Would you agree that 400/800 strength goes away the fastest?

jamin wrote:

This has been my experience over the past few years. I can go weeks without doing any distance style workouts, and I will have lost barely any 5k strength. Same with 200m all-out time. But if I do an 800-style workout after a couple weeks without one, it feels the first workout of the entire season. I surmise that middle distance fitness is the hardest to maintain. One reason why I might hang up the spikes.

I agree with you to a degree. Top speed and long/slower endurance always seems to be the last to leave me. Because I maintain my top speed well I never usually have trouble running okay 400's when I'm out of shape (53-54 out of shape vs 49-50 in my best fitness), but that last 150m in the 400m suffers due to lack of specific middle distance pace work. The 800m is the same only amplified. The same goes for the mile-5k distances for me, but I can usually crank out decent longer efforts after a short lay-off or short return to running.

Strange. For me it was always the opposite. I could basically run an 800 within 5 seconds of my PR at all times, regardless of season or phase. But that distance stuff... brutal. If I was not in "distance" shape I could be as much as 2 minutes off my 5k pr. Even worse the longer the distance I'm sure. Maybe we're all just different?

lactic type stuff comes fast and also goes away fast, that's why you do it sparingly. if you do it too much, you'll burn out. but if you do it just right and time it right, you can get the best benefit out of it for all the pain that you endure

respectful other side wrote:

Strange. For me it was always the opposite. I could basically run an 800 within 5 seconds of my PR at all times, regardless of season or phase.

Ummm ... Isn't 5 seconds a lot of time over 800 meters? I think you're proving my point for me.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Because I maintain my top speed well I never usually have trouble running okay 400's when I'm out of shape (53-54 out of shape vs 49-50 in my best fitness)

????

That seems like a lot to me.

jamin wrote:

Ummm ... Isn't 5 seconds a lot of time over 800 meters? I think you're proving my point for me.

For fitness gained or lost, not really. Yeah if you're a 1:54 guy at your best that's a world away from 1:49. But if you're a 1:54 guy who can run 1:59 as a rustbuster, coming back from a layoff, or just being out of shape, 1:54 doesn't feel that far away from that point.

If i took a 2-3 week break from running, my 100m would stay the same, my 400m would drop slightly (by about 3-5 sec) but my mile-5k suffers quite a bit (20 sec vs 1-1.5 min)

It suffers more as the distance goes up.

If you are training to 5000, chances are most of your gains are from form improvements and weight loss, things that don't go away. Training to 800 pushes muscle mass and aerobic fitness to extremes, which is more costly metabolically.

The solution, like for weight lifters, is to never completely stop training, just cut back and maintain. As long as you are using what you built, your body won't cash it in for energy. On that same note, don't run high volume like a marathoner or your MD fitness will vanish.

400m & 800m are young person events. The training is extremely intense for both. How often do we see aging 200m sprinters moving up to 400m? How often do we see aging 400m runners moving up to 800m? No surprise that performance decays in both or either event(s) with time away from intense training.

Not really. When I feel like I can barely run sub 17:30 in a 5k and feel like death on all my runs, running a 53 for a 400m isn’t too bad. And I was saying I agree with you. My best 200m would probably high 23 and low 24 and out of shape I can probably run under 25 without much trouble.

thataveragerunner- if you run 24 for 200 and 50 for 400, then have trouble with comparable times 800 and up, the 400 is your best event. Nothing average about that conversion.

Most letsrunners are high mileage types, if you arent doing anything anaerobic or high end aerobic. of course the 400 and 800 will suffer some. The question isnt clear enough. Goes away the fastest? From inactivity, from just running mileage, from just doing sprints? I agree that the last 200 of the 400 is what really suffers from not putting in specific work, and thats going to be slower anyways. Still, one second is the difference between winning and losing a short race.

theostrich wrote:

thataveragerunner- if you run 24 for 200 and 50 for 400, then have trouble with comparable times 800 and up, the 400 is your best event. Nothing average about that conversion.

Most letsrunners are high mileage types, if you arent doing anything anaerobic or high end aerobic. of course the 400 and 800 will suffer some. The question isnt clear enough. Goes away the fastest? From inactivity, from just running mileage, from just doing sprints? I agree that the last 200 of the 400 is what really suffers from not putting in specific work, and thats going to be slower anyways. Still, one second is the difference between winning and losing a short race.

1:52 for the 800m. It’s my best event. But out of shape and without any remotely specific work? I’d be happy with a 2:03

jamin wrote:One reason why I might hang up the spikes.

It could be the hardest to build or maintain, but to me it's the most fun. Love the intensity of the repeats.

The races are more stressful than long distances, but that's why you get more of a kick out of them.

(I do realise I'm in a different situation: relatively new to running, almost every race is a PB.)