Reason for running split sets is to try to avoid the stride length decreasing too much. To try to maintain higher velocity for entire duration of exercise.
But I think relying solely on split runs for 400m endurance could be a trap for some people if they do splits just to avoid the burn/pain of the 400m.
The fall-off in good form from doing a continuous long rep(s) like 500 or 600 was what concerned me when I switched to splits.
But to attempt to compensate for the trap you wrote about, we raced up to 600m instead of time-trial during the general prep phase (every six weeks).
We also adopted an idea to run “over time” instead of “over distance” (400+plus) . . . overtime being at least two seconds longer (at peak fitness state) than the race time goal for the year (eg 50sec for women or 44Men).
To achieve “over-time” objective without going “over distance” I did the split 360m up a hill with jog down recovery. The resistance provided by the hill forced the runner into “over time” and, I believe, helped to some extent in obliging the runner to maintain form/concentration during the run (on penalty of stumbling on the hillside).
Having said all of that, I also recognise that just about everyone else sticks with the traditional over-distance ideas by including some 500, 600 or even repeat 1km runs into the GPP if not deeper into the season.
So I recognise as correct your comment that “split runs only” are not the only good tool to simulate 400m fatigue.
But they have a place in a program if the needs of the athlete confronting the 400 have been fully considered and, I think, they can be the full package if applied appropriately.
I use myself split runs and the only overdistance i use is 500m (maybe 4 times a year at best) ! I’m not going to kill you now, not before your lactate thread reaches 500 pages… It has only 19230 views that’s not enough, this thread is a must read.
The need of the 500m in my program comes from the fact i said earlier in order to balance the short distances and split runs. Why 500m and not 450m or 550, because i have precise data for this distance and i’ve found that it simulates in a good manner what happens in the last straight of 400m competitions.
I believe that the most important limiting factor for 400m is speed reserve (i believe split runs can be efficient here too), that’s why so far the best 400m runners are better at 100m than at 800m (as i see it, talking about 400m and sprinter/endurance types or runners, the 100m mirrors the 800m and the 200m mirrors the 600m), and, as the GDR noticed, the speed curve falls in the same % no matter the athlete’s 400m level.
Interesting stuff reguarding the decrease in stride length etc.
So do you feel that split runs is a good tool for preparing for the 200 or not needed?
If so what distances would you use for them for a 200 runner?
You said special endurance 1 and 2 reps of 150-300 at full speed with full recovery (im assuming 15-20 min) would be best to prepare me for my race.
So sessions like 300,250, 150? In the past I have done these sessions and down the road did not know what to progress to. This year I changed it a bit and have done int tempo for 6 weeks then moved to split runs which I planned to keep in until the comp phase which would then turn into the special endurance sessions I mentioned earlier. 300, 250, 150 for example.
Besides that special end. session I also planned on alternating between and accel/max v session including 30’s and lfying sprints and speed enurance every other week which would be sessions such as 3x3x60 or 3x3x80.As the season moves on I planned on turning the longer special endurance to shorter special endurance. Instead of 300,250,150 maybe 3x150 or 150, 120, 120, 80.
thoughts?
Again my focus is LJ, 60, and 200.
PR’s are 6.90m Lj 7.09 60 22.54 indoors
Quik Yes split run are a good tool for 200m since at 200m, the stride length doesn’t decrease for the fastest guys (the sub20 club), and the lower the level of the sprinter, the bigger the stride length decrease at 200m (there are exceptions of course, i’m describing a general situation, and it’s still possible you maintain your SL through the entire 200m).
A workout like 300 - 250 - 150 with complete rest seems a little bit high volume for a 100-200m runner with your profile. Stuff like 4x50 from blocks, 1x300m and 3x50m from fly can work. Or split runs like 2 sets of 150m + 100m, or 250m + 80m.
Niko: 400m runners can be divided in groups from their short sprint abilities or endurance abilities. The traditional 200m profile and 800m profile to describe 400m runners didn’t helped me to design these groups, because 200m is closer to 400m than 800m. To make easier the comparison, i use 100m and 800m performances to determine the 400m runner’s profile.
As for the GDR theory:
some quotes from a Werner Schäfer article from 1989:
"[commenting graphics sowing that male and female, no matter the level, all have the same speed curve during the 400m race]. The speed decrease is the same for all the athletes groups and suppose a second 200m half 2.2sec-2.4sec slower than the first 200m half. Thus, the maximum speed reached during the first part of the race is decisive, since the speed decrease depends on it […] According to our findings, the maximum speed obtained during the competition is 90% of the individual maximum absolute speed […] Between the two 200m halves, there is a negative corelation: the faster the first 200m half, the slower the last 200m half. For the best international athletes, it is necessary to run the first half at a high speed, but it is only possible if their individual maximum absolute speed is so high that there is no opposite effect. Thus, it’s clear that with a training emphasing on 300-500m repetitions, it’s not possible to improve 400m competition results, since it avoids the important condition for the first 200m half […] apparently, the individidual maximal lactate concentration is a condition necessary, but it doesn’t produce any improvement in 400m competition result. For example, Marita Koch and an other athlete had the same blood lactate concentration (20.6 mmol/l) after a 49.02 and 58.30 competition respectively. The biggest difference between the two athletes is found in the individual maximum speed (flying 30m results as 2.90 and 3.53 respectively). "
AND: QUOTE FROM PJ FROM PREVIOUS POST . . . “The need of the 500m in my program comes from the fact i said earlier in order to balance the short distances and split runs. Why 500m and not 450m or 550, because i have precise data for this distance and i’ve found that it simulates in a good manner what happens in the last straight of 400m competitions.” . . .
