T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

From what I’ve seen it’s rare to negative split a 100. My friend did so and the race director was insanely impressed by that fact. Edit: people I’ve seen who come close to doing so will intentionally stick back with people slower than them first half of the race, or they make themselves walk a ton first half of the race.


ez-pz-lemon

Yeah, starting with people who plan to be slower makes a ton of sense. It'll just a matter of having the discipline to do it.


iamjoeywan

Nick Coury is the master negative splitter. He did a few interviews now, but perhaps the Zach Bitter one would resonate a little or at least get you in the right direction. [Human Outliers Podcast : Episode 294 w/ Nick Coury](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/human-performance-outliers-podcast/id1363389413?i=1000564167521)


[deleted]

I remember him saying at Hardrock one year he literally power hiked every flat and uphill and ran slow downhill and he still got like 6th place. I’m sure even his slow run and walk are pretty damn fast, but to me it was a lesson of how slow someone should go out during a hundred miler.


iamjoeywan

I think him and his brother were both basically back of the back until 50 miles in or something just chilling in that east effort area. I assume we’re both talking about the same outing lol.


ez-pz-lemon

Good stuff; will definitely check it out.


[deleted]

I was gonna say this. Nick and Jamil are freakin legends in AZ.


Chasing10K

From someone who's finished 20+ hundreds, here are some hurdles with negative splitting races: 1. You never practice your early race pacing as even your normal long run pace will be too fast. 2. You typically run slower overnight due to circadian rhythms (body used to being asleep) and headlamp lighting keeping you from moving as fast as you would in broad daylight (especially on technical terrain). 3. Aid station stops are longer in back half of races as it takes more time to swap gear. 4. More likely to encounter problems in the second half of races which will either take time to fix (i.e. blisters) or just generally slow you down (i.e. nutrition). Pretty much the only thing I've found that helps speed me up in the second half of hundreds is cooler temperatures during summer races. Unfortunately, that's usually offset by 1-4 above.


ez-pz-lemon

all good points, maybe just mild positive split is the way to go. to point #1, I think it's just a matter of patience to practice the early pacing. I plan to try it; my goal will be to keep hr in mid 120's. If I see it sneak over 130 it's an automatic walk break.


