800m: Positive or negative splitting?

Tanya Skagle wrote: 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

no

it applies to well functioning 800m guys

i saw kip run that zurich race live on tv ( & i got someone here to put it up on youtube - go watch it ) & when he went thru in 48.3 i gave up hope & believed he was going to die a horrible death & be lucky to break 1'45

to my astonishment he held on to smash the wr by 1/2s with his 1'41.24

my immediate thought was that if he hadn't gone out suicidally fast with eventual split 4.6s difference & instead gone a low-49, that he wouda definitely run below 1'41

the physics says that the time wouda been ~ 1'40.8

either kip is a "theoretical machine" or the physics approach gives a good approximation to what was expected

believe this or not :

splits for the last 200m ( or i assume that shoud be 220y ) were even taken

ventolin^3 wrote:

not all of it will be used in going out in a 800 as no one is blasting the initial 100m at full speed - you may use part of it in the 1st lap

No duh, you're not supposed to deplete all of your PCr in the first 100 of an 800. Re-read above - some attention must be given to pacing. You may have some PCr in reserve, but you use most of it in the first 100 even if you start slightly conservatively, and it isn't resynthesized during the next < 2 minutes in the midst of 800m race intensity. Take optimal advantage of the readily-available energy systems while they're able to deliver their peak contribution and while coordination and acuity are highest.

i saw kip run that zurich race live on tv ... he went thru in 48.3 ... he held on to smash the wr by 1/2s with his 1'41.24

Well, diddle my doodle. Another positive-split world record. Never would have seen that coming.

Bottom line, the most important concept when looking for "a leg to stand on" is this: Studies, schmudies, theory, schmeory. Look at how the athletes run their fastest races. Thousands upon thousands of them spanning several generations have attacked this puppy from all sorts of angles in an effort to get it right through the most revealing and applicable method in all of science - real-world trial and error. By-and-large, what are we seeing them do when they run career best 800m times? Who wants to field that slow roller?

Yes.

At least the reported splits are consistent.

Here is Ryun's no rabbit, front running negative split mile WR that also defies convention for everyone's enjoyment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlwS0Fyq8vk

I do not suggest that this is the optimal way to run a mile.

I just couldn't see anyone doing this today even on a synthetic track.

No one tries to front run a fast race.

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.

Sure I did, I ended this galaxtically stupid thread on the first page. First off, we are talking about breaking 2 minutes and all you tards want to talk about is how 1:45 guys are running it. Not the same as a guy trying to break 2 minutes.

As for the race.....you have to be able to run 53 seconds or under in the 400 to even have a chance at sub 2.

TSKE 400 TIME AND ADD 4 SECONDS TO IT. IF THAT TIME IS UNDER 60 THEN YOU HAVE TO RUN THAT AS YOUR FIRST LAP AND TRY TO HANG THE 2ND LAP ON PACE TO STAY UNDER 2.

END.OF.THREAD

ccrunner609 wrote:

As for the race.....you have to be able to run 53 seconds or under in the 400 to even have a chance at sub 2.

Shut up idiot.

no

you are talking nonsense

you are stating generalities : "most" pcr consumed in initial 100m & "isn't resynthesised"

it is only known that at maximum speed in 100m that all the pcr is consumed

you have given me no numerical figure of how much pcr is consumed in 1st 100m of a 800 race : "most" means nonsense - give me a number from a study, not your nonsensical made-up "most"

i want to know if it is 90 or 80 or even 50%

then i want further proof from a study that pcr isn't resynthesised during the course of the 800 - no nonsensical pontifications, but hard biochemical studies

offer it

eh ??

what has that got to do with the physics aspect ???

Fastest 800s in High School were all small positive splits. Hit 1:57 going 57-60.

In college, spent a lot more time running (went from 30mpw to 90+) and ran my best 800s in even splits, 57-57. The only time I tried to positive split, I went 55-65, and my last 200 was 37 seconds. Complete lock up.

If you are aerobically strong, go even splits, or be patient and run a slight negative split. Just work on timing your passes- nothing kills a kick like having to swing wide to avoid traffic with 120 to go.

Wow 2.45 times the difference!

Actual the logic I was following was completely sound for the trained individual trying to break the 2 minute mark. So one would assume it is a bit easier to go sub 2 with a better 400 time, not always.

