Is the 800 more aerobic or anaerobic

more aerobic or anaerobic than what?

If you have to breath to keep going it is mostly aerobic. Case closed.

Hey d!

I don't remember you having been in on that thread!

I forget where I ended up with the figure, but I was talking about Coe's capability, from blocks, when at the height of his 800 powers.

I think I ended up somewhere around 11.5, IIRC, although I'm not sure.

Was his 46.87 3 11-second 100's, with a 13.87 first 100?

A 13.87 first 100 in a 400 doesn't indicate 11.5-speed.

I'll try to find the thread, it was fun and vexatious at the same time--not that I have any wish to resurrect it, it's just for your amusement.

Remember, d, I was just being vexatious.

Oh, I remember now, it was the thread suggesting Rudisha could make A standard in the 100 and 200:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4120166&page=0

Regarding Coe, I acknowledged that he could be an 11-flat guy out of the blocks, and could be one of the very few 800m guys who could get down to 10.6-10.7 if he tried IMO.

It was some other poster who was spoofing me, who posted that Coe couldn't break 12 seconds out of the blocks!

That was a fun thread, with a bunch of distance guys thinking that neither Spearmon nor Wariner could run a 4:30 mile.

Well, in another thread, we have a 40+ year old geezer who ran about that, with no recent aerobic running training.

I still believe that one of those 2 guys could do it.

Did someone revive this thread after being dormant for nearly 1 whole year (less 1 day)?

I'm not sure about all those reasons, but tend to agree that the actual percentage doesn't much matter, nor the fact that the aerobic percentage has increased over time, as scientists get better at measuring it.

After all, if these events are more aerobic than ever before, then the training must also be more aerobic, so what's the difference for the coach/athlete?

rekrunner wrote:

After all, if these events are more aerobic than ever before, then the training must also be more aerobic, so what's the difference for the coach/athlete?

The difference in training doesn´t exist from 60%-40% or 70%-30% or 80%-20% whatever. So far so good. The percent moves during the race, from the start to the finish, as the lactate accumulation during the 800m run goes higher the long distance you run at 800m pace. The Vo2max. is obtained near 600m-650m normally if you run at your 800m pace event and from then on you need to be able to carry on with the same pace or faster from there to the finish line

this are the 2 main aspects to train for 800m specifics: high lactate accumulation/tolerance and anaerobic tolerance.

The kind of ratio of resistance of 1 to 3 seconds slower from the first lap to the last lap, is get by specific resistance training, not aerobic training or LT runs.

coach d wrote:

See Duffield and Dawson, IAAF NSA 4.3.

For males, the 800 is roughly 60% aerobic, and for females it is roughly 70% aerobic, and for that reason females train differently for the event. For males, the 400 is roughly 40% aerobic (45% for females), thus males can consider the 800 more like a long 400, while for females its more like a 1500 is for males. Thus, females are going to run their best times with considerably more aerobic overdistance.

What a joke....and absurd. Different percent for male an female. What kind of coach are you that thinks that different sex got different percent ?

Male is 60%, female is 70% and gay is 65% eventually ? !

Wronngggg!!!!!!You don't start aerobically then go anaerobic. It's opposite actually, you're working anaerobically in the beginning to supply your muscles with ATP until your aerobic system has the time to catch up. In the case of the 800 it will never be able to sustain that pace so your aerobic system will catch up but you will still be getting enough contribution anaerobically to have a buildup of lactate that can't all be used, then that lactate is turned into lactic acid and felt as that burn at the end of an 800.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

- second reason is that trough the run distance each runner we doesn´t use the theh same aerobic anaerobic equilibrium. For instance the same runner at a run at mean pace from the start till the finish, might run the first 400m of a quite aerobic and from 400m to 600m half aerobic anaerobic, and in the last 200m when he reached the VO2max and exceeds, he goes anaerobic quite totally. Something similar happens every middle to long distance event. This means that the theory of the 800m anaerobic percent means no great thing as training model.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

One cannot simultaneously exhibit high aerobic AND anaerobic capability. Clearly, Coe had very high aerobic capability and concomitantly low anaerobic capability.

How do you know that either of these sentences is true?

The percent difference in the sexes makes sense. An elite male is running a 1:45 race. An elite female is running a 2:00 race. The time spent running is a factor in the degree of aerobic contribution required. The other factor is the difference in power between a man and a woman. A man has more power and carries more weight...this allows him to run faster and requires him to rely more on the anaerobic system to race an 800. A woman has less muscular power, a lighter frame, and relies slightly more on efficiency than power, compared to a man.

