Sub 1:50 800m Training

I've found a samll range of factors (1.35 to 1.45) multiplied by 600m time predicts 800m time well for most runners; 1.40 being the mid-range factor, which I use the most.

Below are times using just the 1.40 factor. I hope it helps runners in some way!

Tinman's 600m to 800m Coversions

600m ------------ Conversion------------ 800m

Time ------------ Factor ------------ Time

1:12.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:40.80

1:13.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:42.20

1:14.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:43.60

1:15.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:45.00

1:16.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:46.40

1:17.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:47.80

1:18.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:49.20

1:19.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:50.60

1:20.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:52.00

1:21.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:53.40

1:22.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:54.80

1:23.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:56.20

1:24.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:57.60

1:25.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 1:59.00

1:26.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:00.40

1:27.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:01.80

1:28.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:03.20

1:29.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:04.60

1:30.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:06.00

1:31.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:07.40

1:32.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:08.80

1:33.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:10.20

1:34.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:11.60

1:35.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:13.00

1:36.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:14.40

1:37.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:15.80

1:38.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:17.20

1:39.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:18.60

1:40.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:20.00

1:41.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:21.40

1:42.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:22.80

1:43.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:24.20

1:44.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:25.60

1:45.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:27.00

1:46.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:28.40

1:47.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:29.80

1:48.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:31.20

1:49.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:32.60

1:50.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:34.00

1:51.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:35.40

1:52.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:36.80

1:53.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:38.20

1:54.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:39.60

1:55.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:41.00

1:56.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:42.40

1:57.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:43.80

1:58.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:45.20

1:59.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:46.60

2:00.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:48.00

2:01.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:49.40

2:02.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:50.80

2:03.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:52.20

2:04.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:53.60

2:05.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:55.00

2:06.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:56.40

2:07.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:57.80

2:08.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 2:59.20

2:09.00 ------------ 1.40 ------------ 3:00.60

---------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

Tinman

This was all that was needed.

I have run a fair number of time trial 600s with a range of athletes through high school, college, and beyond, and this prediction table is actually quite accurate -- the predicted time is plus or minus only 1.5 seconds away from actual 800 times for the folks I ran with based on what they could do for a 600m. From a coaches standpoint, I think this is important to gauge your athlete -- I ran 1:19 in a workout when I was a freshman and thought I was going to run 1:47 that weekend, and was disappointed when I only ran 1:50.83....A coach should have been able to put some context to it so that my expectations were more in line and as an athlete i was encouraged by a 1:50 (at the time a PR).

Symmonds -- 1:14.4 FAT and 1:44.1 -- eerily spot on the table!

Symmonds' 600 was a race, not a time trial.Just curious, what were your splits in your 1:50 PR and were you leading at any point in the race?

OldSub4 wrote:

I have run a fair number of time trial 600s with a range of athletes through high school, college, and beyond, and this prediction table is actually quite accurate -- the predicted time is plus or minus only 1.5 seconds away from actual 800 times for the folks I ran with based on what they could do for a 600m. From a coaches standpoint, I think this is important to gauge your athlete -- I ran 1:19 in a workout when I was a freshman and thought I was going to run 1:47 that weekend, and was disappointed when I only ran 1:50.83....A coach should have been able to put some context to it so that my expectations were more in line and as an athlete i was encouraged by a 1:50 (at the time a PR).

Symmonds -- 1:14.4 FAT and 1:44.1 -- eerily spot on the table!

another canuck wrote:

Wow, lots of good post to respond to. Everyone must be having a quiet day at work!

El G; as always, we are forced to speculate. I assume that his comment about overtraining for 2000 didn't refer to the base period, but his specific preparation. Tinman, wellnow, what do you think of the possibility that he raised his level to world class with the daily tempo running at an earlier age, but as he got older he didn't need it quite as much and spent more time on specific training?

