Why do I suck at 800m?

sounds like mental weakness.

do you track HR? it can be a proxy for effort. I'm sure you know this

Probably need more miles. Should do ladder workouts. 200, 400, 600, 400, 200. 600 should be 85% of all out 800 effort.

Maybe you are actually a sprinter deep down and cant admit it to yourself? If you tell me 1500/1600 times I can tell for sure, but a 49.xx is leagues better than 2:09 and if you are anywhere close to 5:00 or slower, you my friend are a sprinter with lots of stamina (for a sprinter) and should focus on 400 and drop a 46.xx to get recruited.

What is your training schedule like? If you can only muster up a 209 while having 50 400 speed it's pretty obvious you don't have much 800m/1500m specific training.

extrapolater expert wrote:

sounds like mental weakness.

do you track HR? it can be a proxy for effort. I'm sure you know this

I would love to but I haven't because my Garmin strap never managed to sync for me. I wouldn't mind getting a HR monitor but I usually just run by feel.

Mental weakness is an interesting idea but I truely feel 100% spent on the last 200m or so. I usually prefer to go out with the front guys in 58-59. Also, im in high school.

Pay attention wrote:

Maybe you are actually a sprinter deep down and cant admit it to yourself? If you tell me 1500/1600 times I can tell for sure, but a 49.xx is leagues better than 2:09 and if you are anywhere close to 5:00 or slower, you my friend are a sprinter with lots of stamina (for a sprinter) and should focus on 400 and drop a 46.xx to get recruited.

I do agree with this. I've always been able to naturally run 23 second 200s in practice (never raced one..) if I really want. I also can always run these 400m times after already having raced the 800 and 1600 that day.

My 1600 is 4:46. I started as an XC runner so I am very partial to distance. I've run 17:15 for the 5k last fall.

If you were truly a distance runner with 49-50 sec 400, a 1:55 should be most definitely in your range. That would involve going 55-56 first lap and 59-60 second lap or there abouts. However, you are splitting 58-59 and 69-70, which tells me that there is almost no way you are slow twitch. My 800/1500 friend has 49, 1:55, 4:01 and 4:23 for 1600. that is a real mid distance runner's dropoff. yours is wayyyyy steeper. Talk to your coach if you can become a 400 runner.

I think you are like one kid I know. At his school they had 4 guys sub 47 in the 400 and he was a freshman with a 49 so they told him he was long distance because he was too slow to sprint. He ran like 2:05 800 which is excellent for someone that fast twitch, but it doesn't compare. I think you are a distance trained sprinter. I am not a coach, but I also think with a 4:46 you should be able to go 2:05 or maybe a tad better, but sub 2 is not very easy with your dropoff. if you started focusing on explosiveness and bulked a bit for sprints, with your stamina you would have the best finish of anyone and could definitely be a factor.

Pay attention wrote:

If you were truly a distance runner with 49-50 sec 400, a 1:55 should be most definitely in your range. That would involve going 55-56 first lap and 59-60 second lap or there abouts. However, you are splitting 58-59 and 69-70, which tells me that there is almost no way you are slow twitch. My 800/1500 friend has 49, 1:55, 4:01 and 4:23 for 1600. that is a real mid distance runner's dropoff. yours is wayyyyy steeper. Talk to your coach if you can become a 400 runner.

I've also thought this. Growing up I've always been either the fastest or one of the fastest kids in school for short relays in gym and stuff. Any interval workouts 400m below I can hang with anyone around me, seemingly regardless of the pace. I also have only been running since my sophomore year and I'm entering into my senior year. I was always a baseball player but found I enjoy running more.

If you are doing it for enjoyment, then enjoy it and do whatever distance you please. If you are looking to continue after high school, consider your options. Both are equally valid choices.

That's an interesting story and sounds a lot like me haha. Also, my PR in 8 is 2:06. I just really seem to have difficulty around 2:09 or so. I'm definitely going to consider changing events even though I enjoy running miles.

Another question though,

I've run a half marathon in 1:22, which isn't great but the year before I was a 1:31. My 5k XC progression is as follows also:

19:52 --> 18:33 ---> 17:15

All this has been from mostly around 30-40 miles a week with an occasional workout of 8-12 400s and maybe a "tempo-ish" run of around 6:15 pace for like 4 miles or so.

