How many of you run negative splits or even splits and had a PR from it (5k or any race )?

Low drop running wrote:

I ask because when I'm in a race I'm usually trying to hit my goal pace in the first mile then hanging on the rest of the way and trying to press the pace the last third of the race. It can be any race.

You're doing it right. Ran even 5:05 splits for 15:49, best race I've ever run. PRd my 2 mile with negative splits as well. Typically its the smartest way to run, I prefer even splits for a PR but negative splits if I'm going for the win as well.

kod3200 wrote:

Low drop running wrote:

I ask because when I'm in a race I'm usually trying to hit my goal pace in the first mile then hanging on the rest of the way and trying to press the pace the last third of the race. It can be any race.

You're doing it right. Ran even 5:05 splits for 15:49, best race I've ever run. PRd my 2 mile with negative splits as well. Typically its the smartest way to run, I prefer even splits for a PR but negative splits if I'm going for the win as well.

I've found running even/negative splits gets you PRs...but staying with the leaders gets you more race wins.

I know that doesn't make logical sense, but i think if you are too far behind the leaders you won't catch them.

Most of my PRs are from negative split races. My rule is that you want to run the first half of the race in 50.5% of the total time and the last half in 49.5%. If you are any slower than that the first half, it is too hard to make up. If you are much faster than 50% the first half, then you gave away too much time at the end and didn't run your best effort.

When I am racing a lot, I will go out harder on occasion just to test if I can keep up that pace. It helps me dial in the effort so I am not giving away time in the beginning of the race. In a goal race, a couple seconds the first mile can make a huge difference at the end.

I think most races over a mile are best run with a negative split. Even splits are also good, but are much harder to run, thus less reliable.

All of my PRs came from negative splits.

800: 59, 57

1600: 2:08, 2:01

3k Steeple: 1st half even 9 min pace and finished in 8:57

5k: First half at even 15 min pace and finished in 14:44 (though this was in a torrential downpour so a slow start was expected)

Point is, you can run much faster closing hard than you can going out too fast. For instance, if your first 400 of any distance race is 55 then you will have a bad day. If your last 400 of any race is 55 then you will have a great day.

I understand the value of negative splits, and they're a lot more fun and a lot easier, but all of my current PR's have been from positive splits. I think the reason is that I usually misjudge it and waste too much time in the first leg(s) to PR.

My gosh, you're like Bizarro me!My approximate splits in PRs800: 57,59Mile: 2:02, 2:06Steeple: 1st half about 8:50 pace, finished in 8:575k: 1st half about 14:50 pace, finished in 14:56.I always liked and tried for negative splits, but often rode the line too close, and once I started dying, I was often just toast and had nothing in the final 200m.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

All of my PRs came from negative splits.

800: 59, 57

1600: 2:08, 2:01

3k Steeple: 1st half even 9 min pace and finished in 8:57

5k: First half at even 15 min pace and finished in 14:44 (though this was in a torrential downpour so a slow start was expected)

Point is, you can run much faster closing hard than you can going out too fast. For instance, if your first 400 of any distance race is 55 then you will have a bad day. If your last 400 of any race is 55 then you will have a great day.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

All of my PRs came from negative splits.

800: 59, 57

1600: 2:08, 2:01

3k Steeple: 1st half even 9 min pace and finished in 8:57

5k: First half at even 15 min pace and finished in 14:44 (though this was in a torrential downpour so a slow start was expected)

Point is, you can run much faster closing hard than you can going out too fast. For instance, if your first 400 of any distance race is 55 then you will have a bad day. If your last 400 of any race is 55 then you will have a great day.

Dang, you've got so much more mid d potential. Not sure if I fully agree with your last statement though - to me, that just says you could have run a much faster time. I guess it depends on the race (800m is a special exception, you want to positive split for your best time at most levels) and if you win or not. I've run an 800 in 60/54.9 and called it a bad run because I made my move too early and lost by a hair.

