CF Approach in Mid-Distance Events

The model to extrapolate from 400 to 800 times is not perfect, but some UK rankings from last year are interesting. Athletes that ran around 2.02 that year, with their 800 and 400 PRs. Av 400 time 56.7.
Clearly there is a dependency on whether they are stepping up from 400 or down from 1500. The 59.3 is a 5000m runner doing some 800m speed work.
Enough for some validation of the model.

10 2:01.98 400 54.51
11 2:02.32 400 59.3
12 2:02.58 400 58.19
13 2:03.18 400 54.82

The point about the 400PR being extrapolated upwards and effort distribution matching thees models will definately stop at some point for slower runners. But my absolute guess is somewhere around 2.30-40, well above your athlete`s level.

According to this formula, Jarmila Kratochvilova should have been able to run 800m in 1:46 min, and any woman capable of running the 400m in 51.5s should be able to break her 800m world record.

Maybe this formula is more accurate for men.

James,
Point well taken and your example which used percentages seems like a good way to go. In your example you had the athlete going through the 600 in 1:35point. The obvious is that it’s impossible for an athlete with a 600 PR of 1:36 or 1:37 to do that. That leads me to my thought on speed reserve for MD runners and how time devoted to maximizing or optimizing all speed related abilities may be time well spent. Do you have any general thoughts on the first 400 of an 800 in terms of a percent of 400PR?

Oldbloke,
Regarding the 60/210 example, its not beyond the realm of possibility for that athlete to run 61point in an early season or off day open 400. How is it possible for them to go through the 400 in 63-64?

FYI The above 4 times (rankings 10-13) are women.
Statistical aspects of human performance are based on the shape of the normal distribution curve and the levels of standard deviation - hence sensitive to outliers at all extremes. Particular gifted individuals, 400 runners with no endurance, slow 1500 runners etc.
A more accurate model relevant to Ollies athlete could be built (for example) using a sample population of women only, times 2.05 - 2.20, only 400/800 or 800/1500 runners. However someone needs to find the time to do that !
The other problem is that population wold not have a known training background to measure against.

The applicability of 400 times is only one part of the equation for this athlete. An approximation is adequate IMHO.
There are more fundamentals for her training programme - applicability of CF type tempo versus steady state runs, intensive tempo versus multi-pace training theory, benefits of (some) very high velocity training or not for an athlete at this level.
So I woulld not get too anal over 400PRs and race modelling yet.

I did not address the question of the 400m split times, just an approximation to model 800 performance from a recent 400 time.

However, speculating in this case, I suspect the answer is not possible if her true recent 400PR is 61. I suspect her 400 split would be around 65-66. If she did run 63-64 her overall time would be crushed by first lap exhaustion.
However if you are addressing something as specific as a 400m split I suggest you take your athletes 400 split in her 800PR race and compare that to her 400PR of 63. And use her personal differential for race pace modelling in future.

Again I encourage you to design her overall approach and not agonise over 2 seconds in a 400 split. For example if you are not even sure how to build her endurance base (15 mins runs, 45 min runs, extensive tempo…) then you have more fundamental decisions to make.

The problem is the more time it takes an athlete to finish an 800 the more the aerobic system is responsible for achieving the time. A 60 second 400 meter runner would have an extremely hard time accomplishing a 800 of 2:10. For example in our state it has taken at least a 56 400 to flirt with that time. Sooooo you do need to be fast! Then build the strength. I actually have loosely applied Mike Hurt’s principles of a concurrent system to get our 800 runners ready.

My friend Sean O’ Connor one of the best high school coaches in the Midwest uses what he calls a funnel system. The funnel starts with very divergent training for example for the 5k and can be applied to other events. In the funnel for the 5k it starts on one side with marathon like workouts and on the other side the workouts are geared toward 800 runners. As you move down the funnel the workouts become more based for the 5k leading to eventually weeks of workouts that are 5k centric. So even in the 5k a sprinter has training each week in the beginning built around the 800.

For the 800. I use a two week cycle where my athlete on Monday of week 1 trains with our 200/400 sprinters and then Monday of week 2 they train with the 1600m athletes. Each day of the week rotates like that over a two week span throughout the season.

In my judgement, it is most useful to look at the differential between the elite’s 400m PR and their 400m split in an 800m (speed reserve), such as what I showed with Rudisha, and utilize that information as the model which to strive for.

