Negative Splits in a Marathon

zico10

How many sub-3 marathon runners on here have completed their races with negative splits?
If you did, was it planned? And is this always the way you approach a race?
If it was planned. how did you feel throughout the first half? Was it easy to hold back?

TFBubendorfer

zico10 wrote: »

How many sub-3 marathon runners on here have completed their races with negative splits?
If you did, was it planned? And is this always the way you approach a race?
If it was planned. how did you feel throughout the first half? Was it easy to hold back?

Strictly speaking I didn't negative split when I ran sub-3, but I ran both halves in nearly equal time: 1:29:42 and 1:29:52.

I did negative split a few of my marathons, though. I never planned specifically to do so, but the idea was always to put everything on the line in the second half, and if that happens to create a negative split, then great.

In those instances I always felt reasonably comfortable during the first half - never easy, but always in control and confident I would be able to hold the pace. There were one or two races where I felt the same and still blew up in the second half, though.

The second half is never easy.

asimonov

I ran 2:58:59 in 2009 with 1:29:30 : 1:29:29 splits. I was definitely holding back for the first half and didn't feel any real fatigue until 20 miles when effort started to climb through the roof while the pace stayed the same.

I ran 2:52:53 a year later but was undertrained relative to my target and dropped about 90" over the last 4 miles, I felt like I was on the edge from mile 16 onwards during the race, but really slowed over the last 4 miles.

I am doing another one in 10 weeks and will aim to even split it.

Sacksian

zico10 wrote: »

How many sub-3 marathon runners on here have completed their races with negative splits?
If you did, was it planned? And is this always the way you approach a race?
If it was planned. how did you feel throughout the first half? Was it easy to hold back?

I ran my first marathon in 2010 in 2:58:28 with a first half of 1:29:49 and a second half of 1:28:39 - my three fastest miles were the last 3.

I know that more experienced runners would say that might mean I had more in the tank but the reality is that the only thing that mattered to me was running Sub-3 and I didn't want to run the risk of not hitting that target however good I was feeling.

It was my first marathon and I don't really have a lot of experience running races so I just kept very strictly to my 6:48 on the garmin target. My plan was to run at least equal splits and hope for negative split.

It was BRILLIANT (for me) holding back. Really felt like I was running within myself. I didn't even notice the distance until about 20, although from 22 I had to keep on going faster or I'd have stopped and fallen over.

Again, I had a specific target that I had been focusing on throughout training so I wasn't going to take the risk of getting greedy. I respected the distance and I don't see any problem with a race strategy where you meet (and exceed) your target time - even if there might have been a bit more in the tank...

With shorter races, it's possible to take a gamble and try to hang on. I subsequently did this in my second marathon last year, without really having put the proper training in, and got my arse kicked and had the most unpleasant 16 miles of my life as a result.

In 2010, I wanted my marathon experience to be a reward for the training I had put in and it was.

I think the mistake a lot of people is to train for a stretch target (which I did) and when it gets to the end of the training programme and everyone feels invincible, they extend that stretch target again. With anything below a marathon I think that's fine, but the margins are so fine in a marathon that I think you should pick a target at the start of the programme that you'd be happy to hit and hit it. And just wait for the next marathon to go faster.

I am very conservative in this regard though so a lot of people might disagree.

Krusty_Clown

zico10 wrote: »

How many sub-3 marathon runners on here have completed their races with negative splits?
If you did, was it planned? And is this always the way you approach a race?
If it was planned. how did you feel throughout the first half? Was it easy to hold back?

Yes, yes, yes, great, yes.

I have run both positive and negative splits, and the negative splits have always felt controlled and comfortable. The positive splits have been on the cusp of disaster.

Peckham

Three attempts at sub-3, one successful. None involved a negative split.

A good performance involving a positive split requires luck (unless second half is hilly).

ThePiedPiper

I ran my one and only sub-3 marathon in 1.30.00 and 1.28.23.

Yes, it was planned, but probably not to the extent that I did it. The first mile was very slow, 7.50, and by mile 23 I was feeling good so finished with 6.31, 6.30 and 6.06.

I've had 3 failed attempts at sub 3, always attempting to do it with negative splits. Well, two of them were actually attempts at sub 2.55, out in 1.27 and back in 1.38!! Major blow ups. The other was 1.29.00 and 1.31.20.

