Michael Johnson says the 800 is the hardest race in track & field

The hardest track event I´ve run is the 3k steeple. But in the marathon the pain comes later, and you feel it afterwards much longer. 800 was my best event and it felt easier than 1500-10k, or HM/marathon. 400m was easier too because it was over so quickly. But it is different for a 400m runner.

Whichever event you are best suited to will be the hardest. Aerobic monsters will not find the 800m as difficult as 10km +, just as a sprinter won't find jogging a 10km overly taxing.

Blinky Bill wrote:

Whichever event you are best suited to will be the hardest. Aerobic monsters will not find the 800m as difficult as 10km +, just as a sprinter won't find jogging a 10km overly taxing.

Lol. Most sprinters can't even finish a 10k without walking.

I heard many times from 100/200 athletes that the hardest event is the 400m. Johnson probably could have raced sub-1:50 800m on reserve speed and anaerobic fitness. Johnson is biased. In defense of 400/800: training for those two events is more grueling than long distance runners may want to admit. We never see elite 100/200 athletes age out in those events and then move up to 400/800. We see high school/college 800 gals/guys moving up to 1500m and longer often.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

My vague rule is "more laps= more pain." What ever the event the last 1/4 to 1/3 always hurts.

I agree. The pain of the last 200m of an all-out-800m is intense and horrible, but it is over soon. I must confess that I always fear to run 800m.

But as mentioned above running longer and harder means more pain to make its presence felt, during the race and afterwards.

I will never forget a mountain running race (about 6,5 miles, 4610ft height meter, gradients up to 40%, finish at >7200ft altitude, horrible heat conditions of >80 Fahrenheit). Incredible hard, scary mixture of tachycardia and collapse-feelings.

No clue.... wrote:

Approaching this as an amateur with a 2:06 800 PR. My guess is that the 800 hurts most AND is positive split most often because runners need to bolt to the corner to establish position and usually run the first 200 a few seconds faster than they would optimally. In the 400 you run lanes and pace. Am I way off base?

...yes. The 400 is run with a similar positive split to the 8

No clue.... wrote:

Approaching this as an amateur with a 2:06 800 PR. My guess is that the 800 hurts most AND is positive split most often because runners need to bolt to the corner to establish position and usually run the first 200 a few seconds faster than they would optimally. In the 400 you run lanes and pace. Am I way off base?

I believe from a physiological standpoint it is best to run the first lap faster than the second, and the first 200m faster than the second 200.

As Coe and other knowledgeable about the 800m state: even effort, not splits.

Over Skill wrote:

You will be at your VO2 max for 10+ minutes.

On the one hand, no you won't, since VO2max is about equivalent to an all-out 3k. On the other hand, so what if it was, since VO2max is not the highest rate of oxygen consumption possible, not by a long shot. Only the level before failure at sustained, incrementally more difficult exercise, at which point fatigue and sustained acidosis greatly limit your ability to push consumption higher. Whereas in an 800, you can push acidosis to a level that will make you fall over.

No clue.... wrote:

Approaching this as an amateur with a 2:06 800 PR. My guess is that the 800 hurts most AND is positive split most often because runners need to bolt to the corner to establish position and usually run the first 200 a few seconds faster than they would optimally. In the 400 you run lanes and pace. Am I way off base?

At least you admit to being ignorant, unlike most here.

Optimal pacing at both 400 and 800 involves a positive split.

I think the 400 or the 400H have got to be the hardest. It's short enough to think you can sprint the whole thing, but too long to actually do that. Those guys crossing the 400H finish line are always totally exhausted. I've run the 400, 400H, steeple, and all number of other events and had my timing been better on the 400H such that I could have done it faster I'd have to say it's the most exhausting.

It's all relative...any race where a runner goes out too fast and ties up is going to be painful...tying up in the last 160 in the 800 is the equivalent of hitting the wall at 21 miles of the marathon (the last 1/5th of the race for both) one just lasts longer than the other...completely to relative fitness and pacing, any race is hard if you pace poorly.