GIVEN your DDR post (quoted, above) are you saying that you disagree with the East German concept - and that is one reason you are including 500m runs in your training program?
I understand Marita Koch rarely trained at distances beyond 300m, maybe out to 350m but never over-distance. Do you have information to refute or confirm please?
But I also heard from CF (I think) that some DDR coaches were seriously arguing about the merits of Meier’s concept of training. It was such a closed society before the wall came down (late 1989?) but I did hear from a West German coach that this idea of training at world record speeds over short distances and then extending the distance at which the record speed could be sustained was unique to Meier among the DDR coaches.
So did the DDR males do over-distance training?
And, one more question please: If the stride shortens during a 400m, would it not shorten even more in a 500? And if so, what benefits do you see which would out-weigh the negatives of running with form you would not wish to reproduce in a race?
And, finally, have we reached 500 pages yet? :eek: And, please Sir, if so may I go home to sleep now?
workout like 300 - 250 - 150 with complete rest seems a little bit high volume for a 100-200m runner with your profile. Stuff like 4x50 from blocks, 1x300m and 3x50m from fly can work. Or split runs like 2 sets of 150m + 100m, or 250m + 80m.
PJ,
I have sucessfully completed the 300 250 150 workout in 36.5 30.1 and 17.4 indoors. If you think it seems a bit high why is that and what would be the drawbacks?
With the 4x50 blocks, 1x300 and 3x50 is it done in that order and if so why?
And with the split tuns you mentioned how much rest between the backup repos would you suggest? Would 200+100 off of 1 minute also work or are the distances you lested better and why? Perhaps avioding the 200 race distance in training at all costs?
Your question leads me into an historic perspective. The efficiency of a system can be checked by its results. We can compare GDR and USSR, even if there were different trainers inside each systems.
Let’s check to all-time lists at the end of 1990 for GDR and 1991 for URS (official changes in T&F) and the Top10 averages:
100m URS 11.06 vs GDR 10.94 diff –1.1%
200m URS 22.32 vs GDR 22.00 diff –1.5%
400m URS 49.76 vs GDR 49.47 diff – 0.6%
400mH URS 54.07 vs GDR 54.27 diff +0.4%
800m URS 1:55.39 vs GDR 1:56.49 diff +0.9%
1500m URS 3:56.22 vs GDR 4:00.73 diff +1.9%
So, whether i disagree or not with the GDR concept, from these stats you see that URS results takes over the GDR for performances longer than, say, 50sec, and the gap gets bigger for 3000m, etc… For 100/200m GDR strategy was the more efficient, for 800m and longer, URS rules. For 400m, the GDR is slightly superior (they also dominated the 4x400m relay but URS still holds the WR). Note these differences are not related with the size of the country of population number, since in this case URS would dominate all events.
To make it simple, the GDR built their talent selection and training system from short distances to long distances and URS did the opposite. I think TCH who produced Kratochvilova and Kocembova had a good compromise between these 2 ends but where apart in that they did much bigger volumes of weightlifting. From the former GDR system, not much is still used, from TCH, Kratochvilova is now a coach but refuses to give to her pupils the same loads she supported during her career and we can see good results form Russia, as noted in an other thread. It is worth to note that Bulgaria has always failed to produce a sub50sec 400m runner, and Romania has failed to produced a decent sprinter (but had several hurdlers, 800m runners and long jumpers…).
Overall for distances up to 400m i think GDR had the best system, but concerning the concept “the speed curve falls in the same % no matter the athlete’s 400m level” my objection is that, as a given athlete improves his speed, it’s getting more difficult to maintain this speed (or a high % of it) through a long time. The best proof of it is that Koch was not the fastest in the last 100m (never ran the last straight under 13sec, while she did the 2nd 100m section under 11sec several times, we can see that her speed curve falls in a high % than others). The GDR concept is true from a general point of view (athlete population) but meets problems if apply to individuals (we are getting into politics now ). An other application with the 100m. Asafa has the greatest speed maintenance over 100m (during his 9.77 his last 5 10m sections were 0.85, 0.84, 0.84, 0.85, 0.85). If Asafa improves his best 10m interval next year to 0.82, are we going to see him do 0.83, 0.82, 0.82, 0.83, 0.83? Too good to be true. Improvement in top speed can lead to an improvement in speed endurance up to a certain level (World Record level) , where each component of the performance get its own autonomy and have individual progression which is done in a detrimental way on the other elements. I’ve wrote about it in this thread http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=6168&page=1&pp=15&highlight=backley about the progression of strength/power/speed tests of throw WR holders : as the WR were reached, the speed tests level decreased. I think a similar phenomenon occurs with accel/max vel/SE components (“competition between very close related activities” as say Charlie ).