Is there any reason to believe that with increased mileage and time put in that I couldn't bring my 800m and above times faster? It seems every year I get faster, but it seems like a long journey.

Also, not every workout was 8-12 400s. I'll do ladders and other things of that nature too.

Is it possible that your hand timed 400m splits are off by margins of over 3 seconds?

Something doesn't translate here--a guy running 50 flat with a 5 flat mile should be capable of around 2 minutes for the 8, probably just under. A 50 flat quartermiler with a distance background should be running well under 2 minutes in the 8. 50/4:46 should put you somewhere in 1:56 territory.

How many times have you run the 800? If only once, did you run it really stupidly (70-59? 52-77?). Have you won all your 800s by huge margins (5+ seconds)? Do you sit on leaders coming through 400m in 70 and not go till the final 200? 2:09 should not feel like a particularly hard effort for a guy with your 400 and 1600 capability.

None of what you've said makes sense tbh. No decent coach is going to let a 50 flat 400 guy waste his time running 4:45 miles on a regular basis when he should be running the 2/4/4x4 (and probably learning hurdles).

Everyone's commenting on your dropoff from 400 --> 1600, but a 50 flat quartermiler running 4:46 is not that severe a dropoff at all--that's what plenty of speed-based high school 1:56/1:57 guys do. 50/5:00+ would be a major dropoff, but you'd still probably be capable of 2 flat.

I hate to be so blunt here, but either you're doing something seriously wrong when you're racing the 800 or your sub 50 quarter speed is bogus.

I think you could certainly improve your 800 times. Your XC times are better than both your 800 and 1600 according to a quick check on jundo.co.uk

Also according to Jundo If you were in 17:15 shape and 49.5 shape at the same time you would theoretically be able to run a 1:57 and 4:31... I might have been all wrong with my analysis after seeing that. You might, like the other guy said, just be a fast dude with mental weakness. Not sure...

THIS

THIS. I agree wholeheartedly. However, your 17:15 shows you aren't a speed based 800 guy, on the contrary you have decent stamina.

I've yet to point out that I come from a small 3a school in the south. I actually do not even have a true coach, they're football coaches who were thrown into the track program because there's no one else. They have sprint experience but little distance whatsoever. Most of what I've done/trained has been on my own.

I also agree with your last statement. It doesn't make sense, at meets in the 4x4 my split has been auto timed sub 50 a few times, but most the time im around 51 or so. Again, That's after the 1600 and 800.

Many of the meets I do around here aren't huge and the winning time isn't usually very fast. As for tactics, I usually lead for 600m or stay right by the guys in the front. Coming though 400m in 58-59-60 feels super easy, but by 600m im out of gas, almost every time.

I agree that it makes little sense in comparison with my other times.

I think what the other poster said about being more of a true sprint type might hold true.

This has been an interesting thread. Thanks for the suggestions and help you guys. I think I could have success in the sprints but again, I don't enjoy those much. but with 23-24 200s being easy-ish and the 400m runs not being horrible, I do wonder what I'm capable of with a sprinter's training regimen.

I'm very temped to try for 60 mpw or so and see where that gets me as well. I wonder if the aerobic side of me just needs more time to develop. I seem to drop a lot of time in the distance runs every year.

You've done a 4:46 1600 and you are fast. I'd think that you'd be able to run well under 2:09 based on your mile and that lick of speed.

Do you ever run fast 600s in practice? Try running 2 @ 600 in 1:30 with 5 minutes between and see how it feels. Proper warm up first of course.

It would be interesting for you to try a 600 where you go out in 55 - 56 and try to run about 1:26 too.

Keep it up, be patient. Certainly you should run under 2:00 by spring 2017.

When I was a kid, I ran 1:57 and could only do 53 for the 400, and it sounds like you have talent I could only dream of.

Pay attention wrote:

I think you are like one kid I know. At his school they had 4 guys sub 47 in the 400 and he was a freshman with a 49 so they told him he was long distance because he was too slow to sprint. He ran like 2:05 800 which is excellent for someone that fast twitch, but it doesn't compare. I think you are a distance trained sprinter. I am not a coach, but I also think with a 4:46 you should be able to go 2:05 or maybe a tad better, but sub 2 is not very easy with your dropoff. if you started focusing on explosiveness and bulked a bit for sprints, with your stamina you would have the best finish of anyone and could definitely be a factor.

Just goes to show you that at least 5% of guys could run sub 50 if they trained for it.