The 400 gives the body major rigamortis. The 1500 makes your lungs burn and you feel like puking. The 800 does all of these.

Fresh load wrote:

Truthfully said wrote:

I agree, the 800 is the only race where a bad day might place you significantly outside your PR.

Ex. Duane Soloman USAs 2015 : 3:08

He stopped 50 meters from the finish line and didn't move for like a minute or more maybe, I was there I saw.

Still, there aren't many events that leave you debilitated after almost 90% of the race @ WR pace. Even Lelisa Desisa managed a 2:14 after crashing and burning at the Sub-2 marathon attempt. I'm sure even 400 runners manage a decent time even after challenging WR pace.

100 - objectively easy

200 - slightly more difficult

400 - hurts more, major muscle pain later

800 - lactic acid kills over last 200

1500 - very uncomfortable, but you can get moving well on the last lap

3000SC - imagine the last mile of a 5k, but that's the whole thing

5000 - general fatigue and burning lungs

10000 - like the 5000

HM - if you go out too fast, you'll crash hard

M - same as HM but it lasts a lot longer

huil wrote:

As an 800m athlete I can say it's all relative. I dread the pain of the 800m so so much more than that of a 400m, the 400 is a skoosh compared to the pain of a 800m.

Then comes the 1500m/mile where the pain is much more prolonged, but not quite as intense as the last 200m of an 800m.

As i said, it's all relative and depends on the individual's background, whether they come from a speed base or strength base. BUT, the most painful seconds I have ever endured in my life have been in the 800m.

As one who focused on the 1500, I agree. It's largely relative to your talents, what u r trained for, your mental strengths, etc.

It seems as if sprinters say the 400, 400h, or 800 is the hardest event. To me, the 400 or 800 were way easier (never did 400h). Why? The tactics were simple. Controlled aggression the entire way... and by the time you get the pain, it's time to kick anyhow. For me, I was most often able to dig down and kick through the lactate. The pain was secondary.

But the 1500 not only has this, but also has tactics and no lanes ever. For me, it's easier to make a tactical mistake in the 1500/mile. Plus I have nervous energy the first third of the race which makes my legs feel tired. The second third pain starts, and the last third is kicking through lactate mentioned above. I was always way more nervous before a 1500.. more nervous than any other event. Now the 3k and 5k. My talents were better suited for the 1500/800, and I trained for this more... so the 3k/5k for me was hard bc the pace always seemed too fast too early... like how can I sustain this, I'm not even halfway yet.

So it's all relative to your talents, mental strengths and weaknesses, and training

Possibly true. You're putting 100% more work/distance on your legs. The 800m is more anaerobic at the end though, so potentially more muscle sireness This post has nothing to do with what event is hardest though. Stay on subject, kiddo

Close.....for me wrote:

I found the 1500 to be harder to recover from than the 800. Not so much aerobically but just the amount of time spent exercising at a vigorous level seemed to hang on longer. I was more competitive at the 800 but ran equivalent 1500 effort times included in the points tables. Exceeding Lactate threshold could come quicker in a short race if not paced well but it just seemed that the extra time really got to me, especially the indoor mile. I loved both races but the mile was harder for me even though i performed equally in the 800. I never threw up after an 800 but almost always did in the indoor season after the mile.

huil wrote:

It's common knowledge that a two second positive differential between the first 400m and second 400m is the fastest way to run the 800m. Just look at all the world records set.

Anecdotally that is true, physically the most optimal pacing strategy would be running dead even splits.

There was an article floating around facebook a couple years ago about why the 800 is so hard from a physiological standpoint.

I agree- in an 800 you are never comfortable, if you are you're going too slow.

my 0.02 wrote:

HM - if you go out too fast, you'll crash hard

M - same as HM but it lasts a lot longer

I wouldn't say those are similar at all. A HM is more like a 5K/10K than a marathon