Jeremy Wariner: USA's Best 800m Runner that Never Was

Semenya and Kratochvilova.

But unfortunately, they're "womens".

- Agree, if you put an egg on top of his head during that 400 meter sprint it would not have fallen ... beautfiul run ... thanks for clip.

- Wonder what conversations he might have had w/Joe Douglas back then .... Johnny Gray may have intimidated him.

- I'm not tracking .... oxygen fuels the muscles, thus greater aerobic/anaerobic capcity allows you to run longer/faster. Or is this the experience folks have when they finish a race & they don't feel aerobically stretched, but their legs sure are .... thus, they have to get on the track & tune-up?

Lickety Split wrote:

- I'm not tracking .... oxygen fuels the muscles, thus greater aerobic/anaerobic capcity allows you to run longer/faster. Or is this the experience folks have when they finish a race & they don't feel aerobically stretched, but their legs sure are .... thus, they have to get on the track & tune-up?

It's not all about oxygen. How much do sprinters breathe during the 100m?

Fast twitch fibres get their energy from anaerobic respiration.

Metric Miler wrote:

Lickety Split wrote:

- I'm not tracking .... oxygen fuels the muscles, thus greater aerobic/anaerobic capcity allows you to run longer/faster. Or is this the experience folks have when they finish a race & they don't feel aerobically stretched, but their legs sure are .... thus, they have to get on the track & tune-up?

It's not all about oxygen. How much do sprinters breathe during the 100m?

Fast twitch fibres get their energy from anaerobic respiration.

- I can't answer the question about 100m sprinters.

- I just don't understand your binary position that you are EITHER a sprinter OR your a distance runner solely based on your muscle fiber .... that's what makes me respect the 400IH, 800m, & decathletes so much --- somehow they figure it out. Why can't Coach Hart & Jeremey .... surely they have access to medical professionals to assist with their analysis?

Lickety Split wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

It's not all about oxygen. How much do sprinters breathe during the 100m?

Fast twitch fibres get their energy from anaerobic respiration.

- I can't answer the question about 100m sprinters.

- I just don't understand your binary position that you are EITHER a sprinter OR your a distance runner solely based on your muscle fiber .... that's what makes me respect the 400IH, 800m, & decathletes so much --- somehow they figure it out. Why can't Coach Hart & Jeremey .... surely they have access to medical professionals to assist with their analysis?

The answer is they barely breathe, some not taking a breath at all. It isn't necessary for fast twitch fibres to get oxygen when sprinting. Sprinters leg muscles are full of these fibres that have very high contractile strength and speed, produce a lot of power, work great under anaerobic conditions but fatigue very quickly. It is simply their nature. I didn't write the rules.

With very aerobic events, success across distances can be achieved simply because they are so close in energy system requirements. More mileage to change a small percentage of fibres and improve other cardiovascular attributes makes moving up possible. Consider that the mile is roughly 80% aerobic, and the marathon 95%. So to be great at the 1500/5k or 5k/10k is not illogical.

However the gap in aerobic requirements between the 800m and 400m is around 30% (depending who you ask).

Do you think if we took David Rudisha and trained him like a sprinter that he could become the next Bolt over 200m? He is tall, powerful, very quick over 400m (likely run 45 flat). He could bulk up a bit and work on his speed, surely? Rudisha started as a 400m runner but found he was much better at the 800m. He was predisposed to be great at the 800m. Same is true for Boris Berian.

I strongly believe, that you can only be really great at the event you are predisposed to be great at. Correct muscle fibre type distribution, better response to aerobic or sprint training, natural lactic tolerance etc.

This is backed up by research into muscle fibre types and also can be observed in athletics today. How many athletes change their event after being great at it? How many have been of an elite standard in an event, then changed and achieved an elite standard in another event? Not many.

Many, many more find the event they are best at and work their whole lives to master it.

This nonsense about moving Wariner up is an insult to his own judgment about his own running and his coaches' ability. If they thought he could be great in the 800m then he would have been.

- Certainly wasn't intending to insult either Coach Hart or Jeremy Wariner ... big fans.

- That said, they seem to be at an inflection point where they are reinforcing failure. So let's try something different! I have never seen either of them publically address this issue -- thus the challenge.

- At this point in his career I see way more positive outcomes in the 400IH or 800. His legs can't handle the sprints -- always injured. He'd jog a 51, hang on for another 100m, & smoke-check them on the last 300.

I think Wariner just didn't want to run the 800.

Nothing more important than desire to do something in order to do it well.

Star wrote:

I think Wariner just didn't want to run the 800.

Nothing more important than desire to do something in order to do it well.

Agree. Every interview I've seen where the 800 was brought up, he essentially said, "yeah, fvck that," in more or less words.

I always wanted to see Wariner try the 800. One of my favorite track races was FloJo running the last leg of the 4x400 in the 88 Olympics. It is exciting to watch a speedster move up to a longer distance.

Who would win a 600m ? Wariner or Loxsam?

- Y'all may be absolutely correct & us T&F fans have to take the "It is what it is -- deal with it!"

- I just see it ....like the previous poster on Danny Everett ... I disagree w/folks on his 1:53: if we lined up most WC 400m runners at that time of the season w/o training that Jeremy would have smoked many of them.

Lickety Split, what are your PRs?

