Spencer et al has 66% (+/- 1%) - so the highest on any study done to date. The test subjects used ran in the range of 1:48 - 1:53 PBs.
Another interesting finding was "the transition from pre-dominantly anaerobic energy supply to predominantly aerobic energy supply occurs between the 15- and 30-s time period for the 400-, 800-, and 1500-m events."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.654.4991&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
Spencer et al has 66% (+/- 1%) - so the highest on any study done to date. The test subjects used ran in the range of 1:48 - 1:53 PBs.
Another interesting finding was "the transition from pre-dominantly anaerobic energy supply to predominantly aerobic energy supply occurs between the 15- and 30-s time period for the 400-, 800-, and 1500-m events."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.654.4991&rep=rep1&type=pdf
That make sense because no matter what duration or speed your body will initial utilize ATP-PC System until your other systems can catch up.
Alan
Instead of calculating how anaerobic is the 800m, questions should be: 1) What training is necessary to maximize 800m potential? What is the best measure of 800m potential?
Measuring anaerobic % of 800m depends if a low mileage 400m/800m runner is in the race and said individual goes out first 400m app. 3.5 seconds slower than 400m PB vs. an 800m/1500m runner in the race who passes first 400m app. 4.5 seconds slower than 400m PB. The 400m/800m runner in above example is going to go anaerobic far earlier than a 800m/1500m Dave Wottle/Clayton Murphy/Taoufik Makhloufi type.
No matter if physiologists like David Martin, PhD (I am sure Peter Coe was simply repeating what Martin told him) state 800m is 70% anaerobic or other physiologists state 800m is 70% aerobic, logging 100 miles a week of road mileage is not the best way to reach one's 800m potential as stated by Arthur Lydiard. Snell does not boost Lydiard's argument. If Snell raced 800m now, Snell would train in a similar manner as did S. Coe/David Rudisha. Proof the 200m speed is a better indicator of 800m success than logging 100 miles a week of road mileage: At best, one races 800m 4.75 x 200m PB. Eg. 25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:58.75 800m. Eg. 21.25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:40.9
Not as Arthur Lydiard stated wrote:
Instead of calculating how anaerobic is the 800m, questions should be: 1) What training is necessary to maximize 800m potential? What is the best measure of 800m potential?
Measuring anaerobic % of 800m depends if a low mileage 400m/800m runner is in the race and said individual goes out first 400m app. 3.5 seconds slower than 400m PB vs. an 800m/1500m runner in the race who passes first 400m app. 4.5 seconds slower than 400m PB. The 400m/800m runner in above example is going to go anaerobic far earlier than a 800m/1500m Dave Wottle/Clayton Murphy/Taoufik Makhloufi type.
No matter if physiologists like David Martin, PhD (I am sure Peter Coe was simply repeating what Martin told him) state 800m is 70% anaerobic or other physiologists state 800m is 70% aerobic, logging 100 miles a week of road mileage is not the best way to reach one's 800m potential as stated by Arthur Lydiard. Snell does not boost Lydiard's argument. If Snell raced 800m now, Snell would train in a similar manner as did S. Coe/David Rudisha. Proof the 200m speed is a better indicator of 800m success than logging 100 miles a week of road mileage: At best, one races 800m 4.75 x 200m PB. Eg. 25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:58.75 800m. Eg. 21.25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:40.9
I don’t think anyone is saying to log 100 miles a week. People get in the habit of looking at the extremes.
On one side of the spectrum you have slow easy miles. On the other side of the spectrum you have all sprints. The answer is in the middle. Again, we get into the habit focusing on the wrong details and inner workings of the human anatomy instead of actually looking at what do I need to do in order to race x distance in y time.
Alan
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Not as Arthur Lydiard stated wrote:
Instead of calculating how anaerobic is the 800m, questions should be: 1) What training is necessary to maximize 800m potential? What is the best measure of 800m potential?
Measuring anaerobic % of 800m depends if a low mileage 400m/800m runner is in the race and said individual goes out first 400m app. 3.5 seconds slower than 400m PB vs. an 800m/1500m runner in the race who passes first 400m app. 4.5 seconds slower than 400m PB. The 400m/800m runner in above example is going to go anaerobic far earlier than a 800m/1500m Dave Wottle/Clayton Murphy/Taoufik Makhloufi type.