Oh, brother (palm face). HWGA, HWGA, HWGA - prattling on about our own small-sample test results, trying to fit them to our personal models of what we wish was true, and demanding "proof" in the form of other pseudobabbling, mental-masturbatory research if something doesn't support our view. I do it too. But you miss ***the principal point*** (see below), which provides proof concerning the original topic.

What's wrong with that? It's a generality that people tie up somewhere near the finish of an 800. You'd like to know if it's at 689 meters or at 742 meters, but the thing we know is true is that they tie up. Not knowing exactly where and when doesn't make the general observation any less factual.

In that vein, I don't know the figure for what percentage of PCr is exhausted in the first 87.932 meters of the 800 (or are you insisting the value for the first full 100 is the important value?). But I do know that Paul Gastin (who has contributed to research on the accumulated oxygen deficit method for measuring contributions of different energy systems to exercise) and colleagues have found that the contribution of the ATP-PCr system is negligible (and remains negligible) after the first 20 seconds in supra-maximal 90-second all-out efforts and after the first 25 seconds in constant-intensity exercise at 110% of VO2max (the latter test often lasting over 3 minutes). I can't imagine there is significant regeneration of PCr (if any at all) during an all-out 2-minute event like the 800, especially with the associated low muscle pH. Yes, "negligible" and "significant" are more of those irritating generalities, but Chuck U. Farley sez: "Who Cares? Contribution from phosphocreatine after the first 25 seconds of a hard 800 ain't squat."

That's the best I can offer at the moment. Finding sources might take time I don't have this weekend. The articles might require subscription anyway.

It doesn't matter, as you should soon see when we arrive at ***the principal point***.

We post this crap on here and we can often all be "right" as far as presenting data and citing sources, except that when we try to interpret the data, we're making assumptions and conjectures.

F'rinstance, the stuff I posted about the contributions of various energy systems and the time frames involved is correct (as far as we currently know). The part you alluded to about how phosphocreatine can resynthesize with enough available oxygen is also correct (although it won't resynthesize during an effort where muscle contractions are forceful enough to create ischemia and reduce available O2, but blah, blah, blah). What is a guess - not SWAG, mind you, but a very reasonable guess based on actual data - is that people normally positive split their best 800s in part because it's advantageous from an energy distribution standpoint to get the ball rolling early when 800m velocities are involved. Yes, it's partly a guess - theory, you might even say - but let me repeat ***the principal point***, since it seems some people aren't getting it ... (wait for it) ...

THEORY IS BUGGAR-ALL.

What is not a guess is that an overwhelming majority of serious competitors have historically run their fastest 800s with positive splits. Nor is it a guess what the average slowdown on the second lap is (or, for that matter, on each successive 200, since enough splits are available to figure out that tidbit as well). As is the case 100% of the time, when I type something about real-world application, that's the way it is. Not because I say so (although that will be good enough for you, if you have any sense), but because that's the way it already was. I just gathered the data and then said so.

Oh, wait - I think I hear that verse again. Come on! You all know the words! ...

THEORY IS BUGGAR-ALL.

So here's what I'm going to suggest to any butt harlequins, glute jesters, rump fools or ass clowns who honestly cling to the imbecilic fantasy that most 800m runners would run better if they'd only employ even splits or some "perfect formula" based on iron-clad rationale using fizzix ...

Let's gather a couple of hundred career-best 800m times from the really deep all-time list at tilastopja.org, ferret out the ones that have intermediate splits available (might take some digging) and see what we get, m'kay? I say we get the astonishing surprise (cough, sarcasm) that most of those performances were done with positive splits. So hang on ... what's the matter with those incompetent, self-sabotaging might-have-beens? Didn't they know they were just spinning their wheels by getting out ahead of the pace they'd average? Surely after dozens of 800m races (or perhaps more than 100) during a career (not to mention watching hundreds or thousands of other competitors and trying to learn from those races as well as their own), they would have by chance run (or seen) a couple of "perfect" races where they hit upon the "lawz o' fizzix," avoided those unprofitable positive splits, and figured out even or negative was the way to go. Amirite?

(subliminal message follows)

THEORY IS BUGGAR-ALL.

