Is the 800 more aerobic or anaerobic

Maybe you're not, but there are quite a few on here that want to find that exact percentage for everyone. It does not exist. It's like saying 4mmol is lactate threshold for everyone. Also false.

Running is not a graph. Races are not run in textbooks. Try doing it some time.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

“. It has become completely anaerobic at that point.”

You’re wrong. And the earth is not flat. Look at the link the other guy just posted, scroll down to the graph of the 800m.

Alan

Running is not a graph. Races are not run in textbooks. Try doing it some time.

Some of what you said is correct but when you dive into the science end of the argument you really do not know what you are talking about. Your last post should have been your first and it would have been respected.

I agree that we get too wrapped up in science sometimes but it's important to make an effort to learn if you are trying to convince others. Lydiard understood that his methods needed to be explained even though he knew they worked anyway. He took the time to learn the science of his day so that he could turn around and explain better why his training was effective.

Good endurance plus blazing 400 speed is one formula that will work. There's a few 4/8 guys who have the fastest 400 and have done very well:

Rudisha 1:40.91/WR (45.15)

Amos 1:41.73/4th OA (45.56)

Korir 1:42.05/6th 0A (44.21)

Borzakovskiy/1:42.47 11th OA (45.84)

Hell, Korir's 400 PB is faster than the PBs of 4 of the 8 finalists in the 400 at Rio! So, if VN trained for the 8, building an adequate endurance base, he might bury Rudisha's WR. But some 400 guys are probably to big/muscular and need to slim down considerbly to handle the mileage necessary to build a good endurance base (if they would want to move up anyway).

Btw, those four guys above are all faster than Snell, Overt & Cram - so much for your more strenght & endurance platform. Lol.

And at Athens where Borzakovskiy won a stunning victory over WK it sure didn't favor the 8/15 guys but speed won the day. He just cruises along in the back of the pack, opens up a little on the backstretch and unleashes a horrific sprint in the front stretch. He almost negative split that race! Great victory for the Russian - toast some Vodka!

Armstronglivs wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

“. It has become completely anaerobic at that point.”

You’re wrong. And the earth is not flat. Look at the link the other guy just posted, scroll down to the graph of the 800m.

Alan

Running is not a graph. Races are not run in textbooks. Try doing it some time.

I have thank you.

Still doesn’t change what is happening inside your body during that race.

Does this really matter? Nope. Does it change how we train? Nope. Are we going to spend pages upon pages on Letsrun arguing over basic scientific principles like whether or not the earth is round? Yep.

Just because you are moving “as fast as you can” at that particular moment doesn’t mean you are running purely anaerobically. An example of this would be the 400m, which is approximately 50/50 Aerobic/Anaerobic, maybe a little more Anaerobic for some. Still a large aerobic component either way. Still, would you agree that we run this pretty much all out from the start right? We are moving “as fast as we can”, basically a long sprint.

Just read up in the science. Thanks.

Alan

otter wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Running is not a graph. Races are not run in textbooks. Try doing it some time.

Some of what you said is correct but when you dive into the science end of the argument you really do not know what you are talking about. Your last post should have been your first and it would have been respected.

I agree that we get too wrapped up in science sometimes but it's important to make an effort to learn if you are trying to convince others. Lydiard understood that his methods needed to be explained even though he knew they worked anyway. He took the time to learn the science of his day so that he could turn around and explain better why his training was effective.

I am not interested in science that doesn't tell me anything more than what is obvious. Does the "science" change anything that Lydiard knew, both from experience and from observing his athletes, which is that the 800m is chiefly an endurance event? Sprinters don't succeed at it. Do we need science to tell us that?

historical revision wrote:

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.

So if this ratio is the case shown by current phsiological models, wouldn't that tend to imply that the Coe's were way out with their training schedules and that with current methods of training he would have run the 800m faster still than 1:41!!?

The Coe's would have been very thorough and analysed the right combination of training required to run optimum for a crack at the 800m WR. If Peter Coe believed in 1981 that the 800m was 70% anaerobic, then that's what his son's training would have focused on. Everyone is unique in what works best for them, but if the overwhelming evidence now supports a very different balance, 70/30 in favour of aerobic training, then that would imply to me that Coe was capable of faster still over 800m had he adapted his training to more mileage.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not interested in science that doesn't tell me anything more than what is obvious. Does the "science" change anything that Lydiard knew, both from experience and from observing his athletes, which is that the 800m is chiefly an endurance event? Sprinters don't succeed at it. Do we need science to tell us that?

