[ad_1]
Should recreational runners observe the conventional wisdom that a negative split (a faster second half) is the best way to run the marathon?
- Marathon runners are usually recommended to pace their race so that the second half is (slightly) faster than the first — a negative split — because “this is how elites win” and how records tend to be broken. However, this analysis of more than 4 million marathons shows that almost 90% of races are completed with a slower second half (a positive split).
- When we control for runner ability, then more evenly-paced races are associated with faster finish times, and more personal bests, than less evenly-paced races. However, the best recreational performances are associated with slightly positive splits, suggesting the controlled fade is an effective pacing strategy for recreational runners.
- The evidence also points to a performance bias against negative splits for recreational runners — e.g. a 10% positive split is associated with a better outcome (more PBs, improved relative finish times) than a 10% negative split — because recreational runners often pace negative splits too conservatively.
- This analysis suggests that recreational runners should target a 1.5% positive split as their A-goal (that is, aim for a a second half that is 1.5% longer than the first half) with a B-goal of a positive split that is less than approximately 3%.
Conventional wisdom advises that the marathon should be run with an even or slightly negative split and that “putting time in the bank” by running a faster first half (i.e. a positive split) is not a good idea. The evidence in favour of this includes the often-quoted statistic that most world records above 800m have been achieved with negative splits, but should we expect elite success to transfer well to recreational runners? After all, elite marathoners have a lot more experience when it comes to managing their pace, effort, and energy for the duration of the marathon distance. In contrast, most recreational runners…
Source link
