1st or 2nd or does it depend on the competiton
800m which lap should be the fastest
-
-
Participant
-
Participant
Good question for which I’m not sure I can give you a definitive answer. The first lap is nearly always the fastest of the two. If you have a great kick and the patience to make up ground, you might be able to get away with negative splitting a race. It is probably more common to negative split slower races, but you’ll see that as the times get faster so does the first 400.
-
Participant
-
KeymasterHaving a pretty much even pace is ideal for the 800m. From a physiological standpoint and from what most elite athletes seem to do is run the race with a slightly faster first lap. If you were to take the goal time in seconds and multiple 0.51 and 0.49 you’d have near ideal splits for each 400m.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Negative splitting means you are not running an optimal race in the 800.
1st lap is fast 400m, about 4-5 secs slower than your open 400 time. your 2nd lap is pure guts.
This is the event hardest to recover from in Track and Field, it completely saps your blood glucose and muscle glycogen and being that it is 65% anaerobic in terms of energy production you accumilate tons of Lactate.
OFF season the 800 requires mileage to get the most out your aerobic energy systems, because that is what plays the important role in removing lactate from your systems.
IN season the 800 requires 400 repeats, 200 intervals, 400 fast-100 easy- 300 acceleration repeats. Some days you may do 100m or 200m repeats as well. 2 weeks before you want to peak you should do 10×400 (Bannister Workout).
This gives you the ability to go out fast and the mental edge required to have the guts to finish the last lap.
-
Keymaster
[i]Originally posted by danimal9[/i]
This is the event hardest to recover from in Track and Field, it completely saps your blood glucose and muscle glycogen and being that it is 65% anaerobic in terms of energy production you accumilate tons of Lactate.I agree with everything else you said but this is questionable. It would probably be better to say it is the most metabolically taxing event. It is not however the most taxing event on the neuromuscular system (which perhaps the 100 or 200m) especially the CNS.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I dont know mike, Kids seem to recover from 200m and 100m a lot easier than a fast 800m. Im no expert just what I see in High School. I see a kid run a 10.5 100m and come back in 20min run a 21.5 split in the 4x200m then in 20min run a 10.5 split in 4x100m then in 15 min run a 21.5 200m . Yet get a kid to run a 1:56 split in 4x800m and wait almost an hour or more and can only run a 2:02 or 2:00 in open 800m. If i dont have him do the relay he’ll run a 1:56 in the open.
-
Keymaster
[i]Originally posted by ECUXCTF[/i]
I dont know mike, Kids seem to recover from 200m and 100m a lot easier than a fast 800m. Im no expert just what I see in High School. I see a kid run a 10.5 100m and come back in 20min run a 21.5 split in the 4x200m then in 20min run a 10.5 split in 4x100m then in 15 min run a 21.5 200m . Yet get a kid to run a 1:56 split in 4x800m and wait almost an hour or more and can only run a 2:02 or 2:00 in open 800m. If i dont have him do the relay he’ll run a 1:56 in the open.This is all due to the metabolic effect of the event not CNS or neuromuscular, which just goes along with what I was saying. Also, in my experience sprinters will often be more sore and drained the following day than middle distance runners following high level performances.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
do you know his name?? seems like an amazing talent
-
Participant
my teammate who placed sixth at states last year ran a 2:01.6 and he got a negative split, he went out slow something like 66.XX then on the second lap he went 55.4, 10 minutes later he split a 51.1 on the 4×4. negative splits are rare in races from 800 below but it defnitely happens
-
Participant
He probably could have ran a 1:55 or 1:56 if he went out at 55 or 56.
-
Participant
he wanted to conserve energy, he conserved to much and he was butt naked last before he stepped on the gas
what about on a indoor 600 is it common for negative splits
-
Participant
400, 600, 800 are the same, negative splitting the last half is not considered optimal.
-
Participant
to win a good race, you should be able to run a very negative split, to run a good time a positive split is necessary. See Woltle, Jim Ruyn, Ralf Double.
I read in an old book that Jim Ruyn , could run 51" on a mile race., that he was so fast has a young boy on 800m,..a great talent from Wichita. -
Keymaster
to win a good race, you should be able to run a very negative split, to run a good time a positive split is necessary.
Very true. In championship races (where overall paces tend to be slower) the winner is often the won who can run the fastest over the last 200m-400m. To run fast though in the 400m and 800m you definitely need a SLIGHTLY faster first half. In races over the 800m, faster times often come from even or slightly negative splits.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Watch Seb Coe's or Wilson Kipketer's WR runs and neither are hanging around the back. How about KD?
