Can anyone help me with the metabolic systems used during the 400m dash for the advanced collegiate athlete, running from 45 to 46 seconds? I am trying to figure out what percentage the phosphagen system, the fast glycolysis system, and the aerobic system is used during the race. From what I understand the phosphagen system is activated at the beginning of the race and only lasts about 5 to 8 seconds before switching to fast glycolysis. What I am having trouble with is when,if at all, does the aerobic system come in to account during the race and how much it is actually being used? I would appreciate any help at all that may be offered to this matter. Thanks
1-ATP-CP (ALACTIC) 27%
2-LACTIC 55%
3-Aerobic 18% (Bompa, 1983)
The longer It takes you to cover the distance, the more you would use (2-3) vs 1. The faster you are, the more you would use system 1 vs (2-3).
Dpends who’s research you read…
I just did a little presentation on energy systems and found 4 different tables representing 4 different energy system requirements for events…
Of course It depend on who they did the research in what condition. It also depend on the period of the year. Those percentages are just guidelines…Not GOD on piece of paper…
Some authors would break down alactic into power/capacity and lactic into power/capacity and also 3-4 aerobic stages. There are many ways to complicate everything…
We can also add another system that would be completely off chart, we would call It neural pulse/reaction start 0,2-0,4s. But many authors can include It In the anaerobic power or anaerobic alactic power.
Oh well, there is a running gag between me and some of my friends in University. In many times, University serve no other propose than to complicate simple issues with many words & endless discussions when simple guidelines and intuitive interpretation of the reality we have in front of us is what we really need.
Thanks for the implication of some great coach here. Maybe that’s why Poliquin says that physiologist/scientist are always left 15-20years behind. PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS
I agree. Was just pointing out it probably wasn’t the best way to ask. PS I presented with 3 scientists and told them studies are telling us what we already know. Imagine the response - I enjoyed myself
Although if it is for school the answer is required.
I was surprised at the difference between studies in the break down. I will see if I can find the articles to show the difference
Thanks for the help. In the Bompa 1983 study, who were the test subjects? Were they professional athletes or just trained runners?
I would like to know myself, this is a Mader 1985 study. No reference in PubMed on any 400m run study. No precise description on the book either. The references table seems to be incomplete.
OMG hours of fun It should have been
There is no common agreement among the various studies conducted to date.
You may find it more productive to find out what the top 400m runners do for their training and then break down the elements/energy systems used in those training elements. Figure it out that way - reverse engineering in a way.
A litttle known coach named C.Hart who has had a few minor success stories in the 400 believes the 400 has a greater aerobic component than what most experts claim.
In my own experience with this event I tend to agree with him.
To the point, the anaerobic threshold of the runner should be evaluated, under ideal conditions via a portable diagnostic tool that would allow the test to be conducted via running on the actual track. This would ensure that the biodynamic conditions of the test are accurate.
Short of this I think the Omega Wave test is probably the most favorable alternative because the in vitro treadmill test, while it dynamically for all intents and purposes running, is dissimilar due to the mechanized propulsion.
Also ideal, yet not yet possible to my understanding, would be real time blood lactate measurement. I think this is only possible in vitro as of current.
So while generalizations can be made regarding the bioenergetic demand of the various events, the more important issue is the specific biological power of the athlete which then provides context to the energetic demand of the event for that athlete specfiically.
Even a perfect test would only give you a perfect picture of how energy systems divide up now- not how it would look at a higher performance level- so attempts to apportion work according to the current picture are doomed in the long run.
mister_rome : Energy systems clearly vary from race to race through the season, tactics and sprinter profile. Look at some 400m sprinters who are able to reach the half way in a time similar to their 200m season best set early in the year.
Some 200/400 profiles open fast (Koch), some other open slow (G.Jackson), some 400/800 profiles open fast (Quirot), some other open slow (Guevara), all of them have different %, regardless of their level of performance which induces even more complex in those categories.
Also, a distinction should be made between the aerobic system contribution during the 400m race, and the aerobic system training necessary for 400m training. I think the confusion is made here regarding Clyde Hart’s quote. Some of the fastest 60/100m men devote 50% of their training to extensive tempo, but this doesn’t mirror the energy system contribution of a 100m race.
I see your point; however, at present I’m convinced that having the clearest possible picture of current conditions, while certainly not encompassing all that must be known (RE what I think you’re getting at), can only benefit.
I agree that the aerobic component is important in the 400, and if I may present another question: in what areas would aerobic endurance training benefit the 400m runner? Is it that beneficial in recovery between reps during a workout, or in recovery from numerous races in the same day?
I think it helps in all aspects that you mentioned
I was recently sent a document which reviewed the literature on energy systems in the 400m. The findings for aerobic contribution in the men’s 400m race (in the 46sec range) varied from 18% up to high 50%.
James, in order to better understand your points and this discussion, could you define the term ‘anaerobic’ threshold here specifically for a 400 m sprinter? Thanks!
A quick look at some research I’ve seen
Duffield R, Dawson B, Goodman C.
School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. rduffield@csu.edu.au
As a wide range of values has been reported for the relative energetics of 400-m and 800-m track running events, this study aimed to quantify the respective aerobic and anaerobic energy contributions to these events during track running. Sixteen trained 400-m (11 males, 5 females) and 11 trained 800-m (9 males, 2 females) athletes participated in this study. The participants performed (on separate days) a laboratory graded exercsie test and multiple race time-trials. The relative energy system contribution was calculated by multiple methods based upon measures of race VO2, accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD), blood lactate and estimated phosphocreatine degradation (lactate/PCr). The aerobic/anaerobic energy system contribution (AOD method) to the 400-m event was calculated as 41/59% (male) and 45/55% (female). For the 800-m event, an increased aerobic involvement was noted with a 60/40% (male) and 70/30% (female) respective contribution. Significant (P < 0.05) negative correlations were noted between race performance and anaerobic energy system involvement (lactate/PCr) for the male 800-m and female 400-m events (r = - 0.77 and - 0.87 respectively). These track running data compare well with previous estimates of the relative energy system contributions to the 400-m and 800-m events. Additionally, the relative importance and speed of interaction of the respective metabolic pathways has implications to training for these events.
PMID: 15966348 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
According to Duffield et al
Weyland et al(1993) 66 to 34 Aerobic to Anerobic to Van Ingen Schenau et al (1991) 17 to 83 Aerobic to Anaerobic.
Nikoluski, to save from typing, do you have access to ‘Adaptations in Sport Training’?
If so, reference pg 159.
In this context, regarding this thread, I think it is necessary to know both the anaerobic threshold as well as the V02 max.
the anaerobic threshold providing a more useful indicator of the oxidative capacity of the skeletal muscle fibers specific to mobilizing the sport act.