Charlie, herein lies some source of confusion, I never said your programme didn’t have lactic work in it. I know it does, and not only from watching a training partner or two …
My comments were a reference to “how” lactic was built up.
Does this also apply to reps with longer recoveries? Say 10min rest for a 500, 400, 300 between 85 and 90% of best time as long as the intensity through out the session is there?
On the flip side of this improving your speed over the single runs can dramatically improve ability to perform the split runs, so depending on time of year why not occasionally substitute one for the other?
Shortening the breaks seems to be quite a standard thing. MJ once told me that that was where he made his big inroads in both the 200m and 400m in '90 and then again by tightening them further over the course of the training season in 94/95. I know JB was big on “putting the screws on” too.
How long do you believe a 400m runner needs between completing lactate capacity work such as the 350’s or 300’s to start the SE type work and reaching their peak in SE?
I’VE NEVER SEPARATED THE WORK IN THAT WAY. I’VE JUST CONSIDERED IT DIFFERENT FORMS OF SE. THE ULTIMATE TEST OF LACTIC CAPACITY IS THE END-GOAL- THE EVENT ITSELF. (sorry for the caps and the responses inside your reply but I don’t know how to make those boxes!)
Just copy (Ctrl-C) the QUOTE=Dazed (Include the square brackets) at the top of the quote and paste (Ctrl-V) at the top of where you want it to go and put the /QUOTE (include the square brackets again) where you want the quote to end. So when you’re typing in the reply window it would look like this (Add the square brackets, I had to omit them so you could see whats going on):
QUOTE=Dazed
Charlie, herein lies some source of confusion, I never said your programme didn’t have lactic work in it. I know it does, and not only from watching a training partner or two …
My comments were a reference to “how” lactic was built up.
/QUOTE
I’M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD BE IN AID OF AND WHAT KIND OF WORK SURROUNDS IT. IS IT BETWEEN SPEED SESSIONS OR IN PLACE OF THEM?
QUOTE=Dazed
On the flip side of this improving your speed over the single runs can dramatically improve ability to perform the split runs, so depending on time of year why not occasionally substitute one for the other?
/QUOTE
Rember to put an end quote (/QUOTE) at the end of the first paragraph though, otherwise the box won’t end until the first time this occurs and your response will also be contained in the box.
Say you are a 44s 400m runner. This probably means your 200m pb is about 20.5 and 100m = 10.3 (perhaps quicker but i’ll be conservative).
At 44s pace an even split is 11s per 100m. Now if you are doing a split 400m as 4x100m with a short break (say 1 min) in between each 100m and running them in 11s then at a function of your 100m time each individual run is at 93% but as a function of your 400m time this is close to 100%!
So you can see that what may look like medium intensity when looking at the run in isolation is actually high intensity over the whole work period.
As for KitKat’s 6x200m workout. 23s compared to a 21.8 split is about 95%. So in the context of a 400m race this is high intensity where as in the context of a 200m race this would be medium intensity.
Also consider when using split runs that you have to accelerate so this will increase the times slightly - in comparison to a split in the 400m where you are already up to speed (and increase the CNS stress).
Do you think this way of thinking about it is on the right lines or am I totally off track?
Basically the purpose of this workout is a session that works the back end of the race. I should have described it in more detail.
The emphasis is on running the final 100m of the rep at the same pace that you would during a race. So for the 500m you’d pace the first 400m evenly say 14 seconds per 100, and then try to bring it home in under 13 seconds (we do it in flats) then a 10 min break and you run the 400m at 13.5 second pace for the the first 300m, then bring it home in around 12.5s, then the 300, pace the first 200m at 13s pace, then try to run the last 100 under 12.5. The season progression for this type of workout goes thus: 600m/500m/400m then progress to 500m/400m/300m then 450m/350m/250m and finally maybe just 450/350 or 350/250 with increased recovery all emphasising the last 100m, or towards the end the final 200m. The progression within each cycle would be to increase the speed of the paced segment as the athlete finds runningrace pace for the last 100m easier so that they are entering the home straight with slightly more fatigue.