I think overspeed running is what develops talent. Running with the wind behind you or slightly downhill. Kids will do this naturally. What they won't do on a regular basis is run hard uphill. Adults tend to do it the other way round, putting too much emphasis on running hard, and not enough on running fast.

Tinman,

Nice to see a post from you - it seems like a long time inbetwen.

Sorry to be a little off topic, but...some time ago on this board, you had numerous posts relating percent bases efforts to 5k times 60%, 70% etc. I don't remember the relationships exactly, nor have I been found them by searching. Might you repost these here.

Thanks,

OXYRUNR

Wellnow, you didn't exactly answer my question but I think we are on the same wavelengh. I think the anecdotal evidence of many super elites is that they ran very fast when they were young-probably as you say, because it was natural and felt good. It just seems logical to me that an 8-10 k run as comfortably fast as one can run would be natural training in formative years, and be far superior than an easy 10 miler.Btw, when I was a kid I did run hard up hills for the fun of it.

Dont know what your point was on the 600m being a race not a time trial -- did you mean that this 600 time was faster than a time trial or slower? Plus I think there were only 2 people in the race--he and his training partner.On the example I gave below, I think (not totally certain) that I ran something like 53.5/57.3 -- not very strong at the end, only 18 years old and hadnt run faster than 3:50 1500m and horrible at XC at the time. Never lead during that race.

Although it wasn't an OT final, that 600 against Scherer was a legit race against a tough competitor who narrowly beat him in front of a home crowd. Nick likely wouldn't have broken 1:16 on his own. I say this because of Symmond's even-paced, "follow and pounce" style which is virtually the opposite of a solo time trial. Physiologically and psychologically he will be unlikely to get close to that 1:14 in a solo setup.

OTOH, an athlete like KD or JJ would quite closely approximate that 1:14 on their own- virtually every race they do, plus a certain amount of their training is based upon, getting out on their own out in front from the gun (plus JJ is a 400 guy).

Most of my athletes are mature, even/slight positive splitters who are used to kicking down opposition. My 1.33 factorial is a gold standard for these types. For someone who goes out aggressively, usually in front (or is underperforming in races due to poor splits- as in your youthful 53/57) then I would agree that 1.40 will be a stronger predictor. Recognizing such individual differences among athletes is key to predicting success, as I'm sure you're aware.

As for the 1200TT/1500 race predictor, Bannister took it a step further, and converted a 2:59 solo 1320 to a 4:59 mile- but few would doubt that he ran with unusual conviction and motivcation in doing so.

1.33? so 1:30 for 600m=2:00 for 800m?

that seems unrealistic unless someone is a born marathoner with no speed or they are not really running all out in their 600.

another canuck wrote:

Wellnow, you didn't exactly answer my question but I think we are on the same wavelengh. I think the anecdotal evidence of many super elites is that they ran very fast when they were young-probably as you say, because it was natural and felt good. It just seems logical to me that an 8-10 k run as comfortably fast as one can run would be natural training in formative years, and be far superior than an easy 10 miler.Btw, when I was a kid I did run hard up hills for the fun of it.

I was writing a reply answering your question about tempo running at a young age, but then I deleted it and wrote something simpler.

Even if I could completely convince you that the way to develop running talent was assisted overspeed running, you would soon forget the idea. The aerobic development dogma with which we are all pretty much brainwashed is so hard to shake off, that it's nigh impossible to debate any ideas to the contrary.

400-1500 coach... Just curious how you feel about a 1500-marathon guy coaching sprinters?

Too many times I see sprint coaches apply "sprint" workouts to the distances (all you have to do is add on right) and think it works. WRONG!

a 1:30 600 does not equal a 2:00 800. Maybe toward the end of the season but in case you haven't noticed (though you probably have never run one) the last 200 is the killer!

i agree w/ these workout. i did these kind of running and i ran 1:49

I think we are close to agreeing on this...I think that first of all we are both talking about predictions for those in the 1:43-1:52 area, so the fact that 1.33 times a 1:30 600 would predict 2:00 800m is a valid critique---not that the ratio is wrong, its just that is prediction accuracy breaks down as you get slower.

