While I agree with the smooth and uniform acceleration, I disagree with the notion of gradual. It needs to be strong, powerful and fast but not inefficient, that is to say - "spinning your wheels" - too much turn over or too high of a cycling frequency burns your energy systems out. Furthermore, I think a certain degree of this advancements for indoor times naturally comes with the advancements with shoe and track technology as well. You simply can't ignore this fact. You'll probably see a WR outdoor pretty soon because of this as well.
If we had an unlimited supply of energy, we would be able run at maximum speed for a long time. However, due to limited resources, we must make adjustments accordingly. It should come as no surprise that the initial 100 meters of a race requires the most energy. In terms of energy expenditure, the final 100 meters is 10 times less costly. The optimal strategy for conserving energy is to focus on the most energy-intensive portion of the race. So the biggest mistake in the modern 400m race is to go all-out in the first 50 meters, depleting all your energy reserves. Naturally, we aim to accelerate as quickly as possible while using the least amount of energy, but achieving both is not feasible.
@@TheWayToWin that's actually a really good point! I never thought of it that way before. You might have just convinced me 👍 but is it not a zero sum race then? Whether the first 100m is slow from gradual acceleration or the last 100m from deceleration is it not the same theoretical time?
@@gilbert3579 If by a zero sum race, you mean that one part of it conflicts with the other, then yes, running can be considered a zero sum game. If you conserve 10% of your energy during the first 100 meters of the race, then you will have twice as much energy left to run the last 100 meters, given that the first 100 meters is ten times more energy-consuming than the last 100 meters. As a chess player, you undoubtedly understand that precision is the most important quality in the game. No matter how impressive your moves may appear, if they lead to a loss, they are ultimately the wrong moves. This principle also extends to all areas of life, including running. As things approach perfection, they tend to even out. While it may be possible to win some chess games with suboptimal moves or break world records with a terrible pacing , this is only achievable up to a certain level of competition. Therefore, in a perfect race, everything must be perfectly balanced. If you observe a race in which the second half is significantly slower than the first, it is far from being perfect.
I ran the 400m myself and believe there should be no more than a 3 second difference between each 200 ran in the 400...for example, if you ran 22 seconds in the first 200, then the slowest the 2nd 200 should be 25 seconds, giving you a time of 47 seconds flat
@@TheWayToWin its not efficient running...if you're 4 seconds apart, this tells me you came out too fast or you're not fully in shape for the 2nd half of the 400m
@@TheWayToWin Running on the fly and getting out the blocks are two differents efforts of acceleration, you're using more effort coming out the blocks than you're when you're running on the fly
@@BulletTrainProductionsI agree. Starting from a two-point stance would quickly elevate the level of the 400m race. The question then arises: why use starting blocks if they actually slow down athletes?
@@TheWayToWin They only slow down athletes whom don't know how to set up their blocks or properly accelerate out of them, nor strong enough to use blocks.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
While I agree with the smooth and uniform acceleration, I disagree with the notion of gradual. It needs to be strong, powerful and fast but not inefficient, that is to say - "spinning your wheels" - too much turn over or too high of a cycling frequency burns your energy systems out.
Furthermore, I think a certain degree of this advancements for indoor times naturally comes with the advancements with shoe and track technology as well. You simply can't ignore this fact. You'll probably see a WR outdoor pretty soon because of this as well.
If we had an unlimited supply of energy, we would be able run at maximum speed for a long time. However, due to limited resources, we must make adjustments accordingly.
It should come as no surprise that the initial 100 meters of a race requires the most energy. In terms of energy expenditure, the final 100 meters is 10 times less costly. The optimal strategy for conserving energy is to focus on the most energy-intensive portion of the race.
So the biggest mistake in the modern 400m race is to go all-out in the first 50 meters, depleting all your energy reserves.
Naturally, we aim to accelerate as quickly as possible while using the least amount of energy, but achieving both is not feasible.
@@TheWayToWin that's actually a really good point! I never thought of it that way before. You might have just convinced me 👍 but is it not a zero sum race then? Whether the first 100m is slow from gradual acceleration or the last 100m from deceleration is it not the same theoretical time?
@@gilbert3579 If by a zero sum race, you mean that one part of it conflicts with the other, then yes, running can be considered a zero sum game.
If you conserve 10% of your energy during the first 100 meters of the race, then you will have twice as much energy left to run the last 100 meters, given that the first 100 meters is ten times more energy-consuming than the last 100 meters.
As a chess player, you undoubtedly understand that precision is the most important quality in the game. No matter how impressive your moves may appear, if they lead to a loss, they are ultimately the wrong moves.
This principle also extends to all areas of life, including running. As things approach perfection, they tend to even out.
While it may be possible to win some chess games with suboptimal moves or break world records with a terrible pacing , this is only achievable up to a certain level of competition.
Therefore, in a perfect race, everything must be perfectly balanced. If you observe a race in which the second half is significantly slower than the first, it is far from being perfect.
@@TheWayToWin thanks!
@@TheWayToWinthis is incredibly helpful thanks 🙏
I ran the 400m myself and believe there should be no more than a 3 second difference between each 200 ran in the 400...for example, if you ran 22 seconds in the first 200, then the slowest the 2nd 200 should be 25 seconds, giving you a time of 47 seconds flat
what's wrong with 4 second difference?
@@TheWayToWin its not efficient running...if you're 4 seconds apart, this tells me you came out too fast or you're not fully in shape for the 2nd half of the 400m
@@repent2jesus433 I agree
Guys really good have around a 2 sec difference. So if they hit the first 200m in 21sec the 2nf one is 23sec.
@@dennisrobinson8008 then that would be terrible pacing
The start from the blocks is slower tough
how is it slower?
@@TheWayToWin Running on the fly and getting out the blocks are two differents efforts of acceleration, you're using more effort coming out the blocks than you're when you're running on the fly
@@BulletTrainProductionsI agree. Starting from a two-point stance would quickly elevate the level of the 400m race. The question then arises: why use starting blocks if they actually slow down athletes?
@@TheWayToWin They only slow down athletes whom don't know how to set up their blocks or properly accelerate out of them, nor strong enough to use blocks.
@@BulletTrainProductionsSince you don't need to waste time getting up, the standing start in the 400m is actually faster and requires less effort