This all being said, for OP, most of my PR's have come from slightly negative splits. 1500 PR (3:42) I closed in a 57 low off of very even 60 second pace (no more than half a second off pace at 300/700/1100) Also split the 2nd 1500 of my 8:0X 3k PR only about 4 seconds faster, and I considered that a really good race because of how even the pacing was, and how hard I was able to push myself in the end.

The 800 is a different beast (my PR I think I split 54-57, which I was very happy with), but for most races, a slight negative split is probably your best bet for a PR, but keeping with the leaders if it is at or slightly faster than (but not significantly faster than) your current PR pace is also a good way to run PRs and to win races and to develop racing skills that will ultimately help you become a better runner.

Had Some Myself wrote:

My approximate splits in PRs

800: 57,59

Mile: 2:02, 2:06

Steeple: 1st half about 8:50 pace, finished in 8:57

5k: 1st half about 14:50 pace, finished in 14:56.

I always liked and tried for negative splits, but often rode the line too close, and once I started dying, I was often just toast and had nothing in the final 200m.

I first read the thread and thought "all of them are"

Then I thought except my marathon. And half marathon. And 10K, 5K, 3K and mile,

The idea of running negative spiits is a lot easier to understand than to actually hit.

I ran a PR 5k with first, second, and last miles of 4:39, 4:39, 4:27. Was getting over a cold (clearly I was completely over it, though I didn't know it at the time) so I went out controlled, anticipating a final time in the 14:30s. I've always regretted having that much in the tank at the end because I ended up running 14:22. I never got under 14:20 in that season, which was my last year of college, so the PR stands.

So yes, you can PR with negative splits, but you'll always wonder if perfectly even pacing would have gotten you a better result.

Even splits for my 800m PR. 28.xx, 28.xx, 28.xx, 28.xx

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Even splits for my 800m PR. 28.xx, 28.xx, 28.xx, 28.xx

Mine:

31.xx, 31.xx, 31.xx, 31.xx

All my best marathons have been positive split. When I try to go out conservative I simply fade at the same time as when I go out a bit harder. This has been 7 years of two marathons a year of testing.

I know it's not normal, but it's my experience.

I would think that most every world record, at least the men's from the 1500 to the Marathon has been negative split. Perhaps something to be learned there.

My 1500 PR was negative split

All the others were positive split. I never could hold back early on.

None of my lifetime PRs are negative splits, from 400m to 10 K.

But I started with speed and moved up, so the initial pace at any distance was easy to go out fast.

Here's the rule of thumb.

If you're speedy, inclined to mid distance, more of a fast twitcher, then you're likely to positive split a PR.

If you're a aerobic monster, distance hog, slow twitcher, then you're likely to negative split a PR.

It's a fact that the best 800 strategy is a slight positive split. There's evidence that 5k potential is maximized with a faster first mile.

Daniel Komen's 3km disagrees. But of course that a case can be made in the sense that maybe he could have run it even. It was a positive split nonetheless (3:38 and 3:42 I believe) and a wr so it's hard to argue against his method.

The main thing that I think that is being overlooked is that you shouldn't purposely aim for a negative split:

Say a guy that wants to run a sub 9 minute 3000m race for example. Why would he purposely run 3:05 the first km when he is fresh at the first 2 laps (especially if there are guys running sub 3 or 3 pace in he race) just to have the burden of needing to improve 5 seconds on the 2nd km and then try to slam a 2:54 at the end? It would actually make more sense to bank time in my perspective.

Generally a negative split is just a consequence of a misjudgment of pace. Of course that when it ends in a personal record the general reaction is to worship that tactic. Maybe that sub 9 guy could actually manage 2:55/3:00/2:56 for a 8:51 instead of a not so sure 8:59? Who really knows?

So you believe more in setting the tone faster than a goal pace and see how it turns out? I've PR'd in the 5k with both methods. Postive splits are kinda demoralizing though and alot of unknowns begin to play in your head. When I PRd with a neg split my confidence was overwhelming after half the race has passed and was feeding on everyone who went out too fast. I guess it really depends on the attitude of race day?