Throwback: 800-meter Physiology and Training
In 2010 I graduated from the University of British Columbia School of Human Kinetics. At the time I was a track and field and cross country coach and had moved to Canada to expand both my technical and practical knowledge of the sport. At UBC I was provided with the opportunity to study, rather specifically, areas of the sport that had produced debate with other coaches while also working as an assistant coach with the Thunderbird cross country and track and field teams. One of the areas I found most contentious was the training of 800-meter runners.
The following is a paper I wrote while at UBC titled - The 800-meter Problem: A research-based analysis of the bio-energetic physiology and related training implications of the 800-meter run.
Introduction
Among track and field coaches the misinterpretation of energetic physiology, especially regarding the 800-meter race distance is common and persistent. The argument among coaches, and in the available literature, is centered on the relative amount of aerobic and anaerobic energy demand during race type efforts (Hill, 1999; Gastin 2001). The proportion of energy derived from each of these systems will heavily influence the training theory, process, and plan employed by the coach (Billat, Hamard, Koralsztein & Morton, 2009; Spencer & Gastin, 2001; Coe, 1996). This proportion is assumed to be anywhere from 35% to 65% anaerobic by many coaches (Hill, 1999), while being shown to be as much as 81% aerobic (Weyand, Cureton, Conley, Sloniger & Liu, 1994) or as little as 34% aerobic (Foss & Keteyian, 1998) in the literature.
Often the misconceptions surrounding energetic physiology lead to ambiguous language and misunderstood training methodology causing conjectural training design. Each of these misunderstandings may be resolved through careful analysis of the available literature regarding energetic contribution in 800m running and related research into exercise physiology. This knowledge will lead to improved event analysis and an understanding of physiological outcomes related to training type. Table 1 charts research into energetic contribution in 800m running ranging from 1977 to 2009, while Table 2 provides a closer look at pace related energetic utilization relative to race distance and an expansion on related human physiology relative to running training. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate how this information can be used for event analysis and translated into training based on physiological outcomes, thus condensing and simplifying the language surrounding training.
The 800-meter
In the sport of athletics, events ranging in distance from 100m to 10,000m are contested on the track. These distances challenge both coach and athlete to develop a remarkable understanding of human physiology and applied sports science. At the center of these events lies the 800m, typified by an almost equal need for speed, strength, and endurance (Billat, et al., 2009; Lydiard & Gilmour, 2000; Coe, 1996). The 800m is often considered one of the most challenging events due to the incredible amount of energetic demand placed on the athlete. It is also one of the more difficult to master as a coach. Described by distance running coach Brad Hudson as “one of the most extreme events you can focus on. Being off by the tiniest of margins can make the utmost importance” (Hudson, 2010, January 19). From coaching to training to strategy and tactics, this event leaves little room for mistakes.
The need for a combination of speed and endurance brings rise to much debate presenting several challenges in training. For this reason, it is important to understand not only these energy systems in a physiological sense but their application to training and racing. It is here that the gap exists, between science and application, in the coaching profession. Dr. Paul Gastin demonstrates the persistent misunderstanding among many coaches regarding human physiology and bio-energetics, specifically in the areas of aerobic and anaerobic energy utilization.
“Early attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to describe these relationships, while insightful at the time, have since been found to be somewhat misleading. Given repeated reproduction over the years, these early attempts have led to 2 common misconceptions in the exercise science and coaching professions. First, that the energy systems respond to the demands of intense exercise in an almost sequential manner, and secondly, that the aerobic system responds slowly to these energy demands, thereby playing little role in determining performance over short durations (Gastin, 2001, p.738).”
These misconceptions bring rise not only to debate about training theory and methodology but a level of ambiguity with regard to terminology and training type that only further complicates the issue.
A Common Misunderstanding
Coaches and researchers alike have attempted to understand this confounding event for decades, often with conflicting results. Hill (1999) illustrates this well in mentioning a 1996 round table panel of eight sports scientists and coaches presented in the IAAF journal New Studies in Athletics. Each of these eight experts had a different understanding of the energetic requirements of the 800m:
“(1) Not more than 35% anaerobic, (2) 45% anaerobic, (3) definitely above 50% anaerobic, (4) 60% anaerobic, (5) 65% anaerobic, (6) 65% anaerobic, (7) predominantly anaerobic and (8) 43% anaerobic overall, with the first lap being 35% anaerobic and the second lap being 65% anaerobic (although this would require a marked decrease in oxygen uptake, VO2, after the last lap) (NSA Round Table, 1996; Hill, 1999, p.477).”
