Negative Split Quandary

(Globaldisc) said:

It strikes me that when someone produces negative splits in a race....the initial miles framing
context to the negative split go unquestioned/scrutinized/examined...

It certainly does not go unquestioned/scrutinzed etc. It has been questioned, scrutinised, measured,
researched and tested by droves of world class runners, their trainers and exercise scientists.

Quoted message said:

.and the negative split is simply applauded. When the fact may be those initial miles were 85% or
90% effort running....

That is the whole point, in long distance endurance races anyway (marathon or further). In the first
few miles of racing, your body is not using its optimal "mix" of fats and carbs for a given pace. It
takes it some time to settle down into a steady state.

In those first few miles, by running at your expected whole race pace (or, worse, at higher than
planned pace) you WILL be using 20% or more EXTRA carbs in your "energy mix", at a given pace, than
you will do later in the race.

And those carbs which were "wasted" early, cannot be made up for once you start to run out of gas
(usually thirty-some kilometer mark), except by slowing way down to LESS THAN your originally
planned race pace.

OK I agree wholeheartedly that big negative splits (like 3 minutes or more) are probably a sign that
you could have done a little better overall. Splits between negative one minute and positive one
minute (all feed stops/toilet stops being otherwise equal), are a pretty good sign that you've run
damn near optimal for the whole race.

Galloway's rule of thumb was something like "every second per mile you run too fast in the first
miles, will be paid back by an extra minute on your finishing time". It adds up very quickly.

Globaldisc said:

easier said than done for me despite being discplined. with "intentionally holding back" my
concern then goes to the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a race. i suppose i
stubbornly don't want to grapple mastering the "art & science" of personal "throttling".

Isn't this what "racing" is all about?

Quoted message said:

my best races are those wherein i feel my lungs & heart at some point in the race are about to
explode , i'm just "dying" and wondering why in the F am I here?....usually it's two-thirds
through the race.

And most of us would suggest, this is the point where your real race went into the toilet
regardless of you penchant for gutting it out. I would contend that although you hit a PR or good
race for your style of running you are a good 5% below what you can run by running even or slightly
negative splits.

Quoted message said:

I suppose I equate holding back with increasing the risk of having unspent energy at the end of a
race and I expect to be damn near dying at the end of a race.

Think of yourself as a race car with N gallons of gas that should dive 90 mph to finish with the
throttle still down through the finish line but you drive at 95 only to run out of gas and coast the
last lap and through the line.

Quoted message said:

For those of you that intentionally "hold back" in races and get those neg.
splits...etc....despite your final resulting time...don't you constantly still reflect back and
speculate that you could have done an even better time had you not held back so much?..

As I said above we are suggesting you ask that same question of your racing style, and ponder the
notion that holding back will allow you to run a faster race. I realize yuour getting anecdotal
opinions from r.r folks but how about taking a look as some the lastest written skinny. For your're
reading leisure: 🙂

pponline.co.uk0378.htmOpen ↗

While you on that page use the seach facility to probe further. There is some very well written
articles in this web site.

If you want some leading edge training take a look at VERONIQUE BILLAT as noted in
pponline.co.uk0350.htmOpen ↗ I think Sam has said he looking into Billat and wonder what
he thinks.

I think you have received a crescendo of similar responses from some reputable people and now the
ball is in your court. You either experiment with this notion or not. It's not any easy task to find
a a non slowing pace yet still have some push through the finish line.

As a side bar, is this really your racing technique or is it dictated by those folks around you that
you normally race? I always had a set of friendly competitors that I insisted on not letting out of
my sight or staying side by side with to beat. Yes, with this technique I would beat them and feel
good. Then after I experimented with neg/even pacing I would let them go(this wasn't easy) but
gobble them up in the last two miles while they were dying and finish a minute or more in front of
them. In a 10k that's a significant lead.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

If I were to give 100% from the gun in a 5K, I'd run the first mile in about 4:30. Of course the 2nd
mile would be closer to 5:30 and the third about 6:00 pace..maybe worse. I don't even want to think
about what would happen running a marathon under that mentality. Simply running negative splits
doesn't mean they were maximized, there is such a thing as too slow at the start. However the vast
majority of people start too fast. This causes premature buildup of lactic acid, and a premature
slowdown as a result. If instead you go out just easy enough to let your body get into the race, and
pick it up to full speed and run slightly negative, chances are you will run a maximal performance.
The goal is to break yourself right at the finish line, not sooner. What good does it do to gain 5
seconds in mile 1 if it costs you 10 in mile 3? All through senior year of high school I opened my
5Ks between 4:57 and
5:02...every one of them. However I never ran faster than 17:01, or 5:30 per mile. For a few races a
local competitor ran with me every time, and every time I beat him by 5-15 seconds. Halfway
through the season his coach forced him to slow down his 1st mile split. While I never raced
him again that season, he started running 16:40s immediately. Andy Hass

Observation about splits based on today's race results. We had a couple older and wiser folks
running, neither of whom were in good training, and a strong youngster, also not in good training.
All three were hoping for something like 40 minutes for the 8k, based on wild guessing. In good
shape and training, they'd have been finishing at about 37, 34, 32 (strong youngster is a fast
woman, the older and ?wisers were female and male, respectively).