As an athlete performing this type of session i’ve found it to be highly effective in developing rythm and relaxation at speed towards the end of a race.
I agree that the ultimate test is the race itself - and close to competition SE reps at high intensity. However if the athlete is already loaded with heavy training it can be difficult to produce the levels of lactate faced during a race using SE in training. So one solution for this is to use split reps, where you can reach the speeds necessary to make the work out specific and having to reaccellerate several times increases the amount of lactic being produced. Another way to do this would be, as in the example given and with kitkats 200’s, is to use multiple reps intermediate speeds with an incomplete recovery (under 2mins for KK’s 200’s or under 5mins in the case of JS’s 300;s, or as low as 3min for Harts 350’s), to create a stacking effect where lactate levels gradually build up, to or above race levels, over the course of the session.
The end result being a quite intense work out. Now the latter is what I always assumed to be Intensive Tempo. This is not the case? And what constitutes non specific lactic work?
I know you want Charlie’s answer (as do I) but i would say:
Intensive tempo is work at below 95% of race pace but fast enough for lactic acid to accumulate over the course of a session. It is done for the purpose of building general endurance but does not also have a recovery benefit (because intensity is too high). For example 10x200m for a 200m runner with 2min recovery at say 23s for a 20s runner. For 400m runners it gets a little more blured because you don’t generally run the second half of the race at the same pace as the first half so the come home 50m will be a lot slower than the first 50m but for them i would say something like 8x300 off of 3min (which is probably only possible at a pace of around 85% of the 300m pace in a race).
I would consider Non Specific Lactic to be very similar to Intensive tempo. However, i assume it would be done for the sole purpose of building up lactic - with little regard for maintainance of form etc. For me this would be a run until you puke kind of session. I’ve seen people do stuff like 10s as fast as you can on and 20s off until exhaustion. For me it is a session where no matter how well the athlete is conditioned they can’t really handle it. A session where quality of running is disregarded and the metabolic adaption of buffing lactic is all that is focused on.
For me if you are running into so much lactic that you can’t peform the reps at less than 95% of you race pace (perhaps at the lowest speeds your 50m come home pace) then you are sacrificing quality for quantity (of lactic). If you arn’t going to run that slow during the race anyway and the work doesn’t serve a regenerative purpose then I can’t see why you want to do it. The body can only adapt so much at a time. As soon as the pace starts dropping below that 95% mark you are obviously coming to the edge of your limits. Why not wait for the body to adapt to this stress and then continue once it has made the adaption?
Dunno if I will agree with this after your reply but its my thinking right now!
Or even the back curve as Hart would do with the Event 300. MJ in '96 with 24s for 200 and then sub 11s for the curve.
During the UCLA 4x4 dynamics of '86, I witnessed the split version of their SE; 7x100 (sprint 100, jog back 50, sprint 100, jog back 50, etc). One athlete in particular was clipping the 95th percentile for each sprint segment.
During an interview, John intimated that he couldn’t see where this same athlete was unable to clip 25s 200’s for 2 laps! Above and beyond I suppose.
I sense I’m going to regret putting my two cents worth in here . . . but Dazed, do you ever consider that in your 500, 400, 300 etc session you’re doing an awfully high percentage of the running at a speed and almost certainly therefore biomechanically (ie neurally) non-competition optimal way just to get eventually into a position to try to duplicate the conditions for the final 100m of a 45sec 400? That being 100m in 12.5sec for the homestraight. As for 13.5sec paced 100m segments, what kind of a race are you preparing to run when a 13.5sec 100m makes up any part of it?
And why work toward a 12.5 last 100m when sub-12 is really the standard for an internationally competitive 44-performance?
