Technically-faster for one split than for a previous one.<br>
For many runs that are out and back, divided in half--faster on the way back than on the way out.<br><br>
Like my run today-I ran the first 5 miles (mostly downhill) in ~42:30<br>
and the next five on an out/back course- up the hills- in 40:00<br><br>
Much faster when more tired is the best way to train your body for racing. Do it every easy run and it will become natural.<br><br>
Lydiard, a maven of running, advocated running for a period of time and suggested going easy on the way out and picking it up a bit on the way back so the times are even or slightly faster-not slower, finishing feeling 'pleasantly tired'.<br><br>
Just one way to train, Susan!<br>
Negative splits just means that the you get faster as you go. Typically, you might talk about run two halves of a race with a "negative split" meaning that you ran the second half faster than the first. Not a bad strategy really, especially if you're gaining experience.
I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of negative splits is that you progressively run a faster pace as you go, i.e. each mile (or whatever) split is faster than the previous one.<br><br>
I used to call them acceleration runs, where I bumped up the TM speed every half mile or so.
Susan, what you describe are Progression Runs. Dtoce defined Negative Splits correctly. Many people refer to Negative Splits when running races - I.e. "I ran the 2nd half faster the the 1st half".<br><br>
I agree with dtoce, except for his statement "just one way to train."<br><br>
I'd change it to, "just one way to race." I don't think most training runs should be aimed at running them with negative splits. That can lead to improperly paced training runs. Unless it's an out and back, one way going downhill and one uphill, like the example dtoce gave.
You can do training runs with neg splits as it doesn't necessarily mean "racing" a training run. MacMillian and Pfitz both recommend starting long runs about 20 percent slower than MP and finishing at about 10% slower than MP, which would be a neg split<br><br>
See, I'd call that a progressive run. <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"> I guess it's all in the context and what program you're following.<br><br>
The point I was trying to make, or caution about, is that some runners, newer runners especially, can get caught up in trying to speed up their runs as they go along, thinking if they finish faster that's always a good thing. That's counter-productive for most training runs. After a warm-up, a training run should be run at the pace the run is intended to contribute to the training -- general aerobic, tempo, easy, recovery, etc. (which is why I don't time most of my runs and run by feel).