This little thread evolved on the Dead Runners Society internet list in April of 1997. It grew out of my off-handed remark that sprinters can and should attempt to produce negative splits in their track sessions. Normally this is a concept reserved for longer runs - distances in excess of a mile. My initial jesting drew some very sophisticated replies from current and former sprinters, one physiologist, and one coach on the list. I sure learned a few things in those couple of days, most notable of which was to keep my wild, blind speculations to myself unless I have the research to support them!

Date:     Mon, 21 Apr 1997 Subject:   Re: Interval SESSION Warren Hall asks: Can you guys now tell me how to lose 20 lbs and qualify for Boston? Of course ... NEGATIVE SPLITS! (It seemed to work for the elites today). Peter dellaFemina The Negative Guy Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Subject:   Re: Negative splits Jay McDonald inquires: This morning while going over the posts from the night before I can across a post about negative splits. Along with this the individual mentioned this is what seems to be working for the elites. If it not be to much trouble could you please tell me more about (-) splits. I sense it is my duty to come foward ... it was I who made reference to the negative splits and the elites. I knew this would come back to haunt me! Actually, Jay, negative splits is one of my favorite topics to discuss. But first let me be the one to define what I mean by negative splits. (You're not an elite runner trying to set me up, are you?). Over any distance you run whether it be a marathon, a 10K or a little bitty 400 meter, you may subdivide that distance into roughly equal segments and capture a time for each - a split. Now if your split times for the second "half" end up being faster than those for the first half, you have run negative splits. What seems to be so intriguing about this phenomenon is that one would expect that you'd slow down as you cover more and more of the total distance. Why? Because if you're really puting some effort into it from the start you would expect that fatigue would set in toward the end of your run. But not necessarily so for Negative Guys! Running "negative" is achieved by running conservatively from the start and saving the best until last. For some runners, myself included, this works out to be a better, faster run overall than if they had run hard from the start and tried to hold on the pace. In my comment about it working for the elite runners, I was referring to the elites who had just finished Boston. They started out, and kept for most of the first half, a pace of about 5:05 - unusually slow especially for this part of the course (gradual downhill). By the time the elite pack reached Newton (maybe a little sooner) they brought the pace down well below 5:00. At one point in the process of surging the mile split was something like 4:30! Overall, there's no question the splits ended up negative. The facetiousness of my comment, though, lies in the fact that it probably wasn't planned at all - it was the stiff headwind that forced the slow pace early on. Have I explained myself yet? If anyone wants to FIGHT about it you can catch me off-line! But in my opinion, all Sprintin' should be done in such a way as to produce negative splits. (I can say that on this list without much backlash). Of course YMMV and these are just the words of a recovering Negative Guy. Peter dellaFemina Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Subject:   Negative splits and other things Hi Peter, I want to thank you for your negative splits explanation. Even if I was suspecting what it was about, it's always interesting to have this kind of explanation. I've never really tried this strategy during races (10K or 21K): usually I always try to keep an even pace, only pushing in the last kilometer. The result is that often the second part of my race is faster than the first one, but only because I give all I have in the last K. I'm not sure I can call this negative splits! As my goal for the next 2 months is to beat my 10K PR (41'24" don't laugh) I'll soon try to really use negative splits... After I'll train for my first marathon (october or november). I guess that even for 42K this is the best way to race. Good luck Eric Meunier Toronto, Ontario Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Subject:   negative splits and sprinting My friend Peter speaks like a true believer of the Negative split cult ;-) In an earlier post he states that negative splits lead to best performance for elite runners, even in sprinting. My reply: Peter and the rest of the Dead, Not to be a negative-negative guy, but I think races that are predominantly anaerobic (>= 800 m, or probably more accurately >= 2:00 duration) are poor candidates for negative splits if you want to PR. At least the top 20 800m times of all time were run with positive splits. Furthermore, most races by elites, including the world record, have a positive split of about 2 secs. The fastest 800 that I could find with a negative split was a 1:43.22 by Steve Cram (51.80, 51.42). I don't think that positive splits are an artifact of competitive tactics, as there have been plenty of rabbitted time-trial like world record attempts at Grand Prix events. I think that it is even more unlikely that a negative split will lead to a PR at 400m. Michael Johnson typically goes out in 21 flat. I think it is just that the physiology is different for predomininantly anaerobic events. I completely agree that anything over 800 m is best run with negative splits. I probably even agree that any event taking much over 2 minutes (800 for most of us, 400 for some others) is best run negative. I just had to respond. I wanted you to know that not even a statement about sprinting was safe from starting a controversial thread ;-) What do others think? OK all you negative split believers, flame away ;-) Obligatory Running Note: 9k at medium intensity during lunch time. Steve Kautz Palo Alto, CA Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Subject:   Re: Negative splits