Further illustrating this point, Australian researcher and coach Adrian Faccioni wrote in a review from the early 1990s:
“The ratio of energy supplied for the 800m event varies with the time taken to complete the race, but for a sub-2 min performance the ratio is approximately 65% anaerobic: 35% aerobic, which means that the major source of energy in a sub-2 min performance comes from anaerobic supplies. (Faccioni, n.d. n.p.)”
In his book Winning Running: Successful 800m and 1500m Racing and Training, Peter Coe, coach of four-time Olympic medalist Sebastian Coe, notes that research results often have significant variation, but admits that upon analyzing Sebastian Coe’s training, a ratio of 65% aerobic 35% anaerobic was often utilized in yearly planning (Coe, 1996). This breakdown is directly opposite of that suggested by Faccioni (n.d. n.p.).
Clearly opinions differ among coaches and sports scientists as to the energetic demands placed on the 800m runner. This ultimately leaves one with the question; what are the physiological requirements of the 800m-race distance with regard to energetic demand?
Human Bio-energetic Basics
In order to better understand this event, we must analyze the overall contributory percentages between aerobic and anaerobic energy sources, as well as the timing associated with energy supply and demand. Comprehending the role of energy production and utilization during 800m race type efforts and investigating the relevant application to training will be lost if energy systems are not fundamentally understood. With a clear illustration of the level of debate about, and misunderstanding surrounding this topic, it may be better to begin by first explaining these systems.
The production of energy (ATP) is grouped into two pathways, aerobic (with oxygen) and anaerobic (without oxygen). The anaerobic system is broken down further into lactic (glycolytic), which produces lactate as a metabolic byproduct, and alactic, which produces no lactate. During activity the anaerobic pathways are capable of quickly producing and delivering very high amounts of energy relative to their aerobic counterpart but become depleted and less active without recovery from demand. Alactic energy, in particular, responds very quickly to energetic demand during the initiation of action relative to glycolytic and aerobic metabolism. Research has shown that this ‘immediate’ energy is quickly supported by its lactic counterpart as well as the much more sustainable aerobic or oxidative processes. Aerobic energy is capable of producing large amounts of energy through the re-synthesis of ATP but is less reactive in delivery (Gastin, 2001). It is crucial to bear in mind that these systems are largely integrated. As highlighted by Dr. Paul Gastin:
“There is no doubt that each system is best suited to providing energy for a different type of event or activity, yet this does not imply exclusivity. Similarly, the energy systems contribute sequentially but in an overlapping fashion to the energy demands of exercise (Gastin, 2001, pp.739).”
Bio-energetic Demands of the 800m
Table 1 represents research, spanning over 30 years, into the area of energetic contribution in the 800m run. Here aerobic metabolism represents a majority of energetic contribution averaging 62% in total. Based largely on time to completion, this is represented as a mean 55% in males and 72% in females with 115s and 155.75s mean time to completion respectively during testing protocol relevant to 800m running.
