Is the 800 more aerobic or anaerobic

dr dre wrote:

i read somewhere on the sub 1:50 thread that the first lap was more anaerobic than the second

No sh!t Sherlock.

To somebody in shape, it is half aerobic and half anaerobic

To somebody out of shape, it is 90% anaerobic

It's mostly anaerobic. Hence the lactic acid build up with 300 to go. The first 400 is still almost a sprint but more controlled. Last 300 is all out.

It is an aerobic event. Very few 400m guys were good over the 800m. Juantorena is one of the few that comes to mind. (I suspect he had help.) Yet most sprinters could run a respectable 400 - the 400 is a long sprint. The fastest man in earth - Bolt - couldn't beat 2 minutes for the 800. Snell proved that endurance beats outright speed over the 800. As a one-time high school middle distance runner I could always beat sprinters over the half. So Lydiard proved right again.

This is an older thread (revived), so I highly recommend that the more recent contributors read through the earlier responses for some accurate and well articulated feedback...

One point I will add to the conversation is it is important to make the distinction between what the 'average' metabolic contributions are while racing the middle distance classics (800 to 1500 meters), and what the percentage of emphasis on the three primary metabolic energy systems during individual training phases are (ATP-PCr; anaerobic glycolytic; and oxidative).

Generally speaking (as has been said previously), the anaerobic : aerobic metabolic contribution of the 800 meters breaks down along these lines... Male ~60 : 40, and Female ~70 : 30 (numerous factors influence this relative finding).

So the tendency (for many) is to try to mirror these ratios throughout a season of training (60 - 70% aerobic and 30 - 40% anaerobic training ratios)... which may ultimately succeed or fail more due to the genetic FT : ST ratios of each individual rather than the veracity of the "mimic the metabolic contribution" training principle itself. That's another topic (related, but for another post)

Note, successful performance in the middle distance events is uniquely coupled to equally mitigating factors, including both physiology and biomechanics... being that the ultimate challenge is a measured balance of high velocity running while simultaneously maintaining very high levels of economy. More central to the 800 meter race, mean power output is more significant early in the race (300 - 350 meters), while energy metabolism assumes a more dominant role later in the race. Unique to successful middle distance performances, 800 - 1500 runners more closely mimic sprinters (mechanically), though ground reactionary forces are proportionally less than what's been recorded in dedicated sprinters (no surprise here). Still, the point is, when compared to distance runners (races greater than 3K), the most successful middle distance runners have a greater oscillation (center of mass), reduced contact time, greater knee flexion during swing phase, and increased stride lengths.

So knowing the general metabolic ratios is still relevant (to a degree), but the importance of focusing a significant portion of training on biomechanics, mean power output, etc... e.g. the percentage of emphasis on the three primary metabolic energy systems (ATP-PCr; anaerobic glycolytic; and oxidative) during any given training cycle can look different than what is indicated by the generalized metabolic contributions alone. It's not unreasonable then to see a strategically placed training cycle with percentages more like ATP-PCr (30%); anaerobic glycolytic (65%); and aerobic (5%) for the successful middle distance runners. Simply put... some (mechanical or otherwise) adaptations take longer to develop then others, are harder to maintain, and can diminish adaptations in other facets of training related development if timing/training occurs with a significant overlap.

One may find that it takes >50% of the training volume to maximize

Post got cut off. The final sentence was meant to say...

"One may find that it takes >50% of the total training volume to maximize

Que eye-roll... must be a message board thing with symbols, but it keeps cutting my sentence off. Anyway... one last try.

"One may find that it takes (greater than) 50% of the training volume to maximize (less than) 40% of the total race."

Depends.... wrote:

To somebody in shape, it is half aerobic and half anaerobic

To somebody out of shape, it is 90% anaerobic

Wrong.

dr dre wrote:

i have read all these reports on the physiology of the 800 like books studies and such saying it more anerobic(peter coe believed that the 800 was a sustained sprint believed it to be 70% anerobic and 30% aerobic)

some saying its more aerobic and you should focus on the aerobic system like peter snell did. harry wilson(steve ovetts coach said the 800m event was 66.6% Anaerobic and 33.3% Aerobic.

some studies estimate that it is 70% AEROBIC and 30% ANAEROBIC and not the other way around as estimated by Peter.

so i kind of need a straight answer

Who cares ?

All we know is that you have to be at IDEAL bodyweight for the 800.

If you're not at an IDEAL body weight then it doesn't matter.

Meaning bodyweight is the MOST important factor that goes into every event.

That and height.

The average Olympic 800 meter dash body weight is around 140-165.

You will never be an Olympic 800 meter dash runner at 200lbs.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is an aerobic event.

Also wrong.

no, read the thread wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is an aerobic event.

Also wrong.

So name the sprinters who have won it at championship level.

Stop thinking in terms of distance. The body doesn’t work that way. It works in terms of time. A female running the 800m in 2:20 will be more aerobic than a male running the 800m in 2:00. Think of it this way...a hobby jogger running the 5k in 25:00 will be far more aerobic than the Letsrunner going 16:00.

For the 800m let’s look up some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15966348/

“ For the 800-m event, an increased aerobic involvement was noted with a 60/40% (male) and 70/30% (female) respective contribution.”

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a7c/ebe2f750179a82a03413354250ac1ed97fdb.pdf

This one is a review of studies.

Alan

As far as Coe and company saying it’s 70% Anaerobic...I’ve seen the data they are quoting from. I’ll see if I can find it again. It basically shifts every event to right so every event is more Anaerobic. Heck they had the 2mi at I believe 40% anaerobic. It’s just not correct. You can research current science yourself to see what’s right.

Alan

Depends.... wrote:

To somebody in shape, it is half aerobic and half anaerobic

To somebody out of shape, it is 90% anaerobic

Quite the opposite, you’re slow jv girl running 3:00 is getting way more of her energy from aerobic sources than Rudisha

Bingo.

The higher anaerobic numbers were quoting AV Hill from the 1930s!

https://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank08.html

“200m speed (95% anaerobic)

400m speed (83% anaerobic)

800m speed (67% anaerobic)

1,500m speed (50% anaerobic)”

Let this be a lesson. If you’re going to quite science, try to use something from this century.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Think of it this way...a hobby jogger running the 5k in 25:00 will be far more aerobic than the Letsrunner going 16:00.

Dude.....

Like, EVERYBODY on here knows that the average letsrunner runs a sub-14:00 5k, if you discount the slow high schoolers and occasional lost hobbyjogger.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Stop thinking in terms of distance. The body doesn’t work that way. It works in terms of time. A female running the 800m in 2:20 will be more aerobic than a male running the 800m in 2:00. Think of it this way...a hobby jogger running the 5k in 25:00 will be far more aerobic than the Letsrunner going 16:00.

For the 800m let’s look up some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15966348/

“ For the 800-m event, an increased aerobic involvement was noted with a 60/40% (male) and 70/30% (female) respective contribution.”

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a7c/ebe2f750179a82a03413354250ac1ed97fdb.pdf

This one is a review of studies.

Alan

Spencer et al has it a little higher at ~66% aerobic for males (females weren't looked at in the study):

Dr. Duh wrote:

Coe is the old school of thought. Now with advances in physiology we can test more accurately; so the 800 is much more aerobic than anaerobic. 70/30 is about right.

No matter what Coe thought, his workout programs had a heavy aerobic component. Long tempos were a staple.

Correct, and if you look at the review of studies I posted Spencer is in there. It’s all really going to depend on the methods used and how fast the athletes actually run. There’s not one black and white answer. So 60% aerobic +\- 9% for males is what the review showed.

Alan