I think everyone I ran track with in high school would agree with 400mh/800 being the hardest.
IMO, the other distance events depend on if it’s a time trial or a championship style race. E.g. I feel like a marathon is harder than a slow mile or 5k with a fast kick. Obviously subjective though
it is indeed true that an all-out time trial style mile is far more physically painful than running at 3k pace for 3 laps and then blasting a last lap at 800 pace
the problem with the 800 is that, no matter how you run it - you're always going to tie up in the homestretch, which is physically excruciating. well, minus a few lucky exceptions (the robby andrews + nick symmonds types)
Those two guys appear to significantly accelerate instead of tie up in the homestretch of an 800, and appear to be in more distress at the start than at the end, which is unusual
Yep. I was losing feeling in my hands and running through sand the whole last 100m no matter what, so I eventually learned I had to grab that extra time on the first lap.
I always felt like the mile was tougher than the 800. It felt physically more grueling to me, and in the races I was in for the mile, I felt like I had to be a much better and smarter racer, where the 800 I was in some fast races, but the fields thinned out a lot more by 500m, but it felt like in the mile/1500 I was in races that came down hard to the wire, so that probably shaped my view on it a lot more.
I’ve done 400H, 800, and steeple and I believe wholeheartedly that the 800 is the hardest event. 400 is short enough that only the last ~150m are painful and hard. Steeple is at a pace slow enough that you aren’t completely exhausted until the last few laps and as someone with hurdling background it doesn’t add a TON of difficulty FOR ME (my sample size here is low I must admit).
But the 800? Man the second lap in the 800 is just pain. And then the last 200 is probably the hardest thing I’ve done.
400H is definitely the most fun to me though.
The 800 is significantly less painful than the 400 for me, but that might be impacted by the fact that I’m naturally a distance athlete, not a sprinter.
Oh my... I would've died. I was always a 100 and 200 runner who only dabbled in longer races like the flat 300 during the indoor season. The lactic would've been too much for me to do those back to back.
I did Cross Country in the fall so I felt like I had a good endurance base, but at an invitational there really wasn’t more than 4-5 minutes before the next heat would start. I dropped Hurdles in the post season and just focused on the 400
Ah. I only ever did cross country in 8th grade and never in high school. I was at my peak senior year of hs and even on a hot day the 200 would wipe me out despite that being my best event. Props to you for even doing one time! Reminds of the girl in my high school who'd run the open 400, 200 and 4x400. She would barely even be tired after a 400. She'd sit down for a minute and walk away from the finish line like nothing had happened. I'd be sitting on the ground for 10 minutes hyperventilating after a hard 200. She was just a sucker for lactic acid I guess. Invitationals in my state, Vermont, thankfully had more time in between 400 and 300mh. More like an hour between if I remember correctly.
How I miss those moments.
Then I remember the knee and ankle pain I have today. Some meets were smooth sailing. Others were borderline bloodbath.
I remember one meet where we restarted the race twice cause of pushing, shoving, and falling before the break point.
ah yeah, if we put "strategy" into the mix, then the mile is 10, 800 is 9, 5k is 7, 10k 6, 400 hurdles probably also 6, marathon probably also 6, open 400 maybe 4-5, 200 3, 100 2
I would agree on 800 based on personal experience! I was an 800 guy in high school and also ran 2:02 in college. I never ran the 400 hurdles but I could see why it would be brutal’ the 400 without hurdles is insanely hard!
what I mean is, the 800 and the 400 hurdles (and the mile and the 400) are the ones that require you to maximally use your "anaerobic speed reserves". the ones where you're flooded head to toe in lactic acid and "tie up" in the homestretch
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176219/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176219/)
i probably didn't word it perfectly but surely you know what i'm referring to
I think a technical score needs to be added which would push the 400mh to the lead. There is nothing worse than doing a balls out 400mh and then seeing that last hurdle looking as though it is 10 feet tall and your feet are on soft sand trying to get over that bastard.
The 8 is only hard if you are in bad shape. Its two laps dawg. Adrenaline take you through 200 and the middle is chill. The end either breaks apart or you run a 28 and that is energy system dependent. Now threshold/5k on the other hand…
Hurtles suck because jumping is hard and breaks uncoordinated runners (inc me) cadence and too short for a base to save you
Sure, two hours is sub 4:35/mile (insane). Also 4 minutes not competitive professionally, and most mile PRs are from early in career, pre marathon. The big exception of being simultaneously competitive from mile to marathon is of course the amazing Sifan Hassan.
