Mileage for an 800 runner

"is it probable" is an impossible question to answer with what's provided. We could never say whether it's probable that someone will improve by a few seconds from one year to the next - maybe you either need a new stimulus that you didn't get last year, or your natural growth will get you there.

You've just told us I guess that you do "mileage" for most of your fall running, but I guess that's what you need since your 48.8 shows you're reasonably speed oriented.

Yes since you seem to be more of a 400-800 guy than an 800-1500 guy - but you need to hammer some of these short runs and try to get in a weekly run of about an hour. Also include hills, fartlek etc. If you are going to run low mileage you can't expect to run that mileage at the same pace as those who churn out regular 70-100 mile weeks.

Deep Insights wrote:

"is it probable" is an impossible question to answer with what's provided. We could never say whether it's probable that someone will improve by a few seconds from one year to the next - maybe you either need a new stimulus that you didn't get last year, or your natural growth will get you there.

You've just told us I guess that you do "mileage" for most of your fall running, but I guess that's what you need since your 48.8 shows you're reasonably speed oriented.

That's fair enough, I guess I'm really just asking if it isn't a hugely unlikely scenario given the mileage. only because i've seen 60+ mile weeks recommended on here before

mark b wrote:

Yes since you seem to be more of a 400-800 guy than an 800-1500 guy - but you need to hammer some of these short runs and try to get in a weekly run of about an hour. Also include hills, fartlek etc. If you are going to run low mileage you can't expect to run that mileage at the same pace as those who churn out regular 70-100 mile weeks.

Ok cool, that's how I am doing it now. I have a cycle where do a day where I am running under 6 minute pace, 2 days at around 6:20-6:30, with a recovery day sprinkled in if necessary. And I start incorporating fartleks into my plan next weekThanks!

If you aren't running 120 miles per week, you'll never succeed as an 800m runner.

That comment is complete bs but I just wanted to throw something out there without repeating what has already been said.

If your 400PR is really 48.80FAT, then 35mpw is more than enough mileage to have you running 1.51 flat at least. 1.50 should be possible. You should be at least 2 seconds faster than your current 800 PR.

But what is the quality of your mileage? 35 miles per week of steady mileage is IMHO worth less than 25mpw where 70% is high quality mileage.

Is it all steady stuff? Do you do any fartlek, vVo2max, hills, cruise intervals etc? Do you do sessions of 12-15 x 1 min hard (2km pace) 1 min easy (long run pace)? Do you run any diagonals, even once a fortnight?

Also, if you're a 400-800 runner (and I think you are because your 400PR is better than your 800 PR at the moment), are you doing any speed or stength work in the XC season?

Long steady mileage and building base for a 400-800 runner - sorry but to me that's an overly simplistic and old fashioned way to train an 800 specialist, let alone a 400-800 guy.

"Long steady mileage and building base for a 400-800 runner - sorry but to me that's an overly simplistic and old fashioned way to train an 800 specialist, let alone a 400-800 guy"

I completely agree with this but has anyone ever suggested just long steady mileage? Even going back to the days of Lydiard, the idea is to run at a pace that increases your aerobic capacity. This is not an "easy long slow mileage pace".

And with more recent research, the 800m is believed to utilise aerobic systems to a much greater degree (50%) that previously thought.

So....if someone is a 400/800m-type and by definition weaker aerobically (than a 800/1500m-type), then wouldn't they reap benefits from increasing their aerobic capacity? Why not run more miles in the fall? Why not do a couple of longer aerobic capacity workouts every week?

mark b wrote:

Yes since you seem to be more of a 400-800 guy than an 800-1500 guy - but you need to hammer some of these short runs and try to get in a weekly run of about an hour. Also include hills, fartlek etc. If you are going to run low mileage you can't expect to run that mileage at the same pace as those who churn out regular 70-100 mile weeks.

Yeah.

All those 100mpw 800 guys.

A Muck wrote:

mark b wrote:

Yes since you seem to be more of a 400-800 guy than an 800-1500 guy - but you need to hammer some of these short runs and try to get in a weekly run of about an hour. Also include hills, fartlek etc. If you are going to run low mileage you can't expect to run that mileage at the same pace as those who churn out regular 70-100 mile weeks.

Yeah.

All those 100mpw 800 guys.

A Muck: He clearly meant "don't think you can do a 5 mile run at the relatively slower pace that the distance guys do their 12 mile run." He said this because the OP is training with the cross guys during the fall, so mark B is pointing out that he needs to run faster than the cross guys normally do.

Just don't forget to do speed in base phase. Hill bursts are muy bueno

I don't understand wrote:

So....if someone is a 400/800m-type and by definition weaker aerobically (than a 800/1500m-type), then wouldn't they reap benefits from increasing their aerobic capacity? Why not run more miles in the fall? Why not do a couple of longer aerobic capacity workouts every week?

Hang on. I never said don't work on improving your aerobic capacity. I said it shouldn't be all you do - long steady mileage I mean.

An 800 runner in base - IMO should be doing speed development, strength work to be able to run flat out, and higher intensity aerobic work, like structured fartlek, vVo2max (same thing sort of). If they've had a break I can see the benefit of starting with some longer steady stuff, but only for a month or so till they start getting aerobically fitter. Start long and short, and work your way into the middle.

For example I don't see what longer steady running (say 50-60 mins) does, except make the athlete better equipped to handle 30 mins of intense fartlek, which CAN directly help an 800. The good athletes are only running for 100-120 seconds. They need to be able to handle a fast pace for the first 500 and be able to bring home the last 300.

In a sit kick race, speed is more important. In a fast time trial type race, aerobic endurance becomes more important. In both cases of course, you need both.

Even Rudisha is vulnerable, because he's beatable in a slow sit kick race. He has good 400 speed, but others have better top speed (Aman, Amos). He knows this, and it's why he pretty much runs all his races one way. Fortunately when you go 49 for the first lap, you control things.

So I don't think being able to handle a hard 25 mins tempo at close to 10km speed is that important for an 800 runner. I think you need to do the sort of aerobic work that benefits the 800. So 5 x 3 minutes at 2-2.5km pace with 2-3 mins jog recovery is of more benefit than a tempo, which might help a 5km specialist.