Table 1: Studies in bio-engergetic contributions in 800-meter running
| Source (Year) | Participants | Model Type | Mean Time (s) | Aer. Cont | An. Cont |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astrand & Rodahl (1977) | - | - | - | - | 50% |
| Ward-Smith (1985) | Male | M.M. | 105 | 52% | 48% |
| Peronnet & Thibault (1989) | Male | M.M. | 102 | 57% | 43% |
| Lacour et al. (1990) | Male - 800m Specialists | Fld.T. | - | 59% | 41% |
| Newsholme et al. (1992) | - | - | - | - | 50% |
| Di Prampero et al. (1993) | Male | M.M. | 102 | 62% | 38% |
| Weyand et al. (1994) | Male - Distance Runners | Lab.T. | 126 | 76% | 24% |
| Weyand et al. (1994) | Male - Sprinters | Lab.T. | 121 | 71% | 29% |
| Weyand et al. (1994) | Female - Distance Runners | Lab.T. | 156 | 81% | 19% |
| Weyand et al. (1994) | Female - Sprinters | Lab.T. | 151 | 76% | 24% |
| Spencer et al. (1996) | Male - Distance Runners | - | - | - | 39% |
| Craig & Morgan (1998) | Male | Lab.T. | 115 | 61% | 39% |
| Foss & Keteyian (1998) | - | - | - | - | 66% |
| Hill (1999) | Male - 800m Specialists | Fld.T. | 120 | 58% | 42% |
| Hill (1999) | Female - 800m Specialists | Fld.T. | 145 | 62% | 38% |
| Spencer & Gastin (2001) | Male | Lab.T. | 113 | 66% | 34% |
| Duffield Dawson & Goodman (2005) | Male - 800m Specialists | Lab.T. & Fld.T. | 126 | 60% | 40% |
| Duffield Dawson & Goodman (2005) | Female - 800m Specialists | Lab.T. & Fld.T. | 151 | 70% | 30% |
| Billat et al. (2009) | Male - Distance Runners | Fld.T. | 129 | - | 34% |
Table Legend:
(s) - Time to Completion in Seconds
Fld.T. - Field Test
Lab.T. - Laboratory Test
M.M. - Mathematical Model
Aer. Cont. - Aerobic Contribution
An. Cont. - Anaerobic Contribution
Several different methods are used to analyze energetic contribution during exercise. Various mathematical models (M.M.) may be utilized, laboratory tests (Lab.T.) to measure blood lactate levels and accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD), and field tests (Fld.T.) to assess results under real world circumstances. It is important to understand the differences between laboratory testing and field tests as they often use the same methods with differing results. Laboratory tests are generally standardized in order to minimize confounding variables, while field trials allow for certain variables to more accurately represent reality. These differing methods may be the cause of the variation mentioned by Peter Coe (1996).
Results of note exist within Weyand et al. (1994), as athletes with different event specialties were tested using the same methods outside of their specific event specialty. Both sprint-trained and endurance-trained athletes completed the same testing protocol with the sprint-trained athletes showing higher anaerobic contribution during 800m simulations. Similar results were found using sprint specialist and middle-distance specialists in 30-second Wingate cycle tests (Granier, Mercier, Mercier, Anselme & Prefaut, 1995). Weyand and colleagues found no physiological explanation for this response (Weyand et al., 1994), while Granier and colleagues (1995) associate the different energetic response with event specialty and training specificity.
In both Weyand et al. (1994) and Granier et al. (1995), peak performances were elicited from anaerobic pathways in sprinters and aerobic pathways in endurance trained athletes. This would imply energetic utilization based on specificity of training. As illustrated by Weyand et al. (1994) and Granier et al. (1995) athletes with lower aerobic capacity (sprint trained) have a higher response from anaerobic energetic pathways during maximal effort exercise when compared to athletes with higher aerobic capacity (endurance trained). This connection to training specificity was shown empirically by Weyand and Bundle (2005) as highly trained subjects were shown to have differing proportions of aerobic and anaerobic energy utilization during high speed running. Three distinct groups composed of sprint trained, middle distance trained, and distance trained athletes were examined during exhaustive running tests up to 220s (3min 40s) (Weyand & Bundle 2005). Practically, this higher anaerobic response in sprinters may be due to a lack of aerobic training forcing the athlete to begin utilizing and possibly exhausting energy from anaerobic stores earlier. Alternately, a greater trained ability to utilize anaerobic energy may account for elevated anaerobic contribution. It is likely that both these factors play a contributory role in elevated anaerobic response during intense exercise.
Spencer and Gastin (2001) sought to further clarify this by taking AOD measurements throughout race simulated treadmill tests at 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m, attempting to account for pace change variables by allowing subjects to pre-select speed alterations. Here AOD measurements were plotted every 10s and compared per event. The results show aerobic pathways to surpass anaerobic pathways as the dominant contributory energy system at nearly identical time points, between 15s and 30s, in each event. These results also appear to confirm oxidative energy as the dominant overall energy contributor in the 800m run.
Table 2 illustrates these findings by representing total percent aerobic energetic release, as well as anaerobic and aerobic utilization during the initial 20s of exercise at different intensities relative to distance.