My point is that if you take the top 100 or so marathoners and sort them by their current 60m dash times, I doubt there would be any significant correlation, let alone the moderately strong correlation that 4 implies.
Also while I’m much less knowledgeable in sprint training, a lack of endurance affects training, ability to run rounds, etc. it may be that other measures of endurance are needed. The fact that sprinters have been popped for “endurance” PEDs speaks for itself.
I was an 800 guy in college and lived with a bunch of the xc guys. We went back and forth between the 800, 400h, and 3k steeple on what we thought were the toughest races! Those barriers are high!
I've ran all of these and I'd say the 10K is the hardest. After the first 20 minutes, I was a little short of breath and it felt like someone was pulling me in two for the rest of the run. But different people are affected by different races in various ways. Most of these are in the 32-37 range, so not too different, and I bet if you trained for each race and gave 100% on the day of the big run, they would all be equally difficult.
So the difference in endurance between a 100m and a 10k is the same as between 10k and marathon?
Chuck a 10k specialist in the marathon and they’ll do a hell of a lot better than a 100m runner doing their first ever 10k.
We’ve seen runners move from 10k to marathon with relative ease, you couldn’t say the same for a sprinter moving to 10k. If marathon is going to be 10 in endurance then 10k is like an 8 or 9.
This chart is dogshit obviously though.
For each 10k person doing well in the marathon, there's a half marathon person who struggles because they think it's only twice as difficult when in reality anyone who has done a marathon knows it's closer to 3-4 times as difficult endurance wise.
400 endurance should maybe be a 1, 200 and 100 should be less than 1
My whole point is that a simple rank based scoring approach is an awful approach given the irregular differences in distance
It's 3-4 times as difficult if you haven't trained properly for it. I completely disagree that "anyone" who's done one would say that considering that I wouldn't actually say that it's twice as difficult as a half.
Again, if it was equally different to 10k as the 10k is to the sprints, you wouldn't have guys who do both at the elite level. I personally know someone who, earlier this year, ran sub 28 in the 10k and 2:06 in the Marathon within a month of each other. Can you name anybody in the world who has that level of performance in any sprint and the 10k across their entire life, never mind without even needing a training block in between?
Running events do not require linearly more endurance as they get longer, because that's not how our bodies work. The 100m is ran primarily on the alactic energy sytem, 200 is a mix between alactic and lactic, and 400 is primarily fuelled by the lactic energy system. Once you get to events that are fully aerobic you have no change in the amount of endurance needed that is as significant as the difference between 100 and 800 metres. It is biologically impossible for someone to be simultaneously elite at both distance and sprints, because through genetics and training your body will have a certain makeup of muscle fibres; if you don't have a large percentage of Type 2 muscle fibers you are not an elite sprinter, if you don't have a large percentage of Type 1 muscle fibers you are not an elite distance runner.
I think everyone I ran track with in high school would agree with 400mh/800 being the hardest. IMO, the other distance events depend on if it’s a time trial or a championship style race. E.g. I feel like a marathon is harder than a slow mile or 5k with a fast kick. Obviously subjective though
it is indeed true that an all-out time trial style mile is far more physically painful than running at 3k pace for 3 laps and then blasting a last lap at 800 pace the problem with the 800 is that, no matter how you run it - you're always going to tie up in the homestretch, which is physically excruciating. well, minus a few lucky exceptions (the robby andrews + nick symmonds types)
Yep 100% no matter what an 800 is all pain.
Do you mind explaining your two examples and how they’re exceptions? I feel like I’m missing something.
Those two guys appear to significantly accelerate instead of tie up in the homestretch of an 800, and appear to be in more distress at the start than at the end, which is unusual
Why didn’t you include us steeplechasers.
Honestly brother I just forgot. I did high school track in California where there is no indoor and there is no steeple. My bad king
You’re good just wondering why it was missing. Also this a really nice graph.
Yep. I was losing feeling in my hands and running through sand the whole last 100m no matter what, so I eventually learned I had to grab that extra time on the first lap.
