Kosmin 800m Test: How Accurate?

It will be interesting to hear the replies on this, but if you are doing 2 x 1:00, why not just do an 800m time trial?

As an 800m runner, I truly believe that the Kosmin test is the most accurate indicator of your current 800m fitness level. I have always used that workout to test my fitness early season, mid, and late season. From the 1:45 guys in the group all the way to the 2:00 guys, it was usually very accurate (<1 sec) in predicting your time. The only time it failed was when guys ran like idiots and came through 48-49 seconds on the first 400m and then fail to complete one lap on the second 1 minute interval. It was funny as hell though!

CENTCOM

What is the formula?

That's a good question. I have found that it slightly over-predicts. That, or I was never able to race like I should. I have more experience with the 1500/mile version. I have my kids do it prior to the racing season and found it to be more of where they can end up by the end of the year, rather than where they are presently. We do it in January and they usually end up running about what it predicts in the 1500 by the middle of the April. That is just my take on it. The 1500 test is pretty intense and is a good session. You can add on some 200' at the end. I know coach who coached 1:46/3:45 guy who had them run through it 2x with full recovery between sets. I think it especially over predicts women. I think you can add 8-10 sec. for the 1500.

I will interested to hear what some others have to say here.

This will get you to the site that I use. You can download the formula in excel. It is pretty neat.

Good Luck

Some of the results from the calculator do not make any sense.

Total distance of 800m traveled indicated 2x400 each in 60 with 3 minutes rest. Predicted time: 2:02

If you can only manage 2-60s with 3 minutes rest, there is no way you'd run 2-61s with no rest.

So why wouldn't you just do an 800m time trial?

From my experience in testing a lot of athletes (from 1:46 guys to 2:05 guys) here are my conclusions. Providing the athlete runs it properly (ie. goes pretty much flat out right from the gun, running the first minute like it was a 300m) then:

1. The faster the athlete, the better the prediction

2. The 400-800 guys usually have a better prediction that the 800-1500m guys because they tend to go out way faster and don't "pace themselves".

3. It's not accurate at all for women.

4. For men, the prediction they get in December or January is sometimes where they will be in their peak phase. Again, providing the prediction is accurate, which it usually isn't.

Remember, if you're doing a Kosmin, don't pace yourself. If you want the most accurate prediction, you have to go nuts on the first minute. I have seen distance guys capable of running 50.0 for the 400m split 55 during their first minute of the test. Subsequently, they cover a lot more ground on the final minute which grosely inflates their predicted time to something way faster than they are capable of running.

hope this helps,

jT

I did the Kosmin test at a BMC weekend when I was 13 or 14. I covered about 850 meters (predicts around 2:00), and ended up running 2:03 that year. Remember, it predicts your potential at 800m, not necessarily what you are going to run. A good fitness test though without actually doing a time-trial

OK so why wouldn't you just do an 800m time trial?

shut up you boring twat!

The Kosmin test predicts a 1:56 if you cover 850 meters. Either you did the test wrong, or you raced way way below your potential.

Sorry.....I looked at my old logs when I got in from work and it was 819m (went on and ran 2:03 that year)

I did 854m three years later (I actually ran 1:55.6 about 2 months after the test)

The first time I used that test I covered 895 meters, predicting a 1:51 800m time. The following week I ran at Iowa State's 300m track and ran 1:51.20. But you really have to run hard on the first one and accumulate tons of lactic in order for the test to work properly. In my case I ran (50.X/52.hi) and tying up the last 8-10 seconds on both. Keep in mind that at the time, I probably had a 49.2 400m best out of the blocks.

I have found the test to be very accurate with sub 1:55 males, but from there on it goes very much downhill.

This pretty much echos the findings of one or two earlier posters and i would like to think that coaches and athletes are trying to find sessions of their own, which work equally as well in judging form. There are plenty of ways in which we can do this without relying on an ancient test.

It is also absolutely useless for women, so ladies, dont even bother.

Best bet is to experiment with tests that suit the individual.