Are you implying your athlete ran the first 200m into the wind and the second 200 with a tailwind?
I don’t have any models build around a 60sec recovery for a split 400 because I’ve really only used 2mins.
But we did the session in two different ways: first and mainly we did the opening rep at 400m race modelling pace, then tried to get as close to that time again, preferably negative splitting when in very good shape (speed up, endurance up too).
The other way we did it was to junk the opening 200m (so, nowhere near 400m race model pace, which would be around 24.0 for a 50sec female, 21.2 for a 44sec male) and smash the backup 200m set up to use the prevauiling wind as assistance.
"On May 11, 1988 in the rain (synthetic track), he ran 3x4x150 which was one of our stock GPP aerobic threshold sets. On this occasion there was an average 1min 45sec between reps and 7min between the sets.
So from the above set, especially, you see see the interplay between endurance, rhythm and a touch of speed. The recoveries between Sets ensure that the speed (and form) does not degrade to the point of being irrelevant to his racing needs."
This type of work was always done on a grass track, so I can only assume the track was sodden or closed on that day.
Times for the session when run on grass would be slower, but without the old log book in front of me I can’t recall. You know, the effort was consistent but the surface would vary depending on the weather and whether the grass had been mowed recently.
So off the 2min recovery when the athlete is in shape and has ran the opening 200m at 400 RP, you would look for them to repeat if not negative split the come home 200m.
Ok i understand the idea behind the session better now. Thanks.
Yes, I regard it as our primary race-modelling 400m session. We usually did the broken 400m x 2 reps with anything up to 45mins rest between the sets.
By the way, the back-up 200m rep was often if not mostly a walk-up or jog in start. I felt there was less pressure on the structure in general with a fly start than say, a standing or 3-point start on the backup. The athlete is already suffering after the opening run and I perhaps erred on the side of caution by asking for a rolling start on the backup.
But even this session still does not compensate for a lack of quality runs over 300 to 320m on the track, in my experience. You needed that tolerance out to at least that far - and other more successful coaches would argue the case for runs out to 40-seconds in duration.
We never went past 320 on the track, but in some sessions would take a 30sec rest and hit a rolling 150m (for lactic generation and tolerance). Or, as previously described, a short ladder (60,50,40,30,20) or block (4x60m) with walkback recovs (to force a neural response under moderate fatigue).
THIS BBC VIDEO LINK HAS JEREMY WARINER’S ADVICE ON HOW TO RUN THE 400M. IT’S A BIT GOOFY (FUNNY) BUT GOOD ON HIM FOR DOING THIS. IT’S GOT GOOD CLOSE-UP (EVENTUALLY) FOOTAGE OF HIM IN A RACE. UNFORTUNATELY THE CLIP IS PRECEDED BY A (VERY BRIEF) ADVERT.
Comparing 400m - Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner
April 14, 2008 by Jimson Lee
How Low Can Jeremy Wariner Go?
These stats were published in the March 2008 edition of Track and Field News.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have all of these videos in one place, with a handy playlist pull down menus? (hint hint)
After Johnson broke 44 seconds, it took him 7 years to break the World Record, although I firmly believe he would have broken it 3 years earlier in Zurich had it not been for his injury from his 19.32 200 meters in Atlanta!
1997 was a “disaster” year (if you call a 43.75 a disaster!) from his injury in his 150 meter showdown with Donovan Bailey on June 1.
Here is a side-by-side list of Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner Season’s Best (SB) and their age:
I can’t recall where it was here (or some other thread) but there was an article about Joel Milburn who won the Aus 400m title and improved heaps this year using a very similar program to KK’s. If we look at his stats V another athlete is it valid to theorise that a change to a similar program may produce a similar improvement? Or is it just that…theorising.
Milburn
age = 22
PB’s
100 Metres 10.85 1.50 Sydney 27/10/2007
200 Metres 21.41 0.60 Sydney 27/10/2007
400 Metres 45.19 Sydney 09/02/2008
Progression
100 Metres 2007 10.85 1.50 Sydney 27/10/2007
200 Metres 2008 21.66 -2.50 Sydney 12/01/2008
2007 21.41 0.60 Sydney 27/10/2007
2005 21.65 0.80 Canberra 29/10/2005
400 Metres
2008 45.19 Sydney 09/02/2008
2007 46.54 Sydney 13/01/2007
2005 47.11 Canberra 22/10/2005
2004 47.43 Sydney 27/02/2004
2003 47.73 Brisbane 14/12/2003
Turns out I consulted to Joel’s coach a year or two ago and had completely forgotten about that. When I was contacted about the next stage of prep post domestic peak and what options might be viable for the five months prior to Beijing, the coach, Penny Gillies, reminded me that we had communicated beforehand some time ago and I had explained the ideas present in this thread.
When we spoke more recently, it was clear Penny has many good ideas of her own regarding GPP type training and her instincts serve her well but their issue might be one of how do you find in the intensity of weekly domestic competition during the SPP during their Aussie winter when there is no serious competition, at least not for a 400m sprinter at Joel’s level (45.19). So it has to be achieved through training, raising the specificity of some of his track training. She put in some longer hills, up to about 250 and maybe 300m. Didn’t want to go “over-time”. But maybe they’ll take their special speed endurance track runs out to 40seconds, which would be good.
I’m not sure you could argue that Joel improved suddenly by using some of my sessions. I think that’s a long bow. He may have been using some of that kind of work for a couple of years but injury might have held him back.
As soon as he got a clear run, out came that time. And off he goes to the Olympics.
Thank you everyone to your contributions to this thread! I was able to spend a few hours this morning studying the thread and it has really cleared some of my own misconceptions about training.
KitKat, I was definitely one of those who thought “more volume will compensate for less speed” thinking that if 8 x 400 meter workout was good, 12 x 400 had to be better, not knowing how much it was actually hurting me and not getting at the point of trying to improve my speed.
I hate to admit it that this concept is so new to me, but makes so much sense.
We all learn from each other, like good gardeners, we take a clipping from here or there and transplant into our own garden to suit our own needs and preferences.
Well my athlete has since progressed well setting a new personal best in the heat and then again in the final this past Sunday.
Leading into the competition we followed a taper which was set out as follows:
Day 1 - Race
Day 2- WU + 2x100m @ 400m RP for rhythm
Day 3 - Rest
Day 4- WU + 2x150m @ 400m RP
Day 5 - Rest
Day 6 - 250, 200 @ 400m RP + light clean + Squat
Day 7 - 2x40m build up, 40m all out, 40m ease down
Day 8 - Rest
Day 9 - 2x300m @ 400m RP
The aim was to run quick at this meet so that was achieved, however there is a meet approaching this coming weekend of which our aims have now changed following Sunday’s performance. My question is how would you set-up this week? Will another light week of rhythm and rest suffice for this weekend? I know after a peak i should look to drop the recovery down slightly and intensity to look to top up as it may.
He felt ok yesterday, so we did a very light grass session for an active form of recovery.
Tues ( today) - Rest
Weds- some form of race pace + light clean and squat
Thurs - Rest
Fri - just the normal pre day workout to bring back rhythm from rest day.
Sat- Race ( heat + semi)
Sun - potential final
On a positive note his confidence is through the roof after two successful runs at the weekend, and just talking to him seems much more in tune with his race model.
