Yeah... but its the anticpation of that last 100 that wears on you. If you pace a mile or 5k correctly its hard the whole way but when you kick the last 400 its actually a relief instead of the death brain fog you get in an all out 400 or 800.
There just isnt any avoiding the extreme lactic acid burn you get in a 400 or 800.. Plus, I was always terrified I was going to pull a hamstring whenever i ran a 400 0r 800.
If I had my choice between being a 1:43 800 man or a 3:29 1500 guy I'm going with the 1500 all the way. The only 800 man I envy is Rudisha. For the 400, the only guy who made it look tolerable was Wariner.
Applied Science:
Lactate acid (in humans) doesn't burn. That's muscle failure you have experienced.
Everything else you stated was fine.
If you are so great then run the 5K and set a world record that will never ever be broken. Heck to read your words it's like you can break 3:00 for the 1500! Your IQ must be below 80.
When you run the 800m enough, the 400m isn't so bad.
When you run the 1500m enough, the 800m is not so bad.
When you run the 5000m enough, the 1500m is not so bad.
When you run the 10000m enough, the 5000m is not so bad.
If you want to know what true ecstasy is run ultramarathons.
Yes, this is truly what others must mean by a troll thread. The answer should be obvious but then again that is why we have false news. Wow, really people?
It's not hating life but it IS enjoying the pain. I realized this when I dated a woman who was into some rough sex. I loved it and I certainly enjoy life.
This sounds good but how do you know if this is true? You’ve never experienced life as anything other than yourself.
If you’re going 95% of top end speed it’s going to hurt if you’re a 10.5 guy or 13.0 guy.
this sounds right because it holds together logically, but the absolute intensity is way higher the faster you are so the toll it takes on the body is higher even if the relative intensity is the same.
“The toll it takes on the body is higher”. Again, you’re saying it like it’s fact and I’m just curious what this fact is based on. My own personal experience was that the 4 and 8 felt just as hard when I was a 50/1:53 guy as a senior as when I was a 60/2:14 guy as a freshman. Definitely remember puking after a 2:14 but really never once I was below 2:00.
Maybe you’re right I’m just wondering when and how this was studied between different runners of different speeds.
No it doesn't, training for the 400/800 is about the most fun you could do. You get away from doing A LOT of slow boring milage for the longer distances, you get to lift weights, sprint, plyometrics etc.
We would usually not say it but you 400/800 guys who say your events are the toughest need to train for the 10K with a coach for at least a year. THEN you can come back and complain about how tough your wimpy events are.
Ive raced both. 800 way worse. But clearly at some point we are all just talking about something different. 10k no doubt has its barriers and mental hurdles. But while the 8 is short, I do think its somewhat unique in that feeling when you cross 400 feeling super close to what you feel like after an all-out 4, but knowing you have 400 to go. That's the ticket. And thats why beginners and even somewhat experienced 800 runners lose 5-10 sec between 4 and 6. They get shut down acutely by the brain more than anything.
No it doesn't, training for the 400/800 is about the most fun you could do. You get away from doing A LOT of slow boring milage for the longer distances, you get to lift weights, sprint, plyometrics etc.
We would usually not say it but you 400/800 guys who say your events are the toughest need to train for the 10K with a coach for at least a year. THEN you can come back and complain about how tough your wimpy events are.
Incorrect. Training for the 10k is not about being tough, its about being able to do boring and repetitive training. Thats why 800m training is fun. 10km training is (mostly) repetitive volume-based training.
Most marketable events. Any college recruiter will tell you. If you are a good 400/800, you are more versatile than anyone else.
I think the 800/1500 runners are the most versatile. Runners like Steve Ovett. He ran XC and 5000m as well as a decent 400m and obviously 800 & 1500. Where the 400/800 runners might excel is in the jumping events, at least at the collegiate level. They have more basic speed so they may be good jumpers and relay runners.
I enjoyed the shorter training a lot more. Pumping iron and being strong is fun. I can enjoy a long run, but almost never as much as running hills and fast reps. The pain you experience training for longer distances is totally different. It's a lot more manageable and very boring to me. The real downside of longer distances, like marathons, at least to me, is how much "other" stuff it entails. Bruised toenails, lots of chaffing, 2hr+ long runs, being exhausted all day. I can go and run a good hill workout in under an hour and have enough energy for the rest of the day. Try that with a marathon long run/tempo.
this sounds right because it holds together logically, but the absolute intensity is way higher the faster you are so the toll it takes on the body is higher even if the relative intensity is the same.
“The toll it takes on the body is higher”. Again, you’re saying it like it’s fact and I’m just curious what this fact is based on. My own personal experience was that the 4 and 8 felt just as hard when I was a 50/1:53 guy as a senior as when I was a 60/2:14 guy as a freshman. Definitely remember puking after a 2:14 but really never once I was below 2:00.
