Speed & Endurance, but no Speed Endurance - Why?

YOu need to split a 54. You're probably going out too slow.

if that 800 pb was a decent effort, then i'm going to guess that you are not a sub-23 200m guy.

is that 23 seconds from a running start?

I thought there were three energy systems - the phospate system, which supplies energy for short sprints, the aerobic system, which supplies energy for longer, slower races, and the lactic system, which supplies energy for the efforts that are too fast to be aerobic.

Is it possible to be strong on each extreme but not lactically?

Not to mention that 23.5 is probably really a 25.0 or something. You start late and stop early on your watch.

If that 800 was anywhere NEAR all out, I am guessing that either that 69:XX was a 10 mile, or the 200 is a 25++.

I'd probably go more for the half-marathon course being short, as that kind of endurance should let you run under 2:00 even if your 200 PR was 26 or so.

Good point. Sub - 23 is probs a bit optimistic.

And yeah, we start two strides back from the line.

So if I run 23.5 with a two-step run-in at the end of a workout, what do you think I'm likely capable of fresh & from the blocks? I have pretty good acceleration in the 1st few steps.

Still - I have sprint speed (relative sprint speed, anyway). I gun down 1:50 800 guys in these workouts.

So what are the possibilities?

Different energy systems?

Improper training for 800?

Ran the 800 at the wrong time?

When I was in high school and college, I could run a reasonably fast 400, 800 5000, and 8000, but I sucked at the mile and two mile. It took me years to figure out the reason. I realized that I could run the 400 and 800 up on my toes which generated enough speed for the shorter races. If I tried to run on my toes for a mile or two mile, I would start to fall apart and run a crappy race. If I ran the mile or two mile with a heel-toe stride, I couldn't generate enough speed for that short of a race. The heel-toe stride did generate enough speed for 5000 and above. Kind of weird.

I'm pretty sure on the 1/2 marathon course. The other guys I knew in the race all ran around their usual HM times.

The 200 may be iffy - these are the times that the coach was yelling out as we crossed the line. 23.5 might have been 24 in reality. That particular workout went (according to the coach's watch) 28, 27, 27, 25, 25.5, 23.5.

It was supposed to be 800 pace, but I felt full of fire and I couldn't help myself on the last few. 27s just felt too slow that day.

However, the guys I do these workouts with range from 1:57 to 1:50 for 800, so they can do some pretty quick 200s too. And I doubt the coach has a margin of error as large as 1.5 seconds... he's a pretty experienced coach (went to the Oly games as a coach), so I presume that he knows how to use a stopwatch.

One idea - I have only raced 2 800's in my life. One was in first year when I sucked, and then when I did the other one (the 2:04) I had just come back from 2 weeks off - recovering from slight overtraining. The 200 workout was done the week before this race.

I have always done longer races, and

I am really just starting to explore the shorter distance (400, 800), so maybe it's premature to assume that I "suck" at them. Perhaps I should be more patient?

200m is too short to get significant lactic acid buildup.

A half marathon is run right around your lactate threshold, so you can run close to your potential over that distance without having to deal with large amounts of lactic acid.

The 800 involves A LOT of lactic acid.

I think you need to do some workouts like fast 400s or 600s, where you really burn your legs with lactic acid. This will prepare you to race the middle distances better.

Yimminey Cricket wrote:

Perhaps I should be more patient?

I suspect this is the ticket. If you had run 20 or 30 800m races and were stuck at 2:04, that's a mystery. If you've only run two of them, that's different.

Much as it would be nice to figure out some fancy exercise physiology reason for your poor 800m (along with a simple solution -- just add four uphill strides every Tuesday and you'll magically cure your 800m deficiency!), it's highly unlikely to be anything that subtle. It takes time to learn new events, and the 800m in particular is a painful beast that takes time to master.

You just need to keep racing at it (and keep doing middle-distance oriented training) and see what happens. It sounds like you've got some good tools.

(Personally, my running-start handtimed 200m workout pb is 24.7, my half-marathon best is 69 high -- both slower than you -- and I've run 1:51, 3:42. Everyone is different, but it seems highly unlikely that you don't have a better 800m in you, if you keep at it.)

Thanks.

Your times are pretty similar to mine on the ends of the scale. You're only slower in the 200 - my HM is also in the high 69's. Hopefully I can get close to your 8 and 15 soon.

I seriously doubt you 'gun down' 1:50 800m guys in anything equal to or under 400m.

How about the rest of the distances (400m,1500,3k, 5k,10k)?

I had the same issue, 23 second speed during a workout (16X200 though, the pace was 31-32 and I decided to run them in 33 with reps 4,8,12 and 16 as fast as possible. Ended up going 26,25,23,25 for those). My endurance was not as good as yours however. I think the main reason for my relatively bad 800 time was as someone else said-my running form was completly different from my sprinting form in terms on footstrike and arm action.

It's probably a mental thing-200s don't hurt, and half marathons arn't too bad, but the 800 sure does.

Yimminey Cricket wrote:

One idea - I have only raced 2 800's in my life. One was in first year when I sucked, and then when I did the other one (the 2:04) I had just come back from 2 weeks off - recovering from slight overtraining. The 200 workout was done the week before this race.

There's your answer. Your engine was stale for the 2:04 but your leg muscles were rested for the 200 workout. Mystery solved.

But besides your case, there are many other examples of people who excell at opposite spectrums but are lacking at the 1500-5000 range. These people have higher fast twitch to slow twitch ratios than most distance runners but have trained high volumes. They cannot generate a high level of aerobic power needed in the 1500-5000 range but when the paces slow down in the half and full marathons they can run quite well because their limited amount of slow twitch fibers are sufficient for reduced aerobic power requirements. Oddly, from what I have seen, it is often these types who can go all day long whereas many elite 5ker's turned marathoners struggle with the end of the marathon.

turkey leg wrote:

But besides your case, there are many other examples of people who excell at opposite spectrums but are lacking at the 1500-5000 range. These people have higher fast twitch to slow twitch ratios than most distance runners but have trained high volumes. They cannot generate a high level of aerobic power needed in the 1500-5000 range but when the paces slow down in the half and full marathons they can run quite well because their limited amount of slow twitch fibers are sufficient for reduced aerobic power requirements. Oddly, from what I have seen, it is often these types who can go all day long whereas many elite 5ker's turned marathoners struggle with the end of the marathon.

Hah that's me, I cannot decide whether to focus on the 800m or the halfmarathon/marathon.

What do you think about guys like Bekele-who can close in 52/53 and are clearly quite explosive but can also still run very, very well over 3000m-10000m. Are they super-twitch?