Aerobic training can be very beneficial to training for the 800. While I agree that it is not event specific, if you are only thinking about the paces run. It is very event specific if you consider how much the aerobic system contributes to an 800 meter race. Your ability to improve the anaerobic system and improve lactate tolerance is limited. You dive too deep into your anaerobic system and you are toast. Improving your aerobic capacity means you don't have to dive as deep into your anaerobic ability. Anaerobic training and lactate tolerance are necessary to fine tune your racing, but aerobic training has many benefits for the 800: 1) it is easier on your body. You do purely anaerobic training for 25 weeks and you are likely injured for the season. 2) it lessens your reliance on the anaerobic system in a race meaning you are less likely to redline while racing 3) It is more easily improved than your anaerobic capacity.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

One cannot simultaneously exhibit high aerobic AND anaerobic capability. Clearly, Coe had very high aerobic capability and concomitantly low anaerobic capability.

Which is why he would have trouble breaking 12 seconds from the blocks.

OK, trouble breaking 11.5 seconds--I think I negotiated down to something like that.

100m isn't anaerobic.

How do you know Coe never ran sub 11.5 out of the blocks?

Then the male or female marathon runner that takes 3:00hour to run the marathon goes more aerobic than the one that takes 2:40 and the one that takes 2:20 ?

If the male runs 800m in 1:45 and the female 2:00 and if both reach the same percent of his/her VO2max - waht is suposed to be - the run does the same aerobic percent for both, just depends of thje different aerobic-anaerobic capacity of each one to cover teh same distance, be male or female and doesn´t depend of the time spent.

Id was tre waht you say then the male 800m runner of 1:45 and the male 1:55 got 2 different aerobic percents, but perhaps the slower one goes more anaerobic than the faster one.

Of course that the aerobic condition and aerobic capacity can be effective in the 800m performance, as can be in every distance to run, and also in 100m to 400m as well.

However since the improve of the aerobic might result in rich lactate clearence (an aerobic quality) and consequently in lower lactate tolerance (an anaerobic quality) to improve lactate clearence as it´s what the LT promotes can be useless of not an obstacle to 800m better performances.

The 800m runner that needs resist and still run faster at 800m pace with 16-18-21mmol lactate, can´t do so if he got very good lactate clearence management, and consequently can´t run as fast as the one with rich anaerobic tolerance.

Of course that you are right, but i want to mean anaerobic lactate, not anaerobic alactic.

the 4 systems are: anaerobic alactic, aerobic alactic, aerobic lactic, and the anaerobic lactic. In the first seconds of the run the anaerobic but ALACTIC is working.

Smarter than you wrote:

Wronngggg!!!!!!

You don't start aerobically then go anaerobic. It's opposite actually, you're working anaerobically in the beginning to supply your muscles with ATP until your aerobic system has the time to catch up. In the case of the 800 it will never be able to sustain that pace so your aerobic system will catch up but you will still be getting enough contribution anaerobically to have a buildup of lactate that can't all be used, then that lactate is turned into lactic acid and felt as that burn at the end of an 800.

Wronnnggggg!!!!!!

The aerobic system doesn't "catch up", the supply of energy from anaerobic systems is running out. And lactate is never converted into "lactic acid".

Randy: "100m isn't anaerobic."

It obviously is if it is sprinted from the blocks...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you must have been confused somehow.

And you can forget about the Seb Coe thing, I thought everybody knew about that thread.

I'm going to endorse the idea and RESEARCH that shows that in the last 300 meters of an 800 meter race, you are deriving most of your energy from the aerobic system.

Now, the reason you are tying up and dying the last 800 meters is because you are aerobically weak. What exactly aerobic weakness means or how to fix it is a question for a smarter person. (oh yeah, this is why you care about what energy systems are contributing at what point during the race).

You always use anaerobic energy first.

Dr Dre;

We corresponded a fair bit a year ago. How did your training/racing go? Did you adapt much of the programs we discussed?

First lap of an 800m run is more anaerobic than aerobic. The aerobic system cannot operate from the start, even if you start quite slowly. You reach VO2max in the end of first lap, you can stay at VO2max 200-300m meters, after that the aerobic system is shutting down a bit because of low intra-muscular pH. Still the second lap is more aerobic dependent. Miss a good aerobic capacity --> have a mediocre anaerobic power during the race.

That´s why it´s important to train enough, including slow, medium, fast distance runs and intervals, no matter that these are far from race-specific intensity.

Some LT training isn´t bad even for an 800m runner. Some people afraids that this hinders the ability to produce lactate. It does, because it´s for aerobic capacity, so use it! Don´t overuse it. The training of an athletes anaerobic capacity is also very important. Without this you won´t create a high anaerobic power. And yes you can do well without LT training at all, on 800m running. For an example 1k intervals at ~10k pace works well on this same goal.

Smarter than you wrote:

then that lactate is turned into lactic acid [quote]

No, lactate isn´t turned into lactic acid. For each lactate molecule produced, one hydrogen ion is formed.