Maybe you’re right I’m just wondering when and how this was studied between different runners of different speeds.
The toll on the body is higher to a certain extent. Thru training, you may now have an average lactate concentration for 800m similar to a time you ran previously that was 5 secs slower. Now, in another scenario later, you may now have a faster 800m time, but it was attributed to you being able to average a higher lactate concentration over 800m. This first scenario doesn't take a higher toll on your body, but the second one inevitably does.
There's physical limits on how fast humans can go. Once you get closer to collegiate elite and world class fitness, you can only improve time at the same lactate concentration so much. You have to work on increasing your overall average lactate concentration over the distance. By "toll" in this context I'm speaking to the race, but elite athletes thru training are likely able to revovery quicker than ametuers even if the race itself took a higher relative toll.
It's sort of like heart rate. It's great to acheive a time at a lower heart rate than previosly before, but when fitness begins to stagnate, efforts must be made towards being able to acheive a higher heart rate for a longer amount of time.
We would usually not say it but you 400/800 guys who say your events are the toughest need to train for the 10K with a coach for at least a year. THEN you can come back and complain about how tough your wimpy events are.
Ive raced both. 800 way worse. But clearly at some point we are all just talking about something different. 10k no doubt has its barriers and mental hurdles. But while the 8 is short, I do think its somewhat unique in that feeling when you cross 400 feeling super close to what you feel like after an all-out 4, but knowing you have 400 to go. That's the ticket. And thats why beginners and even somewhat experienced 800 runners lose 5-10 sec between 4 and 6. They get shut down acutely by the brain more than anything.
We would usually not say it but you 400/800 guys who say your events are the toughest need to train for the 10K with a coach for at least a year. THEN you can come back and complain about how tough your wimpy events are.
Incorrect. Training for the 10k is not about being tough, its about being able to do boring and repetitive training. Thats why 800m training is fun. 10km training is (mostly) repetitive volume-based training.
“The toll it takes on the body is higher”. Again, you’re saying it like it’s fact and I’m just curious what this fact is based on. My own personal experience was that the 4 and 8 felt just as hard when I was a 50/1:53 guy as a senior as when I was a 60/2:14 guy as a freshman. Definitely remember puking after a 2:14 but really never once I was below 2:00.
Maybe you’re right I’m just wondering when and how this was studied between different runners of different speeds.
The toll on the body is higher to a certain extent. Thru training, you may now have an average lactate concentration for 800m similar to a time you ran previously that was 5 secs slower. Now, in another scenario later, you may now have a faster 800m time, but it was attributed to you being able to average a higher lactate concentration over 800m. This first scenario doesn't take a higher toll on your body, but the second one inevitably does.
There's physical limits on how fast humans can go. Once you get closer to collegiate elite and world class fitness, you can only improve time at the same lactate concentration so much. You have to work on increasing your overall average lactate concentration over the distance. By "toll" in this context I'm speaking to the race, but elite athletes thru training are likely able to revovery quicker than ametuers even if the race itself took a higher relative toll.
It's sort of like heart rate. It's great to acheive a time at a lower heart rate than previosly before, but when fitness begins to stagnate, efforts must be made towards being able to acheive a higher heart rate for a longer amount of time.
What you often find with 400/800 guys is they do not like to warmup. Longer distance runners warmup and warm down every workout.
I enjoyed the shorter training a lot more. Pumping iron and being strong is fun. I can enjoy a long run, but almost never as much as running hills and fast reps. The pain you experience training for longer distances is totally different. It's a lot more manageable and very boring to me. The real downside of longer distances, like marathons, at least to me, is how much "other" stuff it entails. Bruised toenails, lots of chaffing, 2hr+ long runs, being exhausted all day. I can go and run a good hill workout in under an hour and have enough energy for the rest of the day. Try that with a marathon long run/tempo.
Most marketable events. Any college recruiter will tell you. If you are a good 400/800, you are more versatile than anyone else.
Yes, because if you move speed up they will usually have more success. Track & Field is about SPEED in every event. How may years will it take you to learn that?
You could put your hand over an open flame for 13 seconds if you had to.
Yeah... but its the anticpation of that last 100 that wears on you. If you pace a mile or 5k correctly its hard the whole way but when you kick the last 400 its actually a relief instead of the death brain fog you get in an all out 400 or 800.
There just isnt any avoiding the extreme lactic acid burn you get in a 400 or 800.. Plus, I was always terrified I was going to pull a hamstring whenever i ran a 400 0r 800.
If I had my choice between being a 1:43 800 man or a 3:29 1500 guy I'm going with the 1500 all the way. The only 800 man I envy is Rudisha. For the 400, the only guy who made it look tolerable was Wariner.
So, sprinting the last 50 in the marathon doesn't hurt? You have no clue.