that’s why some more info are needed in order to provide further feedback; don’t remember if athletes’ ages are provided, sorry if i’m wrong
pierrejean, i can see your point about speed endurance, but why spending time on low intensity and long distance? you have tempo for that and although i understand that the two intensities are different, i regard the low-long speed endurance to be somewhat between and perhaps a waste of time… Charlie might agree on this point from previous exchange of ideas about distance runners, for example; Charlie?
besides, i think it’s time to try something different from the traditional approach of low and long for speed endurance, if it’s not employed already. As Charlie stated one of his athletes as an example, you might be surprised with the results; althletes tend to be fresh and if you want, they have no fear of what’s coming in a 400m race (acidosis); it’s also a psychological issue, as you said in your example of bad training -with which i agree, of course
What I believe Pierrejean is suggesting is an EMPHASIS on the short to long speed to speed endurance, while secondarily and at a lesser intensity of effort and progression begin to work on the longer endurance. This can certainly work with a longer training period and shorter competitive period, as would be typical in Europe, but, in the US college system, with so many meets available, I’d stick with the short to long work/extensive tempo and let the specific endurance come from the events themselves. The key is to decide how many 400s to run. As a rule, the lower the development level the less 400s and the more the shorter sprints on the way towards an expected peak result. Perhaps 2 preliminary open 400s and 2 relays beforehand with shorter runs the week or two before the key race.
Please check the archives for the excellent discussion we had a while back with great input from Kit Kat (who developed 44.31/50.20 (approx) M and W Olympic finalists)
Spending time on aerobie is of the highest importance because it will unable the 400m runners to support the training loads. Also, it should be a direct corelation between aerobie and strength/weight workouts loads in order to prevent injuries. I’m quite hostile for continuous aerobie work for short sprinters, while it seems to be necessary for 400m (and i make a distinction on tempo which is done at 50-75% i believe and continuous runs which is >60% and lactate level under 6mmol/l).
About the number of competition at 400m, in Europe we have the chance to be allow to peak for only one competition per season. So the number of comeptitions at 400m should be reduced at his minimum for several reasons:
the speed should be in place first (the same in a long time training plan or a calendar training plan!)
as specific endurance work is done int he second part of the year there’s no reason to run 400 early.
as spe endurance is not done, the running mechanics over early 400s isn’t in place and it can lead to injuries.
a 400m competition is more stressful for body and CNS than a specific end workout. So too much 400 will prevent you to train correctly.
For these reasons, don’t be afraid to plan only 4 (four) 400m comps in a year.
For the college US runners with plenty of competitions early, the philosophy must be different and i don’t know if the “European view” i showed here is applicable to you. Any thoughts?
sorry, if you were referring to purely aerobic workouts as a support system to the rest of the training, i absolutely agree! And even short, continuous tempos, of say, 15min, could be beneficial early in the season for injury prevention and things like that; with the long and slow i thought you were referring to pure speed endurance work…
For the European approach to 400m i tend to agree again; 400m levels should be quite high to be able to afford much more frequent races over this distance… Especially because of the effect that these might have over your training, as you stated…
Pierrejean,
would you kindly expand a bit on what kind of work you refer to as" continuous >60%,producing <6mmol/l lactate" and “tempo 50-75%”? What level of lactates You would recommend for the latter ,and what kind of adaptations are You looking for in the two workouts?
By 60% and 50-75% i mean intensity (% of max).
For the “Tempo” (as Charlie used for years) and “continuous runs”, there should not be lactate. However, i feel that Tempo can lead to a little and un-noticable (for the athlete) lactate level. Maybe Charlie can speak on this? The continuous runs are performed over 6 to 8km, in some countries like GDR even short sprinters did it 2 to 3 times a week at an individual speed, before lactate apparition (which was medically measured), in the first 1/3 of the season. Pérec when she was in France did 20-30min once a week on Mondays on nature, means various grounds and light hills and downhills to wake-up all the organic capacities. It was a kind of warm-up for the rest of the week.
The aerobie can also be performed for warm-ups before workouts, but the best is to use kind of tempo on the grass (example 200m jog + 50m walk) before race workouts, and continuous runs before technique workouts. Aerobie also for cool-down after the cession, but i prefer alternance of jog and stretching.