Know what else I'm willing to bet on? The average slowdown of 3% for each successive 200 (within 0.2%). And just why am I sooo confident that will be the case? That's right! You get a gold star! It's because I cheated and already crunched hundreds of these numbers over the years and they always turn out the same! Did it with high school and college runners as well as internationals, too. You just don't wanna take that bet (or any other one) against me, Chief Spread Eagle. Why, that would be like calling my all-in wager, me showing A-K of spades, watching Q-J-10 of spades hit the flop and insisting you be allowed to keep betting additional cash on your own worthless hand. That's pretty much what people do around this place, though, and it all amounts to bringing a ... well, nothing ... to a gunfight. Yeah, you already know the answer to this one. Everyone knows it. Most people run their fastest 800s with positive splits. If you've hung around track meets for even 5 seasons, you can eyeball this bad boy without having to go to any deep lists for validation, and it turns out your eyeball is right. If you only watch 800s on TV or video, you might see more championship rounds and finals which go out slower than a rabbitted record attempt, skewing your perception on how optimal fast 800s are normally run.

How yeuh say, wan more time-a, daffy English kaniggits! Zees wan ees for yeur mothair! ...

THEORY IS BUGGAR-ALL.

you offer nothing but drivel in response to pcr question

i wanted to know what is pcr available at end of 200m/400m/600m in an elite guy running 800pb - give me hard numbers

you offer horseshit & generalities - no proper studies geared to the question

you offer more drivel on amount of regeneration of pcr - show me some hard research on non-regeneration not your blathering nonsense

A small amount of phosphocreatine will be available at the end of those races within fibers not recruited earlier in the race.

6 pages of babbling about this?

Slight positive for an 800.

Mile should be slight negative.

All longer distances will be negtive split.

colossal waste of time wrote:

6 pages of babbling about this?

Slight positive for an 800.

Mile should be slight negative.

All longer distances will be negtive split.

agreed on the 6 pages of nothing...............but lets be realistic about this issue....we arent talking about how olympic caliber runners are running the 8/16/32 by using race tactics and negative splits......we are talking about a HS kid that runs 2 minutes for an 8 or kids that run 4:30 or 10 minutes.

MOST of these races are ran fast to slow...young runners dont have the development to hang a negative split mile.

ventolin^3 wrote:

i wanted to know what is pcr available at end of 200m/400m/600m in an elite guy running 800pb - give me hard numbers ... proper studies ...

And that's exactly what's preventing you from grasping the art of running the 800. The proper studies are the races. The hard numbers are the splits and final results.

THEORY IS BUGGAR-ALL.

Interpretation of theory and pondering how to apply it can be useful, but nothing beats spiking up, running the 800 with different strategies, and screwing the pooch a few times along the way. You'll figure it out.

These guys are right. Six pages of equine excrement.

Just go run the damn race, people.

idiot

i've seen 90%+ of every sub 1'43 clocking ever, vast majority live on satellite, only one of note i've never seen is kip's 1'42.17

have you ???

i have pretty damn good idea of the "art" of 800 running

i have little/no interest in debate about merits/demerits of +ve splits after i saw borza destroy bucher of even splits & we have ryun's longstanding wr off huge -ve splits

the fact majority of elites have run their pbs off +ve splits is more based on herd mentality of +ve splits being promulgated since the '60s, but this woud be a concept beyond your comprehension

i'm only interested in pcr levels in a 800

offer it or don't waste my time

ventolin^3 wrote:

i'm only interested in pcr levels in a 800

offer it or don't waste my time

It isn't coming. I don't think that data exists anywhere. Satisfied?

Since this will clearly revolutionize the way the 800 is run, why don't you write some researchers - no, seriously, it would answer this key question that somebody gives a rat's ass about - and ask them to come up with the data you seek.

Then you can devise (or justify) a "perfect" 800 pacing strategy. And don't forget to have a rabbit - sorry, wabbit (my vewy gweat fwiend in Wome, Bigus Dickus, is weady to wun as a wabbit) - to make sure the runners hit each 10-meter split within 1/279 of a second of what it absolutely must be to have precisely the amount of phosphocreatine in reserve for the final 70m, 60m, 50m ... After all, that's the only way they can finally run it right after all these decades. Never mind external factors (track surface, temperature, etc.) and disregard the fact that that humans are not machines, meaning their daily physical and emotional states can play at least as big a role as "the fizzix of the 800" in how they attack each new race.

Gee, this is exciting stuff (yawn).

f***ing moron

i asked you for some important biochemistry about 800 running, repeatedly, & all you offer is drivel based on the herd mentality derived stats of 40+y

you can't provide what i'm interested in & talk nothing but horseshit

f*** off & don't waste my time until you bring something eye-opening on pcr to the table