800m: Positive or negative splitting?

For once in your life Vetolin^3 provide a logical post with no insults, calling someone a moron and using the word drivel does not win the argument for you, ever, the fact that you continue to do it instead of throwing down facts and providing solid counters within your argument just digs you into an insult war which proves nothing about the orginal post.

I know you're a business man and are trying to pawn off a calculator that has yet to win you a Letsrun prediction contest but you must understand that until you actually show the person you're arguing with where they're wrong you wont win the arugment, ever.

When was the last Negative split WR? I think even Dave Wottle set the world record on a Positive split before he went into the Olympics and threw down 4 straight 26s.

History has shown that 1:44 and below require Positive splits to accomplish.

It depends. If you have good endurance, positive splits. If you are a faster guy, if you start too fast you will end up getting tired, so even or negative splits.

Watson: I'll take "Boorish Internet Windbags" for $400.

Alex: This laughable internet pedant is notorious on running message boards for his incessant annoying assertions that elite runners could always have run better races by employing intermediate splits based on his hypothetical performance calculator, and for his constant misspelling of the word "rabbit."

Watson: Who is ventolin^3?

Alex: That is correct.

Alright, here's a couple of hints, Azmacort cubed:

1) You've got potential, but if you're ever going to reach the level of Master Troll, you have to know when to quit with a particular schtick before it becomes obvious you're trolling. Case in point: It's very clear that no data exists on the phosphocreatine levels available at the 200, 400 and 600 marks of an 800 race, and (partly because that hypothesis has never been investigated) it's equally clear that no one who's serious has ever given or ever would give a Tootsie Roll down an elevator shaft about the idea in the first place. So having an Alan Webb-quality chimpout when the frivolous (not to mention nonexistent) data aren't presented to you pegs you as nothing cleverer than a run-of-the-mill troll who's desperately trying to push buttons but has run out of ideas other than ad hominem insults. Which brings us to ...

2) A Master Troll keeps his cool in a back-and forth and lets the other guy resort to simplistic tactics like name calling and sophomoric taunting. After all, the troll is trying to push that guy's buttons, not have his own buttons pushed. When you insult, you've lost. You've been out-trolled. Even an Intermediate Troll can do better than that.

Now, a Master Troll can get in some insult jabs, but they have to either be cleverly veiled or they have to involve a small amount of humor - but be just unfunny enough, just enough of an annoying wisecrack - that some sucker will be compelled to post "Not funny. Stick to your day job." or "0/10." See? That sucker then gets trolled by the Master in a two-fer along with the primary mark. An example of a sort-of-unfunny insult jab occurs above with my little "Jeopardy" gag. And with that, it's time to spill the beans. I am a Master Troll. That's right - in the Phil Hendrie tradition, I'm going to give away the whole thing and tell you I often engage in deliberate trolling. And I can get away with this because, like Phil Hendrie, I'm so good at it - and so many unwitting marks are floundering around this message board for the taking - that I'll still sucker in the hapless, knee-jerk boneheads even if they know I'm trolling! In fact, the mere mention that I'm sub-bridge-dwellingly, toll-takingly good at trolling (or anything, for that matter) is going to prompt some hotheaded little twit to comment on my hubris.

Yes, you've got potential, sonny, but BRAAAAACK!!! (wrong answer buzzer). You kept harping on something too obviously petty, so it was evident you were trying to troll. Then you resorted to insults, ultimately failing as a troll. It's time go lick your wounds on this one.

f***ing moron

i ask for some hard biochemical studies

you post drivel

f*** off, your wasting my time

As Mr. Pot said to Mr. Kettle.

Uhhh, how about "No," Chief Bald Beaver? Look, if I've told you once, I've told you two, maybe three times - studies with the precision you keep ooking and eeking about don't exist and wouldn't be of practical use if they did because people try to mete out their available energy in the 800 by feel, by practice and by observation of other races instead of by adhering to some archnerd's "hard data" concerning percentage of PCr available after x seconds at y pace. Even if they had the hard data and a theoretical "perfect" pacing scheme based on the data, they'd still have to practice to get it just right. The science would forever take a back seat to the art.

As far as refining the art is concerned, ask yourself this: Out of all the times people have set up an 800 race with a pacesetter in order to get a fast time (and this happens all the time in college and sometimes even in high school, not just at the world class level), how often has the pacemaker been asked to go out behind pace at the 400?

But this "drivel" is just "herd mentality," right?

