why don't we just ask Hendrick Ramaala if his second half (at NYCM)
was easier than the first. He seems to have run about 1 sec/km faster
in the second half, so he should be the perfect guy to answer the
question. There he is, in the background:

http://www.photorun.net/images/marathons/NYC05/Tergat_PaulR-NYC_M05.JPG

On 19 Nov 2005 08:45:33 -0800, "Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

Or, why don't we just ask Hendrick Ramaala if his second half (at NYCM)
was easier than the first. He seems to have run about 1 sec/km faster
in the second half, so he should be the perfect guy to answer the
question. There he is, in the background:

http://www.photorun.net/images/marathons/NYC05/Tergat_PaulR-NYC_M05.JPG

who, besides me, thinks he fell on purpose to get his pic
in the papers? looked very suspicious when he reached
up to stop his watch.
....thehick

"frank-in-toronto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 19 Nov 2005 08:45:33 -0800, "Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
...

Quoted message said:

Or, why don't we just ask Hendrick Ramaala if his second half (at
NYCM)
was easier than the first. He seems to have run about 1 sec/km faster
in the second half, so he should be the perfect guy to answer the
question. There he is, in the background:

http://www.photorun.net/images/marathons/NYC05/Tergat_PaulR-NYC_M05.JPG

Quoted message said:

who, besides me, thinks he fell on purpose to get his pic
in the papers?

Just the opposite, he is probably getting a lot of abuse form his peers
for not finishing standing up. They are very macho runners!!!

Quoted message said:

looked very suspicious when he reached
up to stop his watch.

And you know he is playing with his watch because......? Looks like
total exhaustion not watch fondling.

-DF

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not sure
how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

ok, let's say you have a car fully loaded with a large volume of gas
(eg. 1000 gal.) that makes it quite heavy.
let's start the engine and put it on say 3000rpm.
Won't you agree that at the beginning of the journey the same /stride/
(ie. rpm) of the engine will move the car slowlier than in the end after
1000miles, when it has burnt the 1000 gallons of gas and it *is* much
lightier?
I think it will, and that is somehow what I was, maybe awkwardly,
referring to when speaking of "effort"

Quoted message said:

If by effort, you mean intensity or percent VO2 max or whatever, I don't think
this is correct. I believe there are studies that show that fatigue affects
running economy, for example. There was a VO2 study of a couple of experienced
marathoners (in the sub 2:40 range) where one of them had oxygen uptake
approaching VO2 max near the end of the race, but there's no way his speed
would have been anything like vVO2max.

this is true, fatigue affects running economy, that is why I was
speaking of a person really well prepared to run a long distance event,
where I believe that the loss of weight might push the balance more
towards the side of greater speed than the loss of running economy might
hinder it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think we do not have the same view of "dehydration". I'm talking of
water loss, independently of the water that you might drink during the
run, which shouldn't make your body dehydrated in a 3h span. I'm not

So are you saying that you should "put water in the bank" before the race ?

That is, are you arguing that you need to be substantially more hydrated at
the start of a marathon than at the start of a 10k or a 5k ? Should a 5k
runner aim to be at the same hydration state that a marathoner experiences at
the end of a race ? I've never heard this before, that's why I ask. My

for a HM but much more for a marathon, you'll "put water in the bank"
simply by carbo-loading ('n' grams of water for each 'z' grams of
glycogene) so yes you'll probably be much more "hydrated" than for a
10k, not to speak of a 5k.

Quoted message said:

understanding has always been that being well hydrated will not slow you down
even if your weight is slightly greater.

this is precisely the point of my post :
could it be that one can make a negative split, by running an "even
effort" pace, taking into account the fact that at the beginning one
will be substantially heavier than in the end (3 to 5 kg for a marathon)
not to mention the fact that the muscles and the cardiorespiratory
system get better after some warm-up *and* that one gets a better and
better feeling of the race mentally by running just this way ie. with an
appropriate pace, and sufficient stores to finish well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and yes, I think that weight loss largely compensate for fatigue during
mostly aerobic events.

OK, I suppose everyone can have an opinion -- but do you have any sources that
agree with you ? I don't have a strong opinion on this either way but I'm
pretty sceptical. Obviously there's some sort of 'J' curve, but I suspect
that in the normal range of "well hydrated", you won't see a notable effect
on pace (otherwise, why don't 5k runners and milers worry themselves about
this ?)

because, even on a 10k, you won't lose that much weight, _and_ you don't
start the race carboloaded like for a marathon.

concerning the sources, I don't have anything particular to prove my
musings, only observations on running buddies, reading, and from my long
runs (not even races) but as I don't wear a HRM I can't even prove that
I'm running by even effort...

the whole point of the post was more to get feedbacks on the issue of
negative split, and see what everyone thinks of it in term of racing
strategy.

