Great article and so very true.
All true, but I don't know about the FULL sprint at the beginning being the best strategy, as seemingly advocated by the author.
A guy who has run 52 for a 400 might go out in 57 or so.
Here's a pretty good example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBNMO32_YLc
"Up to around three to four minutes, the best pacing strategy is to allow a slow down at the end."
Uh... so he's saying that all those sub-4 milers should go out hard and death-march it in to the finish? Most good mile performances (that are under 4) end with a FAST last lap.
Typical sub-4 mile splits:
58
61
61
59
Sub-4 mile you almost never see:
54
60
62
63
^And this runner would certainly be capable of more with better pacing.
I agree with a lot of what he said, and he definitely has better credentials than me, but you can't say that it's best for those 4-minute milers to positive split their race. If it was, we would see a lot more sub-4s being run with a super fast first couple laps and then a death-march. Instead we see most of them ending with exciting, fast last laps.
Up to 3 minutes, I would agree with the positive split approach.
This
Aerobic respiration was doing the trick for about 300 meters but greedy muscles demanded more energy than the available oxygen could process, so they turned to anaerobic respiration to burn fuel. Of course, the by-product of anaerobic respiration is lactic acid, a substance which, in excess, is toxic.
is false, completely backwards even. The first 300 is not aerobic. Everyone who runs 800 knows this, or damn well should.
You start out almost entirely anaerobic, and as pH drops, you switch increasingly to aerobic. Acidosis hits late because it takes a while for pH to drop to a crippling level, and because the increasing aerobic respiration acts as a buffer against it. The same hemoglobin that delivers more oxygen at low pH also binds to cations and removes them from the muscles.
5k and 10k are much more painful than the 800 IMO.
I think the steeplechase looks like the most painful race. I was never tempted to try it. The 400 meter hurdles doesn't look like a picnic either.
Bad Wigins wrote:
This
Aerobic respiration was doing the trick for about 300 meters but greedy muscles demanded more energy than the available oxygen could process, so they turned to anaerobic respiration to burn fuel. Of course, the by-product of anaerobic respiration is lactic acid, a substance which, in excess, is toxic.is false, completely backwards even. The first 300 is not aerobic. Everyone who runs 800 knows this, or damn well should.
You start out almost entirely anaerobic, and as pH drops, you switch increasingly to aerobic. Acidosis hits late because it takes a while for pH to drop to a crippling level, and because the increasing aerobic respiration acts as a buffer against it. The same hemoglobin that delivers more oxygen at low pH also binds to cations and removes them from the muscles.
That is correct.
I don't know what kind of exercise physiologist they interviewed if he said something like that or agrees with that. They probably just grabbed a random high school coach.
My guess is that that description comes from the author, Sarah Barker, and not the PhD physiologist Ross Tucker.
cbenson4 wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:This
is false, completely backwards even. The first 300 is not aerobic. Everyone who runs 800 knows this, or damn well should.
You start out almost entirely anaerobic, and as pH drops, you switch increasingly to aerobic. Acidosis hits late because it takes a while for pH to drop to a crippling level, and because the increasing aerobic respiration acts as a buffer against it. The same hemoglobin that delivers more oxygen at low pH also binds to cations and removes them from the muscles.
That is correct.
I don't know what kind of exercise physiologist they interviewed if he said something like that or agrees with that. They probably just grabbed a random high school coach.
A good read.
In my PR 880 of 1:58.0, I got cheeky and ran the third 220 in 28.4. Best feeling ever. Of course, my final 220 of 32.1 did not feel as good...
I ran the 800 in HS and College. We always described the first 400 as a "controlled sprint". My 400 pr in HS was 52, ran the first 400 in a half between 56-59. For the second half we always said the goal was to slow down the least
I broke 2 twice in HS. Both times it was with a 1:53 runner in the race.
I decided that I had enough with the introduction of lactic acid. I bet Ross did not tell the author that.