Lickety Split, what are your PRs?[/quote]

- OK, here we go .... another attack from a "Theory of Absolutist" sufferer: in other words, some dude w/this mental disease that makes them adamant that if your PR isn't better than the athlete being critiqued then you're absolutely not authorized to have an opinion.[quote]hysteriaBegetsHyperbole wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

oozzsk wrote:

"...was able to decrease the percentage of type I fibers (53 to 39%)" in 10 weeks

"...50% decrease in MHCI (18.2-9.2%)" in 6 weeks

Read again. Significant changes.

6% or 7% is not significant. 10-15% is not significant. The topic at discussion is whether you can take a sprinter who is going to be 70% fast twitch and change their muscle fibre types to be predominantly slow twitch. There is no evidence of large changes through training.

The author states if it is possible to change larger percentages of muscle fibres then it may take years and studies across an athletes lifetime are necessary.

No, you are completely wrong. You are the one who needs to read again. Those changes ARE significant. A top sprinter is 70% fast twitch. In just 10 weeks, they were able to change the slow twitch fibers from 53% to 39%. That is a 14% change in only 10 weeks. How can you say that's not significant??? A sprinter is 30% and they got it down to 39% in just 10 weeks. That is a very quick and significant change. Especially if the target is 70 not 100.

The author said that longer studies are needed. That doesn't mean that it takes years and years. That just means he wants more data. As was just shown, 10 weeks was enough to get halfway there. The evidence clearly shows that a year might be long enough to become a very different athlete.

You are wrong. Read it again u til you understand this.

Lickety Split wrote:

Lickety Split, what are your PRs?

- OK, here we go .... another attack from a "Theory of Absolutist" sufferer: in other words, some dude w/this mental disease that makes them adamant that if your PR isn't better than the athlete being critiqued then you're absolutely not authorized to have an opinion.

Not all, dude. Just honestly curious. You're probably faster than me.

Metric Miler wrote:

I strongly believe, that you can only be really great at the event you are predisposed to be great at. Correct muscle fibre type distribution, better response to aerobic or sprint training, natural lactic tolerance etc.

This is backed up by research into muscle fibre types and also can be observed in athletics today. How many athletes change their event after being great at it? How many have been of an elite standard in an event, then changed and achieved an elite standard in another event? Not many.

Many, many more find the event they are best at and work their whole lives to master it.

This nonsense about moving Wariner up is an insult to his own judgment about his own running and his coaches' ability. If they thought he could be great in the 800m then he would have been.

No, it is entirely possible that Wariner just wants to do the 400 instead of the 800. Everyone doesn't pick their event based on what they are the best at. Sometimes, they just pick the event that they like the most. Mo Farah is one of these. He is best at the 1500, but prefers to do the 5k and 10k.

Once again, stop spreading this misinformation. The research clearly shows that muscle fiber proportions can significantly change in short time frames. The research proves you wrong.

Lickety Split wrote:He'd jog a 51, hang on for another 100m, & smoke-check them on the last 300.

This is one of the biggest myths about putting 400 runners in the 8.

After a 51 second first lap, even for a top level quarter miler who can run, say, sub 45, his body's going to start to lock up by 600m in.

Realistically the better way for a speed based 800 guy (or a 400 runner moving up to the 8) to run things is by going out hard and trying to hang on as best they can. They're very rarely going to be able to close as well as the miler types, even if the race goes out in a 52 rather than a 50. The vast majority of the time, the speed based guy is better off going out hard and trying to burn out the milers.

The one exception is if the speed based guy is able to force a really, really, really slow race and control it from the front without being pressured, a la last year's world championships. If the speed guy leading it is being constantly pressured and forced to surge repeatedly to maintain the lead, they'll end up falling apart by the last 150--you only get one chance to push in an 8, and when you make it, you either take it through to the finish or you break and get passed.

Lickety Split wrote:

- I accept your premise; however, realize that you most likely don't have access to Jeremy Wariner's muscle fiber results? Furthermore, is your opinion too binary ... obviously as reflected in this post, many others have succeeded in the transition.

- That said, I posit that a Jeremy Wariner 1:53 800m with minimal training at the beginning of the track season indicates that HE COULD significantly improve in either the 800m or 400 IH. Perhaps he's at the age where enough fast twitch fibers have transitioned .... he's certainly not getting any faster at either the 200m or 400m.

- Thoughts?

A 43s 400m runner should be able to jog a 1.49 anytime of the week. Simple as that. I take it a step further and say that even 45s guys should be able to do that, Funny thing is: the 43s 400 guy won't outrun a 45s 400 guy in an 800 just like that. They both run out of gas after 500-550m and the 43s guy will struggle more in the latter 300-250, simply because of the presence of more fast twitch fibers and the faster depletion of oxygen/ATP in the musce and production of lactic acid.

Your argument of 'minimal training' doesn't hold up, since athletes who train for a 400 are best conditioned to run a fast 800 at the beginning of the season, right after they finish their winter training. Muscles are more used to overdistance at that point, which gets lesser and lesser after the speed component comes into play.

However: to go from 1.49 to be a contendor on the world stage is something different.

Wariner is a perfect example of a guy with a very fast working neuro system: his body is perfectly suited for a 400. Fast twitch, not a lot of muscle mass to haul around and a relative high V02max FOR A SPRINTER.

Was never ever going to be world class in the 800. Club/college/regional level, at best. 1.53 is an indication of Wariner being at the end of his carreer, something that reflects in his 45.88 quilifying time when running eyeballs out. Body just can't do what it used to do. Going of that 1.53 we can say he outperformed himself in the 400 this year: something that is an extra argument to prove that the man is a 400 guy.