As I said before, I thought formerly that negative split was all about
picking up the pace in the second part of a race where the first part
was run conservatively, but even if this kind of startegy will make it a
"negative split" race, I suspect that it won't yield the best results,
because you lose time in the beginning, and then you have to work harder
while fatigued.

I do now believe that negative splits happen by running at just the
right pace, and reaping the benefits of losing weight towards the second
part of a race which makes you run faster for the same push of the foot
at each stride.

I have the feeling that it should be the more efficient way to run one's
fastest time on a HM or marathon : starting at the right pace, and keep
going till the end where it should yield a better efficiency while one
is lightier, making it a negative split.

and yes this is only an opinion, and I hope to prove it works for me
sometime, sooner or later ;-)

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Charlie Pendejo said:

For a race - well, IMO you're a very lucky and unusual man if your
second half is easier than your first, or faster at the same effort!

I'm not yet the lucky man, but hope to be one day ;-)
it's gonna be easier, because I won't have lost energy in the first part
by going *too* fast...

Quoted message said:

Let's look at this from another angle: will you agree that if you've
run your best race, you will finish fairly exhausted? I mean, if
you're fresh as a daisy at the finish line, you didn't give your
maximum effort. That exhaustion probably didn't strike suddenly in the
last 20 metres, it presumably grew over some significant portion of the
distance. And this increasing exhaustion for the latter half of the
race would seem to directly contradict the notion of an easier or a
faster-at-same-effort second half.

I don't see why, I'm not speaking of pushing the pace, I'm speaking of
the same strides yielding higher speed due to lost weight...

But on the contrary, if you go too fast at the beginning, you'll surely
be exhausted at midway point ;-)
the whole point is to pick the exact pace that will carry you through
the 42.195 km.
If it gets faster in the end, this only means that it was *precisely*
the right pace, that there was absolutely no waste of energy, and that
one has even reaped the benefits of burnt glycogene!

Quoted message said:

Of course that's in non-scientific terms. Feel free to sprinkle some
"oxygen debt", "lactic acid accumulation", "muscular exhaustion",
"dehydration" etc. to taste.

Or, why don't we just ask Hendrick Ramaala if his second half (at NYCM)
was easier than the first. He seems to have run about 1 sec/km faster
in the second half, so he should be the perfect guy to answer the
question. There he is, in the background:

It easier because for the same amount of energy to push your body, with
3 kg less, it will go faster, it is easier mentally because there is
nothing like running smoothly, but it remains a marathon, and as such,
it *is* exhausting.

marko said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not sure
how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

ok, let's say you have a car fully loaded with a large volume of gas
(eg. 1000 gal.) that makes it quite heavy.
let's start the engine and put it on say 3000rpm.
Won't you agree that at the beginning of the journey the same /stride/
(ie. rpm) of the engine will move the car slowlier than in the end after
1000miles, when it has burnt the 1000 gallons of gas and it *is* much
lightier?

Yes, I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

It is fallacious because it presumes that this drop in "fuel supplies" doesn't
have any effect on the power output of the engine. That's fine with a car,
but people don't work like that.

Quoted message said:

this is true, fatigue affects running economy, that is why I was
speaking of a person really well prepared to run a long distance event,
where I believe that the loss of weight might push the balance more
towards the side of greater speed than the loss of running economy might
hinder it.

If that were true, then less well prepared runners need to run more
"positively" than elites. FWIW, Tergat's record 73 seconds negative -- pretty
close to even. But even that is partly an accident (1:03 was about WR pace at
the time) Since most of us are not as well prepared as Tergat (natural
ability, 150mpw, 130lb at 6 foot), maybe we should all run positive splits ?

Quoted message said:

As I said before, I thought formerly that negative split was all about
picking up the pace in the second part of a race where the first part
was run conservatively,

Well, almost. I mean, you don't jog the first half just so that you can do the
second half faster. But if you go out cautiously, you will have more gas in
the tank at the end.

With a well-run negative splits race you generally aren't *conscious* of
picking up the pace though -- if it's a gradual acceleration towards the
finish, you will be conscious of the fact that you have more gas in the tank
than your competition, but there's not necessarily a particular point at which
you decide "I'll pick it up now". It's more like a constant drive to the
finish, just like with any other split. The only difference is that because
you went out cautiously, you can go a bit faster in the drive to the finish.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

marko said:

I was talking of even *effort* not feel.