Aha, there! See? See how easy this trolling gig is? It's just like pool, except instead of billiard balls, I'm "playing shape" with impetuous, feckless minds! This one's breezed through the "Neanderthal phase" (one-word, potty-mouthed insults) and has reached the "repetition phase" (can't come up with any different insults unless upbraided about it).

o.O:

Wottle 1:44.3 = WR was negative split, 52.9/51.4, one of the few.

http://www.runnerspace.com/news.php?do=view&news_id=12316

When I interviewed Dave Wottle last year as we talked about his WR 800m at the Olympic Trials this is what he said at http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Wottle.aspx "I always considered myself a ‘kicker’ so I went out in last place. It was similar to the Olympic 800 meter final except that I had contact with the field. I started moving up on the first turn of the second lap and then Jim Ryun took off on the back stretch. I made a comparable move and moved up to about third place on the outside. I was in second place on the turn and started my kick with about 140 meters to go as I was about to come out of the turn. I passed Ryun and won and, I have to be honest, I didn’t even know what the World Record was for 800 meters. I remember I finished the race and my Bowling Green teammate Sid Sink, who was running the steeplechase and 5,000 meters, came running onto the track and excitedly said, ‘Look at the time!’ I saw it was 1:44.26 and said, ‘Great,’ as it was my personal best. Then Sid told me it tied the World Record and it was so amazing that I just thought, ‘Super,’ but it really didn’t register. Again, I never ran for times, just for places, so I didn’t run to break a record. I was running for place and the record came about because Jim Ryun ran that fast third 200 meters and I followed him. It gave me a lot of confidence for Munich since I came in with the fastest time in the world." He also had much to say about his Olympic 800m victory in great detail.

NEW World record yesterday with a 5 second negative split!

Wow- Age 61 2:09.02 WR Mt. Sac

http://masterstrack.com/2011/04/18199/

J.O. wrote:

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

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.

you are confused because you are running sub-maximally. Yes, the a lactic system is used first when going from a standing start to a pace of 25 - 30 seconds.

30 seconds of maximal activity is high ly anaerobic, but if I walk for 30 seconds, it's aerobic. don't just look at the charts and decide that the anaerobic lactic system is always dominant for the first 30 seconds. It makes a big difference how intense the exercise is. If a 142 800m runner goes out in 25 seconds, the energy system makeup is not what you read for 30 seconds because it is sub-maximal, as he probably could run an 200m in 22.

when he is finally going all out in the last 100m, he is using the anaerobic lactic system the most because the aerobic system could not keep up with the oxygen debt.

If you take it to extreme, if I walked for 1 min and 20 secs, it would be highly aerobic, not anaerobic, but if I then sprinted the last 200m, that would be anaerobic even though it is after 1:20.. I would not be gradually using more of the aerobic system as I go.

I got one word for you kid: experiment. Talk with your coach about changing things up in some different 800s. Try going out harder than normal in one race and see if you can hang on. In another race, maybe one with good competition, forget about pacing altogether and just try to win. Trying different things is how you will learn what works best for *you* and how different paces feel. It also prepares you to deal with the different kinds of races you will certainly find yourself in as you continue racing.

All the argle-bargle over what, theoretically, would be ideal pacing overlooks the simple fact that few runners have precise control over their pacing, and this is particularly true in the 800m, especially for a high school kid trying to break 2:00.

Coach432 wrote:

30 seconds of maximal activity is high ly anaerobic, but if I walk for 30 seconds, it's aerobic. don't just look at the charts and decide that the anaerobic lactic system is always dominant for the first 30 seconds. It makes a big difference how intense the exercise is. If a 142 800m runner goes out in 25 seconds, the energy system makeup is not what you read for 30 seconds because it is sub-maximal, as he probably could run an 200m in 22.

when he is finally going all out in the last 100m, he is using the anaerobic lactic system the most because the aerobic system could not keep up with the oxygen debt.

You're wrong. The 800 is progressively more aerobic. In the last 100m of a fast race glycogenolysis and glycolysis (what you refer to as the anaerobic lactic system) is lower in energy contribution, not higher, that is why runners are slowing.

Yes if you ran the first 600m and then sprinted the last 200m would be mostly anaerobic, but that is a silly argument from someone who is trying to back track on his original statement.

Coach432 wrote:

J.O. wrote:

[quote]Coach432 wrote:

You're wrong. The 800 is progressively more aerobic. In the last 100m of a fast race glycogenolysis and glycolysis (what you refer to as the anaerobic lactic system) is lower in energy contribution, not higher, that is why runners are slowing.

Yes if you ran the first 600m and then sprinted the last 200m would be mostly anaerobic, but that is a silly argument from someone who is trying to back track on his original statement.