I'm just starting my first track season and so far I have run two 800m races, a 2:31 and then a 2:26 that I won. The first race I ran a positive split with a 74 then a 77, and on the second race I negative split with something like a 75 and a 71. Neither of those races hurt nearly as much as everyone told me they would, and most of the pain went away within a few seconds of finishing. With all the hype about 800s feeling like hell, I must have been doing something wrong since I only felt a lot of pain in the last 300m or so. Maybe I'm staying too relaxed and cruising more than pushing, I dunno. I'm having so much fun with it I'm okay with not feeling like sh*t after a race as long as it doesn't affect my times.
I assume you're just kidding but I'll bite; your strategy is affecting your times. Open in 68 and see what happens.
cbenson4 wrote:
"Up to around three to four minutes, the best pacing strategy is to allow a slow down at the end."
Uh... so he's saying that all those sub-4 milers should go out hard and death-march it in to the finish? Most good mile performances (that are under 4) end with a FAST last lap.
Typical sub-4 mile splits:
58
61
61
59
Sub-4 mile you almost never see:
54
60
62
63
^And this runner would certainly be capable of more with better pacing.
I agree with a lot of what he said, and he definitely has better credentials than me, but you can't say that it's best for those 4-minute milers to positive split their race. If it was, we would see a lot more sub-4s being run with a super fast first couple laps and then a death-march. Instead we see most of them ending with exciting, fast last laps.
Up to 3 minutes, I would agree with the positive split approach.
I remember years ago, during the time when Kenya was coming onto the scene and dominating a lot of races, that the difference between Kenyan and American style was...
For a 3:53 mile,
Americans would run
60, 60, 60, 53...
While the Kenyans would run
60, 60, 53, 60...
This was because it is easy to sprint with someone at the end of a race. Mush harder to come back from that kind of gap.
tracknoob wrote:
I'm just starting my first track season and so far I have run two 800m races, a 2:31 and then a 2:26 that I won. The first race I ran a positive split with a 74 then a 77, and on the second race I negative split with something like a 75 and a 71. Neither of those races hurt nearly as much as everyone told me they would, and most of the pain went away within a few seconds of finishing. With all the hype about 800s feeling like hell, I must have been doing something wrong since I only felt a lot of pain in the last 300m or so. Maybe I'm staying too relaxed and cruising more than pushing, I dunno. I'm having so much fun with it I'm okay with not feeling like sh*t after a race as long as it doesn't affect my times.
That's normal starting out. It takes time to learn how to push yourself and "red line" the race (and training). Even from season to season there's a large improvement remembering how to get the most from your body. My 800m progression is below (first one when I was 19). I always aimed for as close to equal splits as possible but knowing it wasn't going to happen. 1st 400 as fast as possible but relaxed, 2nd 400 as fast as possible with all out from 150 out (getting slower the whole time.... all about who slows down the least!).
My first 3 seasons of 800m running (in NZ, October - March track season):
Season 1
10/14/2000 02:09.22
10/28/2000 02:05.00
3/3/2001 02:03.50
Season 2
1/12/2002 02:03.74
1/19/2002 02:03.61
2/2/2002 02:02.53
2/17/2002 01:59.50
Season 3
11/16/2002 02:06.86
11/23/2002 02:05.70
12/1/2002 02:04.05
2/8/2003 02:00.84
2/16/2003 02:00.01
2/22/2003 02:11.05
3/1/2003 01:58.61
3/27/2003 01:57.60
3/28/2003 02:00.60
bigtool05 wrote:
5k and 10k are much more painful than the 800 IMO.
They are if you run them all at the same pace.
Agreed. Props to steeplers out there.
I trained primarily for the 800 and then switched to the 400 hurdles to be more competitive in my conference. I imagine for a true sprinter the 400 hurdles would feel really rough, but I found having the 800 background/more of mid distance training even for that event that the race felt very similar in terms of effort to an 800m.
Rapper's Delight wrote:
bigtool05 wrote:5k and 10k are much more painful than the 800 IMO.
They are if you run them all at the same pace.
Everyone on LRC talks about how much the 800 hurts.
I bet that most of LRC's are geared to longer distances.
Hence, you 5K and 10K types are running very far out of your comfort zone.
For an 800 runner, running an elite pace for 5K would hurt more.