No matter if physiologists like David Martin, PhD (I am sure Peter Coe was simply repeating what Martin told him) state 800m is 70% anaerobic or other physiologists state 800m is 70% aerobic, logging 100 miles a week of road mileage is not the best way to reach one's 800m potential as stated by Arthur Lydiard. Snell does not boost Lydiard's argument. If Snell raced 800m now, Snell would train in a similar manner as did S. Coe/David Rudisha. Proof the 200m speed is a better indicator of 800m success than logging 100 miles a week of road mileage: At best, one races 800m 4.75 x 200m PB. Eg. 25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:58.75 800m. Eg. 21.25 200m PB x 4.75 = 1:40.9
I don’t think anyone is saying to log 100 miles a week. People get in the habit of looking at the extremes.
On one side of the spectrum you have slow easy miles. On the other side of the spectrum you have all sprints. The answer is in the middle. Again, we get into the habit focusing on the wrong details and inner workings of the human anatomy instead of actually looking at what do I need to do in order to race x distance in y time.
Alan
Alan
Post your own thoughts. Do not try to be a spokesman for other posters.
Snell's name has been stated in this thread. If one states Snell and 800m training, by default one is making a Lydiard 100 mile a week road mileage argument for 800m training.
CoachB wrote:
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
Someone truly out of shape would be anaerobic pretty much the whole time
Depends .. wrote:
CoachB wrote:
Quite the opposite, you’re slow jv girl running 3:00 is getting way more of her energy from aerobic sources than Rudisha
Someone truly out of shape would be anaerobic pretty much the whole time
No they wouldn’t. Someone truly fast would would be getting more anaerobic energy contributions. It’s all about duration. Running a “max effort” for 120s would have higher anaerobic contributions than running a “max effort” for 240s. Yes, you’ll have individual changes as that person “gets in better shape” but in general terms: shorter duration = more anaerobic.
Here’s some basic science:
https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/oxygen-uptake-and-the-aerobic-and-anaerobic-contributions-to-exercise/Alan
We could conduct an experiment. We know that sprinters go faster at altitude and distance runners go slower. This is a product of the air providing less drag and less power for the aerobic system. How about we look at data and see if 800's are run faster or slower at altitude? If they are more anaerobic they should be faster since anaerobic power is not reliant on how much oxygen is derived from the air.
Is this moronic attempt to break effort into separate "aerobic" and "anaerobic" components still ongoing? Allow me to clear it up once and for all. This is what happens in an 800.
) anaerobic energy systems start first, depleting stored ATP-CP and then running on glycolysis.
) the glycolysis lowers pH level inside muscle cells, creating a pH gradient between the cells and blood which increases the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide between muscle and blood.
) the higher rate of oxygen transfer allows aerobic energy to contribute significantly, AND the higher rate of CO2 removal allows anaerobic energy to continue at a high level for some time. They are not separate! They're complementary, both revved up by the same process.
) at no point during an 800 meters are you getting "more" energy aerobically than anaerobically, even though the aerobic enhances the duration of the anaerobic. The task of respiration in the event is more about removing CO2 than generating energy from O2.
) during a sustainable event like a 10,000 or marathon, you may be "mostly" running on aerobic energy (though again there's no way to quantify this) but you're NOT using more aerobic energy than you do during an 800. An 800 is an all-out energy blitz that pushes all systems near their limit.
66% aerobic, 34% anaerobic.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Is this moronic attempt to break effort into separate "aerobic" and "anaerobic" components still ongoing? Allow me to clear it up once and for all. This is what happens in an 800.
) anaerobic energy systems start first, depleting stored ATP-CP and then running on glycolysis.
) the glycolysis lowers pH level inside muscle cells, creating a pH gradient between the cells and blood which increases the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide between muscle and blood.
) the higher rate of oxygen transfer allows aerobic energy to contribute significantly, AND the higher rate of CO2 removal allows anaerobic energy to continue at a high level for some time. They are not separate! They're complementary, both revved up by the same process.
) at no point during an 800 meters are you getting "more" energy aerobically than anaerobically, even though the aerobic enhances the duration of the anaerobic. The task of respiration in the event is more about removing CO2 than generating energy from O2.
