Does moving to a more ‘endurance-based training’ necessarily imply more low intensity training, or could it be a difference in the distribution of the high intensity elements (away from speed towards special endurance)? Could/would it involve both?
In the first two lists, the fastest 200m guys are Johnson, Merritt, and Everett, and they have the three largest adjustments for 400m time (beyond 2x200m) on each of those lists.
And on the last list, Johnson and Merritt are the two fastest 200m guys, and they have the two largest adjustments for 400m time.
Just off of these lists (and not off of the physiology or anything like that), it looks at least a little bit like once you get below 20.40 or so, you start getting far less of a return on your 200m speed in your 400m speed (Johnson obviously went very fast for 400m, but it still wasn’t a great return on his phenomenal 200m speed, judging by these lists).
It’s a very small sample size, but that’s the only kind of sample size you get at, or close to, world-record level.
Question. In regard to his speed. The fact that his maximum speed is so high anyway, wouldn’t he be able to maintain that speed level with less work and use it to improve the speed endurance element?
Bolt ran 400m in 45.35s fairly early in his 2003 season while probably being in about 20.50s 200m shape (His 2002 best was 20.58, but a few months after his 45.35 he bettered that to 20.13). 45.35 - (20.5 X 2) = 4.35. A mid 42s 400m should thus certainly be possible for him even without very drastic changes to his training routine.
Doing less speed and more speed endurance will lead to decrease in 100m result.
It can be seen in Kratochvilova career from 1983. In 1982 she ran 1:56 at 800m just from her 200-400 preparation, in 1983 she improved the speed endurance element (now able to run the last 200m of the 400m in sub 25sec with one of them in 24.4 (!), and running 1:53.28 without pacemaker and only realizing with 100m to go she was on her way to the WR), as a result, her 100m went from 11.09 in 1981, 11.10 in 1982 to 11.3x (can’t remember exactly) in 1983.
Thanks PJ thats some great data. As this thread is about a short sprinter moving up, I’m still wondering how much the bias towards 400m specialists in the set influences the stats. The inclusion of only one 200m/400m guy in there may indicate that the model is based on athletes that did not approach their potential over the shorter distance; whereas specialist 200m/400m types are more likely to.
As MSO points out, it appears that there diminishing returns are present with regards to 200m speed and it appears that in most cases top 200m and top 400m, performances do not occur in the same season (Faster 400m time seems to produce a slower 200 for the same season, whether because of training or fewer 200m races) meaning that the difference between the 400m time and double the 200m time is much lower than the year they set their best 200m time. With this in mind can this be incorporated into the equation to reduce the distortion caused by other factors?
Are there any available data sets that would enable us to take a large sample of 400m runners and segment them according to the frequency with which they ran each and both events?
Without contemplating the many other factors, the rhythm of a top 200m and a top 400m can be different for the same athlete.
Not in every case, Michael Johnson, Marita Koch look to be exceptions. But for many people the action in a 400m is based around economy and if you do enough work in that rhythm it can be difficult to change up for a great 200m in the same season.
That may be a deficiency in the athlete/coach/program. Obviously it would be nice to run PBs for every distance, every season, however it often doesn’t pan out that way…
I red in an other forum that it was 18.94 from blocks hand timing (you can add up to 0.43 for the conversion from hand timing, the largest diff i know btw electronic and hand timing for a world record, Pam Kilborn 12.5-12.93 at 100mH in 1972). If true, he is at about the same level as he was at the Olympics (19.30 wind -0.9).
But media reports that he has travelled a lot, Mills even complaining that he needed to go back to train and start seriously in January. So not sure if that’s true.
I imagine there is a difference between officials hand-timing a meet or scouts hand-timing a combine workout and a coach hand-timing his own athlete.
In the latter case, even if you are trying to be unbiased, it’s probably very easy to avoid hitting the watch too quickly at the start and probably very hard to avoid getting trigger-happy at the finish, no matter how experienced you are.
I know I’ve timed workouts where later I got to thinking that even just proper hand-timing would have gotten a time worse than what I got.
It was most likely from first movement as well, so you can add on a little bit more.
Any result from the 600/300?
With all the travelling to awards and tv interviews, it would be surprising for him to have any real routine in his training and to be at a similar level he was in Beijing
