Is the 800 more aerobic or anaerobic

I think it's anaerobic but you should have somewhat of a mixture of both.

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 peter snell din't race the 1500m he shouln't have had to do 100 mile weeks?

Then it is kind of amazing how he succeded off this theory

so if peter snell din't race the 1500m he shouln't have had to do 100 mile weeks?

_______________________________________________________

For the 800, no.

I'm kind of wondering why you "need" a straight answer.

Currently the 800m is considered 69% (+/- 4%) aerobic.

Here is a recent similiar discussion about 1500m:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=3876084

There are three links in that thread, that if you follow them, you will see that the 800m percentages have evolved over time from anaerobic to aerobic:

1) 65% anaerobic

2) 50% anaerobic

3) 69% aerobic

Luckily you don't have to change the focus of your training. If the 800m was always so aerobic, so was your training. You just do the same training, but change how you think about it.

i read somewhere on the sub 1:50 thread that the first lap was more anaerobic than the second

Maybe...but what does that have to do with training for your event? Nothing! You know it is going to hurt. You know you suck wind for 600 and plow through pain at the finish trying to hold form.

Whatever science says or changes it doesn't really matter, 1:43 is fast then and now. Training for the 800 is still mostly the same. Though they don't stretch anymore...that's bad! :)

There's a discussion on another letsrun thread (http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4441985) about a 41 year old that cut out aerobic training and is still running fast times.

This suggests that you can get most of your aerobic conditioning from anaerobic workouts. If so, knowing that the 800M is 60/40 or 40/60 is useless unless you know how much of your training is contributing to your aerobic vs anaerobic.

100% hateaerobic

About 66% aerobic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194103

"RESULTS:

The relative contribution of the aerobic energy system to the 200-, 400-, 800-, and 1500-m events was 29+/-4, 43+/-1, 66+/-2, and 84+/-1%+/-SD, respectively. "

Brian, I have to agree with SeekingFaster. Who cares what the contribution is if you don't know how much of your training is going toward each? Useless info.

it depends on one's ability. A HS girl running 3:10 in the 800 is probably running more aerobically than a guy who can run the 800 in 1:48. And I suspect their respective training should be a bit different.

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 "fact" that the 800 is 2/3 aerobic is of course dependent on how it is run.

I haven't read the papers, but does anybody know at what the range of perceived exertion levels was, if it was even measured?

Assuming maximal perceived efforts were measured, then Seb Coe's fastest 800's were all run roughly 2/3 aerobic, regardless of his training.

One cannot simultaneously exhibit high aerobic AND anaerobic capability. Clearly, Coe had very high aerobic capability and concomitantly low anaerobic capability.

Which is why he would have trouble breaking 12 seconds from the blocks.

OK, trouble breaking 11.5 seconds--I think I negotiated down to something like that.

What i wonder about isn't it different among people with different muscle fibres. Fast twitchers can sure do an 800 much more anaerobic then slow twitchers.

Isn't that why it is difficult for an overall method to train for the 800.

Where you have guys running lots and lots of 5:30 miles with some intervals or guys run a lot of intervals with some short easy jogs in between?

1K wrote:

Brian, I have to agree with SeekingFaster. Who cares what the contribution is if you don't know how much of your training is going toward each? Useless info.

Probably..just wanted to mention one of the studies made. Since girls were mentioned, other studies from the same researcher reveals that women are more aerobical than men at the same distance, probably due to less anaerobic ability?

rekrunner wrote:

I'm kind of wondering why you "need" a straight answer.

Currently the 800m is considered 69% (+/- 4%) aerobic.

Here is a recent similiar discussion about 1500m:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=3876084

There are three links in that thread, that if you follow them, you will see that the 800m percentages have evolved over time from anaerobic to aerobic:

1) 65% anaerobic

2) 50% anaerobic

3) 69% aerobic

Luckily you don't have to change the focus of your training. If the 800m was always so aerobic, so was your training. You just do the same training, but change how you think about it.

The 800m as every other distance run, the percent of aerobic and anaerobic is just a mean value that doesn´t represent the reality.

The 3 main reasons are:

- one is that the percent of anaerobic versus anaerobic is not the same for every runner. In one 800m run, by instance, one FT runner type might use more anaerobic percent than another ST runner, while both run at their best. Consequently the percent uis useless somehow.

- second reason is that trough the run distance each runner we doesn´t use the theh same aerobic anaerobic equilibrium. For instance the same runner at a run at mean pace from the start till the finish, might run the first 400m of a quite aerobic and from 400m to 600m half aerobic anaerobic, and in the last 200m when he reached the VO2max and exceeds, he goes anaerobic quite totally. Something similar happens every middle to long distance event. This means that the theory of the 800m anaerobic percent means no great thing as training model.

- Third and finally, all it depends how fast or slow someone starts and how finish. The 800m runner that in theory his 800m race pace pb is 1:50 (55secs per 400m lap/quarter) it´s a different story if he just wants to win the race it doesn´t matter how slow he splits at 400m or 600m or the same 1:50 runner that leads a pack with 400m split in 52secs for instance.

This are totally different aerobic anaerobic percent, and the theory of 80% 20% or 60% 40% means not too much at the moment that you need to move fast or that you are tired after a fast start.

Another thing you might take for granted. The 800m runner got not major benefit training at LT paces. By the contrary, the 800m that training at LT paces might lost his time and be a poor performer by doing that kind fo training.

The main key to a good 800m performance (relte the runner talent of course) is to be able to exceed the VO2max, and keep an fast pace, and this is not aquired by aerobic training, to think that because someone did discover that the 800m got more aerobic percent that the classic books say, and that be that fact we might insist to run more aerobic volume training is a stupidity.

Aerobic training is just the fondamental training as basic trainig at it´s all, aerobic training in a 800m runner doesn´t bring specificity.

says this 41 year old runner went from a 2:06 800M to 2:00 in 2 weeks.

Looks like he did it all on speed/strength training. This doesn't speak well for the aerobic advocates.