Kratochvilova, for example, has the WR 1:53.28 in the 800m then around two weeks later set her best 400m in 47.99 (world record at the time) which she set at the world championships in 1983 then incredibly, 35minutes later, won the 800 in 1:54.68. I don’t have splits for the 800m, however on the tape, at a glance, her 400m split looks to be ~57.70 (she clearly could have gone much faster through 400m because on that day, her speed reserve manifested as a massive ~9.71sec on the 400m split).

Pierre Jean Vazel has these 100m splits:
600-700m 13.3 Jarmila KRATOCHVILOVA (TCH 1:54.68 Helsinki’83) and remember her 400m split was ~57.70 so, again, clearly she could have gone much faster than 1:54.68 that day.
700-800m 13.9 Jarmila KRATOCHVILOVA (TCH 1:53.29 München’83)

contrast this with Semanya at this Rio Olympics with nearly even splits (from Mathew Hanratty):
200m split- 27.6
400m split- 57.6
600m split- 1:26.9
800m- 1:55.28 (her PB)

She won the 400m at the Diamond League Brussels this year in 50.40 and her best 600m 1:25.56 (IAAF)

Thus, her 400m speed reserve was 7.2 and 1.34 at the 600m mark.

I suggest you perform more analysis such as these and form your model for your athlete.

Strongly support this approach, it matches the multi pace/5 pace theory I mentioned earlier. Training at faster than 800 pace - the 200/400 sprinter workouts, slightly slower than race pace - the 1600m athletes.

What do you use for your basic aerobic background work - steady state runs of 30-45 mins and the occasional 60 min effort ?
Back to the fundamental question of the thread - have you experimented with CF type extensive tempo as an alternative ?

For about 5 years now I’ve been using a modified version of the Lyle Knudson multi-pace rotation which was originally adapted from the Horwill two week cycle that Peter Coe used with Seb. I particularly like that it develops greater range for those athletes also at under racing distances/theme and over racing distances days and accompanying paces and volumes. The fringe qualities that are acquired via working those days both below and above racing distances improve the athlete’s ability at race distance.

James,

This post has been stuck in my head for the last couple days, so I’ve done a bit of thinking and additional reading. It would be great to hear more of your thoughts–and also for them to be extrapolated to 400m runners.

Aerobic Capacity seems to imply the amount of O2 that can be delivered. Perhaps you’re saying that extensive tempo workouts increase VO2max.

Aerobic Power, therefore, must pertain the output that can be supported by one’s aerobic system. Building from above, this may be velocity at VO2max (i.e., vVO2max).

Assuming I am understanding these correctly, one’s aerobic power could be improved in a couple of ways: 1) increase capacity (VO2max) such that the old vVO2max can be supported by a lower % of one’s aerobic capacity (i.e., Aerobic capacity reserve) or 2) increase running efficiency such that less fuel is needed to support a given speed. If either of these is improved, theoretically, a higher velocity should be attainable when at one’s aerobic capacity maximum.

So how do you appropriately train to gain this response? Jack Daniels uses the term “aerobic power” in his book, Daniels’ Running Formula, to refer to VO2max. I’d argue volume is a measure of capacity, but I think he gets to the same place with his training recommendations. To elicit responses in power, he recommends training at one’s VO2max in bouts of 3-5 minutes with a 1:1 work-to-rest ratio.

Moving on to 400m training, which is of particular interest to me. I’m the runner whose 100/200 times are significantly better than his 400 time according to the IAAF scoring tables (10.81/21.69/49.79). Before aligning my training to the CF system 6 years ago, my bests were 11.3/22.47/50.39). While less of a contributor to 400m performance than to 800m performance, one’s vVO2max does matter. The research of Weyand, Bundle, and Hoyt showed that the anerobic speed reserve of all runners has the same rate of decay. The reserve is define as the difference between their anaerobic maximum speed (MaxV) and aerobic maximum speed (akin to aerobic power?). My training has primarily focused on top speed development over the years as is evident in my improvements. However, the research and accompanying formulas suggest that an improvement in one’s aerobic maximum would result in less dependence on one’s anaerobic system and, thus, less absolute decay in speed for a given duration of sprinting. So I wonder if a lack of aerobic power is the culprit of never breaking 49 seconds.
http://www.cchs.clay.k12.ky.us/Math/Mhawkins/Weyand’s%20Algorithm.pdf

I guess the outstanding questions for me are as follows:

  1. How do you define aerobic capacity and aerobic power?
  2. How does one best train aerobic power?
  3. Could this training be of use to a 400m runner (albeit, of lesser importance than true middle distance races)?