Table 2: Initial energy expenditure during running at various event distances and times to completion.
| Energetic Profile | 200-meter / 22.3 | 400-meter / 49.3 | 800-meter / 1:53 | 1500-meter / 3:55 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Aerobic Metabolism | 29% | 43% | 66% | 84% |
| Aerobic energy release first 20s (ml-kg) | 12.9 | 9.5 | 10 | 14.6 |
| Anaerobic energy release first 20s (ml-kg) | 24.6 | 20.2 | 15.3 | 10.1 |
| Adapted from Spencer & Gastin 2001 |
As alactic anaerobic energy from the ATP-CP chain is short lived, lasting between 5s and 10s (Gastin, 2001), the initial 20s measurements taken by Spencer and Gastin (2001) provide clues regarding relative alactic and lactic energy utilization. The comparison with other paces related to trial distances show that, as distance increases and pace slows, the total amount of energy release decreases (Spencer & Gastin 2001). The amount of anaerobic energy release decreases as well, while aerobic energy utilization remains relatively similar (Spencer & Gastin 2001). These trends, being shown over the first 20s, suggest that anaerobic energy response while running is largely pace dependent and that, even at significant paces, aerobic metabolism contributes to the total energetic cost of running.
This also suggests that anaerobic energy is not always simply exhausted in the initial stages of race type efforts. Medbo and Tabata (1993), upon testing athletes to exhaustion in 30s, 1-min and 2-3min cycling tests, found significant phosphocreatine reserve in the working musculature (Medbo & Tabata, 1993). The relatively short duration of these energy systems masks their potential importance when considering pace. Proper training and strategic management of pace during racing ensures that lactic anaerobic energy stores are not over-stressed causing an over abundance of metabolic waste products (Nurmekivi & Lemberg, n.d.). Effectively, this allows for glycolytic energy to be called upon as energetic demands become very high and may prevent muscular failure. Consistent with exhaustive tests by Medbo and Tabata (1993), this would also suggest that if one manages pace, even subtly, in the early stages of an 800m race, a sparing effect may be accomplished saving ATP, stored in muscle tissue as phosphocreatine, for utilization in the late stages of the event. If any effects of this nature were to be found, they would be dependent on anaerobic capacity, as well as significant aerobic capacity, allowing for the efficient utilization of anaerobic reserve.
Here the generally underestimated speed of aerobic energy response during exercise becomes vital. Gastin points out:
“The aerobic energy system responds surprisingly quickly to the demands of intense exercise, yet is incapable of meeting the energy demands at the beginning of exercise, irrespective of the exercise intensity. It now seems evident that the aerobic system plays a significant role in determining performance during high intensity exercise, with a maximal exercise effort of 75 seconds deriving approximately equal energy from the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems (Gastin, 2001, pp.739).”
As total energetic contribution becomes equal at approximately 75s (Gastin, 2001), research has shown that the cross over point when aerobic metabolism matches anaerobic metabolism as an instantaneous supplier of energy takes place between 30s (Gastin, 2001; Spencer and Gastin, 2001), and 55s (Duffield, Dawson & Goodman, 2005). While Weyand et al. (1999) found that anaerobic energetic release elevates in response to hypoxic conditions preventing decreases in running speed up to 60s. This contributory cross over, as well as the apparent flexibility of anaerobic response further illustrate the interdependent nature of energy systems.
Recently, Billat and colleagues (2009) approached the same pacing variables as Spencer and Gastin (2001) in field trials using lightweight, portable AOD gas exchange analyzers placed on the bodies of the subjects during on-track race simulations. This study attempted “to understand how a runner selects running speed so as to optimize real-world performance using energetic resources” (Billat et al., 2009, p.483). Recorded in five-second increments, AOD gas exchange readings and running velocity were analyzed and the trial distance divided into two halves. Anaerobic contribution could then be determined at various distances and compared with the overall finishing percentages. These study methods allowed the researchers to explore pace change and it’s effects on energy supply and demand. Results showed a correlation between VO2max and anaerobic power, especially at the 800m-race distance, suggesting that this distance “may depend more on the total oxygen deficit that the athlete can bear before exhaustion” (Billat et al., 2009 p.486). Measuring total mean anaerobic contribution at 34% and arguing that middle distance race type efforts, specifically at the 800m and 1500m distances, force the athlete to utilize aerobic metabolism to maximum power and anaerobic metabolism to maximum capacity, Billat and colleagues hypothesize that these events must depend on anaerobic reserve (2009). This again would be dependent on significant aerobic capacity and high lactate threshold to allow for utilization of anaerobic reserve without fatigue related failure over the final stages of the event (Nurmekivi & Lemberg n.d.).
