Is it always recommended that the 800 be run as a positive split race?

for 99% yes, but i suppose there are people out there who can run faster with even or negative splits.

if it's your first ever 800, aim for even splits

If you have 400m experience and then run an 800 it is always recommended to run positive splits.

If you just do a lot of distance running and want to try to run an 800, then you go for even splits.

But if you don't know your 800 ability you wouldn't know what your even split pace would be.

It takes a lot of tries to get it right.

The blueprint seems to be 49/51

So:

1;40 - 49/51

1:50 - 53.9/56.1

2:00 - 58.8/61.2

Of course people like Nick Symmonds may go more like 52/52, whereas a BangBang Solomon might go 49/54.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

The blueprint seems to be 49/51

So:

1;40 - 49/51

1:50 - 53.9/56.1

2:00 - 58.8/61.2

Of course people like Nick Symmonds may go more like 52/52, whereas a BangBang Solomon might go 49/54.

Good post. Positive splits yield faster times in almost all instances where the athlete is properly trained.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

The blueprint seems to be 49/51

So:

1;40 - 49/51

1:50 - 53.9/56.1

2:00 - 58.8/61.2

Of course people like Nick Symmonds may go more like 52/52, whereas a BangBang Solomon might go 49/54.

Good post. Positive splits yield faster times in almost all instances where the athlete is properly trained.

I personally have had the best experience with negative splits. That's just me though. Experiment and find out for yourself. Remember, you are an individual. I think that those who are more distance oriented are the ones for which this strategy is best suited for this practice. Don't knock it before you try it.

glovez wrote:

I personally have had the best experience with negative splits. That's just me though. Experiment and find out for yourself. Remember, you are an individual. I think that those who are more distance oriented are the ones for which this strategy is best suited for this practice. Don't knock it before you try it.

It is only best suited if you aren't properly trained for the distance.

There are a few ultramarathoner types who can not be trained properly for the distance. I still don't think they benefit from negative splits just even splits.

Most people will run their best off a slight positive split, usually with the first lap being ~2 seconds faster than the second. This is largely due to the contribution from the phosphagen energy pathway that is active the first ~10 seconds of the first lap. Those first 60m can be run significantly faster than average 800m pace without any significant detriment to the runner.

With shorter races, it's also easier to attack earlier on when you're not hurting so bad. Attacking hard the second 400m after you're already hurting is tougher than attacking the first 400m and then just trying to maintain. You don't have this in longer races because the contributions from the different energy pathways are so different, and the pain one experiences is different as a result.

For 400m, positive split is best.

For 800m, slight positive split is best.

For 1500m, even split is best.

For anything above 1500m, slight negative split is best. The longer the distance the more detrimental a positive split is and the easier it is to make up for a slow start.

No

dial it up wrote:

glovez wrote:

I personally have had the best experience with negative splits. That's just me though. Experiment and find out for yourself. Remember, you are an individual. I think that those who are more distance oriented are the ones for which this strategy is best suited for this practice. Don't knock it before you try it.

It is only best suited if you aren't properly trained for the distance.

Your blanket statements consistently show you to be full of shit.

U R Full of Shit wrote:

dial it up wrote:

It is only best suited if you aren't properly trained for the distance.

Your blanket statements consistently show you to be full of shit.

You're right, all of the fastest 800 times are from negative splits. My bad. That's probably why Robby Andrews has been so successful at the international level but David Rudisha has not.

2s +ve split looks the way to run fastest way for elites

i've settled on a formula for what difference any other split combo woud be compared to 2s splits

difference = [ ( 2nd lap - 1st lap ) - 2 ] * ( 1/3)

second split should be about 1.05 times the first split. For example,

50-52.5

60-63

If you're an extreme fast starter it can go up to around 1.10, or approach 1.00 if you're an incurable marathoner, or an elite in a medal race where nobody runs their fastest.

If you're more or less average type then divide your target time by 2.05 for your first split. If you want a 2:04, 124 seconds/2.05 = 60.48. 60mid, 63mid.

Keep in mind that a race is not a time trial. The tactic that gives the best chance of a good time is not necessarily the tactic that gives the best chance of winning a particular race. In the latter case it depends, in part, on the competition on the day and how they run the race.

pr100 is right to add depth to this conversation.

OP needs to be more specific with the point of his question. In my experience, the easiest way to run, say, 2:00 is by doing something like 58.5, 61.5. That said, if you’re a high school kid who is looking for the best way to mop up dual meets and save yourself for doubles/triples, you can often beat lesser competition with less effort by turning the screws with a negative split, say 62-60 for a 2:02. A guy that can run 62-60 can also run 2:00…but you’ll be able to winnow away the chaff without having to actually run the faster time.

If you’re trying to run the fastest time possible and are running a race setup for people to run the fastest time possible, I agree with all the splits above. They seem about right to me. Additionally, this changes if you’re in a relay and want to close a small gap or open one etc. In my experience, the first and last legs of relays tend to be more even or negative, while the middle legs are almost always even more positive.

Bad Wigins wrote:second split should be about 1.05 times the first split. For example,

50-52.5

that spread is too wide at 2.5s for elites

it shoud be 2.0s or ~1.04 for elites

look at 800wr which is as good as any elite race to analyse ( ¡¡¡ )

after rounds including a 1'44+, meaning degree of fatigue for final, almost certainly to mainly manifest in final 200, he split

23.4 !!! / 25.88 !! ( 49.28 ) / 25.02 !!! ( 74.3 ) / 26.61 !! ( 1'40.91 )

or also

49.28 / 1'40.91

for

49.28 / 51.63

or

2.35s

this is superficially closer to your 2.5s than my 2.0s but not when circumstances examined

- the fatigue of rounds which is likely to affect the finish more than any other aspect of the race, meaning quicker last 200, reducing the 2.35s

- the ridiculous 23.4 opener which anyone with the slightest clue about 800 wouda know woud knock the stuffing out of any human & wreck the final clocking, no matter how parsimoniously he husbanded his resources in the remaining 600

kicking in a 25-flat from 400 - 600 is NO husbandry of any consideration whatsoever !!!

he's at very least worth coupla tenths better in last lap from this alone

so, in conclusion, the 2.35s differential shoud be significantly reduced given above

2.0s

One point to consider is that the 800, unlike the 400, is run out of lanes. You can draft a runner! I remember drafting dead last in my first 800m race. I didn't even want to waste the energy of having to shorten my stride running too close behind another runner. Lot of guys came through 400 in close to 65, then came back in 70-75 seconds. I ran about 70, 67 passing a lot of runners in the last 200 meters.

i hope you aren't acquainted with jimson ?!