negative splits or positive splits?

positive here.

I wish I ran negative splits

baby got track x3 wrote:I wish I ran negative splits

no, i mean which do you run faster with.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

baby got track x3 wrote:I wish I ran negative splits

no, i mean which do you run faster with.

OHHHH... yeah, postive splits work better for me. When I try to hold back it ends up being too much time for me to make up.

baby got track x3 wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

baby got track x3 wrote:I wish I ran negative splits

no, i mean which do you run faster with.

OHHHH... yeah, postive splits work better for me. When I try to hold back it ends up being too much time for me to make up.

exactly what i think.

--freshman girl PRs(and sophomore goals)--
1600- 6:10(sub6)
3200- 13:01(12:50)
5K- we'll see next fall :]

baby got track, i would lower your 3200 goal by 10 seconds. it wouldn't be normal to improve 10 seconds in the 16 and only 10 seconds in the 32.

^^Thanks for the advice

anytime, haha.

well i never do a good job w/ negative splits, i get better times w/ positive

i don't like to think about my splits because if im off by like a second i freak out and and go omgsh im off by 4 now or how ever long the race is. i just run lol.

If I was going for a time that I could already run, I would probably run slight negative splits, but when going for a PR it's usually best done with positive splits because you're pushing yourself harder than ever before.

EpicFail wrote:If I was going for a time that I could already run, I would probably run slight negative splits, but when going for a PR it's usually best done with positive splits because you're pushing yourself harder than ever before.

yea, that makes sense.

My best race was XC provincials, and If I recall correctly, I got faster on the second half (although it's hard to judge without mile makers)

runner_dude wrote:My best race was XC provincials, and If I recall correctly, I got faster on the second half (although it's hard to judge without mile makers)

this is more for track than xc.

ATribeCalledGreg wrote:No one really tells me my splits so I never know.

my coach always yells them out, cept i take it for granted and HATE it when he misses a lap everynow and then
cause usually its when i really wanna know

I moved up in position the whole last race in XC and that was my breakthrough performance.

Even splits are physiologically the most advantagous. It is just when you get to shorter distance races like the 800m and the 1500m, positive splits become more viable (especially in the 800m) because the distance where you must "hang on" is less, so it is more about removing mental aspects than actually running the race to physiological perfection.

^^^that was scientific

i always seem to negative split my two mile; close to even on the mile but slightly positive, and super positive on the 800

dont really know. we dont talk about our splits usually unless its for track and the only thing we talk about it how i should usually be running it faster. but what would it be could someone give an example so i could figure out.

even splits are pretty hard to hit though.

In my pr 1600 I crazy positive split.

I ran the first lap in like 68.
The whole time I was like "oh shit Im gonna die in like 2 seconds"

I think even splits are better for pring, positive splits are better for winning, and negative splits make you look like a baller.

AudienceOfOne wrote:even splits are pretty hard to hit though.

+1

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:In my pr 1600 I crazy positive split.

I ran the first lap in like 68.
The whole time I was like "oh shit Im gonna die in like 2 seconds"

I think even splits are better for pring, positive splits are better for winning, and negative splits make you look like a baller.

eh last part is true. first 2 i'm not so sure about.

for the 800 i run better w/ positive splits. for the 1500 they are usually close to even, and for the 3000 and 5k, i run much better with negative splits.

i pwn with negative splits. mile pr my 800s dropped 10 seconds. Negative FTW.