Training For Physiological Outcomes
With a clearer picture of the energetic demand of the 800m-race an analysis of energetic contribution and applicable training recommendations based on physiological principles may be developed. For a two-minute (120s) performance at the 800m-race distance, 62%, or 74.5s, will be derived from aerobic energy. Anaerobic contribution will account for the remaining 38%, or 45.5s. Anaerobic contribution should be further divided, subtracting 10s or 12%, for alactic anaerobic energy from the ATP-CP chain, leaving 26% or 35.5s remaining for glycolytic anaerobic energetic contribution.
Table 3 represents the relationship between energetic contribution, relative time to event completion (based on 2-minute performance) and the training aims associated with the relevant metabolic system.
Table 3: Analysis of energy contribution for 2-minute 800m-race efford and associated training aims
| % Energetic Contribution | Time to Completion (s) | Training Aim |
|---|---|---|
| 62% Aerobic | 74.5s | Endurance / Strength |
| 26% Anaerobic (Glycolitic) | 35.5ss | Strength / Speed |
| 12% Anaerobic (Alactic) | 35.5s | Speed / Sprinth |
Aerobic capacity and power are largely responsible for successful performance at the 800m race distance, representing 62% here, yet anaerobic capacity and power, 26%, as well as the efficient utilization of alactic energy, 12%, still play major roles in race type efforts. The implications of these findings and their application to training must be understood.
Physiologically, this event requires the athlete to develop endurance, strength, speed, and the ability to truly sprint. However, misconceptions exist about these training aims, the terms associated with them and the relationships both have to physiological outcomes. Table 4 represents these training aims, the terminology associated with training type and physiological outcome sought. The terms associated with these four training aims and the training types that influence them are extensive. The degree of convergence between these categories is also quite substantial resulting in a vast array of possible types and combinations of training that can lead to success. It is this convergence, combined with the common misconceptions that exist regarding bio-energetics, that create further confusion when trying to reconcile research with application.
Table 4: Training aim, terminology, associated training and physiological outcomes.
| Training Aim | Common Terminology | Training Type (Running) | Energetic Physiological Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endurance (Aerobic Capacity) | Base / Fitness / Stamina / Over Distance / Long Run | Sustained Slower Running | Increased Aerobic Capcity (Primary) & Increased Oxidative Capacity (Muscle) |
| Strength (Aerobic Capacity) | Fartlek / Tempo / Steady State / Special Endurance | Sustained Variable Speed Running / Sustained Moderate to Hard Running / Long Repitition Interval Running (5-10minutes) | Increased Vo2Max (Primary), Increased Lactate Threshold (Primary), Increased Aerobic Capacity (Secondary), Increased Glycolytic Anaerobic Capacity (Secondary) |
| Speed (Anaerobic Power) | Intervals / Repeats / Special Endurance / Speed Endurance / Specific Speed / Strides / (Erroneously Called Sprints) | Interval Training - Variable Speed and Intensity (20s - 3min) | Increased Glycolytic Anerobic Capacity (Primary), Increased Lactate Threshold (Secondary) Increased Vo2Max (Secondary), Increased Alactic Anaerobic Capacity (Secondary / Exhaustive), Increased Aerobic Capacity (Tertiary) |
| Sprint (Alactic Anaerobic Capcity & Power) | Sprints / (Erroneously Speed) | Short Near Maximum Efforts for Less than 15s | Increases Alactic Anaerobic Storage and Utilization (Primary) |
Successful training should be based on physiological outcomes. When applied to race type efforts these physiological outcomes are, as we can see from the integrated nature of energetic response, highly interdependent. For this reason none of these four training aims should be disregarded when planning training.
1. Endurance represents a neglected training aim when the 800m is considered a ‘long-sprint’. This is often caused by the misunderstanding of the energetic requirements of the event and can lead the coach and/or athlete to believe that the requisite aerobic portion of training will come as a byproduct of hard short duration running and interval training. Aerobic energy will only function in a supporting role with this type of training. As a result the athlete becomes conditioned to elevated utilization of limited anaerobic energy stores, elevating anaerobic capacity and causing a trained elevated anaerobic response (Weyand et al., 1994; Granier et al., 1995; Weyand & Bundle 2005). This misconception appears to be an extrapolation of research suggesting that interval based ‘speed-endurance’ training maintains and even increases the oxidative capacity of working muscle (Iaia, Hellsten, Nielsen, Fernstrom, Sahlin & Bangsbo, 2009; Forbes, Slade & Meyer, 2008; Laursen & Jenkins, 2002). While physiologically accurate, such research does little to account for potential for injury and, in fact, enhances understanding of periodization in training for peak performance as this type of training has been found to further elevate oxidative capacity in trained athletes.
