Last year i was the fastest 800 runner on my team. Then this year three of my friends who are 400 runners all ran faster than me in their first ever 800's and with no endruance training or 800 training. Why is it that 400 runners can just transition to the 800 so easily?
Bump
Bump
It's not that they're particularly good. It's just that you suck.
Maybe because 400 sprinters spend their time working on being fast, while endurance runners spend their time working on being slow. 2 of the last 4 WR holders in the 800 were 400 sprinters that moved up, and 1 of the other 2 (Coe) did sprint training one day a week all season.
Example for Coe from Peter Coe's USATF Level III lecture:
2X300 + 4X200 + 4X100
So i need to work on my sprinting more to get to their level? Also I don't work on too much endurance. I do mostly mid-distance training
what caliber times are we talking
Nothing special i will admit. I run 2:14 and my friends ran 2:08, 2:11 and 2:13. But the three 400 runners are juniors and i am a sophmore. Also they run in the 400 respectively 53, 55.5 and 53.5
TrackRunner28 wrote:
Nothing special i will admit. I run 2:14 and my friends ran 2:08, 2:11 and 2:13. But the three 400 runners are juniors and i am a sophmore. Also they run in the 400 respectively 53, 55.5 and 53.5
We had a :51 quarter guy on our team run 2:09 and was on our 4x800 team. This was back in 1996. Breaking 2:10 is pretty good for the vast majority of HS teams. In my 4 yrs we had a 2:01, 2:04, 2:06, and a bunch of dudes around 2:10.
2:14 is not that good.
Alan
I understand that. There are kids my age running sub-2 in my league. The thing is I literally went from being the "future" of our distance team freshman year to being just above average for our distance team and i don't know where these guys ability has come from. The thing is that these guys fast times came out of nowhere. Two of them did run 800's last year and ran mid-2:30's but they actually improved their sprinting a lot so that could be it even with no endurance change really.
TrackRunner28 wrote:
Nothing special i will admit. I run 2:14 and my friends ran 2:08, 2:11 and 2:13. But the three 400 runners are juniors and i am a sophmore. Also they run in the 400 respectively 53, 55.5 and 53.5
Are you a girl? Under 2:15 are great times for high school girls.
Lots of things going on here, so it's hard to say one thing makes the difference.
At your age, runners mature at different rates, so that could be a factor. Boys go through growth spurts and then have to grow into their new height to perform better.
Endurance is a factor. Higher mileage can be a factor. The 800 is unique in that it has some speed guys and some distance guys. They actually train differently for the 800m.
Maybe you need more mileage and another year of growth. Those would be my two most likely answers.
Oh, I forgot to mention. There is a world of difference between training for the 400m and the 800m. It's probably the biggest training difference between any two consecutive distances.
You need to decide which event you want to specialize in, if you have that option on your team.
It's basic logic.
Suppose you're a good 400m runner, who can run 49. Then a 57 lap feels so easy that doing 2 of them in a row is just a matter of stamina.
Totally agree with you.. our fastest 800 guy was one of our slowest xc guys, decent at soccer, but had some real speed on him. Went from freshman year running 2:07 to being a 2:02 guy as just a sophomore. He can run 53 low and is part of the 4x1 and runs a 23 mid in the 200.. our second best guy doesn't run xc but came from the 400 but he can only run a 55-56 and managed to run 2:03 (Ethiopian guy) then i'm our third best guy I run 2:06 with a 55 400.. it's hilarious because our fastest 400 guy (51) only managed to run a 2:12. Most of it has to do with pacing.. they're FAST finishers and don't like to lead they like to run behind the leaders knowing they'll kick you the last 200. They can also run some quality reps ranging from 500-1200
both speed and endurance are limiting you, so you need to work on both of them. Tempo runs, mile repeats, 800m repeats for endurance with short rest. Steep hill sprints, bounding, 150s, 200s,300s for speed with long rest.
Might as well ask why are 4000m runners so good also at 5000m.
TrackRunner28 wrote:
I understand that. There are kids my age running sub-2 in my league. The thing is I literally went from being the "future" of our distance team freshman year to being just above average for our distance team and i don't know where these guys ability has come from. The thing is that these guys fast times came out of nowhere. Two of them did run 800's last year and ran mid-2:30's but they actually improved their sprinting a lot so that could be it even with no endurance change really.
They barely have 800 ability. Those times are terrible for their speed level and about what you would expect for faster guys with no specific training.
Your problem is that you were a tiny lone fish in a small pond and a few medium fish showed up.
First off what are tempo runs i have heard different things about what they are. Second how many repeats should i do of the distances
Actually most 400 meter runners in high school and much worse, relatively speaking, at the 800.
Your teammates are better at 400 meters than they are at the 800. Unfortunately for you, even though they aren't better when moving up in distance, all three are still better than you in your primary event.
The only reason you think that you are good at the 800 is that your school is particularly weak at that distance. You being the 800 meter torchbearer, so to speak, is precisely why your coach made a bunch of his 400 meter guys move up.