Through the years i’ve always had the ability to tell what an athlete of mine was able to run, based on workouts. Usually to the 1/10, but in some cases down to the 1/100. It’s uncanny really:D. Part of it through basic time conversions i’ve come up with, as well as the individual athlete. So it’s only natural that I lose sleep when an 400m athlete of mine who does everything right in practice shows up to a meet and runs slower than I expect. Not by a 1/100 or 1/10, but by a second or two.
I’m trying not to make a big deal out of it, since it usually happens with this particular athlete early in the season. As in during some of the indoor meets he runs in.
My question is this.
What type of workout times would lead you to believe this athlete was ready to run a particular time in the 400 as far as conditioning goes. Since being fast enough clearly doesn’t mean you’re in shape enough to run a fast 400m. Because the guy has plenty of speed(10.2). And this isn’t to say he isn’t in shape or the conditioning IS the problem since his workout performances are up to par.
The 3 main workouts I use to gauge 400 speed are as follows…
2 x 250+150 Rest-90"/10’-15’
2 x 300+100 R-1’
2 x 200+200 R-90"
I found that averaging the 2 times may be best indication.
I have found the 250+150 to be the best indication for race modeling for myself and my training group…
Here is some evidence from last outdoor season…
April 9th
2x250/150 R-90"/10’
31.4 20.4=51.8
30.8 19.8=50.6
Ran backup rep. into the wind
**Apr. 12 I ran 50.37
April 30th 2x250/150 R-90"/15’
30.3, 19.5 =49.8
29.5, 19.7 =49.2
** May 3rd I ran 50.00 into very bad headwinds on the back strength.
May 5th 2x300/100 R-1/20
36.4, 13.1= 49.5
36.9, 12.9= 49.8
**May 10th ran 49.52 and 21.98 (my splits were 23.0/35.7)
The other main session I use to gauge readiness is 4x250 with 6’ rest
When I was in PR form I was running it in a 32.4avg. which would correlate to a mid 48 and sub 22. Indoors my best is 32.8 and I found that coorelate to a 22.40 which would make sense based on the model.
On a side note today I ran 2x 200+200 R-90"/12’
23.7 + 25.3 =49.0
24.3 + 26.4 =50.7
Avg=49.9 or taking first rep and 4th rep=50.2
2 weeks ago I opened up in 50.85 and based on this workout I think I should be able to go 50.20-50.45 this weekend.
Something is a bit off. If you are training for the 400 and you ran 21.98,than you should be able to run 47point. 49.52 is much to slow for a sub 22 200 guy.
Last season was my first year running the 400.
I have been running track for 14 years. I have always been a 100/200 runner. Prior to last year I have run under 5 open 400’s my entire life. Both the 21.98 and 49.52 were pr’s for me. Splits were 23.0 + 26.5
Indoors my pr’s are 7.09 22.43 and 35.92 all from last year as well when I started training for the 400.
On a sidenote according to Mercier Calculator a 21.98=49.14. And indoor 22.43 = 36.0 and 50.34. I opened up in 22.69 this season and a week later ran 50.85 which according to Mericer is pretty close at 50.97.
21.98 wouldn’t be 47 or 49. If we’re to assume he was a legit 200/400 guy then he would be closer to 48.5. But since he said this was his 1st year doing it, then 49.5 actually make a little more sense. His 200m would have to be a little faster for him to be in the 47 range. If he was a 200/400 that is.
Youngy,
Also something to note (in your athletes situation). The 200 was run before running the 400. Most track meets I’ve been to aren’t run this way. Perhaps being “fresher” running the 200 before the 400 leaves you some more gas for the 400 which would explain less dropoff?
Naturally running the 400m first would have much more fatiguing affect and it’s unlikely the athlete would be fully recovered for a 200m PB.
Comon sense should dictate any programming and where there’s the liklihood of athletes doubling up, the shorter event should always be programmed at a minimum of 40 minutes before the 400m.
Incidentally in April 2006 another one of my athletes ran a PB over 400m after running a fast 200m (PB) about 45 minuts before. His previous PB was 48.20 but on this particular day he ran 21.74s then 47.28.
2 x 21.78 = 43.56
43.56 x 10% = 4.356
4.356 + 43.56 = 47.916
He went a fair bit under the projected time but the conditions were ideal and he was a genuine 400m runner as opposed to a short sprinter.
He finished up with life time PB’s of 21.51 and 46.63.
There are many considerations that go into evaluatin and/or predicting a 400 time based off of 200 pr’s, but I can assure you that a 46.pr is possible off of a 200 pr of 22flat.
47mid to high would be a reasonable expectation.
If you have only been training 1 year as quickashell stated than 49 low would be realistic…
I don’t think it’s impossible, but I would assume that either the runner is underachieving in the 200m or that he is a 400/800 runner. I know of a 45sec 400m guy who has never broken 21. Coincedently he’s since changed his focus from the 200/400 to the 800m;)
I don’t think that any sprinter type 400m runner(200/400) will get into the 46 range until they have the basic speed. And that speed seems to start in the 21.low range. I’m talking 21.3 and below. Most of the sub47.00 athletes that i’ve noticed who haven’t run that fast are giving the majority of their attention to the 400m.
I know this thread isn’t about me but just to update on my “workout correlations” last week I ran 200/200 off of 90" Rest 12’ repeat and I hit 49.0 and 50.7 which averages out to 49.9.
In Boston this past Saturday I PR’d in the 400 running 49.93 running FAT splits of 23.73 and 26.20 for a 2.46 second differential. My 200 was run 2 hours after the 400 and was also a PR at 22.37.
Actually I think that the opposite is true. Most 22 flat or slightlyfaster 200 runners that specialize in the 400 don’t ever run sub 47 or 47.0-47.5 because they spend to much time developing their sprinting and not enough time on a long term plan that focuses on improving work capacity and aerobic strength.
200 would have been faster had I been fresh. I was trying like to hell to catch my training partner in lane 6 (I was in lane 5) the entire way and I tied up a bit at the end. He ran 22.26 (me 22.37).
Lactate after the 400 was only about a 6/10 and none after 200. I attribute this to all the lactate training we do as well as pretty high doses of Beta-Alanine.
I saw you run at BU. As I’m sure you are aware of, I think you carry way to much upperbody mass for a true 400 runner,but you seem to have made some improvements in your times. Good job.
I’m curious about your use of Beta-Alanine could you please elaborate a bit mor on youruse of this product.
Will you be at Valentines invite? Come introduce yourself.
Re: Beta Alanine
I have been taking this for the past 3 years and since then my times have dropped. It is important to note in this time I have also changed my training from a S-L type program to more of an intensive tempo based program. Without this supplement I don’t think I would be getting through my lactate workouts as well as I do nor recovering as well as I do. My 2 training partners agree. I take Biotests time relased version and take 3 grams 3x per day spaced 4-5 hours apart. My female athlete takes 2 grams 3x per day. We take it every day during the week and take off on the weekends unless there is a meet.