2. Strength may be neglected in much the same way. Here this arises out of an over abundance of short duration interval training and/or the reliance on aerobic training in the form of extended duration slow running. The meeting point of these two types of training is largely responsible for elevating the athletes lactate threshold through sustained moderate to hard paced running and long repetition interval training. This elevation of lactate threshold allows the athlete to more effectively buffer metabolic waste produced during anaerobic running and helps to maintain the energetic balance between aerobic and anaerobic pathways. Practically this allows the 800m runner to run aerobically at a greater velocity delaying the onset of blood lactate (Billat, 1996), while elevating the duration of work the athlete is able to manage at or above VO2max (Billat, 2001).
3 & 4. Speed and Sprint may represent the most misunderstood areas of training for physiological outcomes in 800m racing. This division is one not often drawn in middle distance and distance running, yet is entirely dependent on energetic demand. Often speed is a concept only understood in the context of maximal effort. However, this understanding should be reserved for sprint type efforts and training. Speed is a relative term highly dependent on distance and time, where sprint is almost entirely dependant on energetic output and demand.
For example, in 2009 Usain Bolt ran a world record time for 100m of 9.58s, an average speed of 10.44 meters per second. Haile Gebrselassie’s 2008 world marathon record of 2:03.59 was run at an average speed of 5.65 meters per second. Physiologically it is possible that Bolt’s speed of 10.44 meters per second was largely dependent on the alactic energy that characterizes sprinting. Considering the speed of Gebreselassie’s 5.65 meters per second effort for 42k, a sprint dependent on alactic anaerobic energy would be physiologically highly improbable. This kind of confusion concerning the difference between event specific speed and physiological sprinting, and misconceptions about the role of anaerobic energy cause two common training deficits. First, the complete ignorance of sprint training, and the assumption that speed at race distances over 100m is to be developed through what is erroneously called sprint training.
These two aims, and the training associated with them, are not indistinguishable or interchangeable. Sprint training, typically lasting under 15s, produces a secondary elevation of glycolytic capacity. However, the primary aim is to stress the alactic system: this system maintains an energetic output of between 5s and 10s with some capacity for reserve (Medbo & Tabata 1993; Gastin 2001; Forbes, 2008). Attempts to train the ability to sprint through intense efforts lasting in excess of 15s will produce a glycolytic response largely exhausting alactic energy and stressing the athlete beyond this specific training aim.
It is crucial to remember that all training types, particularly interval training, and outcomes are dependent on type and duration of recovery (Coe, 1996; Lydiard 2000). The amount of recovery taken between repetitions during interval training sessions will alter the type of physiological response (Billat, 2001). For example, when sprint training, longer duration or full recovery of up to 15min becomes vital for the re-synthesis of PCr (phosphocreatine) (Forbes, Slade & Meyer 2008) regardless of recovery heart rate. While training for the increase of event specific speed, glycolytic capacity, and aerobic power will have shorter recovery intervals with the aim of stressing the cardiovascular system by controlling heart rate and metabolic waste build up through glycolysis (Billat 2001).
Often recovery will be monitored based on interval time between repetitions as an estimate using work to rest ratios. While training speed with higher intensity, shorter duration interval training, work time to rest time ratios of 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 are often utilized to allow the athlete more time at or above VO2max during exercise than might be achieved during steady state running. This work to rest ratio will be dependent on desired time or relative distance at or above VO2max with pace decreasing as repetition lengthens (Billat, 2001). Aerobic interval training for strength will often utilize a 1 to 1 work to rest ratio as an estimate. These interval sessions are done at a decreased intensity compared to speed intervals lowering the target percent VO2max to between 60% and 100% (Billat, 2001). Here it is desirable to reach a recovery heart rate of 130 beats per minute (Billat, 2001). Due to the increased length of time during the repetition and thus recovery interval, as well as the decrease in work intensity, the athlete will often reach this heart rate recovery benchmark utilizing a work to rest ratio of 1 to 1. Recovery between sessions, especially when planning long-term, periodized training, is also vital. Allowing for proper recovery between intense sessions will allow for adequate physiological recovery as well as improving quality of training in each session.