The youngster hit the first mile in about 7:00, her elders waved goodbye early in the first
quarter mile and hit the mile in about 7:45. Second mile of about 7:45 as well for the wiser
folks, 8:20 for the youngster. The master who'd plan on 37 on a decent day held pace pretty evenly
through the rest of the course, dipping down to 7:30 for one of the easier miles and finishing
about 38:20. Youngster followed up with 8:15, 8:25, and 7:45. Finished elbow to elbow with the
other master, in 39:50, the two of them having run in the last two miles together.

No question in my mind, given her observed splits, that if she'd controlled that first mile to
something appropriate to her goal, she'd have smoked the master guy and finished with the master
woman instead. On the other hand, they did both wind up beating their 40 minute goal.

Beautiful day for a run, and my own race showed some value in other respects to experience over
training. It also showed me the value of having lungs when doing distance races. 8k is not
supposed to be an anaerobic event.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(...)...so enlighten me....

home.hia.noevenpace.htmOpen ↗ home.hia.nohg10kwr.htmOpen ↗

But I´m afraid that all the information in the world isn´t enough, when what is really require is a
change of faith, an intuitive understanding of what is right. Until you´ve had that sudden flash
which changes your view of racing, you won´t truly believe - and as long as you don´t believe, you
won´t ever feel right about "holding back". This is what I think is called "a catch".

The good news is that if you just once, by design or by accident, come to race a genuine "neg
splits" race, your experience of the "personal crescendo" will most likely make you a believer:-)

Anders

(Globaldisc) said:

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm not proud of this and I'd
like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to "hold back" in a race
(adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride.

Interesting take on this question just posted in the French running newsgroup, fr.rec.sport=.courir,
by an exercise scientist.

He says that the negative split is not (necessarily, my parenthesis) due to a deliberate holding
back. It is due to the athlete steadily decreasing in weight as the race proceeds, by "burning" of
glycogen and release (sweat, breath) of the associated H20.

Hence the pace for a given power output increases with time. For a 70 kg runner, the stored glycogen
plus the H20 would account for something in the order of 5% of body weight at the end of the race.

steve common said:

(Globaldisc) said:

Truth is I've never pulled off a negative split in a race. Of course I'm not proud of this and I'd
like to indeed do it for once for crissakes. The problem? I can't seem to "hold back" in a race
(adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving total effort, 110% with every stride.

Interesting take on this question just posted in the French running newsgroup,
fr.rec.sport=.courir, by an exercise scientist.

He says that the negative split is not (necessarily, my parenthesis) due to a deliberate holding
back. It is due to the athlete steadily decreasing in weight as the race proceeds, by "burning" of
glycogen and release (sweat, breath) of the associated H20.

Hence the pace for a given power output increases with time. For a 70 kg runner, the stored
glycogen plus the H20 would account for something in the order of 5% of body weight at the end of
the race.

That is interesting. I'd not gotten involved in the discussion since it seemed to be mostly
competitive recreational running but this gets into my type of running - social (running high,
substitute for dancing, etc.). I'm not sure I'm buying this theory although it's interesting. For
example, if one loses a lot of sweat (ahem) their performance (speed, happiness, oneness wiith the
world, whatever) suffers after a period of time. Same with muscle glycogen loss - the wall - even
though one weighs less. Interesting thought but I ain't reaching for my wallet.

Layne

-------------------------------------------------------
The rec.running report archives may be found at kinder.cis.unf.edurec.runningOpen ↗

steve common said:

Interesting take on this question just posted in the French running newsgroup,
fr.rec.sport=.courir, by an exercise scientist.

Was he helping the French woman scoring the skating at the Olympics. 😉

Quoted message said:

He says that the negative split is not (necessarily, my parenthesis) due to a deliberate holding
back. It is due to the athlete steadily decreasing in weight as the race proceeds, by "burning" of
glycogen and release (sweat, breath) of the associated H20.

I'm sure your paraphrasing for brevity but I'd like to see some specific data on this take cuz it
leaves me cold. For what distances/paces/planet_positions?

Quoted message said:

Hence the pace for a given power output increases with time. For a 70 kg runner, the stored
glycogen plus the H20 would account for something in the order of 5% of body weight at the end of
the race.

