Just like to get some input on the following session;


Rolling 100m in 12.75s (+/- 0.25)
Recovery = 60s

I’ve been using this as a replacement for KK’s 5x200 session as one of the athletes i’m coaching can only get access to a Football field at the moment. (Looking to run 49-50s for 400m)

I can’t remember if there is a mention in the Lactate Thread of a similar session, i picked it up from somewhere on the forum quite a while ago…

Ideally i’d like to know if the times are suitable (for a sub 50), if the recovery needs to change, or any amendments to improve it that would be of benefit.

Thanks in advance.


Too fast for tempo unless you are a 100 meter guy in the middle of comp. season and likely are you running 10.10 ish or much better.
Too slow for speed.
What are you trying to do ?
I am guessing Speed Endurance?
Maybe we can get someone to post with a more technical answer.

Too fast for tempo
Too slow for speed.
You have to set a workout in order to meet your goals, not to replace an existing session.
Work backward from the requirement of your event and do the calculation.
The first 200m of a 50sec 400m is supposed to be run in c. 24sec and the 2nd 200m in 26sec (FAT times).
I guess that if you only have 100m straight field, you need to run them little faster than 12.75 (hand times) and lengthen the rest. You can also do them in split runs format (e.g. 100m in 12.3 turn back 100m in 12.3, BREAK, and maybe 3 or 4 other sets)

Kk 200 session is an intensive tempo aimed at improving the specific tolerance for 400m

I think the times and distance / recovery are close enough and would be a good extra session to add in when the 2s session isn’t appropriate

This is a session I have m own runners do once a meso

As PJ says, the pace can be a bit faster, since they are done rolling, too, unless you are progressing the session towards more appropriate target times. Of course, the 2nd 100-m segment of each split 200 is not flying, so we need to consider this, too.
The other thing I would be cautious about is the double amount of accelerations and the extra pressure, even from rolling. Just keep it in mind.

Thanks all for the quick responses, by all accounts the athlete did suggest the pace was slower than they felt it should be. I will tighten this session up and get them doing the split run format as suggested, what recovery would you all propose between sets?

Could you do them turnarounds?

100 and then turnaround and do another 100 in 200 come home 400 pace + 0.5 seconds, rest 90 seconds, and repeat?

Your changes now take it away from bei g it’s initial goal, which is to replicate the 200s session
Of which the straight 10x100 with 60sec is that

The choice is either same pace but reduce recovery to 45sec or quicken the pace slightly as its a rolling start.

Mentioning the pace to slow for speed and too fast for tempo! Is exactly the point if the session! :-/
So I’m confused as to how your wanting to change the session

Is this directed at my comment?

If so turnarounds are limited rest - IE run 100 and turnaround. The 0.5 second should be quicker not slower.

That being said, never tried it with the 200 specific session but have done turnarounds with extensive tempo sessions - when the turnaround has been shorter

DMA sorry no wasnt directed at your self.

I understand your comments, using split turn arounds to stimulate the same session as the 200s is a good option. however athletes will tend to shut off early knowing they have to stop and start again so soon :-/

I think the athlete perceived it to be slower as they expected they would be working harder with the increase in reps and the need to accelerate twice as often (as opposed to 5 in the standard session). Although with the rolling start the effort to get up to speed was probably not as significant.

I will try and monitor the next session when this is done and then decide on the adjustments to be made (last session times were recorded by the athletes friend as i was away with work), it may be that the accuracy of times or commitment on the runs were not where they should be - my initial thoughts with this session were that the athlete should be running the reps at about 12.5-12.6, given the rolling start and their current conditioning level i wouldn’t have expected them to have a large range (actual times ranged from 12.2-13.1, averaged to 12.75)

Whats your event and PB? Completing 10x100m @12.75 (+ or -.25) off 60s recovery means you have a highly trained glycolytic energy system.

Points to consider, in my view:

The average 100m split for a 49.00 second 400m performance is 12.25.
It is reasonable to assume that an athlete capable of such a performance is able to run 100m from a rolling start in 11.0 seconds in a single set of 10 reps with appropriate recovery. As much fast relaxed running at a pace aound or quicker than 12.25 per 100m, particularly in a climate of endurance development would seem to me to offer enormous benefits to the one lap sprinter.
The optimum range for Intensive Tempo work is around 85-90% effort. This range equates to between 12.95 (85%) and 12.22 (90%) for 100m reps.

Duration of recovery will depend on the training status of the athlete(s) concerned.
I prefer experienced athletes to take 60 seconds recovery per 100m worked in such situations, but I think DMA’s suggestion of extending this (my own suggestion would be 75 sec per 100m worked) has good foundation, particularly in developing athletes, depending on their level of maturation.

If you are using grass to work on, however, (you didn’t specify) I would say your 12.75 target is a good one.
The primary focus of all Intensive Tempo work should, of course, be on a sound technical model.

Just to clarify after making a pig’s ear of my intended meaning in the above paragraph:

I didn’t mean that a 49 sec 400m runner would be expected to run 10x 100m reps in 11 secs from a rolling start! I should have said that, s/he would be expected to run 11 sec from roll IN A SINGLE REP - thereby achieving a time on which to base the 85-90% effort (12.25) in a 10x 100m set, with appropriate recovery. If only my athletes were as quick on the track as they are to highlight my pc deficiencies!