These four ‘training aims’ represent qualities a successful 800m runner must possess. If any of the four are deficient the athlete may be vulnerable to defeat or failure under various types of racing conditions. For example, the athlete with significantly developed sprint and speed but deficient endurance and strength will be highly successful in races with slow initial pace through the opening stages. The same athlete, if forced though a hard opening pace by a stronger, more aerobically developed athlete of the same caliber will suffer a great deal as glycolytic energy is exhausted too early. Training that disregards strength will leave the athlete unable to maintain the challenging paces that are indicative of top level 800m racing throughout the entire event distance. An athlete who’s training inadequately addresses the need for speed will find the closing stages of the event difficult when matched with competitors who’s training is more reflective of the balance needed for the 800m-race. The athlete who’s training is sprint deficient with a good deal of speed training may find a great deal of success until matched with a more balanced, similar caliber athlete in a close race, losing in the final strides. As suggested by Tikhonov, “A high level aerobic capacity allows the athlete to exploit the anaerobic capacity without detrimental effects, but only when the aerobic-anaerobic balance is not upset because one of the qualities is underdeveloped” (Tikhonov 1992). Balanced training, based upon the physiological outcomes of training type coupled with race demand, is the key to success in middle distance running.
Conclusions
With current research into this area so prevalent there still exists a remarkable gap between evidence and application in the coaching profession. This appears to be a rather stubborn hold over from early research into bio-energetics from the 1960’s and 1970’s that has given rise to the persistent misunderstanding that energy systems function in an almost segregated sequential manner and that aerobic energy is a slow responding and low volume system (Gastin 2001). Curiously, with the publication of over 30 years of sound research these same misconceptions still exist. Further efforts to standardize terminology and combine the scientific pursuit of knowledge with quality coaching education programs will help bridge this gap and clarify these issues.
It is apparent that energetic response is highly training dependent, as is evident in Medbo and Tabata (1993), Weyand et al (1994), Granier et al (1995), Spencer and Gastin (2001), and Weyand and Bundle (2005). Based on the research covered here, it appears likely that aerobic energetic utilization is responsible for roughly 62% of total energetic demand in the 800m and that aerobic energy responds to demand much more quickly than previously thought. These results, paired with the apparent trainability of energetic response, suggest that the 800m is a race highly dependent on significant aerobic capacity, if only as a necessary means for the efficient utilization of anaerobic power and reserve as is suggested by Nurmekivi & Lemberg (n.d.), Tikhonov (1992), Coe (1996) and Lydiard (2000). This is absolutely contingent on proper, proportionate training based on physiological outcomes and proper event analysis. Neglecting any of these training aims will diminish the ability to effectively and efficiently utilize energy from all energetic pathways.
References
Astrand, P.O. and Rodahl, K., (1977). Textbook of Work Physiology, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Billat V., (1996). Use of blood lactate measurements for prediction of exercise performance and control of training: recommendations for long distance running. Sports Medicine. 22(3) 157-175.
Billat V., (2001). Interval training for performance: a scientific and empirical practice. Sports Medicine. 31(1) 13-31.
Billat V., Hamard L., Koralsztein J.P., and Morton R.H., (2009). Differential modeling of anaerobic and aerobic metabolism in the 800-m and 1500-m run. Journal of Applied Physiology. 107, 478-487.
Craig I.S., and Morgan D.W., (1998). Relationship between 800-m running performance and accumulated oxygen deficit in middle-distance runners. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise 30(11), 1631 – 1636.
Coe P., (1996). Winning Running: Successful 800m & 1500m Racing and Training. Marlborough Wiltshire: The Crowood Press.
Di Prampero P.E. Capelli C., Pagliaro P., Antonutto G., Giradis M., Zamparo P., and Soule R.G., (1993). Energetics of best performances in middle distance running. Journal of Applied Physiology 74(5), 2318 – 2324.
Duffield R., Dawson B. and Goodman C., (2005) Energy system contribution in 400-m and 800m track running events. Journal of Sports Sciences. 23(2) 993-1002.
Duffield R. and Dawson B., (n.d.). Energy System Contributions in Track Running. Retrieved November 2009, from: http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Theory%20&%20Methodology/Speed/General%20Concepts/Duffield%20Energy%20System%20contribution%20in%20Track%20Running.pdf .
