Which is better? a 2 minute 800m or a 34 minute 10km?

There is a whole lot of stupidity in this thread.

It is not different for men compared to women, except so far as 2:00 and 34:00 are both much harder for women than for men.

34:00 is better than 2:00 for an aerobically weak runner.

For any mature runner who has made an honest effort to train for both distances (which by definition does not include younger runners, who simply do not have enough miles in the legs to have made an honest effort to train for a good 10k), 2:00 is markedly better than 34:00.

Anybody in this thread who has written differently simply has no understanding of effective distance training.

You gotta be joking....

ventolin^3 wrote:

go to "Ventolin worksheet" :

2'00.04 = 30'05.57

Never!

Never for an athlete that trains for both events and races in ideal conditions.

I was a 2:00 guy and I never broke 39 for 10K ... not that I really ran many 10Ks.

Good story about your 880's. The 10 K and 800m are so different that they are actually two different sports.

For any one contemplating a try at 800m, there is a definite learning curve. The first couple of times I tried 2:00 pace, about 58 to 59 at 400m, I got serious tunnel vision and body tingling after about 500 yards. This was 50 years ago and I still remember it well. That feeling doesn't occur in 10K, you just get tired.

After long interval training (500 yard repeats), that feeling eventually went away and I began to make my way toward 1:50.

I recommend time trials at 600m before you start racing 800m. When you can run 1:28, you will be ready to try 800m. 800m is no fun and too grueling to keep unsuccessfully trying before you are ready.

John

whatever... wrote:

There is a whole lot of stupidity in this thread.

It is not different for men compared to women, except so far as 2:00 and 34:00 are both much harder for women than for men.

34:00 is better than 2:00 for an aerobically weak runner.

For any mature runner who has made an honest effort to train for both distances (which by definition does not include younger runners, who simply do not have enough miles in the legs to have made an honest effort to train for a good 10k), 2:00 is markedly better than 34:00.

Anybody in this thread who has written differently simply has no understanding of effective distance training.

Yep, you are completely right. I wrongly assumed the ratio of womens times to mens times would be significantly less for the 800 compared to the 10,000. So I went to the IAAF all time lists and created an 800 ratio of Pamela Jalimo/David Rudisha = 0.878 and 10K ratio of Tirunesh DIBABA/KB = 0.879. So I was totally wrong. I picked those athletes because they are the considered the best, same time frame, and same cultures (for the specific event). I am sure many will find fault with the analysis. It is just a quick way of looking at things. I'm surprised at how close it worked out. That being said a 2:00 800 is significantly better than a 34:00 10K for both men and women.