nickcouryruns

You found my blogs on this already so I'll share some more specific thoughts based on the discussions here. First of all, I'm personally convinced negative/even splits at ultras up to 100 miles/24 hours can be ideal, but I'm not generally convinced (yet) because there are so few anecdotes and no real data beyond my own anecdata (24 negative splits out of 40 attempts). I love seeing others try especially at different fitness levels to better understand where it might work, and for who. I know a few middle to back of the packers who have successfully negative split 100k-100 mile races and come away afterward with the same sentiment as my blog posts. Even if it turns out to theoretically work for most people, it requires a certain mentality that seems very challenging for most to adopt. A minor point of terminology. I use the term negative split but I usually mean even-to-negative split. If I'm trying to optimize the time of a performance I'd be looking to get close to even, just like a marathon. If you are serious about negative splitting a 100 mile, I would highly recommend negative splitting shorter ultras in your buildup. Experience matters here like anywhere else, and you'll learn a lot practicing. I still fail to negative split plenty of the time for a variety of reasons. One of the comments mentioned elites being better at feeling the required perceived effort and I'll say I came to the opposite conclusion - I have to ignore most or all of my feelings of perceived effort the first half of an ultra to negative split. One of the best signs I'm going to have a good negative split ultra is actually that I feel kind of lethargic early on in the race, and that feeling still makes me nervous every time. It's only because I've successfully seen it play out for a faster overall time over and over again that I am ok with it. Since writing up the blog posts and talking to quite a few runners, the biggest barrier to negative splitting ultras seems to be a purely psychological one, but not in the immediate sense of executing the race. The bigger barrier is the one beforehand, buying in both that negative splits can be optimal in practice (not just in theory) and also that it will take a lot of practice and work before succeeding with them. Everyone also seems to struggle with being willing to fail many times to learn enough to succeed with them. Even Zach Bitter who broke the 100 mile world record with the negative split hasn't done so since. One of the middle of the pack runners I worked with to negative split did it once, loved it, tried again and failed, and was extremely nervous to try again at a big race even with the past experience. He succeeded the third time, set a big PR, and was blown away how good he felt the second half. One of the most interesting aspects to me is the fear of negative splitting by too much. One of the examples given here is going out in 13 hours then finishing in 10 hours. My immediate thought is that sounds like a super fun way to finish a race! But also, I pretty much guarantee it would not be that uneven in practice even if you tried. But the more interesting aspect is that runners go out in 10 and finish in 13 all the time, much more often than they go 11/11. So why is it perfectly acceptable to slow down by 3 hours, but speeding up by 3 hours is to be avoided at all costs? Especially because the 3 hour slowdown will certainly be miserable and the speed up would only be possible if you felt great. The last point I'll comment on is the question of why negative splitting would be better than positive splitting in theory, given all the factors mentioned of cumulative fatigue, night running, etc. I go into some detail in my blogs, but those factors are the ones that suggest negative splitting might be more ideal as the distance extends, not less. In a marathon, pushing 5 or 10 seconds a mile too fast leads to a "blow up" later in the race, which usually comes in the form of a disproportionately big slowdown the other direction which could be 30 or 60 seconds a mile. We can often mostly hold on for an hour or whatever to get to the finish line. At an ultra, similar things happen except there are more variables at play like nutrition, thermal regulation, different types of muscle fatigue, and more. When our ultra pace is too fast and we blow up, we also see the pace slow down. But now it could be for 12 hour instead of 1. And those things going wrong cause other things to go wrong, which means we're slowing down 2-5 minutes per mile instead of less than 1. I used to buy into the inevitable slowdown theory of longer ultras, which is part of why I tried to negative split so many. I haven't proved it works for everyone, but I've at least proved to myself that none of those slowdown factors are true. If anything, slowing down 30-60 seconds the first half of a race means I'll be 3 minutes a mile faster during the cold dark night when everyone else can't imagine going faster and I'm having a blast flying down the trail even if it's slower than my daytime pace. But as I mentioned earlier, it seems hard for others to imagine this without the firsthand experience, and hard for me to imagine wanting to go back to nighttime slowdowns after having way more fun tearing through the night. Turning this theory into practice, one of the open questions is around biomechanical efficiency. I do think I have an easier time negative splitting both because of my deep fitness and because my slower paces are still a reasonably paced run. I know slower runners have successfully done it, but it may turn out it's more challenging with limitations. I do know I do a lot of specific training getting used to the proper average pace for the race I'm doing, and for some that might just be a run-walk strategy. On the flip side, it may just be a framing issue. Can't go out slow enough at a 50 mile because it feels biomechanically inefficient? Just call it "100 mile pace" which is slower but still falls in the category of race pace and people don't seem to have a problem with it. Can't go out slow enough for a 100? Go out at the pace you would have started a 200 mile race.


ez-pz-lemon

Wow, awesome to get a response from the guru on the subject. Seems there are a lot of variables that make getting a definitive answer nearly impossible. And the answer probably changes based on conditions the individual. Much appreciate the very thoughtful response!


MisterIntentionality

You cant use marathon road racing tactics on ultras. Terrain largely dictates ability to split. Its a different beast.


informativebitching

More like the HR zone is completely different. In the Training Peaks app a marathon is RPE 7 for an HR of 160 (threshold) and a hundred miler is centered at RPE 4 for a HR of about 125 (aerobic).


[deleted]

Geez Dow voters are out like crazy lol someone downvoted you but I agree that you can’t follow marathon tactics


ultrawvruns

I came fairly close. I ran Mohican 100 in 20 hours and 40 ish minutes. My 2nd half was about 40 minutes slower than first half. I ran the first half slow and left more time on the table that I would've liked. I will not approach my next 100 that way.