Nope not really. I respect that viewpoint.

Just don't post ideas that athletes run aerobic and then tap out and are all anaerobic. It doesn't work that way.

I didn't say that a race is anaerobic because a runner might be running as fast as they can at any given moment; the point you leave out that I mentioned earlier is that it is towards the end of the race that the 800m becomes truly anaerobic. That is also generally the slowest part of the race. The athletes are at that point running on reserves, because their oxygen intake is insufficient to compensate for their expenditure of energy. In an athlete with less endurance or aerobic capacity, that point is likely to be arrived at sooner in the race - so they tie-up sooner - or, alternatively, they have to run at a slower pace. All this is observable without graphs. If you consider this a form of "flat-earthism", are you trying to argue the 800m is not primarily an endurance event? If you aren't saying that then the rest is pedantry.

Of the guys you refer to, only one was an Olympic champion and world record holder over the 800m, and that is Rudisha. He is also not a 400m eventer. The only one who qualifies as being equally good over 400 as he is over the 800 is Korir. But he is not a world record holder over the longer event nor yet an Olympic champion. Same with the others you mention. On the other hand, Snell was a double Olympic champion and world record holder. Yet he was only a 48 sec man over 400. Ovett was not much faster over that distance, while being an Olympic champion over 2-laps. Cram had one of the fastest 800m times in his era, and yet would have struggled to beat 49 secs over 400. The point is that runners who have comparatively lacked 400 speed have been amongst the best in their eras over the 800 - they were typically 1500 runners - while I can think of only one top 400 runner who was just as successful at the longer distance. That was Juantorena way back in '76. While a certain level of basic speed is necessary for the 800, endurance still matters more - or the super-fast guys would have taken over the event. They haven't. And that is even in an era when doping has become endemic in the sport.

“I mentioned earlier is that it is towards the end of the race that the 800m becomes truly anaerobic.”

Just because a runner is “tying up” due to anaerobic byproducts doesn’t mean the last part of the race is only anaerobic or “truly anaerobic” or even more than half anaerobic. It just means those anaerobic conditions are causing you to tie up. Those byproducts have been building up the entire race.

You do not understand the science behind it. That’s ok. But it is pointless to argue about it when you are wrong.

Alan

Grasping the obvious is not your strong point. If runners are tieing-up towards the end of the race then of course it is because of the build-up of anaerobic conditions earlier in the race. That is what happens with a sustained level of high effort. There isn't a switch that is flicked at around 700m that suddenly plunges athletes into that state from nowhere, which is why I said it is typically the slowest part of the race. There has been an accretion of fatigue - oxygen-debt - that has been building up well before that point, which is what you describe as the anaerobic conditions of the race. But it has to be apparent to anyone who has both competed in the event as well as observed it at championship level, that for the greater part of the race the balance has to be in favour of aerobic effort. Or the athlete's race is over well before the finish.

Agree. Then what’s with you saying it’s an anaerobic race, specifically saying the end is where it becomes truely anaerobic?

Alan

My experience and observation of the race is that it can often be divided into phases, that will vary to the extent those phases are aerobic or anaerobic.

In a fast-paced race the first 150m are usually run hard, and the balance of effort up to that point would be more anerobic than aerobic; from there, when a runner has achieved a desired race position, he aims to relax and maintain a high but manageable pace through to the end of the first lap; the balance has shifted to aerobic rather than anaerobic effort, so as to leave sufficient resources to run the second lap.

Holding this pace through the bottom bend is now adding to the oxygen debt, but the real effort takes place in the back straight, as the athletes strive to achieve a good position in the lead-up to the finish. In fact, I would say the back straight is where many races are won or lost, because the athlete with greater endurance (and better position) is better able to sustain the necessary effort to maintain position than those with less endurance; this will be crucial as to which of them has the most in reserve for the finish.