(Yes, I know some guys have run low-12sec and done real well, but that’s often because they’ve come through 300 so fast, or they’ve still met success because it was a down-year for the 400)
My point being there may be better options to address the last 100m of the 400m. The 5 or 6x200 set in 23sec seeks to address the last 200m of the race and is a precursor to the even more specifically intensive endurance for the last 100 and 200 of the race. (Those sets including 300+150 off 30sec; 300+60,50,40,30,20; 200m+200m and variations on those themes).
footnote: I suppose you’ll throw out a batch of John Smith’s or Jim B’s sets done at 13.5sec 100m progressions for repeat 600m reps as validation of that sort of pacing approach to developing 400m fitness. But in truth I once spoke to John and asked him about his 600. I heard him out. None of it sounded intelligent. And John Smith is a highly intelligent man. I told him what I thought of his 600s. He agreed with me. Then he said he thought they made his guys mentally tougher because they wouldn’t be worried about going the 400m distance. And because he’d always used them he’d continue doing so. Well mentally tougher and physically fitter aren’t necessarily the same thing. It’s just my view, but running those long reps is not the optimal way to condition an athlete to sprint a fast 4.
kk
Likewise, away from skins, when are you going to run a race that involves taking short recoveries at regular intervals? You’re not. But they are useful for building fatigue up to a level where it is difficult to then run at race pace.
In the method that you propose this is achieved through each rep stacking upon the last, gradually putting the body into oxygen debt. In the 500, 400, 300 this is done by continuous running for an extended period.
I’m not concerned that running 13.5 seconds is going to mess me up biomechanically any more than tempo will. It also has the added benefit of developing the aerobic system.
If you re read the post, this is very early in the scheme of things, when rhythm is still being developed. Later when the 450, 350 etc are being performed the speeds are much faster.
Not sure why you consider sub-12 as the standard. Very few athletes who haven’t run sub 44 have actually run sub 12 for their final 100.
In quite an “up” year, the top 4 of the '99 mens 400m ran under 44.37. Only one ran under 12 seconds for the final 100. The next fastest was 12.19.
Statistically, Sub-12 on the way to a 44 second run is actually the exception rather than the rule
In the context of the workout running under 12.5seconds in flats isn’t too slow.
For some athletes it may be. I personally find continuous running at a decent click whilst maintaining rhythm difficult, but I find I can run intervals up to 350m all day long. It’s just the way I am and something I need to address. From what you’ve said and from what I’ve observed, this wasn’t a terrible concern for your athlete.
I find running multiple 200’s to be relatively easy. Earlier this year I did a 2x2x200m session. The workout was formatted thus:
2x200m@sub23 with 45 seconds rest, focussing on rhythm.
15 min rest
2x200m first rep at race pace, second rep as fast as possible. 45s rest.
For the second set i went 21.8/21.9. As long as ive got a little break I’m cool.
The other areas aren’t neclected either. The overdistance type workouts aren’t my only 400m workout for the week, and lately the session was changed to 2x500with 10min followed by 3x200 at 23s. Other workouts include sets of 3x150 with 30s rest between, that 300m+150 session you mentioned and multiple 3’s.
Was it that quick? MJ said that they’d go out in 28 seconds (Hitting it hard for the first 50 then winding down over the next 15 so you go through at 28 then hitting it) then trying to break 12s. Which when you’re trying to reaccellerate isn’t easy. His training diary backs this up.
That workout is actually their race profiling session, their split reps are done earlier i think 3x150,150,100. All of the sprinters in the group do it.
Do we want to work from the establishment of lactic tolerance training and hope for the best or do we want to establish a reasonable seasonal goal for race-pace and work backwards from there? We’re talking 400m here where there is already sufficient speed for the race goal - the question is how much of that speed to use at any given point, and how to establish the ability to follow the pace chosen through to the end of the race.
What are the SE performances required to get the job done? So then do we work at slower than race pace in extreme fatigue situations to enhance tolerance or do we work at race pace or the higher intermediate dist SE paces from the start of the SPP in split-runs with diminishing breaks till it can be done without breaks?