) during a sustainable event like a 10,000 or marathon, you may be "mostly" running on aerobic energy (though again there's no way to quantify this) but you're NOT using more aerobic energy than you do during an 800. An 800 is an all-out energy blitz that pushes all systems near their limit.
So the researchers and science is wrong but Bad Wigins is right?
Look dude, I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re moving the goal posts.
There are 3, really 4, methods of creating muscular energy....ATP-CP, Glycolysis (fast and slow or anaerobic and aerobic, choose your lingo), and Beta Oxidation. All methods are being used at all times. Your body is never just using one. The point of the research then is to determine the energy contributions of aerobic and anaerobic systems.
The research says around 60% aerobic. You can say a lot but yet add nothing to the final result.
Alan
Now if you disagree with their methodology, typically using accumulated oxygen deficit, that’s a fair point.
Alan
Not as Arthur Lydiard stated wrote:
Instead of calculating how anaerobic is the 800m, questions should be: 1) What training is necessary to maximize 800m potential? What is the best measure of 800m potential?
Measuring anaerobic % of 800m depends if a low mileage 400m/800m runner is in the race and said individual goes out first 400m app. 3.5 seconds slower than 400m PB vs. an 800m/1500m runner in the race who passes first 400m app. 4.5 seconds slower than 400m PB. The 400m/800m runner in above example is going to go anaerobic far earlier than a 800m/1500m Dave Wottle/Clayton Murphy/Taoufik Makhloufi type.
And who's the only one to pull a WC double gold in the 800/1500? Try Rashid Ramzi, a 1500 specialist who enhanced his performance with oxygen-vector doping. There are plenty of 800m runners who have been busted for EPO/blood doping (most recently Kipyegon Bett/bronze 2017 WC) -- they wouldn't be using 02-vector doping if the 800 wasn't primarily an aerobic event (~66%).
What a load of pretentious nerd waffle. Percentage this, percentage that. Meaningless guesswork. Put a sprinter in an 800m race and see what happens. Put someone with good basic speed (but not a short event athlete) and endurance, and there you have an 800 athlete. An athlete with more endurance than speed will also often beat a faster runner: Snell v Crothers, Kerr, Kiprugut, and anybody else. So endurance finally matters more than speed. The more endurance you have the more you are able to
run it aerobically. Lydiard knew that. But 5k runners don't compete because they don't have enough basic speed. Where the race is anaerobic for everyone is the last 100 or so metres. Like a lot of races. So how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a load of pretentious nerd waffle. Percentage this, percentage that. Meaningless guesswork. Put a sprinter in an 800m race and see what happens. Put someone with good basic speed (but not a short event athlete) and endurance, and there you have an 800 athlete. An athlete with more endurance than speed will also often beat a faster runner: Snell v Crothers, Kerr, Kiprugut, and anybody else. So endurance finally matters more than speed. The more endurance you have the more you are able to
run it aerobically. Lydiard knew that. But 5k runners don't compete because they don't have enough basic speed. Where the race is anaerobic for everyone is the last 100 or so metres. Like a lot of races. So how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Technically speaking while there is a small uptick in anaerobic contribution toward the end of a race the most anaerobic contribution is still at the beginning. What most people perceive as a “kick” is just not slowing down or slightly increasing pace. IE: if I timed you in an open 100m, which is basically 100% anaerobic and timed you at the last 100m of a middle distance you would be much slower at the end of that middle distance race.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What a load of pretentious nerd waffle. Percentage this, percentage that. Meaningless guesswork. Put a sprinter in an 800m race and see what happens. Put someone with good basic speed (but not a short event athlete) and endurance, and there you have an 800 athlete. An athlete with more endurance than speed will also often beat a faster runner: Snell v Crothers, Kerr, Kiprugut, and anybody else. So endurance finally matters more than speed. The more endurance you have the more you are able to
run it aerobically. Lydiard knew that. But 5k runners don't compete because they don't have enough basic speed. Where the race is anaerobic for everyone is the last 100 or so metres. Like a lot of races. So how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Technically speaking while there is a small uptick in anaerobic contribution toward the end of a race the most anaerobic contribution is still at the beginning. What most people perceive as a “kick” is just not slowing down or slightly increasing pace. IE: if I timed you in an open 100m, which is basically 100% anaerobic and timed you at the last 100m of a middle distance you would be much slower at the end of that middle distance race.