5% is a lot and suggests the person is not just running hrad but not taking in any fluids. If
there is 4 or 5% loss at the end I doubt very much the runner is going faster; more likely slowing
down big time.

If I sound skeptical, it's because I am. 🙂

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Doug Freese said:

5% is a lot and suggests the person is not just running hrad but not taking in any fluids. If there
is 4 or 5% loss at the end I doubt very much the runner is going faster; more likely slowing down
big time.

If I sound skeptical, it's because I am. 🙂

Layne and Doug. I'm sceptical too. For a start he didn't mention cardiac drift or other factors
which tend to decrease pace.

But what I'm not sceptical about the 4-5% weight change. Over marathon distance at marathon pace,
taking the hypothesis of 3kg of glycogen & its associated water (my usual weight gain when
carbo-loaded is around
2.5-3kg), then that's (3/70)*100% => 4.3% and that *is* pretty much what I lose.

Note that this doesn't have a negative effect on hydration, coz the water held with the glycogen is
recovered by the body, when the glycogen is released and used. This partially compensates for
sweating/breathing loses.

So I think the reasoning is that, if you are a 70kg marathoner who does it in around 3 hours,
losing 3kg over the race can give a monotone increasing pace - from 0 to 10 secs/km compared to
starting pace.

Like you, I'm not going to rush out and "buy the book" yet though.

In response to the original poster; #1 responses below = wake up and smell the coffee response. #2
responses below = possible help

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"However one part of me is saying I'm only fooling myself as when it comes to race day...I'm going
to run my ass of from the start (thinking I'm holding back in training) and not be able to pull off
a negative split."

#1- Lack of discipline. Period. 2- Review the literature regarding negative splits and pick one race
to "throw" in case negative splitting doesn't work. Who cares? It's just one race. If you can't do
this, refer back to 'lack of discipline'.

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"I can't seem to "hold back" in a race (adrenaline, whatever)....I just think I need to be giving
total effort, 110% with every stride."

#1- Total horseshit. Compared to a 100 meter dash, you aren't even
close hitting 100%. If you believe so, you are dilusional.
#2- Realize that you are ALREADY PACING YOURSELF. If your miles are
dropping off in the last half of distance races, you need to become better at it.

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"For example IMO, a 5K is a "bat out of hell" race and I doubt the top finishers have neg.
splits....no?"

#1- No 2- No

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"In a race, producing a neg. split only makes me question the effot of the preceeding miles. If you
produce a negative split...how do you measure your effort in the preceeding miles?"

#1- There is only one friggin' split you should be worried about in a
race. That is your final finish time. If you don't figure out how to pace yourself better, you will
miss a great opportunity at improving this one final split.
#2- When coaching high school and college distance runners, I had
runners use several methods of 'measuring effort in the preceeding miles?' One, buy a heart rate
monitor and learn how to use it. Two, become aware of your body's particular signs of oxygen debt
(tingling fingers &/or cheeks, stiff elbows, etc). Get a coach who can work with you over various
differences and help you plan a strategy that meets your personal needs.

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"It may be simple thinking on my part...but it seems to me if you give 100% in a race......every
stride....you naturally won't produce a neg. split. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing....no?"

#1- You are NOT giving even close to 100% every stride. When you
realize this, you may see the light. You are right, you will not produce a negative split. You will
have a [censored] overall time for your given ability (assuming that by 100%, you mean significantly
over your reasonable pace).
#2- Good times can be made without negative splits. However, good
times are not made without good pacing. Since you are pacing yourself, work on improving.

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message

"A neg. split's easy if I hold back just a little.....but impossible for me if I am going all out
every stride....(any distance). Just reflecting on how I feel about neg. splits.....I'm just a
neophyte in this particular arena....so enlighten me...."

#1- Let me beat a long dead horse; YOU ARE ALREADY HOLDING
BACK!!!!!!! If you don't believe me, run the first 400yds of your next 10k literally as hard as you
would run a 400yd dash (kick and all), then report back to the group how productive it was in the
whole scheme of your race.
#2- I would highly suggest that you research 'negative splits'. It
is obvious that you could improve your performance by becoming better at pacing yourself during a
race. It seems as though you are already knowledgable about the benefits of pacing and neg. splits.
If you are unable to follow through with any reasonable efforts to adjust your racing, please refer
to the first response I provided......Lack of discipline. Period.

I wish you luck in your racing. I admire your ethic and effort. However, it seems as though this may
be preventing you from doing your best racing. Scott

In article said:

In response to the original poster; #1 responses below = wake up and smell the coffee response. #2
responses below = possible help

I think he got the point already. (Take a look at his more recent posts.)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