That said, how do we establish the conditions necessary to simultaneously increase the absolute speed reserve?
Would the strength endurance (running As at walking pace forward for distances out to 200m or perhaps beyond) done after Special Endurance suffice to cover the enhancement of lactic tolerance in the SPP phase, where any needed speed gains must occur? As these sessions occur after SE on the same day, there should be sufficient recovery time before the next speed or SE session two days later- provided the session between is reasonable.
How often must extreme lactic tolerance sessions occur in the program? Every day? Every tenth day?
Carrying out non-stop lactic sessions day after day for prolonged periods to build strength will kill the speed you’ve taken for granted.
Any attempt to re-gain speed at the last minute is doomed to failure. This is why most programs today are at least double-periodized.
I hope Number Two will post the sessions provided to a 10.10, 20.20 man who ventured into the 400m and ran 44s right away. A year of this left him unable to perform at any level in any event. Those of you with the Vanc 2004 DVD have already seen the training program in question.
I guess we set sub-12 as the comehome standard because that’s what it was if you were ambitiously chasing a medal when I was coaching seriously at that time and at that level. So you established your race-sectional goals and designed a program accordingly as best able.
In the Seoul final the time of your last 100m indicated precisely where you placed:
1 Lewis 11.86 el;
2 Reynolds 11.88
3 Everett 11.93
4 Clark 12.09
5 Egbunike 12.15
6 Cameron 12.22
7 Morris 12.23
8 Al Malky 12.25
Of course to just get into the final to have a shot at something more, you had a similar set of figures and a precise finishing correlation in the semis:
In semi-1: the comehome 100m was Lewis (12.02), Everett (12.02), Clark (12.03), Cameron (12.07). Fifth-placed Takano missed the cut with 12.21 (equivalent to sub-12 handtimed) as did East Germany’s Jens Carlowitz with 12.27.
In semi-2: the last 100 was Butch Reynolds (12.01), Morris (12.11), Al-Malki (12.14), Egbunike (12.15). The world titleholder Thomas Schoenlebe (DDR) ran fifth and missed the cut with his 12.21sec final 100m.
stats: Charles University, Prague for IAAF biomechanical analysis project, Seoul 1988.
For clarification, you are correct regarding the Event 300/330. The beeper workout was the 7 sec/50m pace with sub 12 back curve. According to Hart, MJ’s SE never exceeded an equivalent 24s/200m that season. Is this consistent with contents in the latter’s diary?
Becareful when you talk about stats because PJ is never far away… I support kitkat’s claim, this is what the all-time top 10 in the last 100m (400m electric rounded minus 300m electric rounded, not hand time):
43.18 - 11.5 Michael JOHNSON Sevilla’99
43.29 - 11.2 Butch REYNOLDS Zürich’88
43.50 - 12.1 Quincy WATTS Barcelona’92
43.81 - 11.9 Danny EVERETT New Orleans’92
43.86 - 11.7 Lee EVANS Mexico’68
43.87 - 11.8 Steve LEWIS Seoul’88
43.93 - 12.1 Jeremy WARINER Helsinki’05
43.97 - 11.4 Larry JAMES Mexico’68
44.09 - 11.9 Alvin HARRISON Atlanta’96
44.09 - 11.7 Jerome YOUNG New Orleans’98
80% of these guys did sub12, so 12sec this is a realistic goal for a 44sec guy.
I can read English and the stats i posted answer the question. Sub44 performers show a clear sub12sec, therefore 44sec runners can run a little faster than 12. From the all-time list,
average Top5 : 43.528 -> 11.68
average Top5 to 10 : 43.990 -> 11.78
It was actually his 43.74 in semis and 20.9 at half way (reached 300m in 31.4, faster than the then-WB at the distance), and in a less extend, lack of opposition, that caused this slow last 100m.