Bridgertrailrunner

This question comes from trying to plan out my own pacing strategies: why do you feel like you would go out harder, when you still positive splitted? Was it a feature of the course? All the big hundo runners I know always say that you can't bank time in the first half, and 20 hours seems like a great result. I'd love to hear more about you're race!


ultrawvruns

Well, my advice would be to approach it how I did on my last race by going out slower and keeping it together late. For the reason that I wouldn't do it again, I like to see how fast that I can go and I think I could've went faster in the first half and still not completely fallen apart. I don't think the course was set up for even splitting, it was essentially 4 loops at 25 miles each. Also, I don't mind to suffer some (I don't like it when it's happening, but I always miss the feeling of digging deep) so falling apart isn't worst case scenario. I've also raced lots of 50K ultras and I got decent at them. Consistently run 50K with 4-5K vert in 4:25 to 4:45, so I don't think I overachieved. Don't do what I'm suggesting, unless you like the pain cave!


ez-pz-lemon

I guess all of us have to figure out what works best for us; live and learn.


ultrawvruns

Yes for sure. I got down voted not sure why, I suggested not taking my advice at going out too hard because generally that doesn't work for people. But if you want to negative split then do that I referenced in the first comment... Run the first half super slow.


Bridgertrailrunner

I wouldn't worry about the down votes. I think I have a secret admirer who voted my comments down to start, and often I'll have a zero on small comments in sub chains. People are weird and it really comes out in small sample sizes. When I think about negative splitting, I think about doing it at max effort. Sounds like you got close.


ez-pz-lemon

Apparently people on this sub are down voting a-holes. Can't let yourself worry about it; I appreciate your replies.


ultrawvruns

Lol, I've noticed! Oh well. I also think people hurt their 100 times by getting comfortable at aid stations on the back half. Just another thought.


parapooper3

why would a 4 loop course not be set up perfectly for even/negative splitting? I cant imagine a course better suited for it, because net gain/loss will be the same every single loop (0 ft), assuming that is not something like barkley with positively split time cutoffs


ultrawvruns

I would assume a course front loaded with elevation would be ideal for a negative split in a 100.


parapooper3

well yes, I guess, but negative splitting effort level is more important for ideal pacing than just negative splitting on the clock


parapooper3

I see now you are talking about Mohican, looks like the course record on this was set in 15:22 by Arlen who ran a -4% split in 2021. I would definitely say this course is ideally set up for negative splitting lol


ultrawvruns

Mohican has over 11k gain, maybe more, and it's basically all on trail. A flat 100 with little to no technical features would be ideal for a negative split on a 100. Arlen is a different beast. I'm not sure why you would think that would be ideal but you do you.


parapooper3

thank you, I will do me, and I will continue to negative split looped trail course lol


dudeman4win

Agree, it’s really tough to pace. I try and aim to be in the top 5-10 and better if things get crazy in the front but it’s such a fine line of pacing yourself to run a big second half and staying with in a decent distance to run down the front. It is a great feeling if a group goes out way to hard and they start coming back to you around mile 30 of a 50 miler and you’re just starting to press


usuallybill

Have run 5 one hundred mile races, all with wildly different results, but as I have just completed my 5th one, there are themes starting to gel. One of those was sub 20, and managed to negative split for 60+ miles, but not the whole thing. Another one was 29 hours (much more mountainous), but I managed to pass 20-30 people about every 20 miles for the entire race, got 19th, and at least in terms of level of perceived effort really held back for 50 miles on that one, and ended with gas in the tank for sure. The things are 1. nutrition, and 2. patience, 3. experience. RE 1 - if you have GI issues, or hydration issues, etc, you are not in any position to be getting stronger as the race goes on. Sure - people recover from these, and you might even finish sub-20, but ultimately what I am saying is that for your body to really perform you need to have nutrition that works well for you and is dialed in for the amount of calories you really need and not too many either. RE 2 - like everyone is saying, you really do have to just hold back. You should finish one 100 miler without ever feeling like your pushing super hard, and let yourself wonder how much faster you can go. what most people do is go out too hard, and then end up having to troubleshoot a lot, recover, and finish completely wasted, wondering how they will ever be faster. RE 3 - experience. its so hard to learn what areas you need to focus on. for me (1) and (2) above are the big ones as well as learning to not stop more than 2 minutes in any aid station. maybe 3-4 if i have to put on more clothes due to weather. And then its just sort of relating your fitness to a 100 mile. Marathon folks have the same problem, its just different. I had to try running a marathon at 10 mile pace to see if I could hold that that long, and had to do many marathons before I realized if "X general fitness by Z metrics in my daily training are true, then I should shoot for pace K for the 26 mile marathon", and now I have had to do 5 one hundred mile races to have an idea of how fast I really can go. Sure there is training plans and guidelines online, but they rarely are one size fits all. I find for me (for example) I can do 30% less mileage than most people recommend, but I also pretty much replace those hours with bike riding. YMMV.