As to how I felt at half way, I suppose in the two failed sub 2.55s, I knew I was on a knife edge. The first one, when I hadn't even done a sub 3 previously, was particularly soul-destroying. Walking a quarter mile at 16 miles had never been part of the plan for that day. In the other two races where I went out in 1.29 and 1.30, finishing in 3.00.20 and 2.58.23, I felt much stronger at half way. The miles slipped by very easily. I held back very well in my 2.58 as it was the first marathon I'd ran wearing a Garmin. The slow first mile was a blessing in disguise, as over-excitement in the first couple of miles of a marathon will come home to roost later on.

zico10

I've ran sub 3 three times and the closest I've come to negative spits, were 1.27.10 and 1.28.37. This was my first marathon where my only goal was to break the three hour mark. I ran the whole race conservatively enough, and from mile twenty two onward I knew I was comfortably on course, and didn't go chasing a negative split.
The other two races while quicker overall times were achieved, they were more a case of me going out too hard and managing to hang on for long enough without totally blowing up.
I ask the question as my next marathon is on Sunday, in Bangkok. Training has been far from ideal and I would be more than happy to manage another sub 3 race. I think I'll be cutting things very tight though, and I was thinking of employing a strategy, whereby I'd cross the half way point in 1.31/1.32. I don't think any of you have seen me running and I know it's not an easy question to answer, but is this a wise thing to do? Or are the margins too tight?

TFBubendorfer

zico10 wrote: »

I ask the question as my next marathon is on Sunday, in Bangkok. Training has been far from ideal and I would be more than happy to manage another sub 3 race. I think I'll be cutting things very tight though, and I was thinking of employing a strategy, whereby I'd cross the half way point in 1.31/1.32. I don't think any of you have seen me running and I know it's not an easy question to answer, but is this a wise thing to do? Or are the margins too tight?

Only you can decide, but personally I think 1:32 would be too slow if you're serious about breaking 3, but obviously it also lessens the chances of blowing up. It very much depends on how you feel and how much a risk you want to take.

Clearlier

zico10 wrote: »

I was thinking of employing a strategy, whereby I'd cross the half way point in 1.31/1.32. I don't think any of you have seen me running and I know it's not an easy question to answer, but is this a wise thing to do? Or are the margins too tight?

It's an intellectually sensible approach if you're unsure about your readiness however I do remember looking at the halfway splits for those around 1:30 at London and Dublin and almost nobody who ran over 1:30 ran sub-3 and I'd be astonished if there was anybody who was 1:32+ who went on to run under 3 hours.

robinph

You'd have to go from averaging 7:02 miles for the first half to then running 6:43's for the second half to make up the time. Wouldn't rate the chances of anyone being able to do that, unless they were a faster runner just doing the sub3 time for a laugh.

theboyblunder

Ran 2:57:48 with a 42 second positive split. Personally I think even splits is the ideal. While ive never run a negative split in a marathon, I nearly always do in other races and when I do, I always wonder how many seconds I left on the course.

--amadeus--

I've done -ive splits and run sub 3 but not both!

Speaking personally I think that even splits are the only sensible plan for sub elite runners like us. It's easy to sit at your desk and talk about a heroic effort over the last 10k or picking the pace up at half way but when you are out there it's never quite that easy.

If you get through half way on time and feeling good then the chances are you'll get to 18 or 20 on time. From there if you are still feeling like you have it then you can pick up the pace. If you don't then the chances are that you will have "banked" a little bit of time in the early part of the race (2 or 3 seconds a mile quicker than PMP adds up over a race) and even if you fade a tiny bit you should still have enough to hit the goal. If you are already a minute or two down though it can be awfully hard to speed up no matter how easy you have run teh first half.

I ran sub 3 in my last race (even if it was 2010!) and my splits were a mirror of your plan. My target was 2:55 and I got to half way in 1:27. But I knew that I wouldn't be able to hold that pace and was risking blowing up and missing the 3 if I tried, so I dropped off to sub 3 pace and cruised the rest of the way feeling good and in control (finished in 2:58:0x). I have no doubt that had I run 1:31ish for the first half and tried to pick it up and run 1:27 in the second I would have failed miserably...

bart simpson

yeah i have done 3 marathons all in dublin in the last 3 years and all have being negative

2009
1:45:39
3:29:32

2010
1:35:42
3:08:57

2011
1:30:20
2:59:38

2009 and 2011 were the toughest, the middle one was the most comfortable. I planned to be negative on all because the course is harder in the first half, A huge thing with the marathon is fuel in my opinion so tried to burn it off evenly and push the wall back

Edit: i followed village runner and Krusty for the first one, so i didnt plan anything in that one, but i do remember chatting away to one of my mates in the first half of the 09 one, it felt so easy and me and my mate thought we were on our weekend LSR chatting away and village runner turned around and told us to SHUT THE **** UP! that we would need that energy later,...me and my mate put our head down like bold school boys and kept quite, i only realised later near mile 23 what village runner was on about...any bit of energy needs to be saved for that last 3 mile, the fact that even talking can be a factor highlights how important tight pacing in a marathon is