sub 1:40 800m

According to a very prominent researcher, 400 meter runners already have as good an aerobic capacity as a longer distance guy, and probably enen better. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to utilize the lactate that their muscles were producing, and they would tie up and slow down. The reason a 45 second 400 meter runner can not run very competitively in the 800 is that they produce too much lactic acid. If they were to reduce their anaerobic capacity without reducing their aerobic capacity they would produce less lactate and be able to complete the entire distance without tying up, and slowing down. The trick is the application. It is difficult to know if you are reducing anaerobic capicity too much or not enough. If they reduce it too much they will not be fast enough to run the distance quickly, and if they don't reduce it enough they will tie up. The runner also has to make sure they do not loose their high aerobic capacity or they will not be able to process the lactate that their muscles are producing, and will therefor tie up for that reason. Once someone gets the mix right someone will probably run 1:39 if they are in the right race. If they do this correctly the previous 45 second 400 meter runner probably woun't be able to break 47 seconds. Their reduced anaerobic capacity just won't let them run that fast anymore.

What very prominate resreach, im not buying that for on minute, there isnt a snow balls chance in hell that Micheal johnson had better Aerobic capacity that Kipketer.

look right now were talking about someone running more than a second faster than Kipketer ever ran.

Kipketer was DAMN good, the best, i think people are forgeting that

No one has mentioned a 400 hurdler converting to the 8. Take a guy like Edwin Moses who could run a 47 second quarter over hurdles. In theory he'd have been a perfect candidate for someone who could cruise a 50 point first split, and come back relatively even. That said, I kind of think the discussion sells the 800 meter specialist short. Kipketer was unbeatable for so long because the 8 was his thing, but like I said earlier, he may never have achieved his potential since he suffered bouts of malaria during his peak years. Who knows what he could have run if he'd been healthy.

What about someone that comes from a 400m hurdle backround?

The problem is that it is such a jump from a 45s event to a 1:40 event. At 30s into the race your instantaneous energy use is 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic and it climbs towards aerobic from there on. At 90s into the race (final straight for the elites) the instant. energy use is 91% aerobic.

Why the 800 is so different than the 400...

Madein_82 wrote:

See this is were i disagree ..

All barriers are not to be broken.

Who will break 40s in the 400m, no human

Who will break 2:00hr in the marathon, no human

Who will break 1:40 in the 800m, i really don't think it is possible, and untill i see someone consistantly hiting 1:40.5 i dont think ill change my mind.

Well........I am with Martin on this. And I believe he meant: "all realistic/reasonable barriers are broken." And then yes, we can all get in a huge debate on what is "reasonable". Is the 2 hour marathon reasonable? Maybe. The 1 hour marathon?? The .0000001 second marathon??? Ok, I hope we can all agree THAT one is unreasonable. But that is a sidetrack really.

So as far as "reasonable/comprehendible" barriers go, 1:40 is LOT more realistic than your other examples: 2 hour marathon & 40 second 400 m.

As I already showed everyone with my stat breakdown, the 1:40 800 is actually, when compared to other events, OVERdue. OK, sure, it might be behind the progression of other events because:

A) Coe's time was so brilliant, and better than other records achieved in his era, and

B) the 800 is unique, and people have pused aerobic boundaries and pure sprint boundaries, but have had trouble finding the magical formula to push the "in-between" boundaries of 800 running.

Ok, sure, those are reasonable arguments. But Kipketer was right near 1:41 flat, and probably was capable of a 1:40.5 in the IDEAL race. So the sub 100 second (nice way of looking at it, huh) 800 is really not far off at all. Breakthoughs usually come in bunches, and no one has led the breakthough this time (as has occured in other events).

It will happen, and will happen within a few years I think. A guy with 43.5 speed (who can't beat MJ's 400 WR, so gives up there), and then who commits to 800 running and becoming forever immortalized as the FIRST MAN UNDER 1:40 (quite a motivation), SHOULD be able to run 49.5 first lap and be JOGGING. With the right commitment to 800 running, and to aeroboic conditioning (and of course SOME natural aerobic ability ) should be able to someday follow that with a 50.4.

Or, as I said before, some Ethiopian with Bekele-type super-human endurance, but more pure power/speed than Bek, and who COMMITS to 800 for a career, could also have a shot.

Those are my predictions.

Sounds convincing.

But wouldn't the type of activity effect the differential. For instance, doesn't a 4 hurdler at 30 seconds approximate a similar anaerobic/aerobic differential that an 800 runner does at 90 seconds? In other words, wouldn't the elite 4 hurdler be physically reproducing conditions that would translate well to running an 8?

The researcher is Jan Olbrecht. He is from Belgium and he had a lot of research out there to read as well as a book. It is up to you if you want to read it or not. If you know anything about aerobic capacity you know that it is possible for Michael Johnson to have greater aerobic capacity than Kipketer, or at least just as good. Aerobic capacity is the ability to utilize oxygen, and VO2max is measured per minute. It is very posible for a sprinter to utilize as much oxygen per minute as a marathoner. This can be observed with a VO2max test. The sprinter may not be able to last as long on the test, but in the first few minutes they may measure a higher VO2max than the marathoner.

Kipketer has often been the best. He is not always though. It has not been uncommon for him to loose, even in a year when he runs very fast. He is not always in peak form because he does not always get his training right. The great thing about Kipketer is more often than not he does.

As far as I know, this is the order by which the energy systems are accessed, regardless of event. The difference is, say in a marathon, that the energy needed during those initial 30-60s is far less and so the demands on the anaerobic system are far less than in a 400 or 800 so there's less O2 debt.