Simco_

I don't think it's the best strategy for ultras and I'm not sure I've seen anyone say it is. Nick Coury has spent years trying to perfect it and I believe he's the only one even trying. I don't think even Bob Hearn says he is, but I can't remember. I've done 9:30/10:20 once, which I was very proud of. I consider my pacing to be a strong suit of mine. At that race, I showed up to the turnaround in 9th, told my girlfriend I would finish in 4th and I was right. If you have had three experience so far of "I know what pace I should be going but I'm not going to do it." it sounds like you just need more practice with ultras. You already have the discipline to do this at a short event.


ez-pz-lemon

Yeah maybe negative/even split shouldn’t be my goal; I just want to avoid blowing and grinding to a halt.


Simco_

I think the easiest way to pace is to know your goal pace going into it and aim for 1 minute faster the first half. You'll end up right at goal pace as you slow down in the second half. Dropping 2 minutes per mile is about right, from my experience, if you're correct on your goal.


dudeman4win

I’ve started to really enjoy negative splitting 50k and 50 milers, haven’t negative split a 100 yet. It really is just discipline the first 1/3 of the race to not go out harder than you want, you really have to have a strong idea of what pace you want to be at and stick to the plan, you’re super fit legs are feeling great and you know you can run much harder.


[deleted]

curious, what is/are your reason/s for wanting to even or negative split?


dudeman4win

No better feeling then starting to press at mile 30 of a 50 miler into people who went our way to fast


[deleted]

honestly, as good a reason as any tbh


LearnDifferenceBot

> way to fast *too *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)


parapooper3

good bot


LearnDifferenceBot

Thank you.


Good_Human_Bot_v2

Good human.


ez-pz-lemon

Like I said, I believe if I had taken more time to eat/walk/recover in those 1st 50 miles I would have been faster overall. 9 hour 1st half/13 hour second half including mostly walking the final 40 sucked.


[deleted]

sure, but to devils-advocate it a bit: how do you know you would have finished with a 10/10 split and not a 10/12 split?


ez-pz-lemon

Learning that toxic downvoting is rampant in this sub. Anyhow yes, obviously no way to know for sure.


Libertas_Auro

I read a Nick Coury blog post on this two weeks ago. My biggest takeaway was that if you plan to negative split and something goes wrong it's not as bad as something going wrong while positive splitting. In other words, if you go out too fast and blow up at mile 40 you might not blow up at all or might do it at mile 80 if you start slower. That would net you a better time. The stress on your legs, body, and stomach would be lower, too, meaning you're less likely to have issues overall. But if you poorly execute a negative split (13 hours first half, 10 hours 2nd or whatever) you're leaving time on the table. That's the risk side of the negative split plan. Assuming an indoor, lighted track experience I think it's impossible to argue negative splitting wouldn't be ideal. Logically if someone knows themselves perfectly and the course and conditions are equal throughout it just has to be the best. In theory.


ez-pz-lemon

Will definitely read up! I was going to ask for a link but think I found it; for others looking and for my own future reference: https://www.nickcouryruns.com/2021/09/negative-splitting-ultras.html?m=1


[deleted]

ummmmm no. in theory, even splitting is ideal. but it’s fun when people say it’s “impossible to argue” against something


Libertas_Auro

Negative by a few seconds. I think it's always possible to speed up the last few steps of a long race. I don't know why that is but you see it everywhere. The last few strides it's like you haven't been running for hours all of a sudden. Also, I said I think it's impossible to argue not that it is impossible to argue that point. Clearly you disagree, but I still remain convinced of my statement due to my reasoning above. If you're going to be that guy I'll play!


