A negative split or a faster first half?

[hansielouw]

I am running a marathon on 29 February and want to run sub 4 hours (which I have not done in about 8 years). There is a running strategy saying you should run a negative split which means your first half must be slower than your second half. This may mean half way in e.g. 2hour 2 minutes and the second half in maybe 1hour 56 minutes.

What is your experience with negative splits? Does it work? My feeling at this stage is to run to get to halfway in 1hr 54 minutes leaving about 2 hours 5 or so for the second half.

Your thoughts?

[Buddy34 Graduate10]

This will be a better place to ask that question. Good luck

healthunlocked.com/marathon...

[UpTheStanley Graduate10]

Buddy's right, but in the meantime …..

If you're running a race and actually thinking you might win it (!) you want to try to save something for the finish, so the second half of the race is likely to be a bit quicker - think 800m where the first lap is tactical and the second all out. But if you're running a challenging distance just for the hell of it, a steady pace throughout is probably the best bet.

The best reason for going for a negative split, I reckon, is that the best chance of achieving it is to start slowly, which is always a good idea …. the second best reason is that doing it makes you feel good. Realistically though, unless you run silly distances regularly, you are going to be hanging on for the finish and likely to be slowing down. So a bit in hand at halfway is probably a good plan, just not so much that you hit the wall at 22 miles …...

Not that I've ever run that far …… good luck!!

[ju-ju- Graduate10]

Hop over to marathon as they are better placed to answer.... and I’m guessing you’ve run a lot of marathons in your time ? If you haven’t for a while, it does make sense to start out slower and save the best till last so that your tank doesn’t empty out....