I'm curious. You say Kipketer doesn't always get his training right. Does this mean you have a sense of what the best buildup to run in the low 1.40's is?

Also, another post predicted the record would topple in the next couple of years. I think this is about right. The fields are probably deeper than ever before (I don't know the numbers but you could probably get at least eight runners who've run between 1.42-3 into one race.)

Of the ones who are out there now, who do you think most capable? My money is on Joseph Mutua (1.43.33).

I would not claim to know the best training for each individual, since each runner adapts differently to training. Some people naturally have higher aerobic capacities so they would not need to work as much on this, as another runner would. Other runners naturally have higher anaerobic capacities so they would need to work less on that. I didn't say it was simple. A testing protocol must usually be designed to monitor improvements in both. Each runner is a work in progress with different needs and requirements. That is the reason why it is quite useless to copy another runners training. We can all say that Lydiard knew what he was doing, and obviously he did, but you can't just follow his schedules and expect the program to work for you. Lydiard was a master at application. He new what his runners needed, and was able to apply it. There are plenty of good coaches out there who are able to figure out the proper ingredients for their individual athletes. All you need to do to find them is look at the athletes they are training. If the majority is improving year after year, then the coach knows what they are doing. Consistency is also a great indicator that a coach knows what they are doing. Also, just because a runner has a good year doesn't necessarily mean their coach knows what they are doing. They could have just got lucky with their training. I believe this is the reason you see allot of runners have a good year and then never come close to those performances again. Once they found success they try to copy the schedule that worked for them the year they had their break through. The problem is aerobic and anaerobic capacities are not constant and can change from year to year. If your anaerobic capacity is much lower than last year at the same time you can not expect to run the same as last year, even if you are doing the same workouts.

I'm pretty sure if a guy like Steve Magness can stop gorging on junk food, stop bullying eight-year-olds, and stop freaking pretty girls out with "Jackass" type stalker behaviors, he'll be the first man under 1:40.

I believe that to do a 1.40, the person has to base his whole life on 1500m or 400m aswell.

many greats eg. coe had backup events. the first 1.40 runner will dedicate hi whole life and focus on the one event.

usually elites drop a good two to three seconds after their first lap. Breaking the 1:40 will probably look something like this:

200m-23.5

400m-48.0~

600m-1:13

800m-1:39.9~

23.5 , 24.5 , 25.0 , 27.0

The first 600m will be the fastest because almost any 400m elite could hold that pace for that long. Sprinkle some more fitness and a 27 tying up in the death throws shouldn't be that hard. A talented 400m will slow down a little bit more than a distance based 800m runner will.

for training them, 6 by 300m in 36 with 2 min rest or 3 by 600m in 1:15 with full recovery should be sufficient.

30 min runs repeated 5-6 times a week will provide ample aerobic fitness.

they already have speed, strength, and if they already have aerobic talent the rest should be history.

PS: if we just trained sprinters correctly they could easily take an eight.

additionally to break 1:40 you'd also need to be able to equal or break either 1:10 for 600m (a very hard effort, about 8% faster than goal pace) or about 2:09 for the 1000m (again since the event is longer and drawing a curve is too bothersome; 4.5 seconds off the pace with an extra 200m should seem right) and additionally have sub 46 speed.

It will be harder for distance guys simply because the speed requirements are inherent mainly in sprinters. While possessing extroadinary anerobic stamina through distance is a plus, training for maintaining the essential speed requirements would be more of a challenge than simply taking a 400m guy fresh off a 44 effort and putting a good year of light, but fast 800m training in him.

Running 400+ through 1000m is more of an art than a science however these rules should apply as common sense. Basically put, even though the 800m turns more and more aerobic as it progresses, most of the race must be run at a speed that would be top end for nearly all distance based athletes. expecting them to hold it perfectly is illogical. Its much easier to take someone with a faster top end speed.

You can't teach a sprinter to run 800's. It's impossible. It's like trying to teach a Zebra how to race like a horse - it aint gonna fly.

and one wrote:

I agree that moving up from the 400 is a big jump, but what might help is the fact that the 400 is developing so quickly now. We are looking at three guys running 44 flat (or below) this spring, now these three know they have a spot at worlds but what about the rest of the country? I think that this much talent at the top will force a few of the "slower" guys to consider moving up.

Rather than discussing the big three... we should be talking about the 44 high, 45 low guys (Rock, etc.) who should move up to 800. With so much young talent in the 400, moving up might be their best shot at making the teams for worlds/olympics in the next four to eight years.

Rock won the 400m silver medal at Worlds last year. The 400m will be just fine for him. I think one of the former Minnesota guys (Potter or Steele, but I forget which) is racing the 800m this season, though.

Good discussion for the most part.

I keep reading here that ElG closed in 1:44, but I think it was 1:46. ???

I believe we'll see sub 1:40 before 2020. Perhaps it will be raced differently. Maybe they'll SLOW DOWN the first lap?

We'll se training modifications too. Coe was rather "new" in his approach.

Also, I think it will be by a guy who is better at 400m than he is at 1500m. I appreciate all the technical arguments here, but my hunch on this regards the nature of 400m and 800m, where no kick really occurs on the fast races. Both 400m and 800m involve "hanging on" and trying to fade the least, unlike 1500m. In my mind, the 400m and 800m will be more closely related in the future, than 800m and 1500m, with respect to training, scientific approach, psychology. We'll see more Juantorina's in the future. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but at the top levels, 1500m / 5000m is more popular these days than 800m / 1500m??? The opposite was true 20 years ago. But, I'll probably get my arse kicked for thinking that! :)

100th post goes to me!

oh yeah and i am pretty sure i'll be 1.40 guy in ten years time.

(for 700m lol)