Thank You Pierrejean,
this is what I was actually wondering about, since I also feel tempo shouldn’t have any noticeable lactate production ,hence performance deterioration.
What actually confuses me is that 100’s at 75% probably represent a pace superior to a sprinter’s Vo2max pace, although the brief exposure and the rest intervals should minimise lactate anyway,while still providing a rather strong "aerobic " stimulus .
Am I correct in this interpretation of tempo?
75% is an extreme limit, and in practice, it’s quite difficult to tell athletes not to run the tempo too fast, sprinters always want to run fast, especially for 100m distances. Also, i feel that sit ups and press ups before and after each races during tempo may hit the lactic zone??
I give you example with 2 French female sprinters:
VO2max (ml/min/kg) / Aerobie (km/h) / Anaerobie (km/h) / Name, 100m, 200m
49.0 / 10.0 / 12.6 / C.RÉGA 11.15, 22.72
54.1 / 11.5 / 13.2 / M-C CAZIER 11.23, 22.36
So in theory what pace should they run tempos and continuous runs?
VO2 max pace, is usually equated to the speed at which an athlete would run 3000m at race speed.
You need to compare the pace for your (say) 65% tempo for various distances and see the point at which you achieve VO2 max. For example, 100m tempo efforts will probably be faster than 3000M (vo2 max) speed. 600m tempo efforts would probably be slower.
The best results for VO2 max development I have heard of consist of 3min efforts follwed by 3 min rests. Or, 30sec efforts followed by 30 sec recoveries.
I suggest the first are endurance runner specific, the second better for sprinters aiming to improve VO2 max.
The problem with the longer efforts being that sprinting form degenerates.
I suggest the first are endurance runner specific, the second better for sprinters aiming to improve VO2 max.
The problem with the longer efforts being that sprinting form degenerates.[/QUOTE]
Hello oldbloke. I’ve seen the first model (called vVo2 max if I remember) but not the second (30 on 30 off). Is that a variation on Tabata? If not, where did it come from? Thanks.
[QUOYE]Hello oldbloke. I’ve seen the first model (called vVo2 max if I remember) but not the second (30 on 30 off). Is that a variation on Tabata? If not, where did it come from? Thanks.[/QUOTE]
if i’m correct here, there are similar suggestions of such short durations on and off in Astrand & Rodhal’s physiology book…
That’s a good link. To improve the VO2 max you are working at the very border of anaerobic and aerobic capacity so that you will start using fat as an energy source rather than glucose, and thus you will have a greater work capacity.
Considering that i´m turning 28y/o this month and my times are 11.20 and 24.5,
training for theses distances for 1 year ( never going over 200m ).
What could be a good aproach to switch to 400m distance ?
400m is a totally different event to 200m. There is a lot of lactic work that needs to be done to prepare you for the last 100-150m. It can take about 6 months to achieve this.
I suggest you search for the “Lactic Tollerence” thread.
Along with lactic tollerence training 400m guys need to do more special endurance 2 runs and increased tempo volume.
From looking at your PBs you will need a lot more special endurance work. Your 100m time is good but you should be able to run a lot faster 200. In comparison I have atheletes running 100 in 12 flat who can run 200 in 24.1 and we only work on specific 200m special endurance in SPP2 (around 8 weeks at the end of the season).
If you want to know more about 400m training search for posts by KitKat on this forum.
Tks TC,
you went straight to the point,
that is the fact that i need a lot of special endurance as we can see from the gap between my 100 and 200 speed averages.
BTW, do you know any good 400m runner who came from short distances ? and what about the ages ?
Good 400m runners who came from sprinting 100/200m background?!
MJ, Jamie Wariner, Marita Koch, Tim Benjamin…
Almost every good 400m person will also be exceptional at 200m. 400m is a sprint not middle distance (unlike most people in the UK would have you believe).
Both the mens and women’s 400m world record holders (Koch and MJ) were also World record holders at one time or another over 200m (Koch also at 50m i believe). Please correct me if I am wrong.
That’s right, though it applies to women more than men. There are mens’ record holders who weren’t exceptional at 200 but had great strength endurance, such as Reynolds and Evans.
Charlie do you believe there´s any scientific reason behind this fact ( such testosterone levels in mans vs women ) or this could be due to emotional and motivational aspects.