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not

sure

Quoted message said:

how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

That's because you're too damn stupid to even be posting on this newsgroup.
Even the stupid Lance understands what effort is and he is a pretty dim
bulb.

"marko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't see why, I'm not speaking of pushing the pace, I'm speaking of
the same strides yielding higher speed due to lost weight...

You make some interesting points about negative splits but let me assure
you that if you have a better second half it has nothing to do with
weight. It means to made use of you on-board glycogen supply and some
big balls the last few miles. And yes. it hurts.

I am a big negative split advocate in all my races from 10k to 100
miles - they just hurt different ways.

Quoted message said:

But on the contrary, if you go too fast at the beginning, you'll
surely be exhausted at midway point ;-)

Let's just say, you second half will be slower. If one is exhausted at
the half way point he did not only run too fast aggressive to the point
of stupidity.

Quoted message said:

the whole point is to pick the exact pace that will carry you through
the 42.195 km.
If it gets faster in the end, this only means that it was *precisely*
the right pace, that there was absolutely no waste of energy, and that
one has even reaped the benefits of burnt glycogene!

Works on a piece of graph paper but the reality this "right pace" is
about easy to find as the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Too many
variables to balance on any given day. Hard training will give you some
close approximations but temp, humidity, fluid intake, wind, what you
ate, what you didn't eat, etc. will cause that pace to widely vary.

Quoted message said:

It easier because for the same amount of energy to push your body,
with 3 kg less,

Are you back to water weight? If so, no way. If you lose too much water
your performance will be negatively affected.

-DougF

Joe said:

That's because you're too damn stupid to even be posting on this newsgroup.

You need to expand that a bit. It should've read "You're too damn
stupid to be posting on ANY newsgroups".

Doug Freese said:

I am a big negative split advocate in all my races from 10k to 100
miles - they just hurt different ways.

yes I can imagine that!

Quoted message said:

Works on a piece of graph paper but the reality this "right pace" is
about easy to find as the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Too many
variables to balance on any given day. Hard training will give you some
close approximations but temp, humidity, fluid intake, wind, what you
ate, what you didn't eat, etc. will cause that pace to widely vary.

that is one of the reason I now believe in long term preparation.
I used to think that just jumping in a 3 months' training plan might
yield good results, but since I began this *serious* base training, I
understand there are still a lot of things that I might learn, and why
not, among others, how to find this elusive /right/ pace.

m

Quoted message said:

marko said:

That's how I came to realize, that negative split is not about
/accelerating/ per se in the second half, but more a question of a
/natural/ increase in pace, due to warm-up, lower weight, and what not.

Somehow I didn't see the original post, but here is my take on why
negative splits work.
1) Your body does respond to intense effort best after a good warmup.
In a negative split run, the first half of the race does make for a great
warmup, in a sense. By not going out hard, you can really relax and get
into a strong, smooth rhythm.
2) There is a tremendous mental advantage to running negatives. First,
you don't have to push yourself at all for half to 3/4 of the race. You can
mentally relax and cruise for the first half, and only "push" the second
half. In events like a 10k on the track, this is a great benefit since 30+"
of high intensity is pretty damn hard to do - running negatives allows you
to cut down the racing portion to the last 15 or 10 minutes, without giving
up any seconds on the final clock. Second, negatives are positive feedback.
Assuming you haven't completely been isolated from the pack you intend to
beat (tactical racing often makes negatives impractical), every lap
essentially is an improvement on the last one. Going out above your goal
pace means that at some point (usually halfway or 3/4 mark of the race),
there is a lull in your pace. As well, your legs are already loaded with
lactic acid, and responding becomes that much more difficult due to having
wasted that effort too early. Precious seconds and motivation get lost
here, and in a tactical race, it's huge opening. The guy running negatives
will use every person they pass to ratchet up the effort a little more, and
the momentum is all theirs. I find, too, that my ability to put in a kick
is vastly better when my pace just steadily increases rather than changes.

I think dehydration matters little on race up to a half marathon. In a
marathon, maybe it's a factor, but I think more because overdoing the first
part of the race puts the body into a more panicked mode physilogically, and
if you keep the first part of the race much more gentle and smooth your body
will stay cooler and more efficient for when you need the guts - later.