From the back straight to the top bend the anaerobic conditions are increasing dramatically for all athletes. This will continue to the finish. But if the balance moves too far in that direction too soon for any of the runners then their race is basically over - they will have nothing left in the home straight.

At the finish everyone is expending whatever energy they have left - the aerobic part of the race has ended and it is that phase which I refer to as the completely anaerobic part of the race. The runner with greater endurance who has incurred less oxygen debt usually finishes best - if they have been in a good position.

I'm guessing there is confusion or disagreement about anaerobic vs. aerobic in the 800m because:

1) In the last part of the 800m the level of fatigue is very high.

2) The lactate levels are also high at that stage of the race.

3) Even though the fatigue and lactate levels are high, the predominant energy system is the aerobic system at that stage of the race.

4) The body feelings in the last stage of the 800m and after the race (heavy burning legs, breathing really hard, that taste of blood or metal or whatever, the puking, etc.) are hard to reconcile with the science that says, "But the 800m is primarily aerobic and is more aerobic than anaerobic every step of the race after 30 seconds or so!"

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I'm guessing there is confusion or disagreement about anaerobic vs. aerobic in the 800m because:

1) In the last part of the 800m the level of fatigue is very high.

2) The lactate levels are also high at that stage of the race.

3) Even though the fatigue and lactate levels are high, the predominant energy system is the aerobic system at that stage of the race.

4) The body feelings in the last stage of the 800m and after the race (heavy burning legs, breathing really hard, that taste of blood or metal or whatever, the puking, etc.) are hard to reconcile with the science that says, "But the 800m is primarily aerobic and is more aerobic than anaerobic every step of the race after 30 seconds or so!"

Yep this.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I'm guessing there is confusion or disagreement about anaerobic vs. aerobic in the 800m because:

1) In the last part of the 800m the level of fatigue is very high.

2) The lactate levels are also high at that stage of the race.

3) Even though the fatigue and lactate levels are high, the predominant energy system is the aerobic system at that stage of the race.

4) The body feelings in the last stage of the 800m and after the race (heavy burning legs, breathing really hard, that taste of blood or metal or whatever, the puking, etc.) are hard to reconcile with the science that says, "But the 800m is primarily aerobic and is more aerobic than anaerobic every step of the race after 30 seconds or so!"

Yep this.

Alan

Exactly. It's more about H+ accumulation which is linear to lactate production.

I know Lydiard explained things in terms of liters of O2 debt but I'm not certain that is correct in that the sequencing of events is backwards. It implies whether intentionally or not that you are primarily aerobic early in the race until you fall into O2 debt and then you are almost entirely anaerobic. At the start of the race you are using primarily the alactic system, then glycolytic. Those ATP rebuilding mechanisms use no O2. So, the idea of accumulating liters of O2 debt is debunked. Right? But, Lydiard worked with the science of his day, his training methods worked, he had the confidence of his athletes, and was a far better coach than I will ever be.

The explanation works in sort of the same way as highly developed aerobically trained athletes are getting into less "trouble" during the race because of their large aerobic engines in the same way they would to accumulate H+ at a slower rate because of their strong aerobic contribution.

That's why I would agree that we can get too caught up in the science when the training methods don't change because in either case you would need to be very strong aerobically. But, I also think that if you are coming here without a modern day science background you should read up a bit before expressing an opinion about that. Or just be the guy / girl that says "train like this because it works!" That is also valid as far as I'm concerned. Some really great coaches through the history of our sport are not entirely on the ball with science.

In my case if I am telling a kid on the team I coach something that conflicts with their AP bio class and I am incorrect I end up looking ignorant to my athletes. At that point they may no longer believe in my training.

All good points above. I feel appropriately chastened about the science. All I really know is how to throw a spear. But that can come in handy.

I would add this about Lydiard. The science has moved well beyond what he knew in his day - or mine. But his methods were mostly on point. However, what may be less well understood was his capacity to inspire - and sometimes just through his books alone. Every word he wrote spoke of what he learned and observed through experience. And the examples of those athletes he had set upon the path to greatness - firstly, a coterie of outstanding talents from his own country and even local running club - reinforced everything he said. Knowledge is important but without character it may go nowhere. Unsurprisingly, his protégés and later champions showed much of the same. It may sound kind of funny but although I never met the guy I will never forget him.