Actuary 400m, my upcoming book goes into some detail on this (relative to the work of Zhelyaskov and Dasheva of the National Sports Academy in Sofia Bulgaria) and other topics so I wont reiterate here. what I will do is give you a simple overview of one way, as simplified as it is, to conceptualize power vs capacity as it pertains to any bioenergetic domain:

Power = peak intensity
Capacity = total work output

while the contribution of all systems are present in nearly all activities, think of the thresholds (between alactic and lactic and aerobic) that separate the predominance of each system’s contribution to a particular task.

At any given intensity/duration of a particular task, you must think of the barometer by which you are measuring intensity. In running/sprinting, velocity prevails in my view because the highest velocities always equate to the winner in any race. Even in the middle and long distance races, when the pack goes out slow, it’s the runners with the most speed who are the dangers to the rest when they kick it out. Alternatively, a blazing fast pace, such as what Rudisha laid down in London 2012, was achievable due to his ability to achieve and sustain such a great velocity for the given distance. All the way to the marathon in which Kimetto’s ridiculously fast average mile pace of 4:41 over 26.2 miles.

The context then becomes whether the discipline is more a factor of power or capacity and this is generally where the thresholds between the systems come into play. The highest sprint/running velocities are always achieved within the power (near the threshold of capacity) of the respective bioenergetic system. In the short sprints its a function of maximum velocity and speed endurance and in the middle and long distance events it’s a function of speed at the anaerobic threshold.

Pierre Jean Vazel provided a fantastic statistical break down, as usual, of Van Niekerk’s 400m WR (I’d post the link, however, Angela has prohibited the posting of links to other sites)
0-100 in 10.7
100-200 in 9.8
200-300 in 10.5
300-400 in 12.0

Niekerk’s fantastic speed reserve coupled with his aerobic qualities are the perfect storm for the 400m event.

As the topic relates to continuous cyclical efforts (sprinting, cycling, rowing, swimming, skating, Nordic skiing…), dedicated efforts to go as fast as possible from point A to point B in which point B is shifted to longer and longer displacements away from the start, any athlete will transition through the continuum of alactic power to alactic capacity to lactic power to lactic capacity to aerobic power to aerobic capacity, with the proportion/contribution depending on the distance.

In the 400m, it’s matter of determining what must be done to maximize velocity throughout. Each athlete’s physiology yields a different formula; however, at the end of the day there is no refuting the fact that the sprinter with the smallest sum of adding 100m splits wins the race. The question is how to get there and due to physiological differences, there cannot be one single answer.

We have played with extensive tempo. One of the issues I found on the weeks where we start on a Monday with a 1600 type workout and then follow it with an intensive 200/400 tempo on a Tuesday is it would leave my athletes shattered. It is better to lower the intensity and short the recovery down. I will talk about this later as I actually include the 400/800 type in something I am working on. We have done very well in the 4x800 for a number of years using this system with our athletes that need to come down or up. The funnel system is probably the most ground break system I have witnessed in distance/mid-distance training since I started coaching. Sean O’Connor is an absolute genius. We used a similar system in XC and the athlete I have been discussing ran personal course records all-season long in XC finishing 10th over all on a very tough and hilly state course. Additionally, our team had its best season as team in our school’ s history. I am not sure this is legal per site rule but here is his blog link. http://coachoc.blogspot.com/ you can find more info on the funnel there.

I would not recommend using race paces so close to your target race distances on consecutive days, which is what this appears to be. For 800 runners the 1600 workout is only one level slower than the 800. Intensive 200/400s when run by middle/distance runners will be perceived as hard efforts and people will tend to run them at something like 1600/3200 pace.These should be seperated by easier pace efforts, for example the hard days being on Mon/Thurs.
The alternative is to lower the intensity, shorten the recovery as you say, and they then become more like extensive tempo and they can be run on consecutive days.

I can see the logic behind the funnel approach. It sounds like you use multi pace efforts relevant to your target race distances and as the training season progresses the proportion of paces run at or close to race pace increases. “Multi pace periodisation” (I just made that up) - have I interpreted the funnel correctly ?

Yes in way it is multi-paced periodization training. To be clear we have adjusted our Tuesday’s if a 200/400 based day assigned. The following Monday would be 200/400 based and the Tuesday would be a 1600 based day again focused on the aerobic or lactic threshold run (AKA tempo). The funnel starts with the two most divergent aspects of training in plan backward and works closer and closer to key 800-meter workouts as you get to the championship phase. This means on one end you might have 100-meter dash workouts and on the other end of the funnel, you have 5k training. How far apart the slipt starts in the beginning of the season depends on how long you want your Macro-cycle to be.