That said, many of my races are not run at negative splits - usually
they are about even split, or somewhat positive. I have gotten out of the
old habit of starting fast, "settling in" , having a tough 3rd quarter, and
gutting out the finish.

Dave

David Geesaman said:

Somehow I didn't see the original post, but here is my take on why
negative splits work.
1) Your body does respond to intense effort best after a good warmup.
In a negative split run, the first half of the race does make for a great
warmup, in a sense. By not going out hard, you can really relax and get
into a strong, smooth rhythm.

yes this sounds good to me : the strong and smooth rhythm!

Quoted message said:

2) There is a tremendous mental advantage to running negatives. First,
you don't have to push yourself at all for half to 3/4 of the race. You can
mentally relax and cruise for the first half, and only "push" the second
half. In events like a 10k on the track, this is a great benefit since 30+"
of high intensity is pretty damn hard to do - running negatives allows you
to cut down the racing portion to the last 15 or 10 minutes, without giving
up any seconds on the final clock. Second, negatives are positive feedback.
Assuming you haven't completely been isolated from the pack you intend to
beat (tactical racing often makes negatives impractical), every lap
essentially is an improvement on the last one. Going out above your goal
pace means that at some point (usually halfway or 3/4 mark of the race),
there is a lull in your pace. As well, your legs are already loaded with
lactic acid, and responding becomes that much more difficult due to having
wasted that effort too early. Precious seconds and motivation get lost
here, and in a tactical race, it's huge opening. The guy running negatives
will use every person they pass to ratchet up the effort a little more, and
the momentum is all theirs. I find, too, that my ability to put in a kick
is vastly better when my pace just steadily increases rather than changes.

thanks for your feedback on this David, I sense I have now a broader
view of negative splits, having never really thought of it for races
shorter than HM.

Quoted message said:

I think dehydration matters little on race up to a half marathon. In a
marathon, maybe it's a factor, but I think more because overdoing the first
part of the race puts the body into a more panicked mode physilogically, and
if you keep the first part of the race much more gentle and smooth your body
will stay cooler and more efficient for when you need the guts - later.

I guess it will be difficult to get the final word on this point, bue I
have the feeling, that glycogene burnt plus water losses must somehow
help in some ways...

Quoted message said:

That said, many of my races are not run at negative splits - usually
they are about even split, or somewhat positive. I have gotten out of the
old habit of starting fast, "settling in" , having a tough 3rd quarter, and
gutting out the finish.

I can 'negative split' a HM but for a 10k, a distance at which I don't
have a lot of experience, I always run a big positive split with only a
very strong last km.

m

Quoted message said:

Dave

Joe said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

marko said:

I was talking of even *effort* not feel.

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not

sure

Quoted message said:

how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

That's because you're too damn stupid to even be posting on this newsgroup.
Even the stupid Lance understands what effort is and he is a pretty dim
bulb.

But if you can not feel it, what does it mean???
seems like you missed the whole point.

Try contributing something more than a soundbyte.
Ed

Joe said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

marko said:

I was talking of even *effort* not feel.

I suppose I don't understand this "effort" thing you speak of. I'm not

sure

Quoted message said:

how you could be working harder and yet describe it as less "effort".

That's because you're too damn stupid to even be posting on this newsgroup.
Even the stupid Lance understands what effort is and he is a pretty dim
bulb.

But if you can not feel it, what does it mean???
seems like you missed the whole point.

Try contributing something more than a soundbyte.
Ed

I realize there has been several responses, but I decided the points I
wanted to respond to start here in your first post.

marko said:

we're having a debate on the french version of rec.running about
"negative split", and as steve hinted, it might be interesting to see
what you'd say about it.

I thusly defined negative split : the ability to run the second part of
a race (HM or marathon at least) faster than the first part.
A definition I think anyone would agree with.

Okay for now. (I have a minor objection that I'll mention later)

Quoted message said:

These last weeks, while focusing on aerobic training and higher mileage,
I began to notice something I've never felt before during my long runs :
I'll get faster in their second part, while remaining on the same effort
level (pace etc...)

Hmm?? how do you go faster while maintaining the same pace?
I assume you meant something like same turnover?

Quoted message said:

That's how I came to realize, that negative split is not about
/accelerating/ per se in the second half, but more a question of a
/natural/ increase in pace, due to warm-up, lower weight, and what not.

Before these experiences (still didn't make a long race to check it
"live"😉 I thought of negative split in terms of : easy start, pick-up
the pace in the end.
I just checked in my copy of glover's "the competitive runner's
handbook" and I understood where I got this (in my sense) false notion.

