All 400m/400H runners should be REQUIRED to train for the 800m before they retire

Jim Walmsley Superfan wrote:

In the interest of science, all top 400-meter runners and 400-meter hurdlers considering retirement should spend 3 to 6 months training for the 800 before they can retire, so that we can see what happens.

I know that you cannot force them to train for the 800 by law but they should be STRONGLY encouraged with financial incentives to do so.

The best case scenario is some of them become 800 runners that they didn't know they could be and the worst case scenario is we at least get to see what happens and future athletes considering the jump will see what it takes.

Three to six months after an athlete is washed up at 400m is ridiculous. Eight-hundred metre athletes work hard for more than three to six months to achieve stamina and endurance necessary to reach their potential. There are smarter ways to encourage more teenagers to race 800m. IMO, shorter distances for varsity XC, male & female and both high school and XC. Watching washed up 400m athletes racing 800m will prove falsely to 800/1500 athletes that 400m athletes are unable to race 800m.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your logic

Hehhhhj wrote:

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your logic

Here's my logic. Brandon Johnson was a retired 400 hurdler. Then he signed up for jogging class and discovered he had the ability to run a 1:43 800. The idea is there are lots more guys like this who don't realize their potential.

Jim Walmsley Superfan wrote:

Hehhhhj wrote:

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your logic

Here's my logic. Brandon Johnson was a retired 400 hurdler. Then he signed up for jogging class and discovered he had the ability to run a 1:43 800. The idea is there are lots more guys like this who don't realize their potential.

This is certainly true in high school, where kids are grouped into "sprinters" (1-2-4) and "distance" (8-16-32).

Our best 800m girl had been our top 200m runner.

There's definitely overlapping talent with 400/800.

I think the earlier poster mistook "retired" for "washed up". Some might hang up their spikes because they are not an unqualified success in the 400 or hurdles - but could be even better at 800m.

Also someone with 400 or hurdles talent should try the decathlon. Clearly they have sprinting and jumping talent, as well as a bit of endurance.

Jim Walmsley Superfan wrote:

Hehhhhj wrote:

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your logic

Here's my logic. Brandon Johnson was a retired 400 hurdler. Then he signed up for jogging class and discovered he had the ability to run a 1:43 800. The idea is there are lots more guys like this who don't realize their potential.

Brandon Johnson couldn't crack 46 in his prime open 400 days, he is nowhere near the speed of some I see mentioned on here like WVN.

Ashton Eaton ran 45 flat and 48 mid for the hurdles and never ran faster than 4:14 for the 1500 and his 800 pr is 1:55 in his prime.

There is speed based 400/400h runners and endurance based. If they are good at 100/200 like WVN and Sydney McLaughlin, they will not be good 800m runners, Micheal Johnson could barely break 5 in the mile and even the majority of endurance based 400 runners suck in 800 as the demands are so different, Warniner for instance with 1:53 when he could run 45 flat late in his career, 45 to 1:53 is a terrible conversion.

The facts on this are out there for anyone who has the sense to look up energy system contributions at different distances and muscle fibers. The Gap between the 400 and 800 is larger than the 1500m and marathon, you are more likely to have someone be truly world class at both the 1500m and marathon than you at 400 and 800. While there are people who are successful at both, they are rare and would be considered genetic freaks of an area already populated by genetic freaks.

To run a world class 400 and 800, you need someone who can run 20.xx for 200m and sub-4 for the mile, think about that! They need to perfect mixture and distrubution of fast glycotic muscle fibres to run fast enough for 200 mixed with the perfect amount of intermediate and slow twitch fibers to run fast in the mile all in one person. The 400 and 800 may be only 400m away from eachother but physiologically, there is an ocean between them that dwarfs the difference up stepping up at any other distance which are more like a river crossing.

I know the science won't change anyone here's opinion on it but world class 400/800 guys are a rare breed and always will be as the event favours those who are stronger than those who are faster in general as the event is predominantly aerobic.

Guys in the

range often are not sub-3:42 1500m (or sub-4 milers). Eg. Billy Konchellah,

400/800/1500. Many other 45.xx 400/800 athletes never bother to race longer than 1000m. OP's end of career stuff is not a wise call. That is what J. Wariner did. If Wariner would have done hybrid 400/800 training from his teenage years, his 800m performance would have been better. If OP would have stated: More sub-50 400m teenagers need to do hybrid 400/800 training, I would have 100% agreed. If more sub-50 400m teenagers did 400/800 training, we would have far more than just three men: sub-45 400m/sub-1:44 800m. Don't get so bogged down in over analyzing muscle twitch ratios. Swimmers do not allow themselves to get so bogged down in twitch ratio analyzes. A significant reason why one runner does better in one event or another is psychological temperament. Was Miruts Yifter a slow twitch athlete? If you're honest, you will say: I do not know?

Billy Konchellah ran his 1500m pr in 97(his only 1500) at the age of 36 which was 10 years after he ran his 800 pr. He was 'only' barely cracking 1:47 at the time. And even after saying that, Konchellah's 400m was 45.38 long before he started training for the 800 which is fast but not unheard of for an 800 guy.