Alan
I completely disagree. It isn't about pace but effort. If you were putting as much effort into the first 100 as the last 100 you would be completely out of gas for the rest of the race. In fact the reason why the last 100 of the race is typically the slowest is because runners are pretty much out of reserves by that stage of the race. It has become completely anaerobic at that point. They are trying to sprint but mostly running on empty. Those with more strength and endurance will finish more strongly than those who are naturally faster but have less endurance. Snell and Ovett have shown that. The more aerobic capacity you have the more you will have left in the last stage in the race. That's why sprinters are nowhere to be seen at the end of the race - or why they don't even bother to run it. Let me know when Van Niekerk wins a championship 800. Or any kind of 800. Yet Cram couldn't break 23 for the 200 and ran a 1.42xx 800. Endurance i.e. preternatural aerobic capacity. That's why the 800 is a fascinating race. It doesn't necessarily favour the fastest, but the strongest.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Technically speaking while there is a small uptick in anaerobic contribution toward the end of a race the most anaerobic contribution is still at the beginning. What most people perceive as a “kick” is just not slowing down or slightly increasing pace. IE: if I timed you in an open 100m, which is basically 100% anaerobic and timed you at the last 100m of a middle distance you would be much slower at the end of that middle distance race.
Alan
I completely disagree. It isn't about pace but effort. If you were putting as much effort into the first 100 as the last 100 you would be completely out of gas for the rest of the race. In fact the reason why the last 100 of the race is typically the slowest is because runners are pretty much out of reserves by that stage of the race. It has become completely anaerobic at that point. They are trying to sprint but mostly running on empty. Those with more strength and endurance will finish more strongly than those who are naturally faster but have less endurance. Snell and Ovett have shown that. The more aerobic capacity you have the more you will have left in the last stage in the race. That's why sprinters are nowhere to be seen at the end of the race - or why they don't even bother to run it. Let me know when Van Niekerk wins a championship 800. Or any kind of 800. Yet Cram couldn't break 23 for the 200 and ran a 1.42xx 800. Endurance i.e. preternatural aerobic capacity. That's why the 800 is a fascinating race. It doesn't necessarily favour the fastest, but the strongest.
Agree with this. Have 17 year old run 153 800m and he would struggle to run 52 for 400m. Endurance and a touch of speed the key.
Bad Wigins wrote, in part:
") at no point during an 800 meters are you getting 'more' energy aerobically than anaerobically..."
Look at the diagram to the right on page 3:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.654.4991&rep=rep1&type=pdf
When the line with the squares goes higher than the line with the circles at about 30 seconds, what part of that are you disputing?
You can't throw any specific number like 66% and think that applies to everyone. The message being that the overall percentages are different for virtually everyone but it will always end up to be more aerobic. Always.
A 16 year old female that runs a decent time for that age of 2:12 will have a high percentage of aerobic than a world class male runner coming in at 1:43 purely because the race is longer in duration.
The kid on the high school team that smiles all the way through the race never pushing it will have an even higher aerobic contribution.
Like others said it really matters how a person runs the race and that the regenerating systems run on a continuum. Most studies have their subjects perform at maximum effort.
So this thing about jogging the first 600 and then hammering the last 200 is an awful strategy but I have seen high school do that at every meet and their anaerobic contribution at the end of the race will look a little different than the athlete that got out there and held their pace in the latter stages of the race.
otter wrote:
You can't throw any specific number like 66% and think that applies to everyone. The message being that the overall percentages are different for virtually everyone but it will always end up to be more aerobic. Always.
A 16 year old female that runs a decent time for that age of 2:12 will have a high percentage of aerobic than a world class male runner coming in at 1:43 purely because the race is longer in duration.
The kid on the high school team that smiles all the way through the race never pushing it will have an even higher aerobic contribution.
Like others said it really matters how a person runs the race and that the regenerating systems run on a continuum. Most studies have their subjects perform at maximum effort.
So this thing about jogging the first 600 and then hammering the last 200 is an awful strategy but I have seen high school do that at every meet and their anaerobic contribution at the end of the race will look a little different than the athlete that got out there and held their pace in the latter stages of the race.
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a concrete number for everyone.
I find it hilarious when people are disagreeing with basic science even when multiple studies or scientific textbooks are shown.
It’s like arguing with flat earthers.
Alan