----------------------------------------------------------

You are mistaken. An 800m is not progressively more aerobic. It is if the runner starts full out and grinds to an impossibly slow last 30 second but this is not what happens. After the initial start, usually dominated by The phosphagen system, the aerobic system would dominate because they are running sub-maximally. Of course there would be a mix of energy systems, but since oxygen debt during the first minute is minimal, the aerobic system would dominate. This is why the first 200m in an 800m race is very different than the first 200m in a 400m race. Because of intensity.

In an 800m race, oxygen debt slowly builds up. As this happens, and because the cells can't derive enough energy any more from oxygen, slow glycolysis and to a point and fast glycolysis (which produces lactic acid) start to dominate. The athlete slows down due to the by-products.

If you don't believe me, go out for a run. you will not feel the by-products of anaerobic glycolysis for the first 15 minutes because your intensity will not be high enough to get into serious oxygen debt. If you pick up the pace at 15 minutes for a fast 1min run, you will feel those effects - just like the 800m runner can feel it in the last 100m.

From British Milers Club News:

"At the beginning of the race only the creatine phosphate (sometimes known as anaerobic alactic) system is used, because it the only one readily available. The lactic system takes longer to power-up, and the aerobic system longer still. Furthermore the creatine phosphate (CP) system is the acceleration system, which the sprinter uses to the utmost to propel himself to maximum speed. The 800m runner also needs it to accelerate from standstill to his maximum speed for the race.

For the 100m runner this system is on the wane after 6-8 seconds. But by more judicious use of it the 8OOm runner is able to extend the use to 2-3 times this duration. The amount and the duration of the acceleration for the 800m runner will be discussed later in this paper. It is the most powerful system available to the athlete and can make a great contribution to a total 800m performance.

The lactic system is the next to power up and by about the time the runner has finished with his CP system it is available to its maximum extent. It is not as powerful as the CP system, and therefore will not deliver as much speed, but has greater capacity, i.e., it can contribute more energy to the total performance. As will be discussed in the next section, it has a declining output. It lasts longer than the CP system, but eventually it too is completely expended.

The aerobic system is the slowest to power up; it is the weakest, but it has the highest capacity. That capacity is barely tapped in an 800m, but the system plays the vital role of propping up a fading lactic system. The better the aerobic system the faster the pace it can sustain, and so the more support it can provide to the lactic system. The more the race progresses, the greater the proportion of the total power that comes from the aerobic system. A weak aerobic system will cost a runner dearly in the final stages of the race."

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/2002autumn.pdf

Coach432, an 800m race is always progressively more aerobic.

Oxygen debt as you describe it is a false concept. You are breathing harder and harder during a high intensity race because:

1, Oxygen uptake gradually increases

2, Carbon dioxide expiration gradually increases

3, Your body starts to overheat, and recovery from this takes many hours depending on the level of exhaustion from the race.

4, Phosphagen resynthesis demands oxygen, this is the true oxygen debt, much smaller that that described in the literature.

Lactic acid isn't produced, that is a misunderanding of biochemistry which won't go away any time soon. Glycogen is converted to sodium lactate which is delivered around the body to be used after several more reactions as fuel for aerobic respiration, or reconversion to glycogen.

We hit VO2 max at about the 500m point in an 800 race, and we stay at this level for the rest of the race. However the anaerobic supplies are diminishing throughout the race.

It's not the byproducts of anaerobic respiration that slow you down, rather the opposite, Hydrogen ions increase as force is reduced due to a change in the ratio of buffering reactions to acidifying reactions.

The problem here is that you are assuming that the runner is going all out for the 800m rather than pacing themselves.

Your assumptions go against the literature which states now that the 800m is up to 70% aerobic.

The anaerobic a lactic startup is well known by all and is not part of this debate. The reason that runners warmup excessively is so that there is little circulatory lag, thus allowing the aerobic system to fire up as quickly as possible. good pacing allows a delay in the use of the anaerobic lactate energy system. The flaw in your argument is pacing.

I suppose you will now tell me that when Bekele runs 152 for the last 800m of a 10,000 race, the anaerobic lactic system is not used during that last 800m, but only during the relatively pedestrian first 800m in 2:10.

When Bekele kicks, he is recruiting fresh fast twitch muscle fibers, so for the first few seconds of that kick there is an anaerobic boost to metabolism, and then that 53 second last lap becomes gradually more aerobic.

But that is not the same as an 800m race is it?

The reason for a good warm up before a race is to boost efficiency. More efficient movement = better nervous system control.

Every time muscle fibers are recruited, they deliver energy first anaerobically then aerobically.

We don't 'go anaerobic' in a well paced race, that is an old myth from the time when it was thought that lactate was a waste product.

Wow Tanya-that has to be on the top 10 posts I've ever read on here. Nicely played!