I confirm this they didn’t ran more than 400m at training unless it was continuous aerobie runs of course. Grit Breuer told me the same used the 400m runs as maximal power aerobie, and at full speed went up to 300m.
Short distances extending to long distances was a concept used by Hille (coach to Göhr Wöckel Auerswald Stecher) and the coach of the 800m girls can’t remember the name now but i have an article where he explains that most of her girls come from the 400m.
I don’t know, in the Peter Dost article it doesn’t talk much about over distance – is it necessary when you ask for 3x400m in 47sec – but Schönlebe did some 800m when she was young and did some long and fast continuous runs over 10k.
During the 500m, the pace is more steady than the 400m (during 400m the 100m-200m section in often very close to the 100m-200m section the same runners do during 200m competitions!) and we don’t find similar things. 300m, 400m, 500m, 600m, 700m, 800m, etc. all have different biomechanical-biochemical-psychological profiles which also change form an athlete to an other. At 800m, the curve of stride length is even more steady (and from this distance we can find a last 100m faster than the previous pace, a phenomenon which get more and more evident in 1500m, 3000, 5000, etc…), and so on for the longer distances. I’m careful about out-weigh the negatives aspects since i’m using about 2 to 4 time a year the 500m.
Yes you can sleep (my long post may help!) now but comeback tomorrow!
The 17.4 is not fast enough compared to the 300, so your in order to keep the necessary intensity, you have to decrease volume and/or density. I would personally go in decreasing volume by decrease the distance, not number of rep, 3 seems good for you.
For the 4x50 blocks, 1x300 and 3x50, you caneven do 40m instead of 50m, for your level it’s still speed. Keep this order, walk back slowly as rest between reps and 10-15min between sets. Difficult to say it depends on so many factors (internal : YOU and external).
Avoiding 200m at all cost is an individual choice and as for split runs i suggest rest under 90sec in anycase, if you can’t do it at the target times, that’s because the workout was suited for you.
im sure kk can offer alot more into the long term effects of lactate work if started to young.
i have had success with a number of juniors (16-17 and under) over the 400m purely by focusing on speed and 200m work and letting them build into the event through racing.
inc a 18 yr old former athlete 47.77 who only started at age 17 on lactate work but succumb to illness pre world juniors which forced him to retire at age 19 so cant tell you what his progress would have been, for eg one of my athletes now is a 16 yr old 23.1 200m, sub 50 400m & sub 2min 800 who has worked purely on a 200m program until next GPP where we will introduce some lactate tolerance work.
alot depends on the training age of the athlete but the effects of excessive lactate work on a growing and developing body would surely have negative effects on their long term career KK/CF/PJ???
i may stay to far on the side of caution i am not sure.
Nice times,
You’re faster than me in the 100 and slower on the 400. We’d be good partners in training.
Just did a 2x120-150-180 session.(4’-15’ break)
180 is really hard. Heavy on the legs, but i was happy to run it under 22.
[QUOTE=pierrejean]The 17.4 is not fast enough compared to the 300, so your in order to keep the necessary intensity, you have to decrease volume and/or density. I would personally go in decreasing volume by decrease the distance, not number of rep, 3 seems good for you.
For the 4x50 blocks, 1x300 and 3x50, you caneven do 40m instead of 50m, for your level it’s still speed. Keep this order, walk back slowly as rest between reps and 10-15min between sets. Difficult to say it depends on so many factors (internal : YOU and external).
QUOTE]
Keep in mind these runs were done indoors. I find it very hard to dip below 17 on this indoors track. So you’d say increase the rest period or decrease the distance ? How would I decrease the distance of that type of workout?
In the one you mentioned when is the walk back recovery? 4x50 all with walkbacks which is a set… then 10-15 mins rest? then rest 10-15 again and do 3x50 with walkabcks?
pierrejean, could you elaborate on Kratochvilova’s training? I find her to be a unique 800 runner in that she seems to approach the event through speed and strength, quite counter to anything traditional or currently practiced.
:eek: 
). An other application with the 100m. Asafa has the greatest speed maintenance over 100m (during his 9.77 his last 5 10m sections were 0.85, 0.84, 0.84, 0.85, 0.85). If Asafa improves his best 10m interval next year to 0.82, are we going to see him do 0.83, 0.82, 0.82, 0.83, 0.83? Too good to be true. Improvement in top speed can lead to an improvement in speed endurance up to a certain level (World Record level) , where each component of the performance get its own autonomy and have individual progression which is done in a detrimental way on the other elements. I’ve wrote about it in this thread