As for your mixed 400/800m training from a young age, of course you would produce better 400/800 runners as you would find more that were missed out on the endurance based guys with that ability but they would be a lot rarer than you think.

As for nitpicking on my sub-4 point, yes there will be people running world class 800's that maybe don't break 4 but they will be a lot rarer than guys who are running 20 mid 200's and faster running world class 800 times. Pretty much every guy running 1:40 to 1:43 will be able to break 4 because the the event still relies on endurance more than speed.

As for your point on lactate and muscle fiber and physcholigical, you are wrong. Look at the lactate profiles of 400m runners and 800m runners. Having a very high anearobic capacity will hurt an 800m runner as it rises faster, look at a marathon runner who can run 4:50 mile pace at 2mmol, a 400m nearly reaches that getting off the couch so higher levels are not able to be tolerated for long periods.

You're swimming analogy is wrong by the way, swimmers with a higher anaerobic capacity are always nudged towards the power events like the butterfly and breaststroke and mechanical efficiency is much larger in swimming where overcoming drag is massively important and the range of events much more complicated to which athlete suits. Your example is a red herring.

Critical thinking requires that carry an argument out. This logic says that a world class 100 meter guy should move up to the 200 but then he should move to the 400. Look where we are. The starting argument said that world class 400 runners should move to the 800 so every 100 guy probably should be an 800 runner.

I forgot to add that if you train every 400m guy like a 400/800 guy and the rare world class guys you create, you will have destroyed way more speed biaesed runners who are 200/400 guys.

Swimming events 100m freestyle and 200m freestyle for both men and women are nearly exactly the same as 400m, T&F and 800m, T&F. The human energy system of the 100m freestyle swimmer is going to be near or replicate the energy system of 400m, T&F athlete. Follow the same logic for 200m freestyle swimmer and 800m T&F athlete. Your butteryfly and breaststroke statements were nonsense. Swimmers end up in those events due to the required neuromuscular coordination required for those two events. Back to 100m & 200m freestyle. We are more apt to see a swimmer double medal in 50m & 100m freestyle than medal in 100m & 200m freestyle. Your argument would support this. What we notice about swimmers, they do not fall off a cliff in performances from 100m to 200m freestyle as do runners from 400m, T&F to 800m, T&F. Swimmers do not get placed into different events due to cultural differences. T&F athletes get put in events due to their culture often. If you're a physiologist, you know muscle biopsies are done on only a select few. You cannot see someone run a 60 second 400m and know their muscle twitch ratio. Re: 400/800 T&F athletes in 45/1:43. You are on here bull sh&tting. Coe, Cram and some others have fast one mile times. Look on IAAF listing. Many

have no time listed for a mile. I know you are bull sh&tting when you labeled Rudisha a sub-4 miler. You have no evidence! [You stated 1:40 800m man.]

I was a Long Jumper / high jumper who pooched my knee via a motorcycle accident and had to move to sprints. I was topped out at about 60 but could grind out 10.2.

Then I learned how to grind out 46 seconds in the 400.

Its not that hard if you are prepared to punish yourself. Though soon as that is over, its tough to break 50.

But the real gap between a real 800 guy and a 400 guy is that the 400 guy hates the sound of the bell to signify one more lap.

And they rarely can run a series of fast races with short recovery. Bolt could be world champ over 400, but he'd not last an Olympic campaign of heats semis and finals.

As an aside, I ran an 800 indoors and ran 1:54. Not flat out, but I still had no desire to run another in the same day. All this was in the 70s.

Guys extending their comfort zone don't have the same 'options' in a race. There is no dimension to their race as you'd find with a true 400 or 800 guy.

Jim Walmsley Superfan wrote:

All 400m/400H runners should be REQUIRED to train for the 800m before they retire

You're right, and it should be mandated by government fiat.

The words "should be required to" bother me. As a coach and a former 880 and 800 meter runner who moved up from the 440 years after he should have point out that the athlete must have the desire to run the longer distance. The training is much different, especially the preparation period in the off season or preseason. I also can relate to the bell going off signifying "one more lap" when you are just starting to feel the burn. The first 400 is not exactly a walk in the park. A well conditioned 400 hurdler and a 400 runner most likely would be successful in their initial 800 if their heart was in the race. It's up to the coach to convince the athlete that it is in his/her best interests to try the longer race. There was a fine 400 meter hurdler in a N.J. high school in 1997. His coach convinced him to run a leg on their 4x800 team. He ran 1:53. A week later he ran about 4:19 in the 1600. By the end of the season he got under 1:50. Seemed to disappear soon after but a few years later turned up in the SEC and ran some fine 800s (1:46 range) and equally fine 400 hurdle races. I guess he liked the feel of the 800!

Harold Schmidt.

I’d be much more interested in seeing every MD runner try some actual speed work (ie not just strides after a run) before deciding to move up a distance because they think they lack the required speed.

Most 400m runners would rather die than run over 500 meters.