I always felt like the mile was tougher than the 800. It felt physically more grueling to me, and in the races I was in for the mile, I felt like I had to be a much better and smarter racer, where the 800 I was in some fast races, but the fields thinned out a lot more by 500m, but it felt like in the mile/1500 I was in races that came down hard to the wire, so that probably shaped my view on it a lot more.
What about steeple though?
I’ve done 400H, 800, and steeple and I believe wholeheartedly that the 800 is the hardest event. 400 is short enough that only the last ~150m are painful and hard. Steeple is at a pace slow enough that you aren’t completely exhausted until the last few laps and as someone with hurdling background it doesn’t add a TON of difficulty FOR ME (my sample size here is low I must admit). But the 800? Man the second lap in the 800 is just pain. And then the last 200 is probably the hardest thing I’ve done. 400H is definitely the most fun to me though.
The 800 is significantly less painful than the 400 for me, but that might be impacted by the fact that I’m naturally a distance athlete, not a sprinter.
Ah I’m the other way around
Lol In High School I ran the 300H and the 400. They were back to back events. Certainly wasn’t easy
Oh my... I would've died. I was always a 100 and 200 runner who only dabbled in longer races like the flat 300 during the indoor season. The lactic would've been too much for me to do those back to back.
I did Cross Country in the fall so I felt like I had a good endurance base, but at an invitational there really wasn’t more than 4-5 minutes before the next heat would start. I dropped Hurdles in the post season and just focused on the 400
Ah. I only ever did cross country in 8th grade and never in high school. I was at my peak senior year of hs and even on a hot day the 200 would wipe me out despite that being my best event. Props to you for even doing one time! Reminds of the girl in my high school who'd run the open 400, 200 and 4x400. She would barely even be tired after a 400. She'd sit down for a minute and walk away from the finish line like nothing had happened. I'd be sitting on the ground for 10 minutes hyperventilating after a hard 200. She was just a sucker for lactic acid I guess. Invitationals in my state, Vermont, thankfully had more time in between 400 and 300mh. More like an hour between if I remember correctly.
Ours had the 4x100 between. I ran the 400 and led off my 4x100 team. Brutal, but yours is worse.
This is a worthless chart
Thank you (it is a satirical meme + i made it up)
Thank YOU (it is a good meme + holds water)
A factor missing is strategy from the 800. That factor puts it over the 400ih for me (as a 400ih runner in the past).
You're forgetting the pushing and shoving in the 800m. Maybe even some kidney shots if your in the middle of the pack... So I've heard.
That’s part of what I mean. Avoiding bodies, getting boxed in, not tripping. Once those lane lanes breakup it’s a brawl sometimes.
How I miss those moments. Then I remember the knee and ankle pain I have today. Some meets were smooth sailing. Others were borderline bloodbath. I remember one meet where we restarted the race twice cause of pushing, shoving, and falling before the break point.
ah yeah, if we put "strategy" into the mix, then the mile is 10, 800 is 9, 5k is 7, 10k 6, 400 hurdles probably also 6, marathon probably also 6, open 400 maybe 4-5, 200 3, 100 2
Having run the 400 hurdles, I concur!
I used to run the 800m so it had my extremely biased vote of being the hardest
As a former 800 runner i thing 600m is even harder. It's like running 400 with a never ending 300m finish.
Agreed as a 400/600 guy. It’s brutal because you have to run close to 400 pace and then hold on for dear life the last 150.
Dec of course but for individual events need triple jump
I would agree on 800 based on personal experience! I was an 800 guy in high school and also ran 2:02 in college. I never ran the 400 hurdles but I could see why it would be brutal’ the 400 without hurdles is insanely hard!
After the Decathlon, that is…
> Decathlon Who are you predicting to beat the world record at the Olympics?
Your anaerobic ratings don't make sense. Marathon should be a 1 and 100 should be a 10
what I mean is, the 800 and the 400 hurdles (and the mile and the 400) are the ones that require you to maximally use your "anaerobic speed reserves". the ones where you're flooded head to toe in lactic acid and "tie up" in the homestretch [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176219/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176219/) i probably didn't word it perfectly but surely you know what i'm referring to
Interesting, actually never heard of anaerobic speed reserve before. I'm looking more into it now though.
