Effect of Negative Splits in an 800m race.

Well, chances are you would not be running negative splits.

Rather than break up the 800 into two fours, it's best to do 4 200s. After looking at many WR splits and personal record splits for 800m runners of all levels, I've found that most run even splits for the first three 200s and then slow down over the last 200. That's not to say they are falling apart, in fact the effort level is great from 400-600 than the first 200 because of fatigue.

In your situation, I would say that you would probably run your best time going 28/28/28 for the first 600 for a 1:24. I'd say 1:55.x is possible

any others?

what albertson said: please refer to Dave Wottle

Jeff Albertson wrote: I've found that most run even splits for the first three 200s and then slow down over the last 200. That's not to say they are falling apart, in fact the effort level is great from 400-600 than the first 200 because of fatigue.

I seriously hope you were drunk when you posted this...

If you run the first 3-200's in the same time, then slow on your last 200, you ARE starting to fall apart. That's how most people run their 800's......i'm not sure you know what falling apart means. You even define the stages of falling apart in your very post. The level of fatique goes up as the race goes on, to the point where you can't maintain it and start slowing down. Yet you define that as the OPPOSITE!?? What would falling apart be to you? speeding up the last 200 while giving less effort!??

I seriously can't believe you're on here telling people "in fact the effort level is great from 400-600 than the first 200 because of fatigue." Do you think anyone doesn't already know that? Do you think people on here think that if they run a 28, and another 28,that it will then get EASIER for them in the 3rd 200!???

"Do you think people on here think that if they run a 28, and another 28,that it will then get EASIER for them in the 3rd 200!???"

Well you do get a running start...

You're only falling apart if you run the last 200 in 30 or slower after running 3 28s

The easiest 200 will always be the second one the hardest will always be the last 100.

o.O wrote:

You're only falling apart if you run the last 200 in 30 or slower after running 3 28s

The easiest 200 will always be the second one the hardest will always be the last 100.

Def not. The first 200 is always the easiest, unless the race become tactical in a slow way after 200, but that's not usually the case, it slows down because you can't maintain that first 200. More often than not the first 200 goes out really hard...last time i checked it's harder to run a 200 after going out hard. You may think that, but that's because more often than not you aren't thinking at all in that first 200. But i guarantee you if you had something strapped up to you determining how hard your body was working. It would say the 2nd 200 is harder than the 1st. If you went ot in 26, and then ran a 28, the 28 would be harder than the 26, because you're legs have just run the 26.

I came on here thinking, woo i got a few replies when i seen the number of posts. Then all there was some argument going on :(

800 are typically tactical, in most races I run out in about a 59 and then come back in 56-57. The actual one or two times that the race went out fast I wasn't ready for it and a 55-56 first lap killed. i think tho if you split the difference so in your case running a 59 then a 58 or a 57, you could most likely run two 58's so around 1:55 high.

I suggest picking up a copy of Coe/Martin's "Better Training for Distance Runners". I'm pretty sure in there, Seb Coe's dad outlines what he thinks is the deal split breakdown in an 800. It works out to a slightly positive split.

For men the optimal split is +:02. The 200s get progressive slower due to the energy systems used. The first 200 is the fastest, and if you are distributing your energy as efficiently as possible then you will slow down ~:01 to :00.5 per 200. The last 200 is the slowest because you're mainly using your aerobic system, which produces energy slower than your anaerobic system. That's why people come on here and tell you to run mileage for the 800. So, you slow down the least. (also why aerobically inclined 800 runners have an advantage in tactical races)

Women tend to run +:04 positive splits.

Kents wrote:

For men the optimal split is +:02. The 200s get progressive slower due to the energy systems used. The first 200 is the fastest, and if you are distributing your energy as efficiently as possible then you will slow down ~:01 to :00.5 per 200. The last 200 is the slowest because you're mainly using your aerobic system, which produces energy slower than your anaerobic system. That's why people come on here and tell you to run mileage for the 800. So, you slow down the least. (also why aerobically inclined 800 runners have an advantage in tactical races)

Women tend to run +:04 positive splits.

Didn't Kelly Holmes run even splits in Athens? I don't see how the optimal splits would be so different for women as opposed to men (+2 vs. +4 seconds) Who is deciding what the "optimal split" is? Sounds like random methodology.

There are many arguments as to what percentage of the 800 is aerobic vs. anerobic and the different energy systems used at different stages. It also matters how much pure speed the runner in question has, what sort of lactic threshold the runner in question has, aerobic conditioning and the ability to run rounds, the tactics of the race and so on. One could argue the exact opposite of what you say in the sense that an aerobically inclined 800 runner would have a huge disadvantage in a tactical race that went out slowly, as the aerobically inclined 800 runners tend to have less pure speed and an inability to kick off a slow pace.

I would say that there is not a magic formula for optimal splits! It is subjective to the particular runner in question. Kaki is going to go out faster than Yuriy Borzakovskiy. Nick Symmonds is going to go out faster than Andrew Wheating. Hazel Clark is going to go out faster than Maggie Vessey.

That is what makes it the greatest race in track.

If your goal is to PR, you don't negative-split an 800; in fact, most runners are incapable of negative-spliting in an all out effort. Most world class 800m runners will hit the 600m mark w/in about 5% of their best 600 and try to maintain. If you maintain well over the last 200, it will look like you are kicking becasue other guys are going backwards. This is pretty simalar to what you see in the 400m.

Ocassionaly you see top heavy splits in championship races, but even that is rare; even guys like Nick and Yuri, who have strong kicks are actually running even.

My PR was 2:02.5 (62.4, 60.1).

In races that went out in 58 I was usually dying off to 2:03 or 2:04. But I felt just perfect in my PR race.

It seems hard to believe that if I had gone out in 60 I would have run under 2:00. Do you think if I had gone out in 59 I would have had less of a die-off and run faster than 2:00? While I don't think negative splits would lead to a faster time, I can't see how going out faster would have helped me much since I'd already tried it.

My 400 PR was 55.02 from a standing start or 54.6 on a relay.

I'd also run 1:29.1 for a 600m in practice (through at 58) and felt like I could not go faster (though I was surprised it was so hard to do...I'd thought 1:27 would be possible).

The 800m is a tough and weird event...

Nope, it's fact.

You're looking a championship race vs a world record race. Huge difference. It's pure physiology. Of course there will be difference person to person and that is what makes the 800 tricky.

Neg split wrote:

800 are typically tactical, in most races I run out in about a 59 and then come back in 56-57. The actual one or two times that the race went out fast I wasn't ready for it and a 55-56 first lap killed.

800s must be run differently today than they were 20-25 years ago then, because I was NEVER in one where the pack ran the second lap 2 seconds faster than the first. I don't think I ever negative split, but I was always passing people in the second lap.

Paul Ereng-Olympic Champ, Worlds Champ and world record holder- negative split almost every time.

He was also a University of Virginia grad. Go Hoos! Everybody else sucks.

Someone posted this not too long ago: Optimum Speed Distribution in the 800m.

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/2002autumn.pdf