800m: Positive or negative splitting?

Coach432 wrote:

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Your body starts aerobic, then switches to anaerobic when, because of the intensity, the aerobic system can't catch up. By 600m, you are primarily using your anaerobic system, thus you are experiencing lactic acid (the by-product of anaerobic respiration). New research suggests that it is the hydrogen ions produced during anaerobic respiration that actually screws up the nerves in the muscles and causes you to slow down.

To answer the question, in theory, even splits are the best. This is very difficult for inexperienced runners to do, but big positive splits are not the best way to do it.

Coach432, you need to learn some basic physiology. The 800 is progressively more AEROBIC. You start Anaerobic, and as those supplies gradually diminish, the oxidative processes start to dominate.

Confused 800 runner wrote:

As someone who is really close to breaking 2 (like 2:00.5) I've looked into different racing strategies. I feel that physically, I am capable of breaking 2 minutes right now, and my general strategy is even splitting (30x4 last race) with a strong kick to the finish. However, it seems that many professional 800m runners tend to positive split whereas for most of my races I tend to even/negative. I know it sounds foolish for me to compare my racing to that of a professional, but if I wanted to get the fastest time possible, what's the most effective strategy to employ?

You are more of a distance runner if you run even pace. The 800m specialists are very fast over 200 and 400 and that is why they run the first 200 very fast, and then they just hang on as long as they can.

J.O. wrote:

You are more of a distance runner if you run even pace. The 800m specialists are very fast over 200 and 400 and that is why they run the first 200 very fast, and then they just hang on as long as they can.

Um, ever heard of Borzakovsky?!?! I kinda think he could be termed "800 specialist", and I kinda remember him running many of his best races with even splits, not a very fast 200 and hanging on as long he could. Not even close.

(great example: as a 19 yo in the Olympic semis, he ran 26, 26, 26, 26. Looked like he was kicking like crazy, and he came from 40 meters down at 200!, but he just ran even while everyone else who died (except 1 guy), ran your suggested strategy)

The most optimal way to run this event is to slightly negative split. Especially since you are obviously more of a 3k 5k guy. If you go out faster than 59 you will burn your tank and have nothing for the finish. You have to take out conservatively and push the last 120 meters to break 2:00. Or a better idea would be to just forget about it and run the 5k. In my personal opinion, a sub 16 in a 5k means more than a sub 2 in an 800.

As for your race where you took out in 63, sometimes races do not allow for PR's. Especially in a race like the 800 you have to just go with the flow of the race. If I were you I would just find a competitive 800 (multiple guys seeded at 1:54-1:59) and then take off in last place and try to kick people down in the end. Then start concentrating on the 5k!

Borsakovsky never ran 1.41 did he?

I am still waiting for someone to show an example of an optimal race run with negative or even splits.

Wottle's Gold and that 2008 race were not fast.

We have pointed out that the link to that Borsakovsky race where he won from way back in 1:42 was still a positive split.

Well it depends what type of runner you are doesn't it?

The first lap is much more anaerobic, and the second much more aerobic. The opposite of what most people think.

We all have different muscle fiber profiles, and thus different ways of running an 800.

The top 800 guys have 22 second 200 speed or even quicker, and so a 49 second first lap isn't too fast for them, but beyond what others with better endurance can do.

you are so full of it. you cite one guy from a semi-final to prove your point. Do you really think 1) no other guy ran a good race in that race 2) no one else pr'ed in that race 3) that the strategy was obviously crap because he couldn't get away with that garbage in the finals, 4) its pure distance runner strategy and you'd have to enjoy losing to run that strategy 5) why don't you give the kid some accurate info, like i dunno how every WR and AR was ever run................ WITH A POSITIVE SPLIT!

toro wrote:I am still waiting for someone to show an example of an optimal race run with negative or even splits.

Wottle's Gold and that 2008 race were not fast.

We have pointed out that the link to that Borsakovsky race where he won from way back in 1:42 was still a positive split.

1:44.3 WR Jim Ryun 10.06.1966

The last 800/880 yard world record set using negative splits was by Jim Ryun - you can probably look it up.