He speaks of negative split as a conscious easy start and a conscious
acceleration in the second part of the race (5 to 10 sec slower in the
beginning, and 5 to 10 faster in the latter part)
He even gives a 10k example, (a distance I'm not sure is suited for this
kind of pacing BTW)
Another option he writes about is "pace by even effort" where he states
that running this way, the pace will slow in the end of the race from
say 6:50 to 7:10 due to fatigue...

In my view, these are 2 misconceptions as negative split should
precisely be the consequences of a good "pace by even effort" race.

If one is *well* prepared, both physically and mentally, _and_ one knows
the precise pace one _is able to sustain_ for the distance, one should
be able to reap all the benefits of good glycogene stores towards the
end of the race _and_ lower weight, due to water losses, that should
yield a faster pace on the same effort level which should in turn yield
a "negative split"

What's your view of it?

m

I think you are missing out on the training aspects. running a training
run in negatives splits likely requires greater effort (feels harder as
well as involving higher HR, sweat rate, respiration rate, and turnover
rate). Your training provides a basis where this increased effort does
not "feel" as hard. It's what your body an mind have come to expect at
that point in the run. So on race day, good preparation can yeild a
bonus in that the second half doesn't "feel" as hard.

But even with that said, just about every race where I did a PR, I felt
like [censored] the entire race. negative or positive splits didnt' matter.

Negative splits for me is more of a training tool than a racing tool.
In a race, I do try to start out easy, but quickly start targetting
other runners to ttry to meet or beat. Sometimes just hanging onto a
slighter better runner pulls me to a time that I could not do on my own
in training.

Even effort to me becomes more obvious on a course where there are some
hills, especially rolling hills (IOW several small hills). maintaing
the same pace you must increase the effort going up and also going down
(you must brake going down to avoid going above your goal pace). With
even effort, you slow on the uphill and speed up above your goal pace
on the way down. The goal of even effort is like negative splits, to
keep some energy in the tank for the finish.

So I do not see the even effort, and the negative splits as opposing
points. They are complementary tools in the runner's race chest.

So I think you have a good idea, but I think applying it in the wrong
way. Focusing too much on the race and not on how training comes into
the perception of your effort. I would suggest, though I have no proof,
that weight loss and other factors you mention are smaller factors on
race day than proper training.

Thanks for the great topic and
Enjoy the run.
Ed

Ed Prochak said:

Hmm?? how do you go faster while maintaining the same pace?
I assume you meant something like same turnover?

yes that was same stride or turnover, difficult to tell which of the two
though!

Quoted message said:

I think you are missing out on the training aspects. running a training
run in negatives splits likely requires greater effort (feels harder as
well as involving higher HR, sweat rate, respiration rate, and turnover

but that was just my point : I feel my runs get easier towards the
second hour of running, eventhough I run faster, which I do without
feeling that I increase the pace, or that I must put a harder effort, or
that it gets tougher.
to me, my runs seem to get easier in their latter part than in their
first, even if I reach MP.

Quoted message said:

But even with that said, just about every race where I did a PR, I felt
like [censored] the entire race. negative or positive splits didnt' matter.

as I said, I've not yet run any negative splits yet, only even paced HMs.
my marathon were positive splits by about 5' and my 10k by about 10"

Quoted message said:

Negative splits for me is more of a training tool than a racing tool.

this is one thing I'm discovering since a few weeks for training.
That was one of the reason why I thought it would be great to replicate
it in long races.

Quoted message said:

In a race, I do try to start out easy, but quickly start targetting
other runners to ttry to meet or beat. Sometimes just hanging onto a
slighter better runner pulls me to a time that I could not do on my own
in training.

this is great when you have a good control of your pace, cause if you're
like me, unexperienced in 10k races, you'll start way too fast, and pay
the price later on.

Quoted message said:

So I do not see the even effort, and the negative splits as opposing
points. They are complementary tools in the runner's race chest.

actually I went as far as saying that even effort should yield a
negative split in longer events...

Quoted message said:

So I think you have a good idea, but I think applying it in the wrong
way. Focusing too much on the race and not on how training comes into
the perception of your effort. I would suggest, though I have no proof,
that weight loss and other factors you mention are smaller factors on
race day than proper training.

considering what everyone here and there was objecting to my point, it
might be true.
But I do totally agree with your point about training being the most
important factor, the only thing is that I still believe that good
training and what other factors (?) should yield a negative split on an
even effort race...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the great topic and
Enjoy the run.
Ed

thanks for your answer
m