Let's take the base case example of a runner who can run a 75 second 600m in practice. BTW, rolling start, fresh, no race anxiety, usually with help from training mates, Symmonds absolutely does this. 1.4x this would be exactly 1:45 which is not a bad predictor, although I have known runners who ran faster...like with a 1.38 ratio. I have never known any that are sub 1:50 that have a 1.33 ratio between their 600m and 800m. Coe reportedly bragged about a 1:13.8 600m time in practice, which if you divide his 1:41.7 into yield 1.38. Johnny Gray was around the same but more like 1.39. These were highly trained, strong 800m people that could run between 3:30 and 3:38 for 1500m. More often, you get a guy like Scherer who is a 400 guy moving up who runs 1:14.5 and 1:46.1, a 1.42 ratio.

It may also be that your 800m runners are running a 600m trial at a reduced effort on your instruction which would be perfectly reasonable. I probably ran 15 truly 99% effort 600m trials during my running career with a guesstimate of 50-75 different athletes who were all sub 1:52 runners...from what I experienced anyone who ran 1:20 could run between 1:49 and 1:54 depending on their particular talent level (ie speed or strength) and conditioning...equating to between 1.37 and 1.43...Absolutely none of them could run 1:46.4 which would be suggested by 1.33 ratio. My point is not to refute you and we agree there is a range, but I would hate for an athlete I am coaching to run a 600m in 1:20 and expect to run 1:46 that weekend, as a coach I would be setting them up for failure.

great info OS4, you really have lots of data on 600 time trials.

I just wanted to make sure other people see what 4-15 Coach is saying

under his outlined assumptions (*solo* effort in training by more of a 1500 late charging type) his 1.33 factor for predicting an 800m *race* is plausible to me, or I at least give him sub 1.37. He is pointing out that running the 600 with others or in a race brings the time down so when we talk about these ratios we need to be careful we know what we mean.

(to other posters) he is not saying 1:30 600 = 2:00 800. He is saying 1:30 solo 600 in training can predict a 2:00 800 race, IF you're that kind of runner.

I personally find a solo 600 very tough, and have been surprised at how much easier it is when running with others. Though, also on the psychology side of things, I agree with OS4 in erring on the side of caution when building an athlete's hopes for a race based on the time trial.

At this point, I want to congratulate OS-4 on a great thread, largely due to his input.

Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that this is NOT what I consider a "time trial":

http://www.flotrack.org/videos/speaker/37-nick-symmonds/66182-scherer-vs-symmonds-600m

Symmonds, false start, puffing cheeks down the final straight and all, is RACING, and both he and Matt know that this effort is likely going to be their lifetime best at this distance.

My time trials are race-like efforts, and the athlete is approaching it as such, but there are NO other runners on the track, no rabbits, no announcers or spectators, no drafting, nada. It is also in the context of certain nodes of the training cycle, for the sake of consistency.

Quite frankly, there is no way in hell that Symmonds would have run 1:14 by himself that day. He was gunning for Scherer and had the perfect set-up to do so. 1.40 is NOT a factor that would work for Symmonds for a truly solo effort. Scherer, on the other hand, being a 400/800 guy, and having run the whole way with no one else in sight, probably could have scared 1:14/15 solo.

Hopefully I have made my point about individualizing the prediciton factor, and the importance of CONTROLLED conditions. Whether Coe, Gray or other runners had assistance from other runners is important, as is the context of training and racing (phase of training, concurrent weekly workload, other race-like efforts, etc.)

I would encourage all athletes and coaches to systemetize the timing and conditions of any predictor sessions, and keep a careful personal record of such. It may take a few seasons, but a pattern will emerge, and it will buttress your confidence immensely when approaching key races.