Negative splits are not the ideal way to run an 800 for a decent shot at a PR.

Jim Ryun was a beast.

Negative split 3:51.1 mile WR while leading from the gun.

There is video of that that I have seen.

He ran 1:44.9 for 880 yards which covered 800m in 1:44.3.

I want to know if it is urban legend that it was a negative split.

What were the splits?

1966 is quite a ways back to find an optimal negative split 800.

I have run over 400 800m races (including relays) and have coached at least 200 800m runners and I will tell you that guys who are saying keep it simple and push as hard as you can for 2 laps got it right. That is certainly not the advice I would give in most situation, but I am keeping in mind that this athlete is a distance runner, young and inexperienced. Too much of the bad advice in coming from distance runners, the 800 is not at all like a mile; if you are a distance runner, it’s basically a sprint. The race is short, hopefully less than 2 minutes...there is not a lot of time to be figuring things out. If you are running the race correctly, you will feel fatigue after the first 300 hundred meters and by 500 you are going to wish you could walk off the track; however, that is the exact point where you are actually an 800 meter runner. The point when your body is saying stop is where you need to take off.

Don't think about splits

Don't think about settling into a rhythm

Don't think about what your body is telling you

Step 1: Run the first 400 practically all out.

Step 2: From 400 to 600 continue to push hard, don't back off.

Step: Put the last 200m in God's hand, if you are in shape and if you know you are about to achieve your goal of breaking 2 minutes, you are going to die, but you will make it to the finish line in time.

Once you run one race like that and you know what it feels like and you know that that you can push beyond fatigue, you will not only break 2 minutes, but your times will continue to drop. Also, your mile times will drop as well because some of the 800 mental toughness you have learned will carry over to other events as well. In the 800, except the fact that you will hurt, this is the nature of the event and you can't pace, even split or negative your way out of that.

Once you start running fast times, you can start thinking about strategy, but the first sub-2 is about learning what you physical capabilities are and guts.

STOP THE NONSENSE TALK ABOUT NEGATIVE SPLITTING!

toro wrote:I want to know if it is urban legend that it was a negative split.

What were the splits?

it's quoted as -ve splits

i'm sure exact splits are easy enough to find in archives - it's almost certainly quoted in his youtube vid discussing his race

1966 is quite a ways back to find an optimal negative split 800.

but it lasted as = wr for 7y until fiasconara's 1'43.7 in '73 & considering ryun didn't run it on a fully synthetic track, it's likely it wasn't "properly" beaten until coe's 1'42.4 in '79 ( not taking into consideration a coupla notable runs by kenyans in '68/'74 )

The splits that get thrown around are 53.6/51.3

That's a pretty major negative split of 2.3 seconds.

Given that he didn't run many 800m races you would figure he could go faster but, hey, it was a World Record.

The split could be from someone in the stands that totally missed the quarter mark or maybe it was a 400m track and they started 5 yards back from the start, meaning the first split was 445 yards and the second split was 435 yards.

I am just saying that a 45 year old unoffical split may not be accurate.

I am fine with the idea that he did negative split the race.

Anomalies happen (Bob Beamon).

Here is the interview dicussing the race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTPCspfwCI

they didn't run 880y races on 400m tracks

whatever the exact splits, they were for = distances

& i highly doubt the quoted splits were from some bozo in the stands - if it was timed well enough to get wr status, you can bet your bottom $ the official timekeeper took a 1/2 way split

I am sure they had FAT timing hooked up back then. Just like the Jerry Lingerin 2 Mile time that Lukas just missed... yeah load of sh*t in my opinion. dudes probs cheated, straigth up cut times of. I mean what, you just needed to have a few of you pals agree you ran the time, and wham, YOU DID IT!!!

Your previous post said, exactly, run the first lap in 5 seconds slower than your current 400m, then run the second lap 4.5% slower than the first. Following that logic, the person with the faster 400 time will win by precisely 2.045 times the difference in 400m bests. That is a completely different thing than saying "400 speed is very important in determining 800 racing strategy."The rest of the post was directed towards the entire thread, not your statement.

ventolin^3 wrote:

if it was timed well enough to get wr status, you can bet your bottom $ the official timekeeper took a 1/2 way split

Then show me some link of the official split.