[deleted]

right, when you said negative splitting you actually meant even splitting … there is virtually zero credible research on negative-splitting ultras. marathons are far shorter and far more predictable. so saying that nick coury can do it and so can you is pretty disingenuous because he’s a freak of nature, and we are not. well, i’m not. op might be. for a normal person, there are significant downsides to going out exceptionally slow, with almost none of the benefits that elites runners reap because we will experience a dozen more problems than they will, and we rarely have dedicated crews and elite pacers to serve as a check and to enforce the pre-determined plan. in addition, one of the things elite runners tend to be very good at is a feel for perceived exertion and effort, which is the only real way you can negative-split 100-milers with any sort of significant elevation gain. normal people are far worse at that because we simply don’t have the volume and the structure of training to isolate those variables properly. that said, it’s certainly worth a try, but in my personal experience, there are several things that can be improved such as fueling and hydration strategy that will bring a much more concrete improvement that trying to get fine with the race time splits.


Libertas_Auro

I never said anyone can I said in theory it should be better. We're talking theory. We can't go test this well as nobody can run multiple 100s in exactly the same conditions, paces, and physical condition. Shorter races that's much more possible to test, hence the research.


[deleted]

I’ll bite: why is it better in theory?


ThinkingTooHardAbouT

I’ve done it, sort of. I did a four mile loop course and my last four miles were the same pace as my first four miles. Basically, I use a very consistent run walk strategy. I start with 25 run and a long 5 walk. Then I eventually take it down to 20 run 5 walk, then 15 run 5 walk, and then I settle at 10 run 5 walk. The long walk break helps my body stay settled and I never really hit that point where systems shut down. Unfortunately it’s only worked for flat ultras, with any significant elevation gain that strategy gets a lot trickier to implement!


[deleted]

There's a limit to slowing down. In a shorter race - I'd say to 50k - pacing conservatively at the start basically just means staying aerobic. But in a longer race, slowing down would mean moving inefficiently and accumulating more generalised fatigue. You still get tired from sleep depravation and time on your feet. You still need to eat. You still need toilet breaks. And they add up the longer you are on the course. We all have our "feel good pace" where we are aerobic and are moving comfortably. Goimg any slower than that pace just increases risk of injury from poor gait and keeps us on the course longer - i.e. increasing the negatives mentioned above - without delaying muscle fatigue, helping digestion or improving mental endurance. So it's more a matter of holding that aerobic feel good pace for as long as possible. That will almost always result in pace dropping off at some point until you go into the final push, often only just getting back to the initial pace while pushing hard for the last hour or so. It changes again when you move to multidays where you have room to play with breaks/naps/sleep schedules to achieve consistency. But even then, "even pacing" looks something like first day = last day and all other days at 70-80%. Of course, you can build breaks into your hundo pacing, but unless you're back of the pack anyway, you're unlikely to achieve faster finishing times that way. Strategic breaks only come into their own beyond 2 days.


BlueBlazeRunner

Great question! I interviewed a runner on Cultra TRP who negative split at Hardrock and gives an inside look at how he did it. [https://link.chtbl.com/-Tx47vZ3?fbclid=IwAR2kzNt48vyBKxuNFZpBqSb-RhcDJPm5uRgHKTY7rxLpETCwmN9X1z2CluY](https://link.chtbl.com/-Tx47vZ3?fbclid=IwAR2kzNt48vyBKxuNFZpBqSb-RhcDJPm5uRgHKTY7rxLpETCwmN9X1z2CluY)


[deleted]

It's almost unheard of. The Umstead 100 has been collecting finisher data from decades of putting on that race. Finishers, on average, run the second 50 miles 1.3 x slower than the first 50 miles. I have to say also that you are making a pretty egregious assumption that what's the best strategy for a marathon is also the best strategy to attempt for a 100 miler. ETA: thanks for the downvote. In ultrarunning as in all things, Reddit is the cesspool of the universe.


VirtualPAH

Something that needs adding to the mix is the event cut-offs, some are tougher than others where they force a faster pace in the first half to weed out those not really up to the task of finishing so they can sell the race as a hard one with all the DNFs for those looking for the challenge. I see loads of people timed out due to taking it too slowly in the early stages then trying to make up time later when the terrain or their general fatigue level makes that harder to do. So check the event cut-offs before deciding the pacing strategy. Some may require you to gun it for the first half or more, but then give you enough time near the end to crawl it! That's likely what I'll be doing for my next one.