I think a technical score needs to be added which would push the 400mh to the lead. There is nothing worse than doing a balls out 400mh and then seeing that last hurdle looking as though it is 10 feet tall and your feet are on soft sand trying to get over that bastard.
The 8 is only hard if you are in bad shape. Its two laps dawg. Adrenaline take you through 200 and the middle is chill. The end either breaks apart or you run a 28 and that is energy system dependent. Now threshold/5k on the other hand… Hurtles suck because jumping is hard and breaks uncoordinated runners (inc me) cadence and too short for a base to save you
800 hurdles?
800 hurdles or mile steeple would be insane lol
I’m a distance guy, but this is pretty silly. Top speed a 4 for the marathon?
Most sub 210 guys are sub 4 milers
Sure, two hours is sub 4:35/mile (insane). Also 4 minutes not competitive professionally, and most mile PRs are from early in career, pre marathon. The big exception of being simultaneously competitive from mile to marathon is of course the amazing Sifan Hassan. My point is that if you take the top 100 or so marathoners and sort them by their current 60m dash times, I doubt there would be any significant correlation, let alone the moderately strong correlation that 4 implies. Also while I’m much less knowledgeable in sprint training, a lack of endurance affects training, ability to run rounds, etc. it may be that other measures of endurance are needed. The fact that sprinters have been popped for “endurance” PEDs speaks for itself.
I presume we aren’t counting decathlon ?
well that includes a lot of these events
Where is the data coming from, or is it all subjective?
i made it up, this is a satirical meme
V02max is harder than anaerobic in my opinion
I was an 800 guy in college and lived with a bunch of the xc guys. We went back and forth between the 800, 400h, and 3k steeple on what we thought were the toughest races! Those barriers are high!
Bunch of slow people arguing that the event they participated in is the hardest
I've ran all of these and I'd say the 10K is the hardest. After the first 20 minutes, I was a little short of breath and it felt like someone was pulling me in two for the rest of the run. But different people are affected by different races in various ways. Most of these are in the 32-37 range, so not too different, and I bet if you trained for each race and gave 100% on the day of the big run, they would all be equally difficult.
This isn’t math, of course the data is going to be biased towards events in the middle
no way the mile and the 400 are the same, the 400 is harder
You should enter the math olympics, and leave the running to the athletes
[удалено]
So the difference in endurance between a 100m and a 10k is the same as between 10k and marathon? Chuck a 10k specialist in the marathon and they’ll do a hell of a lot better than a 100m runner doing their first ever 10k. We’ve seen runners move from 10k to marathon with relative ease, you couldn’t say the same for a sprinter moving to 10k. If marathon is going to be 10 in endurance then 10k is like an 8 or 9. This chart is dogshit obviously though.
For each 10k person doing well in the marathon, there's a half marathon person who struggles because they think it's only twice as difficult when in reality anyone who has done a marathon knows it's closer to 3-4 times as difficult endurance wise. 400 endurance should maybe be a 1, 200 and 100 should be less than 1 My whole point is that a simple rank based scoring approach is an awful approach given the irregular differences in distance
It's 3-4 times as difficult if you haven't trained properly for it. I completely disagree that "anyone" who's done one would say that considering that I wouldn't actually say that it's twice as difficult as a half. Again, if it was equally different to 10k as the 10k is to the sprints, you wouldn't have guys who do both at the elite level. I personally know someone who, earlier this year, ran sub 28 in the 10k and 2:06 in the Marathon within a month of each other. Can you name anybody in the world who has that level of performance in any sprint and the 10k across their entire life, never mind without even needing a training block in between? Running events do not require linearly more endurance as they get longer, because that's not how our bodies work. The 100m is ran primarily on the alactic energy sytem, 200 is a mix between alactic and lactic, and 400 is primarily fuelled by the lactic energy system. Once you get to events that are fully aerobic you have no change in the amount of endurance needed that is as significant as the difference between 100 and 800 metres. It is biologically impossible for someone to be simultaneously elite at both distance and sprints, because through genetics and training your body will have a certain makeup of muscle fibres; if you don't have a large percentage of Type 2 muscle fibers you are not an elite sprinter, if you don't have a large percentage of Type 1 muscle fibers you are not an elite distance runner.