Let me rephrase the method: run a 600m time trial at full-effort in training, with or without training partners - depending upon what works for you, and typically the ratio between the 600m time and a later 800m race time is quite close to 1.40. Maybe Nick needs a pacer ahead of him to eye. Maybe Scherer doesn't. What matter is they gave full effort or very close to it with the premise they were practicing race-like stress and getting ready to soon do an 800m race that mattered to them.

Like sub4 poster, I've never seen a runner have a 1.33 ratio from a 600m time trial to an 800m race IF the time trial was run at or extremely close to 100% effort. As sub4 said, if your instructions are to the runner you're coach is "Run hard but don't kill yourself!" then it's proable the athlete might have ran a second or a second and half faster. It's totally realistic to tell a runner to give a hard but not all-out effort, which means the athlete saves a bit for race-day and actually has a 1.33-1.36 ratio. It's also realistic for athletes to hold back (of their own volition) in a time trial because they want to save a little for race-day.

I don't think the main point I have about using the 1.40 ratio is what sub4 eluded to: it's realistic information for the athlete. It's far more helpful to use 1.40 as a realistic ratio and have the athelte pace accordingly than give them a 1.33 ratio have them go out way too fast. Example below:

Jim time-trials 600m at full effort or within a percent of full effort in 79 seconds flat. The coach tells him he can either use 1.33 or 1.40 as the ratio; yielding predicitons of 1:45.07 and 1:50.6.. If the standard rate of racing is a 3 second difference between the first and second lap for a top 800m runner, due to energetic changes from glycolytic to oxidative phosphorylation - then a time of the first lap for the 1.33 ratio is 51.035 seconds, while the first lap is 53.8 seconds. That's a big, big difference in fatigue at then end of one lap duoe to a 2.765 seconds time difference!

Let's take Seb Coe and have him do a 600m time trial at full effort. He records 1:13.6, which he did during his best racing year. We use the 1.33 factor and that predicts 1:37.888 for 800m. If he used a 3 seconds differential between laps, as is common, then he'd have to cover the first lap in 47.44 seconds (1.5 seconds below the mean time for the predicted 800m time using hte 1.33 ratio). I don't know about you, but 47.4 seems way too fast! Using the 1.40 ratio, predicting 1:43.04 (whichi s a common race-time for Coe for 96% of his best racing seasons), his first lap of an 800m race would be 50.02 seconds, which is about what he normally did during 1:43 races.

I don't mean for my discourse to be agitating or put down anyone personally: I am only sharing my method of predicting 800m times based on 600m time-trials; based on many observed performances from runners who are world-class to average 800m runners in high school. Across the board, I've noted 800m specialist having ratios quite close to 1.40.

Take care,

Tinman

4-15 is talking about "mature, even/slight positive splitters who are used to kicking down opposition" so the 3 second differential doesn't apply. such a runner should definitely be more encouraged by a 79sec time trial than a 400/800 type. if they both got into the same race the former could at least run the first lap with the latter and then even split.

coe was not this type of runner, so 1.33 is misapplied (1:37.9?!). further assuming a 3 second differential is meaningless, as your arithmetic shows (47.4!?!)

4-15 uses the ratio for his athletes (and his time trial conditions) and says it works, so i believe him. but i'm not that kind of athlete so i'll use 1.40 as a guide this season. i'm sure there's some of each reading this forum

Either include other runners and make it a race, or don't include other runners and let it be a conditional-controlled time trial. There is a difference, and it accounts for the apparent disparity of 1.33 vs. 1.40. The original proposal was for a SOLO time trial- including other runners only muddies the waters as far as reliability of prediction.

(As an aside, I just took my lifetime 600 best- set in a race where I only ran the first 600- all out, I might add- of a fast heat with excellent pace and competition, and the 1.40 gave a time two seconds slower than my 800 PR at the time. My best solo time trial was spot on at 1.33)

In any case, a good coach knows what his athlete is capable of in terms of pace, and only uses these efforts to sharpen and fine-tune the process, not to rigidly dictate the early pace.