# Split runs - different approaches?

I’ve been reviewing my training and elements/tools that we use. What I’ve noticed is that I think I haven’t applied split runs right in the past, so I want to clear this up.

When doing split runs, does one go all out on the split components or does one “limit” the run to a goal pace (which is what you want to do the whole rep when you run it as a whole)?

Approach #1 - I’m aiming to run 300m. SE2 runs in the 36-37 range, would this mean I limit each split run to for example 24-24.5 200 and 12-12.5 100 to hit 36-37? And since neither the 200 or 100 will be maximal this will mean rest will get graduated down from full rest to say 8 or 10 minutes? This is the way I’ve seen it done in the examples from past posts, but I’m thinking this is against optimal application of our training system. So …

Approach #2 - Wouldn’t a more appropriate approach to do split runs according to Charlie’s theories be to run the 200 full out then the 100 full out and then take full rest (100m. walk between 200 and 100 - same as approach 1). I would think you’ll probably get something like 35 seconds on the sum, which won’t be possible if you do a full 300m. rep at that moment, would this then be preparing you better for the full 300 at 36-37secs then the “paced”/submax execution of approach #1?

Or will running the 200 full out bring the time of the 100 down enough to compensate and you still end up running the same time (36-37), in which case, would both workouts be equivalent, or would one of the approaches bring more benefits? From this line of thinking I’ll again go with approach #2, since running both components full out, even if the end combined time of the split runs is the same, will produce a larger amount of LA?

Heh. Yeah, I know I always create unnecessary complications and length of posts because of my long winded style, so to summarize : the point or important thing is, which approach will prepare you better for the full rep and why. I’m not finding any reason to support the submax approach (which appears to be the common approach according to the past posts), and some added value into favoring approach #2.

Ya, I’ve never really understood the purpose of doing split runs at race pace (at least all the time, it might have a place in unloading phases or near competition). Approach 2 is definately better in my opinion. You’d be suprised how intense they can get, because even though you get the one minute rest, that rest allows for greater intensification, and in some cases as much if not more LA production than running the whole rep at once. It depends on how you split them, but you’ll probably be able to do the split reps significantly faster than your full rep times.

Yes, that’s something I had forgotten to take into account, split runs for 400m. runners. For long sprinters approach 1 would be more useful wouldn’t it, since pacing is so important? Ie doing a 350 split run might permit race pace to be maintained throughout that SE2 run, while doing that whole rep as a whole would have certainly ended in a drop off at the end.

OK, so this is another step in completing the split run book of uses and applications, anyone else with any ideas or supporting or arguing against one approach or the other?