Official splits are a fairly new thing.

This event was hand-timed. There was not an official taking a half way split for every runner. Officials don't take splits when timing a race.

An FAT machine can get everyone's splits nowadays if it is set up for it but this was not FAT timed.

Julius Achon holds the NCAA in season 800m record at 1:44.55.

There was no official split for that race.

I can tell you that he came through the 400 dead last in 51. because I was standing in the infield timing it while waiting for my race in the next heat.

I didn't click the split because I was watching all of the guys and got their finishing times.

But I could come on here and say I split him in 51.5/53.0 and if I post it enough times it will become the gospel.

He did go from last to first over the final 400 so it looked like a negative split maybe it was 52.5/52.0.

Point is Jim Ryun's negative split 880 y record has become the gospel.

And it is the only 800 WR discussed as a negative split.

I actually believe it.

How can we ratify this?

It's only marginally on topic, but this stuff should probably be addressed:

The second part (running the way you like) definitely should be taken into account a lot of the time, but the bit about pure physics and even pace really only applies to some theoretical machine that could draw from its various energy sources at an even rate throughout and would never have to allot any additional energy to accelerating at the start. Of course, a body isn't that type of machine. Its energy pathways don't always operate at a constant rate; nor do they interact at a constant rate. When running at a reasonable 800m speed, in the act of accelerating to speed off the starting line - and when running at race pace (even a second or two per 400 slower than 800 pace) - the lion's share of contribution from anaerobic pathways (phosphocreatine and glycolysis) occurs pretty early in the race. The overall energy distribution is 55% to 65% via aerobic metabolism (closer to 55% for a race of shorter duration - i.e., 1:41 as opposed to 2:30) and 35% to 45% anaerobic, with the contribution from aerobic metabolism rising continually throughout the event. The best strategy with the kind of speeds involved in the 800 is to recognize the need for some sense of pacing, but to get a faster-than-average-pace start and make the most use of the anaerobic pathways early, while they're delivering their peak contribution to the effort. Get the ball rolling, so to speak. In this way, you can almost cop a "free" second or two versus trying to run at a perfectly even pace. Are there some runners that might be the exceptions to this "rule"? Yeah, sure, maybe. Those are probably the guys who aren't too fast at 400 and can't run the opening lap very much ahead of pace without being maxed out early and tying up like a big dog.

So it even makes sense in theory to try for a slight positive split in a PR attempt at 800. Of course, new measurement techniques will arise and there will probably be future research that calls into question or even refutes outright the findings of all that research that was done between 1994 and 2006, which primarily used the accumulated oxygen deficit method and measurements of changes in muscle substrates to assess the contribution of the different energy systems during various events. But at the end of the day, you know what? Theory is buggar-all. Actual performances paint a better picture than small-sample lab research ever could. Sure, a number of championship 800m races have been won with even or negative splits, but - despite all the attempts to tinker around with record-setting 2-lap strategies over the decades - only the tiniest number of career-best times are achieved this way. If records continue to fall, some people might conjecture that there will be a tendency toward even splits. But I'm guessing that ideal splits will still be positive (though perhaps slightly less positive). Why? Because if 800m runners as a whole get faster, it stands to reason that more of the pool of 800 specialists will also be faster at 400, allowing the vast majority of them just as much wiggle room between top-end 400 speed and average 2-lap pace as people have now. They'll still be getting out ahead of average pace without having it be too fast. Will there be exceptions to that - people who run their best evenly or possibly with negative splits? Yes, but there always have a been a scant few.

Your body starts almost exclusively anaerobically and - while energy-supplying processes overlap and interact - it takes time for the aerobic energy production to reach its maximal contribution, but when it does, it dominates. In an event as brief as the 800, peak contribution from anaerobic energy pathways occurs rather early in the effort and continues to decline throughout, while contribution from aerobic metabolism rises, although VO2max is not reached in such a short time.

On a geologic time scale - i.e., by comparison to when the Burgess Shale was deposited - yes, that research is brand-spanking-new.