Which one? I thought of this because I am a high school runner with a season that is getting ever so close to ending.
Which one? I thought of this because I am a high school runner with a season that is getting ever so close to ending.
Depends on how your state runs the order of events for the meet. When I was in HS in MN, I ran 4x800 and then the 3200. 4x800 was first even, 3200 was second to last right before the 4x400. I thought the 800 was a nice little "pre-warm up", and actually helped a lot.
On the other hand, I did do open 800 then 3200. The open 800 was only 2 events before the 3200, with only the 200 in between. This double was much harder than the other.
Basically disregard whatever I said, everyone has different levels of 'difficulties', only way to know if you can handle it is go for it.
-Twist
800, 3200 is worse than 3200, 800. Get the long one out of the way. Most of the time I did the 1600, 3200 and I always hated it. Once I got to run the 1600, 800 and had no problems - I set my still-standing PR in the 800. And the 800 was closer in time to the 1600, so I had even less rest than usual.
Maybe that's just me, though. I ran very low mileage in HS, 20-25 mpw, which didn't benefit me much for the longer races. Some may like the warmup effect of a race before the 2 mile. I don't know.
3200-800 is much harder. It's always harder to "shift gears" from a slower race to a faster race. So if you are used to running 75-second laps in the 3200, it will be harder to shift gears and start running 60-second laps for the 800.
Conversely, it would feel much easier if you started out running the 60-second laps of the 800 and then closed by running the 75-second laps in the 3200. I am also of the opinion that your kick matters more in a shorter race like the 800 and (slightly) less in a longer race like the 3200.
Odd question, but I'd say 800-3200 would be more difficult. With enough rest between the events it wouldn't matter either way, though.
If you run the 800 like it supposed to be run, it is tougher to run a good 3200 afterwards. Get the aerobic event out the way. Then run the anaerobic event. I was in the same position as you. State meet has the 1600 on friday with the 800 early saturday and the 3200 later on. I never lost a 3200 senior year until I attempted to run it after a hard 800 (in which i PRed). Run the 3200 first if you can.
Brutallyhonest wrote:
If you run the 800 like it supposed to be run, it is tougher to run a good 3200 afterwards. Get the aerobic event out the way. Then run the anaerobic event. I was in the same position as you. State meet has the 1600 on friday with the 800 early saturday and the 3200 later on. I never lost a 3200 senior year until I attempted to run it after a hard 800 (in which i PRed). Run the 3200 first if you can.
Yes, usually your coach can reorder the events if you have a strong preference.
800>3200 as always harder to me. In my state the 4x800 was first, and the 3200 was third or fourth. It might have only been separated by the 110 hurdles. It made for a really fast and hard turn around.
The open 800 was pretty far back in the meet, so going 3200>800 gave me a lot more time to relax and recover.
Of course some of the smaller meets coach would load us up and I'd do the 4x800, 3200, 1600, and either the 800 or 4x400. I hated those days because I'd run nothing good.
Senior year my state finally added the 4x800. It was the first race of the meet.
Most meets I ran the 4x800, 1600, and 3200m. Usually I didn't have to run all-out to win....especially in the 3200. So the 800 would be all out and the 1600/3200 would be practice surging and sit and kick.
At the conference meet I did the....
4x800, 1600, 800, 3200. Scored in all, won the 1600 and 3200.
800 to 3200 was like a ten minute turn around lol.
Alan
My senior year of high school I tripled/quadrupled routinely.
Running the 3200m after the open 800m, it felt like a cool down! I never went all out in 800m, knowing I had to race again 5 minutes. Plus I was a better 1600/3200 guy than an 800m runner.
If you race both hard, 800-3200 will be harder for most athletes than 3200-800. A hard 800 will leave you floored and your legs filled with lactic acid for quite some time, and your legs will be dead before the first mile of the 32. Running a fast 32 first will leave you fatigued and you won't run as fast as you could if you just ran the 8, but you'll be loose and unless the race ended in a very hard kick, you'll have more bounce left in your legs.
Based on these responses I conclude that it's different for different people.
I can recover from a hard 800 since I am a mid-distance guy. A hard 3200 would toast me for the rest of the day.
This thread makes me honry
800- Steeple.
I did in all the time in College
In Ohio, the 4x800 at our State meet was on Friday and then all the open events are Saturday. Since you get 24+ hours of recovery after the 4x800, clearly that double would be easier. On the the other hand, 800/3200 in Ohio literally would be a 10-20 minute turn around. Because the 800 is about 50 percent anaerobic that double would probably harder than if the event orders were switched. A 3200 is almost all aerobic so you would be able to access your anaerobic systems without already using them. Just my two cents.
3200-800 is harder
Provided you have decent training behind you so that recovery is reasonable I would always prefer to get the faster race out of the way first. If time between the two events is quite short keep moving in the interval and the opening laps of the longer race will feel pretty easy.
Think about an interval session; surely the hardest ones are those in which the pace of the reps gets faster as you get more tired?