Regarding negative splits: Not to take away from Peter's most excellent and thorough description, but negative splits are not always consious. By that I mean, that I almost always run negative splits, both in training and in shorter-distance races. I don't do this intentionally, nor do I "save" myself or sprint at the end. What happens is that it takes me ages to warm up properly, find a comfortable pace and settle down. In a typical 10-15K race, the first couple of miles are often a bit slow, and then as I find a groove, I speed up in the second half. That's why I hate running 5Ks or really anything under 10K: it just takes too long to warm up. I've tried jogging a mile or so before the race, but it doesn't help. Guess I just need that race situation! Obligatory Running Note: Speedwork after work Brigitte, in chilly St. Catharines, Ontario Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Subject:   Re: negative splits and sprinting Positive Guy, Steve Kautz, questions the sensability of running negative in the sprints: Not to be a negative-negative guy, but I think races that are predominantly anaerobic (>= 800 m, or probably more accurately >= 2:00 duration) are poor candidates for negative splits if you want to PR. My fast friend, Steve, definitely speaks from experience as well as from a historical perspective it appears. The elite sprinters primarily run positive, eh? Okay, okay ... I don't know where you dug up all the data but I believe you! At least the top 20 800m times of all time were run with positive splits. Furthermore, most races by elites, including the world record, have a positive split of about 2 secs. The fastest 800 that I could find with a negative split was a 1:43.22 by Steve Cram (51.80, 51.42). Did you see anything about Carl Lewis in your research? Or is that distance too short to even consider splits? From what I read that guy always came from behind in the 100m. In combination with the delay out of the blocks, it seems very possible that his second 50m split would have been faster than his first! But I am too tired tonight to provide a proper debate. In fact you have made it clearer than ever, Steve. Not merely among Deads, not merely among my peers, and not even among the elites (GULP!!! Did I really say that?) ... as of today, I truly am THE Negative Guy among sprinters!!! Because I can and only will PR if I go negative! Uhh, no ... no, I haven't exactly proven this theory yet ... but I was well on my way to doing it last Fall before my knee gave out. I actually don't have objective evidence from my true Sprintin' days either. Just an observation from my 290m relay leg that I was forced to go negative all the time because I couldn't handle the distance. Starting off strong and then cutting back to a glide before the midpoint would allow me to "rest" during the middle 120m or so. Then with a 100m to go, I would power up again and go as hard as I was capable of to turn in my fastest times and the best splits of our team. So it truly did work for me - honest! The way I see it, there is a huge drain of energy that comes with a fast start. That is in addition to the .15 to .20 seconds lost in the first split of any sprint due to the standing start. Secondly, another sacrifice is made when you throw all of your strength into accelerating to your top speed. Yes, all things being equal, it would be optimal if you could indeed get to this speed as quickly as possible and simply maintain it over the remainder of the distance. But the basic inefficiencies of being human come into play here and you are most likely going to expend more energy doing this than if you put in a more gradual acceleration (much like King Carl would do) and simply reach a maintainable speed coming out of the first half and entering the second half of your sprint. Finally, when there is only a small portion of the distance remaining, the last fourth lets say, then it's time to open the floodgates and go as hard as you can. What I mean by hard is that you should approach a time that you could easily hit if you were running that short distance by itself. This is possible with practice! When you factor in the lack of a start delay for the second half of any sprint, I don't see how you could miss doing a faster split here. The result would be negative even if it were only by a couple of tenths of a second. Maybe the issue here is the comparison of my techniques to that of the elites. Well, I certainly won't argue that Michael Johnson might have turned in a 43 flat had he been more patient and run negative in the 400m. I have no clue as to what an elite sprinter's training involves. I simply must defend my theory about negative splits as it pertains to my own performance. As always, Steve, I enjoy your informative responses. I also look foward to your sub-2 800 meter in the near future. Good luck my man! Peter Date:       Wed, 23 Apr 1997 Subject:   Re: negative splits and sprinting Peter, you wrote: Did you see anything about Carl Lewis in your research? Or is that distance too short to even consider splits? From what I read that guy always came from behind in the 100m. In combination with the delay out of the blocks, it seems very possible that his second 50m split would have been faster than his first! What I've always heard about Carl was that he was maintaining his speed at the end of races while others were slowing down. This would give the impression of Carl coming from behind. The second 50 meter split should be faster than the first for two reasons: 1. The delay at the start due to reaction time and 2. A running start heading into the second 50 meters. You must have been tired not to consider those factors. :-) ObSprintingNote: I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned, but Michael Johnson opened his season with a 43.75 400. That would have me pretty scared if I was one of his opponents. Obligatory Running Note: 5 easy in about 34 minutes. Like I said yesterday, if the doctor doesn't consider things serious enough that he can't see me before May 7, then it's not so serious that I can't run. :-) Doug McDougal Fort Worth, Texas