-
Participant
i saw the international meet in Europe Munchen last weekend on television. first 200m :24.5 400m 54.5 600m 1.215 – 800m winner 1.49. or in 200's (24.5 + 30" + 27" + 28.5). our clubfriend young guy, can run 1.45,7, but in this race he was 5th. The man who pushed from the 400m to the 600m was third at the end, maybe he killed many competors, by his thirth 200m
-
Participant
i might be revealing my inexperience here, but i don't understand the whole "run fast at the beginning to get a good time, but save it for the end in a big race" thing. if you know you can run a certain distance in a certain time, why not just run your race like you know you need to in order to get that time – or near it – and forget about what everyone else is doing? why bother saving a kick to win with a time of 1:50 when you could just push hard and win in 1:45 like you know you can? it doesn't matter if you leave yourself very little kick because by running that way you've run everyone else's kick out of them too, right?
-
Keymaster
In time trial races without rounds the top times almost always come from a guy who has a slightly faster first lap and is with the leaders but not leading through 400 or maybe even 600m.
In competitions preceded by rounds, things change completely. The objective becomes advancement and place rather than time. Because of this, pace often slows because no one wants to be the guy who leads and dies at the end. That's why in big championship races the winner is often the guy who can keep up through 400m and still be able to BLAST the last 200m.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
i might be revealing my inexperience here, but i don't understand the whole "run fast at the beginning to get a good time, but save it for the end in a big race" thing. if you know you can run a certain distance in a certain time, why not just run your race like you know you need to in order to get that time – or near it – and forget about what everyone else is doing? why bother saving a kick to win with a time of 1:50 when you could just push hard and win in 1:45 like you know you can? it doesn't matter if you leave yourself very little kick because by running that way you've run everyone else's kick out of them too, right?
As a general rule you shouldn't run your first lap faster than 4s slower than your best 400m time. An understanding of pace is crucial in this race and that means running your own race, but competition is competition and the mental aspects of someone going out and laying down a 22s first 200m and the field following because they are scared of him, but not having an understanding of their own abilities or the nut laying down that very aggressive pace. I've seen this 22-23s first 200m split done by runners on both sides of the spectrum (very talented and not very talented). The results, the very talented runner shredded the field and ran an average race but still won in 1:55 at a HS meet against some decent competition. The untalented runner shredded the field, but a couple of smarter runners of better talent hung back but still a little fast for them at 24-25s instead of their normal 26-27s, ran PR's and finished 1-2 going away from the rest of field. The talented runner's goal was to destroy any confidence of the runners who would challenge him later at the state meet, he was a 3x state champion and finished 4th at Keebler GW invite. The untalented runner had a mediocre coach (myself in my first season) before I learned that saying words like fast doesn't mean the runner will understand that what I really meant was to be implied as a fast controlled pace that the runner can handle to complete the race in a pr or near pr time, instead he crashes and burns at 2:20 and I have a heck of a time explaining how I did everything wrong, but that he had a 400m pr by 2s in an 800m race so it still gave us something to build off of.
-
Participant
As a general rule you shouldn't run your first lap faster than 4s slower than your best 400m time. An understanding of pace is crucial in this race and that means running your own race, but competition is competition and the mental aspects of someone going out and laying down a 22s first 200m and the field following because they are scared of him, but not having an understanding of their own abilities or the nut laying down that very aggressive pace. I've seen this 22-23s first 200m split done by runners on both sides of the spectrum (very talented and not very talented). The results, the very talented runner shredded the field and ran an average race but still won in 1:55 at a HS meet against some decent competition. The untalented runner shredded the field, but a couple of smarter runners of better talent hung back but still a little fast for them at 24-25s instead of their normal 26-27s, ran PR's and finished 1-2 going away from the rest of field. The talented runner's goal was to destroy any confidence of the runners who would challenge him later at the state meet, he was a 3x state champion and finished 4th at Keebler GW invite. The untalented runner had a mediocre coach (myself in my first season) before I learned that saying words like fast doesn't mean the runner will understand that what I really meant was to be implied as a fast controlled pace that the runner can handle to complete the race in a pr or near pr time, instead he crashes and burns at 2:20 and I have a heck of a time explaining how I did everything wrong, but that he had a 400m pr by 2s in an 800m race so it still gave us something to build off of.
Just a few things of interest.
At the high school level, how can any 800m kid run an opening 200m in 22-23s and be considered untalented? That'd be a VERY good open PR at that level.
Also, I thought i'd add my commiseration's to that poor kid. That final lap must have been pure death like no other.
-
Participant
Untalented because he's not a talented 800m runner, a decent 200/400m runner. His 23s would be a PR, but it's also not exact since it's a split, same as the 400m split but it also killed any chance for me to turn him into an 800m runner. I would say the 22.5-23.5s 200m range is above-average to average HS 200m times. The first kid was a 1:50 800m and 48s 400m kid also a 4:20 miler and 9:15 2 miler. The second kid's best 400m was 51s so comparing them across a similar event the 400m race they were still world's apart.
I am sure you have seen similar things happen to kids in the 800m race. It was devastating, but it happens and it's not my greatest coaching highlight quite possibly my worst.
-
Viewing 29 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.