Faccioni A., (n.d.). Training and the 800m Event. Modern Athlete and Coach. Retrieved November 2009, from: http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Theory%20&%20Methodology/Endurance/General%20Concepts/Faccioni%20Training%20and%20The%20800m%20Event.pdf
Forbes S.C., Slade J.M., and Meyer R.A., (2008) Short-term high-intensity interval training improves phosphocreatine recovery kinetics following moderate-intensity exercise in humans. Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism 33, 1124-1131.
Foss M.L. and Keteyian S.J., (1998). Fox’s Physiological Basis for Exercise and Sport, 6th edn. Dubuque, IA: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
Gastin, P. B., (2001). Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise. Sports Medicine 31(10), 725-741.
Granier P., Mercier B., Mercier J., Anselme F., and Prefaut C., (1995) Aerobic and anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in sprint and middle-distance runners. European Journal of Applied Physiology 70, 58-65.
Hill D.W., (1999). Energy system contributions in middle-distance running events. Journal of Sports Sciences (17), 477-483.
Hudson B. (2010, January 19). An Event of Intensity: 800m Training. Retrieved Jun 2010, from: http://www.marathonperformance.com/2010/01/an-event-of-intensity-800m-training/
Iaia M.F., Hellsten Y., Nielsen J.J., Fernstrom M., Sahlin K., and Bangsbo J., (2009) Four weeks of speed endurance training reduces energy expenditure during exercise and maintains muscle oxidative capacity despite a reduction in training volume. Journal of Applied Physiology (106), 73-80.
Lacour J.R., Bouvat E., and Dormois D., (1990). Post-competition blood lactate concentrations as indicators of anaerobic energy expenditure during 400m and 800m races. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 61, 172 – 176.
Laursen P.B., and Jenkins D.G., (2002) The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training. Sports Medicine 32 (1), 53-73.
Lydiard A. and Gilmore G., (2000). Running with Lydiard. Oxford: Meyer and Myer Sport.
Medbo J.I. and Tabata I., (1993). Anaerobic energy release in working muscle during 30 s to 3 min of exhausting bicycling. Journal of Applied Physiology 75, 1645 – 1660.
Newsholme, E.A., Blomstrand, E., McAndrew, N. and Parry-Billings, M., (1992). Biochemical causes of fatigue and overtraining. In Endurance in Sport (edited by R.J. Shephard and P.O. Astrand), 351 - 364. London: Blackwell.
Nurmekivi A. and Lemberg H., (.n.d.) Local Muscular Endurance in Middle Distance Running Modern Athlete and Coach. Retrieved November 2009, from: http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Theory%20&%20Methodology/Endurance/General%20Concepts/Nurmekivi%20Local%20Muscular%20Endurance%20in%20Middle%20Distance%20Running.pdf
Peronnet F., and Thibault G., (1989). Mathematical analysis of running performance and world records. Journal of Applied Physiology 67(1), 453 – 465.
Spencer M.R., Gastin, P.B. and Payne W.R., (1996). Energy system contribution during 400 to 1500-metres running. New Studies in Athletics (11), 59 - 65.
Spencer M.R., Gastin P.B., (2001). Energy system contribution during 200 to 1500m running in highly trained athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 33(1), 157 – 162.
Tikhonov L., (1992). The Balance Between Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacities in Distance Running. Legkaya Atletika, Russia. (7) Modern Athlete and Coach. Retrieved September 2009, from http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Theory%20&%20Methodology/Endurance/General%20Concepts/TMEGC_Tikhonov_The_Balance_Between_Aerobic_&_Anaerobic_Capacities_in_Distance_Running.pdf
Ward-Smith A.J., (1993). A mathematical theory of running, based on the first law of thermodynamics, and its application to the performance of world-class athletes. Journal of Biomechanics, 18(5), 337 – 349.
Weyand P. and Bundle W., (2005) Energetics of high-speed running: integrating classical theory and contemporary observations. American Journal of Physiology – Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 288, 956-965.
Weyand P., Cureton K., Conley D., Sloniger M. and Liu Y.L., (1994). Percentage anaerobic energy utilized during track running events. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 25 (105), 1174-1180.
Weyand P.G., Lee C.S., Martinez-Ruiz R., Bundle M., Bellizzi M.J., and Wright S., (1999) High-speed running performance is largely unaffected by hypoxic reductions in aerobic power. Journal of Applied Physiology 86, 2059-2064.